Talk:Berlin Wall/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who is Carolyn Schneider?

Little known protester Carolyn Schneider would often rally for the start of what East Germans generally call the "Peaceful Revolution" of late 1989.

The footnoted website takes me to the front page of www.mauerfall09.de, and that tells me absolutely nothing about who she is and why she is mentioned in the article. There were a lot of "little known" protesters at those demonstrations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.89.233 (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm

After the end of World War II in Europe, what territorially remained of Nazi Germany was divided into four occupation zones (per the Potsdam Agreement), each one controlled by one of the four occupying Allied powers: the Americans, British, French, Africa and Soviets.

Does no-one else notice that five powers are listed? --Muna (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

HAHA! that's really funny, i dont know why i didnt pick that up when i read it --Euge246 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Immediate effects section"

the section currently states that " to describe the wall as simply a barrier to stop 'refugees' escaping would be to ignore its other functions. As was noted with the original discussions with the Soviet leadership, a separation barrier was needed to curtail Easternespionage and insertion of agents into East Berlin/GDR territory and other Warsaw Pact nations. The wall also marked the frontier in the cold war which would likely play a major role in hostilities or the start of a 'Third World War'. The GDR and USSR considered the new West Germany to be largely a militarized puppet state which had not been properly denazified (hence the wall's official name). The wall was a very important move against the economic power of the capitalist sphere, the eurodollar, and of course the 'brain drain' of key workers to the rapidly expanding and well-financed Federal Republic. "

This sounds very much like propaganda (or at least SED-POV - "die Westberliner kaufen unsere billige Butter weg!") and should be marked as such. It is a bit self-contradictory - not "simply a barrier to stop 'refugees'", but an "important move ... against the brain drain of key workers" and is also partially contradicted by the following quote from a 1955 East German publication. The bit about the wall's defense value seems to be OR - in the case of hostilities, how much offensive action could Allied forces in West Berlin have undertaken, and how much would the wall have hindered them? I am a bit inclined to remove the statement one of these days and replace it with some (attributed/referenced) GDR official POV, if I can find any on the net, anyway. Objections? Yaan (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Anything you can do to improve the article is okay by me. Happyme22 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a paragraph "Justification of the wall according to East German sources"? That would be NPOV, and it shouldn't be difficult to source. Anorak2 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

border regime

I don't know if this is discussed elsewhere, but I guess this article lacks a deeper discussion on who could cross the border, and under what circumstances. "East berliners carrying a permit" is of course correct, but lacks any information about under which circumstances the permit was issued (not working anymore, or ...?) Yaan (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is an unsourced mess. Again, I reiterate my stance of "please do anything you can do to make the article better" :) --Happyme22 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some East German train drivers were allowed to cross the border. David Tombe (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

References and Notes sections need merging

Someone made a big mistake and started one of those sections without noticing the other. Is there a deft-handed person who can merge the two sections? --maxrspct ping me 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Split

I propose to split this article into two:

1. one about the Berlin Wall itself
2. one about division of Berlin

The division of Berlin into sectors was a result of WWII, the Berlin Wall was a result of particular politics of one of the WWII winners. Both articles can contain quite different facts, they can link each to other. It seems to be quite reasonable to split the article. Miraceti (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Response section needs year info added

As it currently stands, the section titled "Secondary Response" needs years attached to the dates. The section above it refers to the year 1961, but this should be restated in the Secondary Response section if it is indeed the correct year. --Jarsyl (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Berlin Airlift

There is no mention of the Berlin Air Lift in the article. This was the first attempt to cut off West Germany from the outside. Should it get mentioned in the aelier sections or not? --Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be mentioned, as the underlying intentions were quite different: The Berlin Blockade was more or less about the political status of West Berlin, the wall was about keeping East Germans from emigrating. I also think the effects were quite different, in 1948, the border between East and West Berlin remained open for individuals, but the supply routes were blocked. In 1961, the border was closed for indiduals, but the supply routes remained open. But you might want to look this up yourself, just in case I got some detail wrong. Yaan (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Airlift is mentioned at the time of my edit, and it is quite relevant toward the political history leading up to the building of the Wall. It also explains why Gen. Clay was called out of retirement for the ambassadorial position, why that appointment was such a strong political statement: Clay had ordered the first transport of supplies by air into Berlin during the Blockade, which developed into the Airlift. BSVulturis (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Oder-Neisse line

