Talk:States of Germany

Ministerpräsident

How should we translate Ministerpräsident? Minister-President, as in the tables at each state article? Prime Minister, as in the list in the Thuringia article? Premier, as in List of Premiers of Bavaria? Google indicates that all three are commonly used...

Well, if no one cares, I'll just settle with Minister-President. Sandman 13:10, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Historically a "Ministerpräsident" can be regarded as both a member of cabinet with certain privileges (so he's the first among them: "le premier ministre") or as a head of state (= president) in the absence of a Chancellor or Prime Minister. Since "Minister-President" sounds kind of odd I’d favour the term "Prime Minister". This also gets closer to the fact that a German "Ministerpräsident" is head of the executive power only whereas a president quite frequently has some influence of the country’s supreme court, the national bank (he’s most likely to appoint the new judges or national bankers), the military forces and in some nations the parliament (he sometimes "opens the parliament" at the beginning of a electoral period). The German Ministerpräsident lacks these privileges. Whether you call it "Premier" or "Prime Minister" makes in my opinion just as much a difference as naming the federal states "Freistaat (Bayern)", "Republik (Saarland)", "Bundesland (Hessen)", "Staat (Niedersachsen)" ... it’s always the same thing.

Sorry, but Prime Minister or Premier for a German Minister-President is a wrong translation! A Prime Minister is the highest minister in a cabinet, headed by a monarch, who himself is the head of his government. A Minister-president is not to be compared with a President of the Republic. A German Minister-President is the head of government with some functions and privileges of a head of state (internal and external representation, right of pardon and the privilege to confer decorations). So, because of the incomparability / intranslationability of the term a new word must be formed (neologism) in English.

Historical states of Germany

Maybe there should be an article about the historic states of Germany? 203.166.57.12 07:03, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I Agree!

I agree. An article like this, with the hyperlinked names over Prussian-led Germany, and even Austria-Hungary, would be useful. --209.34.235.6 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bundesländer" != "Provinces"

The article claims that there's a risk of confusing "Bundesländer" with U.S.-like states and suggests that one think of them as provinces. This is wrong. Germany is (due to its Constitution) a "Bundesstaat", that in fact is more like a confederation (= weaker central power) than it is a federal State. All power resides with a Länder except those especially granted to the federal government in the constitution. For example:

- Germany has 17 representations (embassies) to the EU in Bruxelles: one for the federal republic and 16 for the German Bundesländer.

That is inaccurate. The representations of the Laender to the EU are not embassies. The term "embassy" is a term of art in international law, and these representations are not embassies; the customary international law rules about diplomatic immunity do not apply to them. the Laender of Germany are not subjects of international law.163.1.51.59 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- Each Bundesland can maintain foreign relations of it's own (... as long as it will not undermine the "official" foreign policy)

That is inaccurate. Both legislation (article 73(1) Grundgesetz) in matters of foreign affairs, and the foreign service as an executive body (article 83(1) Grundgesetz) are exclusive federal competencies. Article 32(1) Grundgesetz makes it quite clear that foreign relations are a federal matter. It is true that the Laender can maintain conclude treaties with foreign states within their competencies (article 32(3)), but only with the consent of the federal government, whereas your formulation implies that there is a general inherent power of the Laender to do so, which clearly does not exist. 163.1.51.59 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- Each Bundesland has it's own constitution laying out the principles of state its organisation, civil rights. These constitutions cannot limit the rights granted to the people by the federal constitution, but it can extend them. Provinces don't have this. They are normally founded by a top-to-bottom action.

In essence: Please refer to "Bundesländer" as "states", because it expresses their role a lot better than any other English term.

I've changed this a bit in the article, as none of the reference works I use suggest "province", they all use "state" or "federal state", as do the EU and Germany's own government sites. IMHO it would be much more confusing if people used "province" now that everyone knows them as states. I have merely toned down the idea that "province" is better,perhaps the writer might want to reconsider him/herself whether it is worth a mention at all. Are there any dictionaries or official documents, or any other sources, which suggest "province" is better? Or is it just someone's nice idea about how things should be in an ideal world? Saintswithin 10:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this section about translating "Bundersländer" as "state" or "province". As Saintswithin noted, it is practically universally translated as 'state'. Also, I don't think it's worth mentioning the fact that using the term 'state' to refer to a semi-sovereign region of a federation can cause confusion, because this potential confusion about the word 'state' is not at all unique or noteworthy about German states. And besides, I doubt any native speaker of English is confused by the word 'state' referring to both some subnational entities and also to independent, sovereign governments/nations. Also, the sentence about different transliterations of the word 'Länder' as 'Lander' or 'Laender' is confusing and poorly written - I guess by a non-native English speaker. If someone feels that this point is worth making, please rewrite it. Maybe something like: "The word 'Länder' is sometimes written in English as 'Lander' or 'Laender'."

Even though I think that we should refer to 'Bundersländer' as 'states' for consistency, I do disagree with the user who said that the reason we should call them 'states' and not 'provinces' is because Germany is a federation where the 'Bundersländer' have a good degree of autonomy and the powers of the federal vs state governments are delimited and limited by the constitution, and thus the 'Bundersländer' are not merely provinces. However, in reality, the degree of autonomy of the regions of a country, their powers, and whether or not the country is a true federation is not really related to whether the regions are called 'provinces' or 'states'. For example, Canada is a true federation and its provinces have a good deal of autonomy and the powers of the federl government are limited. From the wikipedia article on Canada: "The provinces have a large degree of autonomy from the federal government" and "the provinces ... together collect more revenue than the federal government, an almost unique structure among federations in the world." --thirty-seven 09:27, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

When I took a comparative government class in the Spring of 2005, we never referred to the Bundesländer as "states" although their meaning as being similar to "states" was clearly defined. They were always referred to as the "länder" and not "states of germany." Based on this, it would make sense that the article be placed under "Länder of Germany" or "Bundesländer" or something along those lines, with the current article title "States of Germany" forwarding to the different title. Mdkarazim 2 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

