Talk:Allied-occupied Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austria[edit]

A separate article is needed for the Allied occupation of Austria. It is nice having the map of occupied Austria here, but it really doesn't fit - 52 Pickup 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I've gone and made a separate article: Allied-administered Austria. - 52 Pickup 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austria, part II[edit]

Why was Allied-occupied Germany succeeded by todays Austria? ChryZ MUC —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Article content (and name?)[edit]

This article can be a lot more that what it currently is. There is no article on the English wiki that truly covers Germany 1945-49. It is a very important time in the context of the end of WW2 and the start of the Cold War. A complete discussion of this period would place subsquent events (Berlin blockade and Airlift) into the right context. The German wiki article de:Deutschland 1945–1949 is quite comprehensive. Instead of just using this article to describe the zones, I propose that this article become the one to properly cover 1945-49 Germany. In doing so, perhaps the name should be changed to something like Allied-administered Germany or something like that. Comments? - 52 Pickup 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on Germany 45-49 is clearly needed, but I would not favor using this as a launching pad. I think this should remain focused on the political organization of Germany during the occupation. Respectfully disagree. Unschool 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But this article needs a serious workover, not sure what to do about it, though. I have also created articles for the German subdivisions created at this point that no longer exist: Greater Hesse, Württemberg-Baden, South Baden and Württemberg-Hohenzollern. - 52 Pickup 07:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments. There is a need for an article (possibly two) that deals with Germany during the Allied occupation. On this I agree. However, the dates for such an article would have to be 1945-1954, since it was not until then that West Germany gained anything close to full sovereignity. Using the date 1990 might be pushing it but it was not until then that the peace treaty was signed, and the allied occupation of Berlin ended. The article would have to be full in scope and cover pretty much everything, much as Nazi Germany covers the period 1932 - 1945, Weimar Republic covers 1919-1932 etc. The natural starting point for such an article would be to use material from or connecting to articles such as:

--Stor stark7 Talk 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes From Potsdam[edit]

From Chapter 22 “Potsdam” of the book I WAS THERE by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (“The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Based on His Notes and Diaries Made at the Time”). NY: McGraw-Hill, 1950: “The Big Three, finally, on this fifth meeting, took up the explosive issue of the western frontier of Poland, and a long and unpromising discussion followed. It developed that Stalin had given to the new Poland, from Russia’s agreed zone of occupation, territory [to the Oder and Neisse rivers]. Churchill contended that this area contained one-third of the arable land in prewar [1937 boundaries] Germany, plus vast treasures of mineral wealth. In fact, Stalin had concluded a treaty with the new regime on April21, 1945, at the very time the commission set up at Yalta was trying in Moscow to agree on the reorganization of the Polish Government.

Both actions had been taken by [the Soviet Union] without consultation with the [Western] Allies. Stalin tried to say that he had not exactly given Poland a zone of occupation but had permitted it to ‘assume the necessary functions of government therein.’

This actual transfer of German property had stopped effectively any useful progress by the Tripartite Reparations Commission, which had merged its sessions into those now taking place at Potsdam. This Soviet unilateral action had precluded the possibility of the population of Germany subsisting on German agricultural and industrial effort. [Stalin] made no admission of error in his assignment of this Germany [sic] territory to Poland, although it had been repeated over and over again at Yalta and agreed in the Crimean protocol that Poland’s western borders would be settled at the peace conference. The Soviet leader just said flatly that the arrangement he had made could not be changed.

The President made a strong statement that the territory in question must remain a part of Germany for reparations and settlement of the whole German problem as had been agreed at Yalta. He would not recognize the [Soviet] proposal to fix Polish boundaries at Potsdam . . . ” (p. 406)76.14.217.231 (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin had become so powerful at the end of the war that Churchill stated" We have slaughtered the wrong pig". Stalin used his chance to occupy Eastern Europe to enforce Communism.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

france[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a forum! The Talk Pages are here to improve the article by the discussion of Reliable Sources. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox! Removed as violating Wiki policy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi" Germany[edit]

