Inner German border is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Maps and
Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
If contributors have any photos of the inner German border (either before or after 1989), please
contribute them! (But note that they must be your own photos - please don't copy images you find elsewhere on the Internet.) --
ChrisO (
talk)
22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the effort, but I'm afraid I had to take it out - the image is in the wrong section (the poles weren't installed until the 1960s) and its subject is already shown in the article... --
ChrisO (
talk)
08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
the article claims: "..during the 28 years of operation of the Marienborn complex, no successful escapes were recorded.[103].." yet a little later is a photo of an escape in a "bubble car" from Marienborn
Feroshki (
talk)
00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing that out. The Isetta wasn't used at Marienborn; it's only on display there. Sorry about the confusion. I've amended the article accordingly. --
ChrisO (
talk)
00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
It was built along the entire border, and was upgraded in successive waves of design and construction work over its entire lifetime.
Tony(talk)08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The sentence "It was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of Germany" is misleading and should be rewritten. There was no "Western" occupation zone in 1945; there was simply defeated and occupied Germany, divided into British, American, and Soviet zones (the French zone was created later). The wartime Allies (including the Soviets) were still cooperating. The first formal steps toward the West vs. East partition happened in 1947 as relations between the Soviets and the other Allies deteriorated. See
Bizone.
Justinbb (
talk)
17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Not really. It was actually called the inner German border in German (innerdeutsche Grenze). The name you suggest would be ambiguous; it was not Germany's border with other countries but the border between the two parts of Germany, hence the "inner German" bit - as opposed to the external (i.e. international) border. --
ChrisO (
talk)
12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Cool. Ah well, the day is done, the vandals didn't manage to ruin the article ... and I bet you got millions of page hits. :) --JN46600:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, lots of hits. A nice job, Chris, JN, Fifelfoo and everyone else. The tweakers continue to try to hit it though. A short while ago, someone reverted an addition (unsourced) about German citizenship. Ah well.
Auntieruth55 (
talk)
19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank you
to ChrisO and everyone else who's contributed to this page. I don't read every TFA, but I did read this entire article, and learned a lot of things. It's a good read, and so relevant to todays date. Well done, and thanks. Matthewedwards :
Chat 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
+1. I've been on Wikipedia for almost ten years, and this is quite possible the single best article I've stumbled into yet!
Jpatokal (
talk)
06:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Citizenship issue
An IP editor brought something up which was not very well phrased, but is actually pretty relevant to the context here. Under BRD law anyone who could prove German ancestry and could speak the language could gain citizenship upon request. This wasn't exclusive to East Germans, but it was particularly useful to the ones who escaped to the west because nearly any DDR citizen qualified. Unfortunately I don't have a source for that either, since it was something I learned from an off-textbook discussion with a university language professor. Durova36219:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I think this is correct, also, but the IP editor added it unsourced, so it should not go in. I was about to remove it when you snipped it out. Perhaps the source is in the Grundgesetz?
Auntieruth55 (
talk)
19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
additional thought: it would also seem that Jus sanguinis is more complicated than the editor described; furthermore, if I remember correctly from my discussions on my last visit, the laws were just changed in 2000 or 2001.
Auntieruth55 (
talk)
19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I will look for sources. There should be plenty of them, because the change was announced a longish time before it happened, and that led to a last massive influx of people who had, or claimed to have, German ancestors. It was widely reported at the time.
HansAdler19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I have trouble finding the details, but if you are in doubt then I guess you qualified before 2000 and now don't qualify any more. I trust that you won't take this for serious legal advice.
HansAdler20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
It turns out that there was a difference between GDR (East Germany) citizens and other Germans outside the FRG (West Germany). As one of the two successors of the German Reich, the FRG originally adopted all of its laws, gradually replacing most of them. The citizenship law (Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz, abbr. RuStAG), however, was not replaced but amended. According to that, any citizen of one of the German (federal) states was a citizen of the FRG. Since the GDR was the successor of the Eastern German states, any GDR citizen was automatically an FRG citizen. This is why they were entitled to get West German passports if they made it into a West German embassy. (In practice they would not always get it that way, since some embassies had certain obligations to their host countries.) On the other hand, the GDR replaced its citizenship law with a new one that defined an exclusively GDR citizenship. Therefore FRG citizens were foreigners from the POV of the GDR government.
Except for the legal details behind this (which are in part my original research), this is still common knowledge in Germany. Everybody knew that GDR citizens were entitled to an FRG passport. A good source on German citizenship laws (in German) is
here.
HansAdler20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, the case is simple: The treaty between the two states was what one calls in German a "Staatsvertrag" between two states, but the "Völkerrecht" (i.e. covering the "German" citizenship) was not changed. The Brandt admininistration carefully kept this subtle distinction, and nonetheless the treaty ("Grundlagenvertrag" in German) was signed by the communist government.-
Consequence: please restore my text, adding the above remarks (from "The treaty ..." to "...the communist government) as reference, i.e. included in a Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). pair. - Regards,
87.160.84.170 (
talk)
20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
We need to quote a source. I agree it is a point worth mentioning that Brandt's Ostpolitik agreements didn't abandon this principle; editors here will work on it. --JN46620:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Looks good, except that it says East Germans could "claim" West German citizenship. I believe that's not precise: According to West German law they were German citizens, and there was no separate West German citizenship.
