This is an archive of past discussions about Konrad Adenauer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A sentence in the beginning of the article states that Adenauers leadership "brought about" Prosperity, Respect, Stability and Democracy for Germany. While I do not dispute that all those things increased significantly or, in the case of democracy were freshly introduced, I think that this sentence is bad science, personal opinion and "unprovable".
In my understanding (and admittedly in my opinion) those values cannot be brought about or achieved, because they do not have set values. China is a little bit democratic, Finland did respect Nazi Germany, Italy is halfway stable and Brazil prospers a bit.
The sentence is sourced, but I do not own the book to recheck the source, and I highly doubt that a reputed author would make such a fishy and easily disprovable sentence.
As I said, this is mostly my opinion, so I would be delighted to hear others comment (Or have someone deliver the original source)
the consensus of the experts is that Germany under Adenauer achieved a level of "Prosperity" "Respect", "Stability", "Democracy" that was quite dramatic. Which element is suspect? doesn't everyone know about German prosperity and democracy? Stability is pretty clear as is worldwide respect. The situation was zero in 1945 of course. So let's go with the experts. Here are some citations: 1) "he (Adenauer) has given Germany a long period of the prosperity and stability" [Portraits of power p 25 by Greenwald - 1961]; "his regime brought prosperity and stability and thus may have contributed to democracy" [Government and politics p 191 by Dragnich, et al 1971, a standard political science textbook]; "it was Adenauer who championed West Germany's transformation from destruction to prosperity" [Konrad Adenauer by Krekel, 1999]; "Under Adenauer's guidance, the West Germans also threw themselves into rebuilding their economy; the whole world soon admired the German 'economic miracle.' As a result, democracy put down roots among the West German people." [Western Civilization p 530 by Perry - 2010, a standard history textbook]; "Germans on the Western side of the Elbe have enjoyed unprecedented political stability, economic prosperity, and genuine international respect." [A history of modern Germany: 1871 to present p 257 by Orlow - 2002, a standard history of Germany here talking about the "Adenauer Era 1949-63".] So we have Reliable Sources RS that clearly support the argument--what opposition experts are there??? Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the situation from where Germany came, it is not superfluous to mention democracy and being a respected member of the community of free states. --Ziko (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That statement is over the top, and un-encyclopedic. It can be debated if Adenauer brought prosperity or USA with its programs regarding the country they held occupied to stabilize the situation. As to respect, Adenauer's Germany was hardly respected by many countries who frowned upon his reintroduction of Nazis into administration and amnesties to Nazi war criminals.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
regardless of MyMoloboaccount's personal viewpoints, the RS as quoted a few lines above are pretty clear. Lines like "hardly respected by many countries" I suppose refers to Soviet satellites controlled by Moscow--it does not refer to the US, UK, France, Israel etc. MyMoloboaccount needs to specify where he gets his information from if he wants to be credible. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is my personal viewpoint that Adenauer declared amnesty for Nazi war criminals and introduced Nazis into his administration? And what's with "Moscow controlled", I don't think any "Moscow control" was needed for Poland to not respect a man choosing people who demanded ethnic cleansing of Poland, as part of his state's institutions.Here's a short part of bio from one of people Adenauer associated himself with:
In the summer of 1937 Oberländer formulated a "divide and conquer" strategy for Poland.[2] Within Poland, ethnic groups were to be directed into fighting with each other in order to prepare ground for German rule.[2] The Poles were to be steered away from opposing Germans and guided into confrontation with Russians and Jews.[2] Oberländer additionally called for elimination of "assimiliated Jewry" which in his view carried "communist ideas".[2] Polish peasants were to be "taught" that they benefit from German "law".[2] In order to win over Poles for the side of German hegemony in Europe, Oberländer proposed that they share in theft of Jewish property.[2] Around 3,5 million Polish Jews and 1,5 million people who were considered "assimilated Jews" were to be deprived of all of their rights.[2] He is considered by some historians to be among the academics who laid the intellectual foundation for Final Solution.[4]
Does association with people like that bring "international respect"? By whose standards?