The term "Nazi Germany" may or may not be a US term, but if so, then start out making your point by changing the name of the article, Nazi Germany. As long as that article exists, and no one else is complaining, I don't see any problem. Plus, it helps to clarify things, since "Germany" was defeated in two world wars in the same century. Unschool 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the claim in the edit summary that the term "Nazi Germany" is only used in the US is wrong. This term is the most common name used worldwide in the English language to describe 1933-45 Germany. This has also been discussed umpteen times over on the Nazi Germany article, so good luck trying to change the name of that article. - 52 Pickup 17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the map of the occupation zones cannot be named "Occupation zone borders and territories regarding former Nazi Germany", as the map clearly reflects the borders of the Weimar Republic which were created by the World-War-I-Western-Allies in 1918. This needs to be changed in any case. Additionally, within the French occupation zone, new "republics" were established the the "colonial" French adminstration, such as a "republic of Fribourg" which almost reflected the old county of Freiburg im Breisgau. 139.139.67.70 (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Nazi Germany" also inherently kind of gives the Germans a break, in that, it blames WWII/Holocaust on the Nazis, not the general German populace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.3.67 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans are, and were, pretty much like people everywhere, some good, some bad, and a great many who are too busy trying to lead their lives in peace to care much about anything else. The German people were very unlucky in their choice of governments, as they are as a rule a very law-abiding people who do as they are told by persons in authority. When bad laws are made they tend to obey them nonetheless, whether they agree with them or not. It should also be borne in mind that Hitler's government made disobeying orders in many cases punishable by death.
Many German were Nazis, but not all of them. It should also be born in mind that a large number of the unfortunates that died in the death camps were in fact German citizens.
So no, not all Germans were Nazis, although unfortunately for a time the rest of the world had to treat them all as if they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.233 (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the GDR a "satellite"?[edit]

I am placing this material, transferred from my talk page, to the discussion page here, since it concerns a topic of general interest. The only change to Seth Whales's post is that, to save room and make this more readable, I have removed his lengthy detailing of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR.

Allied Occupation Zones in Germany

Hi, just to let you know that citing another article (Satellite state), which also has NPOV problems (i.e "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" is hardly a reference to be used on another Wikipedia article).

Therefore the GDR being a satellite of the USSR is only an opinion of yours and others, just as my opinion is that Saddam Hussein was a puppet stooge of the USA (when the US told him to invade Iran and kept on supporting him) up until (foolishly) he invaded Kuwait, without the okay from the CIA first, thus making him the most dominant player in the region, something that the West could not tolerate, etc etc etc. I have my opinions like you have yours, but neither have a place on Wikipedia. Calling me "naive" should not be a way of replacing the principal policies of Wikipedia.

Allied Occupation Zones in Germany must be cleaned up to comply with the above 3 principals (NPOV, V, and NOR).

Seth Whales (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the GDR and other eastern European states were puppets of the USSR is indeed my opinion. It is also the opinion of the vast majority of persons who enjoyed sentience during the Cold War. A denial that eastern European states were under the thumb of the Soviet Union, with all respect, equates to a denial of the geopolitics of the Cold War. Is it really necessary to fill that little caption box under the map with the hundreds or thousands of citations that one could come up with in an instant to verify that the GDR was a Soviet satellite? Even Vladimir Posner has disappeared from the airwaves; the fact of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe is simply not something most people question today.
I'm going to assume assume good faith and not take your listing of principal Wikipedia policies as a patronizing insult (though you might have checked and found that I have been an editor for over two years, and would therefore likely have long ago learned about such policies). Also, I'm not going to revert right now (assuming that you made the change; I haven't looked yet), because you are clearly sincere in this position of yours. I'm open to discussion, and suggest we take it to the talk page of the article concerned.Unschool (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That a POV tag is located on an article does not necessarily mean that that article has "problems"; it means only that at least one editor has alleged that that article has problems. So I went back and looked into the history. The POV tag was placed by longstanding editor El C, just about six months ago. And why did he place it on the article? Because, at the time, the article only discussed satellites in the context of the Soviet Union. He did not challenge the fact that those states were satellites (though, given his apparent leanings, it would not surprise me all that much if he did so). Accordingly, I think that the way I included the wikilink within the caption on this article was wholly appropriate. Unschool (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, that article (Satellite state) really is a crappy article. But the primary problem is not POV. First of all, it is pure OR—something that should be easy to correct. It is also just poorly written. That second section—why does it even exist? I'll try to get around to it sometime. Unschool (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance in Occupied Zones[edit]