HansAdler21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The next sentence in the linked source says that the West German government considered the inner German border to be – in theory – like the border between two Länder. I think the word "claim" is just there because in practice, that is what East Germans had to do; they had to go and "claim" their citizenship, which was theirs by right. --JN46622:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The best source is the "Grundlagenvertrag" itself. How to cite this as source? Its your task to find out, and certainly you have a solution to this strange problem, or you or your colleagues will find it. If you have a solution, please tell! I am actually very interested. - By the way: don't you feel that sometimes the "law" faculty is crazy; this means I am not a member of it, but sometimes they are so subtle that after decades one discovers that they have met a very relevant point: From 1945 to 1989 to 2009; and in Wikipedia they have apparently not yet seen the essentials. Have they? - Nonetheless, best regards,
87.160.84.170 (
talk)
21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Presently I have only found one solution, namely to cite as a source the German Wikipedia,
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/grundlagenvertrag , which contains an important remark on the citizenship-problem ("Die Verhandlungen gingen nur mühsam voran weil ... "="The negotiations proceeded rather slowly because ... (just of the citizenship-problem!) ). In contrast, the English Wikipedia article should better not be cited, because it does not mention that problem. Perhaps a good English text exists? - Regards,
87.160.84.170 (
talk)
21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Now I have found a suitable source, www.ena.lu . It delivers the original and official text, in multiligual presentation (one can choose the language). -,
87.160.84.170 (
talk)
21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually this border is not "inner". It's border between two different countries, which have different cultures and religion. All land between Oder and Elbe is slavic territory belonging to polabian slavs - obodrites and veleti, which were pagans. Most of towns, rivers, lakes in GDR have slavic names. Even name of capital city "Berlin" means "Pond". Christianized saxons have conquered this land during 10-13 centuries. Only in 20-th century Red Army have liberated slavic territory. So, border between two countries was running exactly along Elbe, historical border between two nations.
--
RethraTemple (
talk)
20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Interesting stuff! If you can source it properly, I think it could be included somehow. I dont think it has much relevance for why the modern border was created after the Second World War, though?
As I know it, the
Obotrites were allies of
Charlemagne, while the
Saxons were actually violently subdued and forcefully christened by ham and the Francs (see the
saxon wars). How does it resonate with what you claim?
Surely someone should mention this cycle trail as being an intrinsic part of the division today?
I actually cycled part of it... maybe I'll get the chance to write something on it sometime...
79.148.110.52 (
talk)
15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Iron Curtain Trail
Surely someone should mention this cycle trail as being an intrinsic part of the division today?
I actually cycled part of it... maybe I'll get the chance to write something on it sometime...
Maxjjazz (
talk)
15:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Views of the border & citizenship revisited
The sections "Origins" and "Views on the border" need some work. The current version describes the situation during the 1970s and 80s, somewhat crudely but for the most part correct. What it fails to describe is that particularly East Germany's view (West Germany's to a lesser degree) changed over time.
From section "Origins":
West Germany regarded German citizenship and rights as applying equally to East and West German citizens. An East German who escaped or was released to the West was automatically granted West German rights, including residence and the right to work;
True, but between 1949 and 1967 East Germany did exactly the same reciprocally. Only in 1967 was a separate East German citizenship established - which West Germany did not recognize -, and only from then on did East Germany regard West Germany as a foreign country, and from then on only the situation was as described in the article. I cannot source these fact properly, but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone willing to invest the time.
West German laws were deemed to be applicable in the East.
Not really. While the West German government never viewed East Germany as a foreign country, viewed its regime as illegitimate and was striving for reunification, it did not claim to have the right to legislate over East Germany. I suggest to remove that sentence, as it probably cannot be credibly sourced.
Section "Views of the border":
The GDR saw it as the international frontier of a sovereign state
True only after 1967/70ish. Until then, East Germany viewed West Germany as part of the German nation and was striving for reunification with it, of course under communist rule.
However, West German propaganda leaflets referred to the border as merely "the demarcation line of the Soviet occupation zone", and emphasised the cruelty and injustice of the division of Germany.
Before roughly 1970, East Germany described the division of Germany equally as cruel and injust, except they blamed Western aggression for it.
Again, it'll probably take some time to find reliable English speaking sourced for my claims, but I suggest to whoever is willing to do the work to find them and change the article accordingly. Sorry I currently don't have the time to do that work, otherwhise I would.
Anorak2 (
talk)
23:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The context of the border
Very good article. It covers some of the most important issues, while not drowning in details. The links give the details for the interested student/reader. From a quick glance, I also think it overall presents the information without choosing side in this otherwise heavily political subject. Very good. Except for one important issue.
The article has almost no information about the context that sustained the border! It describes why it was constructed at the end of the Second World War, but not why it persisted for so long and why its was thought important to keep it for so long. The context of Cold War Europe should be included somehow, otherwise the border just comes out as an anachronistic curiosity of the past. The context of espionage, the threat of nuclear war, the large numbers of conventional soldiers stationed on both sides of the border should be touched. At least some "see also" links would be appropriate.
I have just modified one external link on
Inner German border. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 7 external links on
Inner German border. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
"Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article. There is no need to include a blank line between a heading and sub-heading."
... while cleaning == up == == this == ==shit==
Some of usroutinely ensure there's a blank line – completely invisible to the reader and therefore irrelevant to MOS – immediately above and below each one, and that there's a blank line, visible to the reader but barely noticeable, above the very first word of every
plain paragraph (never mind
whatever's above that).
Thiset al is why.
The article has multiple deficiencies vis-a-vis the FA criteria:
Some unsourced content
Heavy reliance on cold war era sources (all published in the Western bloc of course) causes potential for bias and/or errors, and not all these sources could be considered high-quality
German language scholarly sources (many of them post-1990) are neglected in favor of popular/news English language sources that are more dated