The map with the four occupying powers has in its caption the line "The territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, under Polish and Soviet administration/annexation are not shown". A bit strange - territories east of the Oder-Neisse line were not part of German any more, so of course they are not shown. Or were these still officially German in 1947, the situation the map is stated to depict? Classical geographer (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a controversial issue because West Germany didn't recognize Poland's annexation of those territories until 1992. East Germany was also reluctant to recognize the annexations, but by about 1950, the Soviet Union had pressurized East Germany into accepting it as a reality. It would have been more interesting if the map had actually shown the areas in question instead of simply stating that they are not shown. David Tombe (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to David's point: According to the philosophy held by West Germany, the annexations were not final under international law until a peace treaty for WW2 had come into effect, which it hadn't. Therefore most maps, school atlasses etc. published in West Germany at the time would show the pre-WW2 border (of 1937, i.e. before Hitler's annexations) in some form. Older maps approximately before 1970 would show it as Germany's state border with the eastern bit hatched and a legend saying "temporarily unter Polish/Soviet administration". Maps from between 1970 and 1990 would usually show the Oder-Neisse line as Germany's outer border, but still feature the 1937 border as a thin dotted line with a legend saying something like "to be settled in a forthcoming peace treaty". The so-called 2+4 treaty of 1990 together with the German-Polish treaty of 1991, in which Germany renouned all claims on these territories, are usually regarded as a de facto peace treaty now. Anorak2 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Yet does this technically correct, but rather political perception of the position of this eastern bit also dictate how we currently make our maps depicting the situation at the time? I believe that's quite unnecessary. Classical geographer (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about it. The eastern border does not strictly belong in the context of the Berlin Wall, except that both belong loosely in the framework of "Germany's post-WW2 border changes". If it's added, it should only be done with a short explanation and links to articles about the Oder-Neisse border and eastern territories, of which there are several. Perhaps that could induce curiosity with some readers. Without such explanation it's pointless. Anorak2 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Kennedy NPOV

There is some anti-Kennedy Administration POV here. It is not true that the Wall prevented families from visting each other. They *already* were prohibited from doing so by the East German government. The Wall just made visits more preventable.

Also, construction of the Wall was actually a concession by the Soviet bloc and a lessening of tension in the Cold War. Until then, the greatest possibility of World War III lay in the prospect that the Soviets would take West Berlin (as they almost did in 1949). Khrushchev referred to West Berlin as the West's "testicles" that he could "squeeze any time he liked". But building a wall was a clear sign that the Soviets had given up on that. If you're going to invade, you don't build a wall in your path. 68.198.150.179 (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[email protected]

I've never before heard of the Berlin wall being referred to as a concession. That is something new. And with the Cuban missile crisis the following year, I can see no evidence that it was accompanied by a lessening of cold war tensions. The wall was not a concession. It was built for the exclusive pupose of stopping East Germans from fleeing to the west. The border between East and West Germany had already been sealed off since 1953, but so long as people could move easily through the centre of Berlin, the border fence was equivalent to a bucket of water with a hole in it. The events of 13th August 1961 corresponded to the East German state being hermetically sealed. After that, split families could only meet on the east side. David Tombe (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Role of Hungary in the downfall of the wall

Classic geographer, your removal of those edits has now left that bit inaccurate and incomplete. First of all, Hungary didn't remove its border restrictions. It removed its physical border defences. Secondly, there is now no explanation as to how Hungary's actions in anyway relate to the opening of the Berlin wall a few months later. We have a gap in the sequence of events which I had supplied and which you have now removed. You have said that the sequence of events that you deleted relates to the fall of the iron curtain, and not the the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was all one single episode in history. You can't segregate the two events as regards the lead up. So what you are saying is, that what Hungary did in August 1989 is relevant, but that the follow on sequence of events which led to the protests in Leipzig are not relevant. What you are saying doesn't make any sense. You removed some good clarifying edits for no good reason.David Tombe (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize that you were quite wrong. Those events were specifically related to the fall of the Berlin wall. The fall of the iron curtain generally, came in the aftermath of that. David Tombe (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I feel you are quite right to have included it. Sorry for having taken it out in the first place - I was not aware enough of the context of the text you added. Keep up the good work! Classical geographer (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Classic geographer, that's fine. It was an interesting six months that cumulated with the Romanian revolution. The details surrounding the actual November night itself are quite interesting. I heard that ambiguous instructions where circulated to the border guards, and that rumours also circulated which caused large numbers of people to go to the wall. I believe that some people were allowed out, but that then the instructions changed again. I'd like to get all those details sorted out. It was a kind of floodgate situation in which they were trying to hold the floodgates closed after they had already been opened a little bit. The subsequent high publicity stand off caused the East German government to cave in. The fact that Gorbachev had recently told East Germany that they were on their own, was a major contributing factor in the boldness of the protesters at the stand off, and also in the lack of any aggressive action by the border guards that might normally have been expected in such circumstances. The winds of change had been blowing since Hungary dismantled its border defences in the summer. I was quite amazed to see the scenes on the ten o'clock news of border guards lining the top of the wall. Having seen the wall in full in operation, one would never have believed that such scenes could ever have happened. David Tombe (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article says that Hungary removed their border defences in August. In fact, they started dismantling them in May 1989, and only completed the task in August: people had been crossing large unblocked sections of the border since May, so the 'august; date is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"28 years and 1 day"