One thing I would like to have clarified is knowing whether or not each of the bundesländer have charters/constitutions of their own like each of the United States of America. I understand that each has virtually their own autonomous systems in many areas of law and governance, but do they have their own charters/constitutions aside from the Basic Law? Mdkarazim 2 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

They do have their own constitutions. Check out Verfassung von Berlin (German), for example. In that respect, länder are somewhat similar to states. However, one has to also take into account that federalism in Germany in general is understood differently than in the United States. Maybe a discussion of such differenes could be covered in an article about federalism. sebmol 2 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

In en.wikipedia the page name state is about soverign states which a Land is not. To use the article State (subnational) is not of much use because it refers back to this article. The the page named Province is a much better match:

Province is a name for a secondary level of government in most countries. In some countries an alternative term is used, such as state (in Australia and the United States), prefecture (in Japan), or region (in France and Italy; the latter uses provincia as a tertiary form of government, akin to a county). During the time of the British Empire, various colonies had the title of Province such as the Province of Canada and Province of South Australia. In Germany and Austria, the same sense of historical and cultural unity on a less-than-national scale is expressed as Land, the common name for states of Germany and states of Austria.

One should not be put off by this because the words "state", "nation" and "country" tend to be mixed up in English depending on context. For example the UK is a soverign state but it is not a nation because it consists of 3 and 1/4 nations. England a country and the English are a nation (and it was a goal). Keep the name state in the article if you feel more at home with that (why you should be I am not sure, I think Land is better) but link to the word to Province because that article has an explanation of what a Land which the article State does not. Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

German-speaking newspapers and TV usually refer to US states as US-Bundesländer (e.g. "in US-Bundesland Louisiana"). I think this is a good argument for the use of the term "state", province implies a lesser degree of independence. the US states are technically not states, as they are non-sovereign, but we are stuck with state in common usage for both a sovereign entity and a sub-entity. The BBC uses "province" as a translation for Bundesland, which sounds wrong every time I hear it.

Why is Bundesland translated as "states of the federation" and not "federal states"? TiffaF 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "province" necessarily implies any less autonomy than "state" as names of subnational entities within a federation; to me it does not.

As for the translation, I'd speculate that Bundesland is translated as "states of the federation" because that phrase fairly unambiguously means the subnational entities within a federation, whereas in English "federal states" is ambiguous: Louisiana could be called a "federal state" because it is a state (subnational entity) within a federation, but the USA could be called a "federal state" because it is a state that is a federation. In fact, I think that this second interpretation of "federal state" is more common. --thirty-seven 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

if German newspapers regularly refer to the component states of the United States as "US-bundesländer" then it seems entirely apropriate to me to mirror this usage and call the German länder states, or when greater precision is required, "federal states." The term Province (Canada being an exception, perhaps to deliberately differentiate itself from its southern neigbour) to my ear indicates a shared cultural background of some degree, habits held in common, or perhaps where a common dialect is spoken, rather than necessarily a political grouping. The primary models for this line of reasoning are the French provinces: for example, Burgundy, Brittany, and of course, Provence. Yes, they may have once have had an independent political existence, and even be in part re-constituted as the new Regions, with administrative responsibilities, but these new constructions do not always conform to the old description or idea of the provinces in question. Provinces are more of an idea than a reality. In Germany one might argue that a province of Franconia or Swabia might or perhaps should exist, though they have no current political existence except as sub-units. What are the dialects spoken in those areas called, for example? In my (admittedly limited) experience, someone from the southwestern part of Germany may say that he lives in or is from Baden-Württemberg, but classify his identity as a Swabian. Such referral is easier in other parts of the country, a Bavarian is a Bavarian, a Hessian a Hessian, but what is someone fron the Rheinland-Pfalz? (dshep/29.06.2007)