-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
the government of Israel speaks for Israel, and it developed very good relations with Adenauer. here's a RS: Ben-Gurion was determined to promote his country's improving relationship with the West Germans and his confidence in Adenauer's government was unimpaired. [George Lavy, Germany and Israel: moral debt and national interest (1996) p. 45</ref>
the government of Israel speaks for Israel The above quote focuses on Poland as well. Can you give sources that Poles would respect Adenauer who surrounded himself with Nazis like Oberlander demanding German hegemony and ethnic cleansing in Poland, if only not for "Moscow control" ? I don't think so. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
who knows what the Poles thought--you either agreed with the government or were arrested, and the government was controlled by Stalin, who strongly opposed Adenauer. Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
who knows what the Poles thought Wait-are you saying that for some unknown reason Poles would be respecting a man who elects people that wanted to ethnically cleanse them into government? Because I really don't understand your statement here. and the government was controlled by Stalin, that would hard to do since Stalin died in 1952, only 3 years after Adenauer took power and started reintroducing Nazis into German politics(and amnesting war criminals), and whose power continued until 1963.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
does MyMoloboaccount have some evidence of what the Poles really thought? The USSR continued in charge after Stalin died. The standard historiography is that the Communist government frightened Poles by warning that the Germans would take back the old Prussians lands. In 1956 Poles did try to revolt see Poznań 1956 protests but were brutally crushed by the Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky who was installed by Stalin & controlled Poland's internal security army. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Frightened into what? Not liking a man who openly talked about ethnic cleansing of Poland and forcing Poles unto German rule? That if not for Stalin Poles would respect Oberlander, nominated by Adenauer, and welcome releasing Nazi war criminals? What exactly are you trying to say.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@Rjensen: - just ignore 'em. The arguments that no-one respected Adenauer outside Germany who supposedly massively surrounded himself with Nazis it is just violent OR (if we call this 'research' at all), nothing serious. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!)07:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"Maize stigma"
Adenauer credited his strong health in older age to the use of an infusion of barley water taken at night, but also maize stigma....
— Since in general English usage, outside botany, stigma normally refers to "a set of negative and often unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something," [1] the reference to "maize stigma" will be puzzling to most readers. I gather it has something to do with pollen from what in U.S. English is known as corn. Suggest an alternative phrase be substituted. Sca (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Former Nazi's in Cabinet
I removed this statement:
"Often it is claimed that men involved with the Nazi regime served in Adenauer's administration, though claims about these people's crimes have been repeatedly debunked, e.g. as in the case of Hans Globke."
A bit of an obtuse statement, and I'm interestend in a ref, since I'm taking a whack at Hans Globke.
An obtuse and a dead wrong statement. Globke was a senior bureaucrat at the Interior Ministry for the entire 12 years of the Third Reich, and played a major role in drafting the anti-Semitic laws of the Nazi regime. Sometimes, Globke came up with his own ideas for the legal oppression of Jews. For an example, the 1941 law requiring all German Jews to take the names Israel or Sara was Globke's idea, so it is wrong to say that Globke was just doing his job and following orders. Globke was not a believer in National Socialism, but he was certainly involved in the Nazi oppression of the Jews.I am not unaware of any historian who has "debunked" these facts.--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unreadable prose
I see that pro-Stalinist editor A.S. Brown has been at work here as well, changing a normal Wikipedia article of just above 60,000 bytes into his usual 250,000 bytes (soon to be 300,000?) of unreadable prose and political polemics along pro-Soviet lines (vast parts of the article does indeed look like Cold War-era anti-western propaganda from the Kremlin). This article needs some serious cleaning up. The recommended standard length for Wikipedia articles is between 30,000 and 50,000 bytes. That's 180,000 to 200,000 less than the current article size. The current article is virtually useless to readers, as no one else (other than A.S. Brown) will bother to read more than a fragment of it. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Attacking the editor is not particularly helpful. Focus on content. I see that the content has largely been removed by an IP editor. Largely a moot point but was none of that useful or could it go somewhere else perhaps? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
He's an inventor, too?
Other places in Wikipedia mention he also invented soya sausage "and, together with Jean and Josef Oebel, [coarse] wholemeal bread." Except for the link pointing to German inventors at the bottom, I don't see even the slightest mention of any of that in here. Shouldn't there be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.151.19 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
maybe some-one would like'to include it some-where:
"7.3 million arrived in the Eastern Zone and in the three Western Zones. Six million Germans have vanished from the face of the earth. They are dead and gone."
Chancellor K. Adenauer, "Erinnerungen 1945-1953", p. 186.
--175.144.37.19 (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Jenkins uses "statesman" in the sense of actively engaged head of government , as opposed to nominal head of state (like Queen Elizabeth) with symbolic roles. He compares Adenauer to Gladstone for example. Webster 3rd dictionary: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policiesRjensen (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This article needs to change from an adulation to an encyclopedic article
It also contains errors. One jumps to the eye in the first line: Adenauer as Chancellor of the FRG had no predecessor. He was prime minister of a completely new state, the Federal Republic of Germany which was created by separating the three occupation zones by "Western" powers from Germany. --L.Willms (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Eulogistic phrases like this
He led his country from the ruins of World War II to a productive and prosperous nation that forged close relations with France, the United Kingdom and the United States.[2] During his years in power West Germany achieved democracy, stability, international respect and economic prosperity
Much of it appears pretty mainstream from the perspective of the current political establishment. From my own political perspective, Adenauer was one of the good guys at an important time and place in history: Comrades Walter & Erich were not. But you do not need to agree with me. Balance is good, and if there is something that you think is untrue, feel free to correct it. With a source, please. Opinions are important and, with someone of this level, inescapable. But if there is an opinion that needs a source, say so ... better still add the source. If you need to find some more balancing factoids / quotes from people who were not fans ... I'm sure they exist somewhere. (Though some of the opinions provided through the Neues Deutschland prism might run the risk of taking us too far in the other direction...). Success Charles01 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
No, he wasn't "prime minister of a completely new state", that's utter nonsense (and his title wasn't prime minister either). The Federal Republic of Germany considered itself identical with the German state founded with the 1871 Unification of Germany, and this has also been affirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court. Moreover, in international law and international relations, the Federal Republic of Germany is certainly considered at the very least the successor of that state. For this reason it is bound by treaties entered into by Germany before 1945, and at the domestic level there was of course a clear legal continuity. The idea that the Federal Republic of Germany isn't really Germany seems to be mainly an idea found in some small far-right circles. The sentences you complain about reflect mainstream scholarship and are reliably sourced, and accurately summarize the mainstream perception of Adenauer. --Tataral (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Charles01 and Tataral. The statements are all verifiable & reflect the consensus of reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
What is a.o.?
Sorry, but what does a.o. mean? As in "A.o., he foresaw in very clear detail..." It's not an abbreviation I've seen anywhere else. Grant65 (Talk) 12:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Konrad Adenauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It is written that Adenauer was briefly considered as new German federal president i 1959. I have read somewhere that he turned down that offer, when hearing that Ludwig Erhard was to be his successor as federal chancellor. A mistake, according to Adenauer. I do not know how much correct this is. Perhaps someone can sort it out? Mbakkel2 November 14, 2010 kl. 21:18 (CEST)
Adenauer certainly thought it a terrible idea that Ludwig Erhard should succeed him as chancellor and said so. See the Hilde Purwin entry for a summary (with source!) of an "off the record" briefing he gave on the subject to a favourite journalist.
(I know nothing about any proposals for Adenauer to become West German president. Anyone else?)
furthermore the reliable sources state clearly that Adenauer was the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, which was an entirely new organization and not the same as the old third Reich. see John A. Reed, Jr. (1995). Germany and NATO. p. 27. Rjensen (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The "oldest head of government for a major country"?
The introduction to this page says that Adenauer "remains the oldest head of government for a major country", according to a source published in 2011. However, Mahathir Mohamad has since returned to his old post as Prime Minister of Malaysia, and is currently at the youthful age of 93. Should we change the section on Adenauer's page to read "oldest head of government for a western country", or just delete it altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Li'ljk100 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Phrase somewhat misleading: In fact he never did any army service. Adenauer failed the medical examination, therefore could not join the army. The Prussian Army, to be correct. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Spiegel scandal
The article says that Adenauer was forced to resign after the Spiegel scandal. What confuses me is that this scandal took place in November 1962, yet Adenauer remained Chancellor until October 1963. How can it be that he remained in office so long?
Adenauer did not resign because of the Spiegel scandal (only defense minister Franz Joseph Strauß was forced to resign due to the scandal). He resigned because of a promise made in 1961 (forced upon him by the FDP as a condition to form a coalition with Adenauer's CDU/CSU) that he would resign before the next elections (which were in 1965). The scandal may have put additional pressure on him to keep his promise, but it wasn't the main reason for his resignation.--141.100.201.16 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