The wall separated East Germany from West Germany for 28 years and 1 day, from the day construction began on August 13, 1961 until it was dismantled beginning in late 1989 . . . .

Eh? The first event mentioned in "The Fall" was on 23 August 1989 (in Hungary), and dismantling began in the following June. —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say dismantling started after Nov. 9th, when additional breaches were created for new border crossings. For example, I think the wall at Brandenburger Tor was opened in December 1989 (22nd?). Yaan (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the exact date, does anyone seriously say it was August 14? —Tamfang (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Yaan (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The official dismantling the wall started in June 1990, border controls ceased on July 1. In Nov 1989 they merely constructed a number of new border crossings, while technically leaving the wall intact and guarded. They even repaired the holes in the wall done by individuals ("wallpeckers") during winter 1989/spring 1990. Nov 9 1989 is the "fall of the wall" only in a symbolical sense, as on that day it lost the purpose it was originally built for. It's all in the article already. :) Anorak2 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"shooting in public places" ("Escape attempts"/Peter Fechter)

This reads rather ambiguous - the wall was definitely not open to the public. Maybe what is meant are places that were visible from the west? Or does this refer to photograph or film shooting? Yaan (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"emigration westwards in the 1940s"

The article currently states "After Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, the majority of those living in the newly acquired areas of the Eastern Bloc aspired to independence and wanted the Soviets to leave.[4] Before 1950, over 15 million immigrants emigrated from Soviet-occupied eastern European countries to the west in the five years immediately following World War II." The source for the second sentence is given as Anita Böcker, Regulation of migration, p. 207. This seems to be a bad misrepresentation: p.207 gives a table of population movements in Europe after WWII. i.e. Germans being expelled from (post-war-) Poland, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poles being expelled from territories that became Soviet after WWII etc. Neither were most of these people moving voluntarily in any reasonable sense of the word, nor does the source claim all of them emigrated to "the West". That is, unless you understand East Germany, Poland etc. were parts of the west.

Just a minor point, all of this also does not seem very related to the eventual erection of the Berlin Wall. Yaan (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence, "Taking advantage of this route, the number of Eastern Europeans applying for political asylum in West Germany was 197,000 in 1950, 165,000 in 1951, 182,000 in 1952 and 331,000 in 1953,[6] One reason for the sharp 1953 increase was fear of potential further Sovietization with the increasingly paranoid actions of Joseph Stalin in late 1952 and early 1953." seems to confuse East German "resettlers" (official German title: "Uebersiedler") with East European asylum-seekers. If we look at data from people who are probably a bit closer to those events (click!, p.3), all of the given numbers seem to refer to "Uebersiedler", i.e. people from East Germany who made it to West Germany. Those people were not asylum-seekers who would be treated as temporary immigrants and basically be at the mercy of the authorities, those Uebersiedler were, by the Grundgesetz, full-blown citizens of the FRG (in case anyone is wondering about the difference to those "Aussiedlers" mentioned elsewhere in the table: Aussiedler were ethnic Germans too, just from elsewhere in Europe, not from East Germany. No asylum-seekers either).

A small graphic on the number of asylum-seekers can be found here ("Asylsuchende"). I guess one can see that their numbers are considerably lower than the numbers given above. Yaan (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, though it contradicts the source.

In the future, if you'd like to discuss changing the words "asylum seekers" to "resettlers," please do so on the Talk page and do not engage in policy-violating deletions of entire sourced sections.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not about words, it is about plain wrong peaces of information, one by you, one by an apparenty inferior source. I don't think removing such stuff violates any WP policies. In this case, I even wrote a lengthy explanation before removing anything. Yaan (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My impression is you don't even understand the problem. Time to get a wider involvement. Yaan (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence reads pretty much exactly out of Bocker now and the second sentence reflects the source virtually word-for-word, and no longer uses the term "asylum-seekers", just to avoid issues with the categorization of the emigrants between sources. This was a very easy fix. Please don't just delete sourced sentences wholesale when they can very easily be fixed. Also, your impression about my understanding of the issue is incorrect, and please avoid such characterizations of other Wikipedia editors in the future.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that very few of those 1945/1950 population movements had anything to do with those people's dislike (or not dislike) of the Soviet Union. And that a considerable part of those 15 million people remained in countries that were (to become) satellites of the USSR. As written above, I don't even see how this could be reasonably be relevant to the Berlin Wall.

The other problem is that People that were counted as Übersiedler came from a very specific area, not the whole Eastern part of Europe. They emigrated/defected from that area to West Germany, they did not just move within West Germany. I know that my source linked above contradicts your source. I guess this is because your source is not very authoritative when it comes to the topic of this article. Yaan (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that all 15 million emigrated out of the Eastern Bloc -- in fact it was changed to very specifically NOT say that to be all inclusive of those moving westward at all. I just changed the second sentence to not state a point of origination, so there shouldn't be an issue there either. On the other hand, the mass deletion of the entire section earlier was simply entirely inappropriate. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you keep on confusing deportations that went purely along ethnic lines (nowadays one would probably call this "ethnic cleansing", back then the word was something like "population transfer") with political emigration, and fail to show exactly how those deportations are related to the Berlin Wall. Yaan (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The stats from the Bavarian ministry I linked to above is now supposed to be a reference for "Taking advantage of the zonal border between occupied zones in Germany, the number of Eastern Bloc persons moving to West Germany totaled 244,283 in 1950, 186,715 in 1951, 186,441 in 1952 and 339,086 in 1953.". But not only are the numbers given not contained in the document, the document does not even talk about "Eastern Bloc persons" - it only deals with ethnic Germans. I guess that is what is really bizarre here! Yaan (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should probably be doing something about the title... unless it's someone's sick idea of an April Fool's joke. 58.34.79.165 (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagram of the security zone to the east of the wall

This article would be much enhanced by the addition of a diagram showing a small portion of the wall with typical security zone behind it as it existed in the late-1960s through the early or late 1980's. I recall the east-side security zone to be several hundred metres wide, beginning with the wall, an unmined access road for vehicles and dogs, a wide minefield that included numerous lines of tank traps, watchtowers every 1000 metres or so, manned with machine-gun armed guards. Is this historically documented in verifiable and durable media? If so, a small diagram would be most helpful. I will add a tag to the article to request a diagram. N2e (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dollars vs Marks

Hi all. In the following text from the article:

Walter Ulbricht later claiming that West Germany owed him $17 billion in compensation, including reparations as well as manpower losses. In addition, the drain of East Germany's young population potentially cost it over 22.5 billion marks in lost educational investment.

Both US dollars and marks are used. Does any one know the conversion rates and stuff so we can keep it consistent. It'll be good if you can compare some of this money figures. Unfortunately, I have neither of the sources that were cited, so I don't know if these are inflation adjusted figures or what the conversion rates may have been. Cheers! - Akamad (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

lk[rhgkl;gf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.72.26 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be a greater event if the BRD did pay up. Then we would all concider the BRD to be a bunch of softies. Ofcourse he would cite his calculations in DDR banknotes, but that only goes away from the point. If "the point" exists, it would land in an arbitration court.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

Video with Reagan's speech

This site: [[1]] has the Ronald Reagan's speech, claiming for the end of this wall.German Democratic Republic was this wall; nothing more than this wall.Agre22 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Encircelment?

Did the wall completely encircle West Berlin? The two aerial diagrams seem to imply opposite conclusions, so I'm confused and the article needs to be clearer. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If it hadn't been a full circle it would have been easy to circumvent. This satellite photo shows only the central area of Berlin. You can assume the yellow line to continue outside the photo through the Western, North Western and South Western suburbs to complete the circle. Anorak2 (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Satellite image of Berlin, with the wall's location marked in yellow

Thanks. I've added an explicit statement to that effect to the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

i just wanted to add that this artical is well built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.237.227.200 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is "OK" but could be improved by adding links and more footnotes and getting rid of some bias. Oh and remember to sign off your writing so other people know who you are.--Euge246 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout and Modifications

Good information in the original article; very helpful. I did note, however, that the narrative implies the Wall was uniform in its construction (unless I missed something somewhere, which is entirely possible). From my experience at the Wall, it appeared the construction was, very logically, varied according to the nature of the threat it faced at any given location. For example, in front of the Brandenburg Gate, it was lower, several feet thick--presumably to defend against a vehicle penetration attempt, as it barricaded a through-street from Unter den Linden through to Strasse des 17.Juni--and lacked the top roll-bar. However, at other locations (e.g., the access road to Steinstucken) it was much thinner, taller and had the roll-bar. This would foil a more likely attempt to scale it, rather than crash through it. I do have photos, if that would help.

The top roll-bar was constructed with a high ratio of asbestos, presumably to soften its contact with the pure concrete of the vertical wall and keep it from cracking. It was not only rounded to make grasping more difficult, but also fitted loosely over the top of the vertical wall so that it would shift with a would-be escapee's weight, making it that much more difficult to maintain one's grip (hence, my use of the term roll-bar).

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I stand willingly open to correction.

KatiaM (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)haha:P

Ronald Reagan

There needs to be a link to an article of Ronald Reagan if there is one. When people read this article and see the name "Ronald Reagan" many of them will not know who he is. Please edit this so everyone who doesn't know who he is can from then on know. --Euge246 (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

That is what Reagan said in public. Behind the scenes, he told his staff: "I wish this wall would stand forever, it will keep the Germans down." And Bush sr. did what he could to stop the reunification of Germany (but of course not in public, where he was in favour). M. Thatcher backed both, Reagsn & Bush. Indeed, Gorbachev and the French were the only big players who supported Germany. As a matter of fact, most Germans learn about this special part of our history. <cynic>Thank you, America!</cynic> --84.141.38.204 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your argument, references listed in the Wikipedia article, "Reunification of Germany", show France, not the US, as opposing German reunification (not that I could blame France, or anybody for that matter, considering all the corpses and ruin the Germany ppl inflicted upon other Europeans).99.96.39.248 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Indeed, Gorbachev and the French were the only big players who supported Germany. As a matter of fact, most Germans learn about this special part of our history."

Hilarious. I would kill to see any "text book" claiming this, mostly for it's comedic value. I would imagine this section would follow that describing the faking of he moon landings and preceding that describing the the demolition of the world trade center via secret explosives. With perhaps a smattering of the Rothschilds in each.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.200.35 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, what was the point of having Reagan trying to bankrupt the Soviet's in an arm's race and, especially, of persuading the Saudi's to sell oil at a price that would make the selling of Soviet oil unprofitable (if not a loss), thus further driving the USSR's economy into the toilet and, thereby, making necessary the reforms of Gorbachev and, ultimately, the fall of the Soviet Bloc? As for the French, they had--and still have--much more of a reason to keep Germany down than the US did, for by having Germany reunified they essentially made themselves Germany's beotch. Anyway, I have a German colleague that I asked about this nonsense and he said only a small minority of far-left wing dumbasses buy into this (btw, I'm a liberal myself). Besides, why would Reagan and Bush want this anyway? At a purely cynical financial level (which ppl like yourself think sums up the thinking of everyone except those you support), wouldn't opening up East Germany to US trade be a huge plus?99.96.38.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Mistake

I believe some one put and i qoute "the walls erection" , I believe some one should put something else atleast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.233.241 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is there a mistake? Walls are properly technically erected. Do you have a problem with erections? Besides that, you made a mistake of leaving out the apostrophe from wall's. Alandeus (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Do you have a problem with erections?" great quote there. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GDR

Realistically, shouldn't we call it the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik)? I realize that we speak English, and we don't call Japan "Nippon," and such, but for countries that don't exist anymore, their official names sound better. Of course, that's just my opinion. Discussion? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more commonly known as the GDR in English (East Germany is, although completely unofficial, even more common, which is why our article is named such). Would you also prefer "SSSR" over "Soviet Union" or "USSR"? —JAO • T • C 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Baby wall

The "baby wall" is only mentioned in an image caption, which is confusing. Also, the caption seems to be the same as in the Brandenburg Gate article, where it makes more sense. Surely by "visitors" it refers to visitors to the Gate, not to the Wall itself? That's not clear from what we have here. —JAO • T • C 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably 'baby wall' is what East Berliners called the wall on their side of the death strip. If true the article should say so, at the very least. --Ef80 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Role of Pope John Paul II

According to Lech Waslesa, the main honour and credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall belongs to Pope John Paul II and it is wrong to say it was the work of former Soviet president Mijail Gorbachev. The role that the pontiff played in the events of 1989 should probably discussed somewhere in the article. [2]][3][4] ADM (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be getting too speculative. Alandeus (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Schabowski a catholic? Yaan (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with it? In any case, probably no: Leading East German government officials tended to be non-religious. Alandeus (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering what kind of influence John Paul II could have had on East Germany. It's not like East Germany's population (except a certain part of Thuringia, ha) is as fervently catholic as Poland's is. Yaan (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lech Waslesa was just politely deferring to Pope John Paul II concerning the liberalization of Poland itself. There was a good deal of impetus in the East German reform movement from churches however, but they were Protestant – hardly under any influence from the Pope. If at all, this topic would best be addressed in the article on German reunification, not here for the ol' Berlin Wall. Alandeus (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reforms and pressure put on the Communist system in the Eastern Bloc by the Solidarity movement--which was strongly aided by Pope John Paul II--made possible the rise of Gorbachev and, thus, all the reforms he engaged in. Without a Solidarity movement (and Afghanistan and Reagan...and Andropov dying) there probably wouldn't have been a Gorbachev and the Berlin Wall wouldn't have been torn down. Sadly, most Germans still thing they're superior to Poles and would never in a million years give them credit for their own freedom.99.103.228.211 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all participants in this discussion feel very sad now. Or guilty. Anyway, this discussion is not so much about Poland and the solidarity movement as it is about the pope. "strongly aided one important factor" does not sound exactly the same as "the person that carries most of the responsibity", or was it meant to? Yaan (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Need for copyedit?

Much of the article reads as if it has been written by someone who speaks English as a second language (which is almost certainly the case, given the subject matter.) The article would be improved if somebody with English as their first language and German as their second could go through it and copyedit it. Although perfectly understandable, much of the text reads oddly. I haven't gone as far as adding a copyedit tag to the article though. --Ef80 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for the "Fall of the Berlin Wall"

Hi. Considering the length of the Berlin Wall article, and more importantly the significance of the event of the fall or breach of the Wall, I am wondering whether we can have a separate article on the events leading to as well as the actual event itself. The second half of the Berlin Wall article can virtually be made into a new article with minimum editing. Slleong (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose.

Although it extends it, the fall of the wall is an integral part of the story. You don't leave out the finale. Would you leave out the final chapter with the solution of a crime novel to publish it separately? Alandeus (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. What I meant was for the Berlin Wall article to still have a section on the Fall, albeit a shortened one which still captured all the significant moments. I just thought we could have a separate "Fall of the Berlin Wall" main article which would detail everything which led up to its checkpoints opening and ultimate fall. A separate article would also allow better photo play; the current article seems a bit cluttered with pictures.Slleong (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

I hope more people will add this article to their watchlist. This edit has only just been reverted today by another IP. Jared Preston (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ss project

i need more info on the berlin wall for a project worth 400 points —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davitasaun (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Crossings and Usage Picture

Should we be concerned at all about the "The famous You Are Leaving sign" in the the official crossings and usage section? To me, it seems that the article suggests this is the official, original sign. These signs are replicas.

Would it be more appropriate to use a photo from the 60s/70s/80s (if one is available)? Or should we at least note that this is not the original sign?

Jayfr (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The events leading up to the fall of the berlin wall have been unfairly summarized in some political circles as, simply pressure from the Reagan adminisration to tear down the wall. When actually the very brave and defiant ciitizens of the eastern bloc who stood up in the face of the soviet communist machine for there rights and beliefs are the true heros. The solidarity union in Poland made popular after the first Polish pope Pope John Paul ll stated that the people of Poland should form a united front when the next economic crisis happens. Hungary opening the iron curtain to Austria and allowing people to cross over freely and into Germany because of the centuries old relationship with the Germans, proved to be a major blow to the eastern bloc unity. Charlie Wilson single handidly supplying money to the CIA in the largest monetary covert operation to date to supply arms to the Afghans. This action turned the tide of the war and forced the Soviets to abandon previous doctrines, mostly because of the high casualty rates, the cost and effect on the economics of Soviet Union. They decided to enact the Sinatra doctrine and let countries do it there way. People who don't know the history should not be allowed to tell others Reagan tore down the wall. It's a true slap in the face of all the people who lived and died for freedom during the cold war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.234.101 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)