It is often only the British or Canadian writers (or those who intent to make a political statement that the rest of the West is rightly different from the United States) that insist on calling the German Laender provinces. Formally provinces no longer existed in the post-World War II Germany. Before 1945 province was always understood as a sub-Laender level entity in some Laender such as Prussia.--JNZ (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"German newspapers regularly refer to the component states of the United States as "US-bundesländer"" That's not true, they are called "Staaten" or "(US-)Bundesstaaten" but NEVER called Länder!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the german language the word "Provinz" exists as well. Preussen for example was devided in "Provinzen". No-one would call the länder "Provinz". German law theory defined the länder as "Staaten" what literaly means states. It's because they are partially sovereign. For exaple, they can sign international treaties. German "Provinzen" were not able to do that. 92.228.33.131 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the differences between the (e. g. Prussian, Italian) Provinces, the French (Italian) regions on the one and states on the other side is not so much a question of autonomy but one of origin. Both as concerns the foundation of the Empire in 1867-71 and as concerns the reorganisation as FRG in 1948-1949, the Länder came together and founded a federation. Afaik just the same as it was in the USA. On the other hand, the provinces in Prussia or Italy, the French or Italian regions or even the Autonomous Communities of Spain gained their autonomy by a law passed by the central legislative power. Therefore, you could very well call the Austrian länder provinces while the German länder are states. --84.154.123.216 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult one, as the German states have nothing like the legal, fiscal or social autonomy that the US states do; the immediate German cognate for "state" (Staat) was not used to describe the German states, leaving the field open for debate in translation. I've mostly seen UK newspapers referring to them as Bundesländer or Länder (spelled ae or ä) - italicised, as it's an imported word (much the same applies to the French Départements - no translation). That would be the official story - calling them (federal) states in everyday speech is perfectly ok, most of us Brits do that, as it's the nearest equivalent and using the German term sounds pedantic. I've seen "province" used once in the Guardian (and winced), but I've never heard it used instead of "state" in everyday speech. It's the same principle as applies to forms of school and professional qualifications - Hauptschule, Gymnasium, Dipl.Ing etc. have no direct equivalent in the English-speaking world, so the German term is used in official translations (e.g. on CVs), but you're ok saying "high school", "grammar school" or "graduate engineer" or whatever the equivalent is in English where exact terminology is irrelevant. Otoh, autobahn(-s) is often used in everyday speech when referring to the German version - probably due to their much-envied lack of speed limits, making them unique and worthy of a proper name... now that's getting priorities straight! DDWP (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The bit that still needs revision is the section referring to "Land" (original quotation marks from the article) being referred to in the official translation of the Basic Law in the third sentence of the article. It's not. That would mean that in their translation they used the english word 'land' spelled with a capital L. Which they didn't. They italicised Land or Länder, i.e. Land or Länder, denoting it as the German word used in English. Exactly like départment in French, as someone already noted. It's wrong to say that the English word "Land" is used in the official translation, as is currently implied. It is Land or Länder. World of difference. Willkane22 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The way this article uses the word "federal state" is completely out of line with what you get to if you look up federal state. I have tried adding a section to explain the confusion to the reader, rather than just using a word in this article to mean almost the opposite of what it means the rest of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie2541 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Regrettably, this long discussion is completely out of line of the official recommendations issued by the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They recommend to not attempt translating "Land" (or "Laender") into "state(s)" or whatever, similarly as in German-speaking newspapers and official documents expressions like "departments" (of France) or "counties" (UK) are usually not translated and appear as "Departments" or "Counties". As regards the US, German documents speak usually of "Staat(en)". And for that very reason the Foreign Ministry recommends to not translate Land to State. Cf. the official Laender list in different languages at https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/service/terminologie/bundeslaenderdownloads/-/215248 195.200.70.39 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The EU guide, which we usually try to follow (see WP:GERCON) suggests "federal state" or leaving untranslated. (Austrian Bundesländer are "provinces", though). —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this important hint to the EU style guide. I recall this from my work at the Commission a few years ago, but must say that in official documents we always used the untranslated terms "Land"/"Laender" in accordance with the recommendations of the Foreign Ministry of Germany. Even in colloquial chats in the corridors of the DG where I was working, colleages exclusively mentioned the "German Laender" and not one single time "state". "Federal state" is, on top, not a clever suggestion as indeed the whole of Germany can be seen as the "federal state". Therefore, the best thing is to leave it untranslated (as we do with French departments etc.). I know, it is tricky with the three "Free States" (Bavaria, Saxony and Thuringia), but these are "Free States" and not simply "states". All together are addressed by the term "Laender". Complicated though ;-) As regards Austria, it would be interesting what their Foreign Ministry recommends ... having made a quick search at their webpage, I didn't find anything corresponding to what the German Foreign Office published (see my link above) 195.200.70.38 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

203.166.57.12

Just a short notice: 203.166.57.12 was me. Regards -- Guido Bockamp 07:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Länder

I've recapitalised Länder, following the EU's use, Muret-Sanders 2004 Großwörterbuch and the German embassy and German govenment websites.Saintswithin 10:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Berlin?

The article states:

The city-states of Berlin and Hamburg are not subdivided.

Out of curiosity, why aren't the boroughs (Bezirke) of Berlin considered subdivisions? Perhaps they aren't precisely analogous to subdivisions in other states, but they do have elected governments and are well known facets of life in Berlin.

--Jfruh 18:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because while they may have elected officials (by special proviso), they are formally, well, just that, boroughs - parts of a city, with a city being a special class of municipalty. Hence, the State of Berlin consists of only one municipalty, whatever the boroughs. Bremen, though, has two (Bremerhaven is the other).--2001:A61:260C:C01:D4C1:6B9B:FC44:E27F (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Senate vs. cabinet?

Is there any real distinction between the Senates of the city-states and the cabinets of other states, other than the name? Similarly, are the Mayors of Berlin and Hamburg and the Senate President of Bremen different from the Minister-Presidents of the other states in any way other than in name? --Jfruh 22:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• At least the Senate President of Bremen is different, since the Land Bremen contains two cities (Bremen & Bremerhaven), and the Senate President is not only the "Minister-President" of the Land but also of the city of Bremen, whereas Bremerhaven has its own mayor and city parliament (Stadtverordnetenversammlung). The same applies to Bremen's senators, who are also the respective departmental heads for the city of Bremen, whereas Bremerhaven again has its own departmental heads. --Salocin 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested: Actually Hamburg and Berlin do have cabinets, which are only called senates for historical reasons. The difference is that in the cabinet the Minister-President appoints the ministers, while in the Senate the Senators elect the President. Caballito (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union

Now that the European Union has evolved to its current status, what areas of importance does the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Germany have? I can see Military as being one area, but besides Military and Economics-related matters, what other areas are there? The reason I ask this is to find reason besides nationalist sentiment which entice the bundesländer to maintain inclusion within the Federal Republic of Germany? Is it possible that the European Union might one-day replace the existing institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany as a whole? Please note: I understand that this is party a question of political opinion, so I am already expecting mixed response(s). mdjkarazim 2005-07-03 02:41:54 (UTC)

There is a vast array of issues that the European Union does not address beyond military and "economics-related matters" (which begs the question: what action isn't economics-related?), not the least of which are things such as government-run insurance programs (e.g. health, retirement, unemployment, etc.), law enforcement, education, civil and criminal law, immigration, and much more. While the European Union may have taken on some responsibilities previously reserved to its member states, it doesn't make the member states obsolete for the same reason the federal government of the United States hasn't made state governments obsolete. :sebmol 4 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

I thought education was reserved as a power of the bundesländer? mdjkarazim 2005-07-07 18:11:17 (UTC)

To an extent it is. However, the federal government is heavily involved in it as well (e.g. pre-school programs). There is also a strong level of coordination on the federal level to avoid unnecessary complications for students moving between states. sebmol 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

In the following areas only the federation has the right to make laws according to article 73 of the Grundgesetz:

• 1.foreign affairs and defence, including the protection of the civil population;
• 2.the citizenship in the federation;
• 3.the freedom of moving, the passport system, the registration and identificastion,migration and delivery;
• 4.the system of currency, money and coins, measuresand weights and chronometry;
• 5.the unity of the customs and trading area, the trading and navy treaties, the freedom of goodsand the traffic of goods and money to foreign countries including the protection of customs and borders;
• 5a.the protection of German culture against exit into foreign countries;
• 6.air traffic;
• 6a.the traffic of rails of the federation, and the construction of buildings;
• 7.post and telecommunication;
• 8.the legal relationships of the persons working for the federation or corporations of public law directly subordinate to it;
• 9.the protection of commercial rights, the copyright and the publishing law;
• 10.the cooperation of the federation and the states
  • a)in the criminal investigation,
  • b)for the protection of the basic order of liberty and democrazy, the existence and safety of the federation or a state and
  • c)for the protectiona against domestic ambitions to damage German external interest with violence,

and the foundation of a federal office for the criminal investigation and international fight against crimes;

• 11.statistics for the purposes of the federation;
• 12.the regulations for the possession of weapons and explosives;
• 13.the feed of invalides, orphans and widows of war and the care for former prisoners of war;
• 14.the production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and of installations used for, the protection against the dangers of the release nuclear energy and the elimination of nuclear materials.

I hope I translated everything correctly.--Son sonson 14:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bundesländer wrong term

The article states right in the beginning "Germany is a federal republic made up of 16 states formally known in German as Bundesländer ("Federal States"; singular Bundesland), or more commonly, Länder (singular Land)."

As far as my information goes, that is actually totally incorrect. The term "Bundesländer" is used in common parlance, however legally speaking it does not even exist and is misleading and wrong actually. The sentence should be the other way around. I took a look into the Grundgesetz, Chapter II is titled "Der Bund und die Länder", in the english version it says "The Federation and the Länder". Chapter IV Der Bundesrat reads: "Durch den Bundesrat wirken die Länder bei der Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung des Bundes und in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union." translated as "The Länder shall participate through the Bunderat in the legislation ...etc." Nowhere in the Grundgesetz does it ever talk of "Bundesländer". The state-governments are also just called that, Landesregierung and not Bundeslandregierung. Of course the term Bundesländer is popularly used, however legally speaking it does not even exist and is factually wrong. Germany by its constitution is made up of the german states first, who got together to create a federation, the Bundesrepublik. Therefore anything that has to do with "Bund-" is only at the federal level, by its nature it cannot be at the state "Land" level. Therefore a word like Bundesland in itself is actually a contradiction.

I would suggest this erroneous terminology is corrected in the article or some indication written about it being misleading. I would like to hear what others think about this? I could be totally wrong, but this is how I have learned it and what legal experts have also told me... Gryffindor 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think the term is "wrong". In any case, it should be mentioned that it is used, even if not by the Grundgesetz. Just as a sidenote, the Constitution of Austria actually uses the term Bundesländer. Martg76 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd not thought about this before, but it does sound as if your basic point is correct, that the formal term is in fact "Land". Your argument is partially supported also by the fact that a number of the states are formally named "Land X" (whereas none as far as I know are ever "Bundesland X"). The argument that "Bundesland" is a contradiction is irrelevant, however, since the term is most certainly used in the manner described. Anyway, how about:

Germany is a federal republic made up of 16 states, known in German as Länder (singular Land). Since Land is also the German word for "country", the term Bundesländer ("Federal States"; singular Bundesland) is often used to avoid ambiguity.

I've omitted any wikilinks to keep it easy to read in this discussion. Cheers, Silverhelm 00:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC).

That is interesting that in Austria it says "Bundesland". Well it certainly is an oddity for Germany, because the make-up of the republic is "Länder" first, and then "Bund". Now this is strictly legaly speaking of course, of course the reality looks a little different. I would agree with your proposition above about reformulatin. I also took a look at the German language version of this article. They explain at the beginning of the article how "Bundesland" is erroneous and the background about the term "Land". If other users are fine with this, I will volunteer to translate that section from the German version into english and add it to the article. If users want, I can post it here first for approval and then add it. Gryffindor 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now amended the introductory text in line with my above proposed wording. As for the wording of the German version of the article, perhaps it might be sensible to post it here first.

Silverhelm 22:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC).

"However the term "Bundesland" is actually a misleading, since it would imply a subordination of the German Länder to the federal Bund. It does not reflect the autonomy of the Länder per international law. The correct term, which is also used by the Grundgesetz, is therefore Länder.

This differentiation is not unimportant, because after the end of the Second World War, the Länder in the western part of the former Deutsches Reich were constituted as administrative areas first, and built on them the Federation (Bund) was constructed. This in complete contrast to the post-war development in Austria, where the Bund was erected first, and then the states as units of the federal system followed."

Alright, this is my attempt of a translation, it could definetly use a polish and proofread. cheers. Gryffindor 14:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just checked multiple versions of the Austrian Constitution, and have not found any references to any "Bundesländer", just like the German Grundgesetz it talks about "Länder". Gryffindor 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Former GDR

How can anyone interested in the former GDR find out from this article which of the 16 Bundesländer (or Länder) belonged to it and which of them didn't?

I didn't find any hint—could, or should, it be added? <KF> 17:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

PS on Bundesland: This term may not be mentioned in the Grundgesetz (as has been suggested above), but it is certainly also used by the media. I suppose Land is the historic term reaching back to the early Modern Age or beyond (when they consisted of fiefs), and as these Länder have made a foedus with each other they can now be referred to as federal (Bundes-) (all these words mean the same, don't they?). This, I believe, is logical rather than contradictory.

