Talk:Unification of Germany

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tpbradbury (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 18 August 2008 (updated wikiproject WikiProject Germany «C/Top»). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:45, 18 August 2008 by Tpbradbury (talk | contribs) (updated wikiproject WikiProject Germany «C/Top»)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Germany C‑class Top‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History C‑class Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Refactor

Right now the article says "For a more detailed look at how German unification occurred see German Empire." I haven't really looked, but if there is more detail there than here, we should be refactoring that detail out to this article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to have one comprehensive article on the German Empire, including how it came into being, and leave this article as a sort of "soft redirect" (if that is the appropriate expression) to German Empire#Bismarck's founding of the Empire. Alternatively, one could make this article into a disambiguation article pointing to German Empire and German reunification. --Boson 23:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, one could expand this article to cover the process leading up to reunification in detail, say the period of about 1864 to 1871. This would probably neeed to be coordinated with the articles on the Danish War of 1864, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and Bismarck, perhaps also with some of the German Misplaced Pages articles. Is there any forum for discussing such coordination issues? I couldn't find a project on German history (only military, which might be OK in this case).--Boson 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge sections from German Empire

As a start, I suggest merging sections Bismarck's founding of the Empire and Constituent states of the empire into this article. --Boson 14:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking some information from the German Empire article is alright, but the German Empire article should remain. - 52 Pickup 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I believe I've done an appropriate merger/refactoring. This still needs a lot of TLC in terms of citation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange

I find it highly strange that such an important event of the European history finds only few words. Some one familiar with the matter should expand the contents. --Bhadani 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See my above comment. I checked and there is, indeed, more detail in German Empire. We should refactor. - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unifacation"

In the unlikely event that there is anything useful at the oddly spelled Unifacation of germany, could someone please merge it? Otherwise, just put it on WP:AFD. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The mis-spelled article may contain some additional information but this article refers to "German Empire", which contains details of how it came into being. At first glance, it doesn't look as if there is any additional information not in German Empire , so I would support the AfD proposal. Perhaps the author could check if there is anything left to add to "German Empire. --Boson 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete-tagged as content was moved to this article here. -- Matthead O 21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kleindeutsche Lösung

Kleindeutsche Lösung was translated as "Little German solution", now "Smaller German solution"; I believer that "Small German solution" is actually more common, but there are so few online references to any of these other than our forks and mirrors that the Google test is useless. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't one normally talk about "Greater Germany" and "Lesser Germany", and by analogy "Lesser German Solution". Annoyingly, I can't find any references to the English terms in books (though I haven't looked very thoroughly). I would tend to put it in parentheses, but without implying that it is a literal translation (like Small German solution). If we are going to use the German word Lösung, I think we should regard it as a proper name and capitalize Solution. Presumably, we should maintain consistency with the Kleindeutsche Lösung article (which currently has "Small German Solution").--Boson 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Obviously, though, since all nouns are capitalized in German, capitalization in German does not necessarily indicate a proper noun. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of states

In the merged article, we have a somewhat confused situation with a reference to "39 previously independent states" and 25 states of the empire. I assume that many of these previously independent states were annexed by Prussia.

Rather than just have a list of states here that duplicates the list at States of the German Empire, could someone possibly rework this article to name all of the states predating the empire and indicate which were incorporated as states of the empire, which were absorbed into Prussia, and which met other fates? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that request. —Nightstallion (?) 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unattributed opinion

From the article:

One problem with this constitution was that it was designed for certain types of people to hold the position of chancellor and king. Bismarck was extremely powerful and William I was only a figurehead. The constitution fails to consider the scenario of a powerful king and a chancellor who is a figurehead.

I think the factual part of this is accurate (though it should still be cited) but the value judgment that a constitution should allow for a powerful king seems to come out of nowhere. I'll give a few days for someone to work out if they can do something with this, preferably involving citation, but if not I am inclined to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Zollverein

Why is there no mention of the Zollverein in this article. The Zollverein was an important early factor in the growth of national feeling and it also led to the rise in Prussian influence in the German States, which undoubtedly helped with unification in some ways. Ixistant 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that is missing. Yes, someone should work on this. It won't be me anytime soon, though. Can someone take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Small German

This course outline, issued at University College, London, refers to Bismarck and 'small German' unification http://www.ucl.ac.uk/German/undergrad/Courses/1101.htm The use of inverted commas suggests that there may be a wider problem. Incidentally, the notion that Lesser German is used by analogy with Greater German attributes a logic to language use that is often lacking. Norvo 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The first author in that section of the reading list has used the term lesser Germany (David Blackbourn: History of Germany, 1780-1918: The Long Nineteenth Century: The construction of a Prussian-led lesser Germany was completed four years later., but Breuilly uses ‘small Germany' solution (John Breuilly: "Nationalism and the State": the ‘small Germany' solution of pro-Prussian liberals . . . Clearly the dispute over ‘small Germany' and ‘large Germany' . . .. I suspect most historians tend to think of the German term and merely provide an ad hoc translation for readers, so it's more a matter of the logic of historians as translators rather than the logic of language. In the above example, even Breuilly seems to shy away from "small German solution", perhaps because small could also qualify "solution" rather than "German". He also seems to use the contrasting terms "small" and "large". I would also tend to contrast either "small" and "large" or "lesser" and "greater". I also now tend to agree with his use of "Germany" rather than "German" when translating "kleindeutsche . . .", as opposed to "kleine deutsche . . .". Personally, I think English tends to contrast "lesser" and "greater" where German uses "Klein-" und "Groß-", when the size is regarded as being small or large mainly in comparison with the alternative (rather than in absolute terms). I don't think any of the alternatives are wholly satisfactory --Boson 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Louis XIV or Mazarin?

in the Founding a unified state, last few lines it talks about Louis XIV gaining land in german speaking territory durring the 30 years war. my problem is, though louis was king, Mazarin was the de facto ruler until louis was 20 or so (which was well after the 30 years war). could someone please clear this up? i maybe wrong... Klimintine (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck's rise to power

The beginning of this article has a name that implies some legacy naming. Instead of "Bismarck's rise to power", the section tries (and fails) to cover all the historical development up to the start of the Schleswig war. Why did I say it fails at that? What bothers me is that the display of the Revolutions of 1848 is confusing and may well give a false impression. The revolutions were in large parts of Germany driven by a craving for unification and only the restauration after the revolutions cemented the fragmentation of Germany where there may possibly have been some unification attempts even among the kings and princes of the German states. Someone who is an expert should expand this, I fear I may accidentally let some false claims slip in and I am lacking citeable sources. 141.76.40.160 (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: