Talk:Weimar Republic

Why are we using Hitler's nickname?

HITLER DOOD and so should be his vocabulary.

The article should be renamed German Reich (1918-1933). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the most commonly known and used name for this period of the Reich, it's teached in school as such too, similar concept to that of Kingdom of the South, taking an example from the post-WWI modern era, I think the page it should keep its current title LiquidLenin (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the article should be renamed something like "Weimar Era Germany" The Official name of the country was just Germany or The German Reich. Both the Weimar Era German Republic and Nazi Germany were technically the same state. I think the naming leads to confusion where people think the official name of the country was "The Weimar Republic"

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with LiquidLenin. Weimarer Republik is the common term even in Germany. There the 'German Reich' is generally considered to span the 3 periods from 1871 to 1945 that are spoken of as the Empire (Kaiserreich), Weimar and Nazi Germany. I suspect that changing this article's name would be what would lead to confusion. Besides, most of its first paragraph deals with the official name as 'German Reich' versus the use of 'Weimar'. GHStPaulMN (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It should remain Weimar Republic, because Wikipedia's WP:Article title policy calls for us to use the generally accepted common name for the title of an article (notably excluding the official name, unless it happens to be the common name as well), and 'Weimar Republic' is overwhelmingly the choice in sources. Mathglot (talk)

Error in Nazi Germany Flag

The German Empire flag is used on the link to Nazi Germany ~2026-20406-1 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

As noted at Flag of Nazi Germany, that was the national flag in use 1933–1935. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Reichstag & Reichsrat

@Str1977 I don't accept your desciption of the Bundesrat source I used to back up the Weimar parliament being a bicameral body as a "mere leaflet" that is somehow dumbed down for English speakers. It is a 72-page document published by the Bundesrat, written by a PhD-holder and in its 15th edition. I can cite the following additional sources that describe the Weimar Republic parliament as a bicameral body:

·      Council of Europe Venice Commission - Report on Bicameralism

·      EBSCO - Weimar Constitution

·      Semantic Scholar - Power distribution in the Weimar Reichstag in 1919-1933 (p. 10)

·      Britannica - Bundesrat (about the current federal system, but if today's system is bicameral, so was Weimar's)

·      National Democratic Institute For International Affairs - One Chamber or Two? Deciding Between a Unicameral And Bicameral Legislature (also about the current federal system)

·      tutor2u - The Weimar Constitution (admittedly not the most impressive source if it was by itself, but it isn't)

A change this important in 3 major articles needs source(s). If none are forthcoming, I will be justified in reverting your edits again.

Comments from any other page watchers out there would be helpful, since this may come to the need for a consensus.

This talk page entry will also appear in Reichsrat and Reichstag (Weimar Republic)

GHStPaulMN (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

As an interested page watcher, I offer the following thoughts: The first editor made changes and provided an explanation in the edit summary but did not offer any supporting documentation to a reliable source. The second editor reverted the changes, reinstating the original language and providing supporting documentation in the form of an official German government document specifically upholding the longstanding prior language. The first editor reinstated their edit and challenged the credentials of the proffered documentation, while again not offering any countervailing supportive documentation to a reliable source. In turn, the second editor defended the originally-supplied source as a reliable source and provided several other supporting references. In my opinion, the original language, now bolstered by several sources, should be reinstated until such time as the first editor is able to provide sufficient overriding documentation to reliable sources that support their edit. Respectfully, Historybuff0105 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Str1977 I plan to revert your edits here and in Reichsrat and Reichstag tomorrow barring a source backing up a non-bicameral parliament. Again, my source from the Bundesrat states on p. 68 "The constitution of the 1919 Weimar Republic stipulated that all state power was vested in the people. That of course meant that the state body that represented the people, the Reichstag (the lower house of parliament), acquired greater political significance. Scope for the Reichsrat (the upper house of parliament) to participate in the legislative process was restricted." GHStPaulMN (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

My objection to this still stands. Your posted source is not an academic source but a elongated infosheet. And you ignore the fact that it does clearly state that Bundestag and Bundesrat (today's instutitions) are separate bodies, not chambers of one body. Only in reference to the Weimar institutions does the source speak of "upper and lower chamber". Didn't you say: "If today's systemm ..."

Several of the sources above are of substandard quality, especially Britannica and tutor2u.net

EBSCO contains several mistakes, not only "a bicameral legislature, comprising the Reichstag and the Reichsrat" (and note that this is not quite "a bicamerial parliament", nor does it identify which "chamber" is upper or lower) but it also speaks of "a president with limited powers": it is one of the features of the Weimar Constitutions that presidential powers almost no limits.

semanticscholar.org is just a PowerPointPresentation, which contains two lines on the subject

venice.coe.int is a good source on its own terms but since it is about internal comparisons on "Bicamerialism" - and the two distinct bodies in German are comparable in some ways - this already views matters from the perspective of comparison (with the obvious outcome). These bodies - past and present - should be seen in their own right. The Weimar institutions are only mentioned en passant. Also note that in contrast to what you propose, the Bundesrat is here called "the second chamber", not some fictional "upper house". (There has been nothing upper about Bundesrat/Reichsrat since 1918.)

The same holds true for https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/029_ww_onechamber_0.pdf (and it also contains glaring errors like "The German Basic Law provides that a political party must attain at least 5 percent of the popular vote to gain a seat in the Bundestag" - that's a matter of mere statutory law, not part of the constitution.)

Your sources like to refer to the Weimar Constitution or the Basic Law of 1949 - but they never cite it to the desired effect. Can you show me either document speaking of a "bicamerial parliament" or of the Bunderat/Reichsrat being part of parliament or of Upper/lower chambers? If you can, I will shut up.

In contrast to what Historybuff0105 wrote, this issue has not been raised yesterday but has been discussed and recitified before, only for some editor to come along and "angli-fy" German institutions again. Germany doesn't follow a Westminster system. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This discussion continued on the talk page of Reichsrat (Germany) GHStPaulMN (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)