The problem with this article is that there are sections which are completely missing from the german language version, including what you have pointed out about the former DDR. I can help translate those missing parts if you want? Gryffindor 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. I added a small paragraph about the five states wich were added after the reunification. I think that should do it.Winnie-MD 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the new graph isn't quite right on a couple of points. The lander were actually constituted by the Allied occupying powers before the 1949 creation of the DDR and BRD, and the DDR used them until 1952 -- the current eastern lander are identical to the pre-1952 versions. Also, (West) Berlin was never a land of W. Germany -- it was de jure under the occupation of the western Allies (see the West Berlin article for a more comprehensive discussion of its legal status). The first time a post-war Land of Berlin was created was only after reunification. I have a bunch of stuff to do today but I'll fix this tonight if no one beats me to it. --Jfruh 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but actually that is more information than i cared to give, since the article is about the FRG, not about the "Länderreform" in the GDR. But then again, it never hurts to know more, doesn't it? Regarding Berlins status as a Bundesland, I was always under the impression, it was considered part of the Federal Republic an having the de facto status of a Bundesland, despite the allied control. Thanks for giving the heads-up. Winnie-MD 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The legal situation is complex. The Basic Law has from the beginning mentioned Berlin (which was in administrative speech called Greater Berlin since 1920) as Land, even including East Berlin. The Allied Powers however not allowed the Basic Law to gain (constitutional) force in Berlin. Like other länder, Berlin, had its own constitution, which was given by the West Berlin parliament in 1950 and stated quite at the front, Art. 1 Sect. II and III: "Berlin is part of the Federal Republic of Germany; the Basic law is applied and preceeds this constitution", while in the technical articles at the constitution's back, it was formulated: "Art 1 Sect. II and III gain force only then when their execution no longer is hindered by the Allied Powers." Yet even so, with the allowance of the Western Allied Powers, one could establish a sophisticated system that allowed West Berlin to be a de facto part of the Federation, though with some significant differences. --84.154.99.205 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bundesstaate

Is Bundesländer used only for German states? What about Bundesstaate? -- 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, it is only used for German and Austrian states. States of other federations (e.g. USA, India) are often referred to as Bundesstaat (plural Bundesstaaten).--Salocin 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 20:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "Bundesstaat" means, as we learn in school, a federation - in contrast to "Staatenbund" confederation. However, the states of non-German speaking countries (USA, India) are called Bundesstaaten too, and - and here it becomes strange - the länder of the German Empire 1871-1918 are also called Bundesstaaten (not Reichsstaaten either), which can still be found in some legislative acts that have not been changed into nowadays' language. --84.154.80.173 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics

The previous version of this section of the article contained a reference to Willy Brandt being forced out of office in 1974 owing to the opposition controlling the Bundesrat, thus blocking Brandt's ability to pass legislation. I don't know whether the opposition controlled the Bundesrat in 1974, however, it is a generally acknowledged fact that the reason for Brandt's departure (and replacement by Helmut Schmidt) was the exposure of Günter Guillaume as an East German spy working as a close aide to Brandt and not whether the opposition could block Brandt's legislative proposals.Cvieg 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of State

Who is Head of State of the German States? Who formally appoints and dismisses the Minister-President and the government/cabinet? --thirty-seven 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In a German State, there is only one Head of State - that's the Minister-President. Minister-Presidents are appointed by election of the parliament and dismissed by the parliament (sometimes further possibilities for dismissal). Its a simplified democratic procedure...

The land of Southern Baden had a President of state until it fusioned to Baden-Württemberg. --84.154.80.173 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

State Picture Links

I've tried opening the page on States of Germany on Firefox 2.0, Opera 9.01, and Konqueror 3.5.2 on Linux, and all display the links of the states on the German map with a significant offset towards the upper left. Is it just me who has this problem? 193.136.122.18 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarifyme: Bremen and city states

I have added a tag, because I do not understand the sentence in the lead on the city states and I am not 100% confident I can state what the truth about it is.

"The cities of Berlin and Hamburg are states in their own right, termed Stadtstaaten (city states), while Bremen consists of two urban districts."

Is Bremen not a city state? Now, it sounds exactly like this. However, it is left open what it is in stead. I guess it is also a city state. Then I wonder what message the last part tries to convey. Has Bremen two districts in incontrast to the other two city states? Or, do they also have districts but unlike for the Bremen case their number is just omitted?

I hope some savvy user can clarify me. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The situation with Bremen is somewhat confusing. The state of Bremen actually consists of two noncontiguous pieces of territory: The city of Bremen and the city of Bremerhaven. Most of the population in the state is in the City of Bremen. The City of Bremen's legislature is made up of those members of the State of Bremen's legislature elected from the City; Bremerhaven has its own separately elected legislature. Berlin is divided into boroughs, and I imagine Hamburg is similarly subdivided, but the subdivisions in those cities is not as important as the state of Bremen's subdivisions. --Jfruh (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but all the things you've said about Bremen were known to me before. Unfortunately, this does not really answer the first question. I will give it a try. If you think I do something wrong just correct it.Tomeasy _{T C} 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen are all city-states, just Bremen consists of two parts (Bremen and Bremerhaven) while Berlin and Hamburg are divided in to boroughs like Jfruh suggested above. —dima/talk/ 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I assume my edit here was correct. BTW dima, Bremen is also in boroughs, so while is not really correct in your statement. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not, because Bremen is not subdivided because of it's noncontiguity, it's just two cities. Caballito (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To make this clear: The statement "The city of Bremen is a state in its own right" is simply wrong. The state of Bremen consists of two distinct cities, one of which is the city of Bremen, and the other is not the city of Bremen, nor part of it. That's why Bremen is sometimes called the "two cities state". The city of Bremen and the state of Bremen are two different entites, one being part of the other, but not identical. Caballito (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do not know why I did not see it like this before, but I think it is just like you have explained it. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

all three are city-states, but Bremen is two cities while Berlin and Hamburg each are just one city —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.6 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bremen has two cities, Bremen and Bremerhaven, an both together are "Freie Hansestadt Bremen". Bremen is also the state capital of "F H B". Bremerhaven is about 60km more north, and divided by lower saxony (Niedersachsen). And Bremen is mostly used as shortcut of "Freie Hansestadt Bremen" "caballito" is right with his statements. Gruß aus Deutschland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Freistaat

Currently we have this statement:

"The description free state (Freistaat) is merely used for historical reasons, when free state was added to the titles of states that were not monarchies."

It does not make much sense in respect for what we are trying to explain. Bavaria and Saxony, two of the modern three Freistaaten (free state), were Monarchies! However, the statement above insinuates rather the opposite. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Freistaat is a purist-German word for Republic (being "Republik" in Standard German). Most of the länder have called themselves this way after becoming republics. The länder that hold this title today also associate some more independent status, which has no basis in law (but does in feeling and tradition, at least in the case of Bavaria). --84.154.80.173 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Try to solve the problem! Did you understand what the problem with the current wording is? Tomeasy _{T C} 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a try. Could some native speaker please look after it? I knew why I just restored an older wording last time ... --Caballito (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the logical trap that existed in the previous wording is now circumvented. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vorpommern

Mecklenburg isn't translated ADAIK but Vorpommern is either Western Pomerania, Hither Pomerania (?) or Pomerania minor. We should put either (or an asterisk with a note) on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Table colourings

Hi, haven't read the article in depth as the table held all the information I needed - but does anyone know what the background colours of the rows represent? It's certainly not clear, could this be made more obvious? curlybap 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Which table do you mean? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This one... but I just realised (when I looked at it without sorting it) that it's just alternate. So nevermind, I'm just being silly again. curlybap 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Capital of the state of Bremen

Has the German state of Bremen a capital? --88.77.252.147 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no de jure capital, though the city of Bremen is often considered to be de facto capital. --Caballito (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

correct usage of the term

The best and most accurate term is federal-states used both by the German Federal and Austrian Federal Govts. when dealing with the Laender in the English Language! Calling them states is okay but technically federal-states suits the bill better making them a uniquely German/Austrian not like the case in the USA or Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.24.196 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're defining "federal state", but if you mean constituent states of a federation, that is exactly what the states of the USA and Australia are. I fail to see any major differences between the two groups of states within their respective federations. In general English, a "federal state" is the federation itself, while a "federated state" is a constituent state of a federation. To my knowledge, the 16 Laender of Germany are not 16 separate federations under a larger federation in any real sense. - BilCat (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Wikipedia has: A federated state (often referred to simply as a state) is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federal union.[1] Such states differ from sovereign states, in that they have transferred a portion of their sovereign powers to a federal government.[2] A federated state holds administrative jurisdiction over a defined geographic territory and is a form of regional government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.239.211 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then lets add a "-"! Federal-state is the best and most accurate political science term you are going to find and serves best to the original German "Bundesland". In general English a "state" can mean many things too depending on context so I don't understand your point there. Calling them states is fine but generic and not the best wording. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.82.187 (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. "Federal-state" is not "the best and most accurate political science term you are going to find" in English. No one calls a state of the US or Australia a "federal-state" - it's just "state", and it only seems to cause confusions with German speakers with a poor understanding of English, not fluent English speakers. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear recommendatiopn by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Do not translate "Land" / "Laender" into whatever language. "State" is definitely inappropriate. Therefore, the correct term in English would be "the German Laender" etc. Similarly to the French Departements (sic), that also remain untranslated. --195.200.70.39 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

correct title of the article: Länder of Germany

IMHO the correct title of the article should be Länder of Germany. --194.95.119.139 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's better not to mix languages in titles. - BilCat (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The only correct title for this page would be "Laender of Germany" (or "Länder of Germany"), according to the recommendation of the German Federal MInistry of Foreign Affairs to not translate the word "Land" / "Laender" into other languages. Cf. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/service/terminologie/bundeslaenderdownloads > Englisch 195.200.70.39 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"different incarnations of the German state"

I've removed the following text from this artile and the affected state articles, which was added by an IP:

Hesse, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia are the states whose most of their territories continually belonged to the different incarnations of the German state from the 18th to the 20th century: the Holy Roman Empire, the Rhine, German and North German confederations, the German Empire, and the Weimar, Nazi and West Germany. These states were also mostly part of the Zollverein between 1851 and 1919 and of the Kingdom and Free State of Prussia between 1866 and 1935.

I wonder what's that supposed to mean? And to make that clear: All of present day Germany, except the northern part of Schleswig-Holstein, has been part of any incarnation of "the" German state (Holy Roman Empire, German Confederation, German Empire (both 1849 amd 1871), Weimar, Nazi Germany, and Federal Republic since 1990), except when under French occzpation. Neither the North German Confederation nor the Federal Republic until 1990 was "the" German state, and both always considered all of present day Germany to also be "Germany". --Caballito (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

All those successions of territorial entities cannot be called state successions: the HRE was no sovereign state from 1648 till it's end in 1806. The member states ('territories' from a viewpoint of continuity from a time prior to 1648) were largely sovereign. This was even more so the case for the German Confederation, which was and had never been intended to be a state. The Imperial Diet (Reichstag) at Regensburg and the Federal Diet (Bundestag) at Frankfurt were mere "interstate" (not to say "international") organizations, like modern-day UN or EU. Vis-à-vis the GDR, the old FRG can be considered the only German state, as the GDR was an oppressive, un-free state: it did in no way represent the will of its people (see 1953 or 1955). --109.45.3.55 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Chicken or the Egg"/"State or the Federal Gov't"; which came first?

Even after reading the article, either I'm just really dense or it really isn't explained very well... but which came first: the States or the German Federal gov't?

I mean, the bit about how all the different German Kingdoms, Duchies, etc, all united to pool their power into the German Empire is clear. And how each of those regions, after WW1 and the German Revolution, again pooled their power into their new Republic which then brought Hitler into power, who then absorbed the legal power that those smaller gov'ts gave him.

But what I don't seem to understand is... after WW2, the (Western) Allies decided to create the German States as listed in this article. Does this mean that, technically, during Occupation and before the 1949 establishment of the FRG, there was a period when a "German nation" ceased to exist, and thus the only legal governments run by German people themselves were the State governments? And was it that those new States who then selected representatives to work on the Basic Law, or were the States empowered in the first place by the Basic Law and that the way the Allies designed each State was merely a "suggestion"?

Furthermore, what are the current politics of each State like? Is there a "State vs Feds" angle like in the US, or is the German Federal gov't far more centralized (relatively speaking) than the US Federal gov't (specifically, is there a "Tenth Amendment"-ish statement in the Basic Law)? Do States compete with one another and/or have a strong sense of independence separate from the Federal gov't, or are the states closer to simple administrative units versus "independent countries"? Do any States have a history of threatening to secede from Germany (even if it's commonly known to be from a fringe group bellyaching)?

The article does explain a lot about how each States general function, but—basically—I don't think it explains much about the relationship of each State with the German Federal gov't. Again, maybe I'm just not reading between the lines properly or so, but maybe these things could be added or clarified to the article? What do you think? -- 76.14.41.180 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Grundgesetz article may answer some of your questions about the formation of the Federal Republic.

As regards the division of powers between the federal government and the state governments, I was surprised to see that this does not seem to be well covered either here or in the Grundgesetz article. The latter article does include information on the content of the constitution, so it perhaps belongs there, though it should also be discussed here. Perhaps it is discussed in more detail elsewhere, but I couldn't find it offhand. As an aside, the word "government" may be used slightly differently in the US (and other presidential systems) and in Germany (and other parliamentary systems). I will use it here in a more American sense.

The nearest equivalent to the Tenth Amendment is probably Article 70, Clause 1 of the Basic Law:

Article 70 [Division of legislative powers between the Federation and the Länder] (1) The Länder shall have the right to legislate insofar as this Basic Law does not confer legislative power on the Federation.

Broadly speaking, there are some (listed) fields where the federal government has exclusive legislative power, some (listed) fields where there is "competing" competence (the states can legislate if the federal government does not) and the remaning fields where the Länder have competence. This is complicated by a number of things, e.g.

• Where the federal government has authority it may delegate it to the states
• In a number of fields federal law is implemented by state civil servants and they can sometimes (on instructions from the state government - legally or otherwise) interpret laws in ways that were not obviously intended by the federal parliament and in ways that differ from their interpretation in other states.
• In some fields, notably "culture" and education, legislative authority rests with the states but the individual states enter into treaties with all other states to ensure some degree of uniformity throughout the country (cf. the recent spelling reform, which is binding on civil servants and teachers).
• Although the federal government has exclusive authority over foreign affairs, the states may (with the approval of the federal authority) conclude treaties with foreign powers (e.g. the Holy See) in matters over which they have authority (e.g. education).
• A lot of legislation, particularly anything to do with commerce, is now European Union legislation.

As a general rule, I would say that power is more centralized in Germany than in the USA. There is also the issue of the states' representation at the federal level (the Bundesrat). This may also be affected the issue of the difference between a parliamentary system and the presidential system, with a different system of checks and balances, but there can be similar (though probably less severe) problems when party majorities are different at the state and federal levels.

As regards threats to secede, I don't think there have been any serious threats of this nature, though the Bavarians, in particular, can be pretty "independent" (I should probably leave it at that). Jocularly, Bavaria is sometimes referred to as if it were not part of (the rest of) Germany. Recently there has been some wrangling about the duty of the "rich" states (which at the moment includes states like Bavaria) to financially support the "poor" states. Somewhat reminiscent of a similar debate within the EU. Plus ça change . . .

Re-unification has also not been fully implemented in people's heads and I believe there are still some formal differences.

You wrote "Does this mean that, technically, during Occupation and before the 1949 establishment of the FRG, there was a period when a "German nation" ceased to exist, and thus the only legal governments run by German people themselves were the State governments?" The Federal Republic did not get (most of) its sovereignty back until 1955; so before that the concept of "legal governments run by German people themselves" is somewhat problematic; the issue of a "German nation" is a different one.

The article Legal status of Germany may also touch on some of the issues you raised, but you need to be careful when researching this because it is a favourite topic of people with fringe viewpoints.--Boson (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is even an article Federalism in Germany, but what's asked for still isn't there, though I guess that would be the appropriate place.

As to what was first, that is actually covered in the article, the states were established in the occupationn zones, and while some states hadn't their own constitution, some of the constitutions predate the Basic Law, which had to be ratified by two thirds of the states, and in fact was by all but one.

Now as to the Tenth Amendment analogue, that would not be found in Article 70, but in

Article 30 [Sovereign powers of the Länder] Except as otherwise provided or permitted by this Basic Law, the exercise of state powers and the discharge of state functions is a matter for the Länder.

And while said Article 70 indeed gives a lot of legislative power to the federal governmen, it's really just that, it does not grant any executive or judicative power. So, by those means the federal parliament is empowered to make laws - and the federal administration is empowered to just about nothing, as those laws, according to Article 30, are still administered by the state governments, as explicitely stated again in

Article 83 [Execution by the Länder] The Länder shall execute federal laws in their own right insofar as this Basic Law does not otherwise provide or permit.

and

Article 84 [Länder administration – Federal oversight] (1) Where the Länder execute federal laws in their own right, they shall provide for the establishment of the requisite authorities and regulate their administrative procedures. If federal laws provide otherwise, the Länder may enact deviating regulations. [...]

And it's not that much otherwise provided or permitted by the Basic Law, so it's not just "a number of fields" where the federal laws are execute by the state administration - it's the general rule, to which there are some exceptions. In fact, aside from supervisory agencies, very few federal authorities exist at all, and exceopt from military or unemployment services, most peple will hardly ever have to deal with federal agencies.

The same goes with judicative powers, where basically besides the federal supreme courts there are no federal corts at all (though the court adminstration is regulated by a federal law).

--Caballito (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Map position

Why is the main map at the top of the article positioned on the left? It looks really crammed together with the table of contents and the article header. Usually, such a map would be on the top right of an article, like an infobox. -- Imladros (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

This article doesn't really need an infobox, although I am not completely opposed to an addition. But the recently added infobox has several flaws, that should be discussed/fixed first:

• Most distracting, the map is not properly centered, but left-aligned. I am afraid that's a problem between the infobox design and the map template's design. One of those templates (or probably both) could use improving (from an HTML expert) to allow better positioning and alignment in articles.
• The population and size range parameter don't add value to the infobox (imo). They are purely statistical values, which are already covered and easily accessible in the states table.
• The used terminology for states in English and German should be clarified, and just listing all alternatives at the top without any context looks odd and is prone to confuse casual readers.

Point 2 and 3 could probably be solved with a better parameter usage, point 1 needs someone to look into the templates (alternatively the map alone could be added to the right to add a graphical lead component). I have removed the infobox for now pending further discussion and improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The map appears to be centered on my browser, so it's probably not a wide-spread issue, certainly not worth removing the infobox. The population ranges are used at the U.S. state article also, so that seems fine to me. I that the aalternatives is confusing, and that's easily removed. Therefore I'm restoring the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the alt names @BilCat:. Not a big fan of that range information, but let's wait for more opinions. If nobody else volunteers, I'll probably ask at WP:VPT, if someone more experienced can look into the template code about that last display problem. It could be either the infobox or the map or my settings - in any case it's too complex for me :). GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If the map centering issue is widespread across a range of browsers, then I'd suggest moving the map out of the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong term

The sentence "Germany consists of 16 Länder" is wrong! It has to be: 16 German Länder are federated as Federal Republic of Germany. The wrong term means a top down view, the later a bottom up view. The lender are no provinces of the Federal Republic but consists it. The German federated states could exist without the federal republic, but the federation could not exist without the German states! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.104.194 (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

91.37, this is a "chicken and egg" argument. In my opinion, the view you are putting forward takes, a priori, a view that the present länder preceded the federal constitution, which supposes the pre-existence of each länd as an independent/quasi-independent state, well before the BRD. While this is a normal implication of some, perhaps most, federal constitutions (i.e. where some, or even all, constituent states previously had independence), it is just as often a legal fiction that ignores the actual history. Put simply, the länder were not previously independent, before the original BRD (a.k.a. West Germany), let alone the re-united Germany, post-1990 – for which new lander were created out of the old DDR (a.k.a. East Germany). If your argument is that the present länder are the continuations/heirs of centuries-old entities (such as kingdoms), that is an even more dubious assumption, in my opinion (given the geographical and political discontinuities between the various constituents of Weimar Germany in 1933 and the länder of the BRD). It is more accurate to say that the western länder were created simultaneously with the BRD.

Grant | Talk 03:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Need more citations and reorganization

The sourcing problem is obvious for an article of this length. For example, the entire "history" section has only one inline citation. It's really well written and I'm sure all the reference to law and historical events had to come from somewhere. Just hope that it's not copy-pasted from an academic paper somewhere and we had to delete it...

Also, major reorganization needed! I tried to move paragraphs 3 and 4 to the relevant sections, but too much info overlaps so I couldn't fit it in the chronological order. I suggest moving all legal references out of "history" section and streamline it into subsections: pre-WWII, West Germany, post-reuni.

I can really use a subject-level expert editor here. Any thoughts? --Nemoschool (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I also think a lot of this prose should be deleted in favor of redirects to other articles - especially parts about the history of the states, the article seems to be redundant (says the same thing twice in different sections), and the extensive discussion of the history of states on this page makes the page hard to read. I think a lot of this information (especially pre-, say, 1945) could better be used deleted from here and instead put on a separate page (if it isnt already there). What do you think? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Archive these discussions?

This talk page is getting long with old discussions - can we archive it somehow? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not "De Facto"

"De facto" gets a lot of sloppy usage. Strictly speaking, it mean the opposite of "de jure" but people tend to use it more vaguely. I removed a bunch of these from States of Germany, but an anonymous editor put two of them back. These refer to the Nazi abolition of the lander and the Federal Republic's according West Berlin the status of a state. The editor insists that neither are dejure. That is incorrect.

The lander were abolished under the Act Establishing the Identity of the Länder with the Reich. This law was passed without being approved by the Reichstag, but it was still a valid law, enact using Hitler's emergency powers.

The status of West Berlin before reunification was more complicated. Source. The Federal Republic considered it their territory, something the Four Powers never recognized. The Soviets flatly denied the legality of this status, while the other 3 Powers sort of winked at it. West Berlin was a sort of quasi-state under Federal law, but "quasi" is not the same thing as "de facto". Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, in the first paragraph, I read: "Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen (with its seaport exclave, Bremerhaven) are called Stadtstaaten ("city-states"), while the other thirteen states are called Flächenländer ("area states") and include Bavaria, Saxony, and Thuringia which describe themselves as Freistaaten ("free states")." Isn't this a rather insignificant information so early in the lead? Ziko (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)