In light of the Iraq War it would be an interesting addition to the article to describe what post war resistance if any occurred in occupied post war Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edkollin (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the article you requested in the "See also" section. If you are interested in the topic you may want to contribute the requested section yourself. I can reccomend that you read the book by Perry Biddiscombe "Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946." University of Toronto Press (1998).
Biddiscombe convincingly shows that the resistance was neither very strong nor well organized, especially in the western zones, although he argues that it was in both the Western Allies and the Germans interest to downplay what resistance there was, so there was more activity than other authors want to think from official reports. The stronger resistance was in the eastern sectors, but that was relatively quickly snuffed out with draconian retaliation against civilians and with the ethnic cleansing for annexation purposes that the Poles and Russians conducted in their occupation zones, that in the end left the resistance fighters without a support base. On the other hand the motive to resist was higher while it lasted. If I remember correctly, Biddiscombe mentions that while the Poles and Russians were in the process of ethnically cleansing Stettin and bringing in Polish settlers to replace the Germans, they were also systematically starving the remaining German population in the city, leading to 1,000 deaths per week in mid 1945. Biddiscombe gives this as an example of a possible motive for continued German resistance against the Polish and Russian occupation forces.
From your stated interest you may also want to take a peek at a newer book: "Occupational Hazards: Success and Failure in Military Occupation" (Cornell University Press, 2008) by Professor David M. Edelstein. He argues that it was, in fact, the fear of Soviet invasion and occupation that led the western Germans to accept occupation by the U.S., Britain, and France. He also argues that historically, the pattern of failed/successful occupations are best explained by whether such a third party threat was present. Remember that the German people were shit-scared of the Russians, but the Americans were not necessarily very nice people either, and neither was their early occupation policy. As former U.S. President Herbert Hoover stated in March 1947 in a situation report from occupied Germany:
"There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."[1].
Good thing for the U.S. that bad as things got in the Western zones (see this example], people at least though they would get even worse with the Russians there. Cheers--Stor stark7 Talk 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy[edit]

Why is individual behaviour of soldiers listed under policy ? If there is no evidance showing those actions as ordered policy this needs to be removed.--Molobo (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Policy regarding legal matters and non fraternization policy is very relevant. Allied troops activities in the occupation zones is also relevant, if you want I can move part of it into a new section entitled occupation practices, but considering the undeveloped state of the article I don't see a pressing need for excessive fracturing of it just now. By the way Molobo, how come you appeared here and at two other articles I had recently edited? Especially here where you have never edited before? Are you stalking me again? Do you think this in keeping with your permanent ban parole? --Stor stark7 Speak 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Allied Policy regarding legal matters and non fraternization policy is very relevant." Source ? By the way Molobo, how come you appeared here and at two other articles I had recently edited? I saw your edits on reliable sources noticeboard and was wondering if you added something. Is there any problem ? Allied troops activities in the occupation zones is also relevant Source ? And source that it was planned policy. Btw the article is interesting, but lacks some information for example Soviet efforts to stop the plague of prostitiution that lowered the morale of soldiers in their zone.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC) --Molobo (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replied to you above, you're not exactly doing yourself any favors just now you know.--Stor stark7 Speak 20:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in Germany was dire ?[edit]

"The food situation in occupied Germany was initially very dire" Very dire ? Compared to situation in where ? Whole Europe was starving, in part due to mass murder of milions of humans in agricultural regions of Europe like Poland and Ukraine by Germany. Was the situation dire compared to other food situations in that period ? The calorie intake is much higher then the one in German occupational regions, if we want to compare.--Molobo (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slice and dice it anyway you want, but the potential extermination of 25,000,000 Germans by starvation fits the description "dire": From above "Resistance in Occupation Zones": "As former U.S. President Herbert Hoover stated in March 1947 in a situation report from occupied Germany:

'There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.' " Note: By March 1947 the deliberate starvation policy in western parts of Germany was almost two years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANRC (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German population had to feed 15 million expelled "Volksdeutsche" from mainly Poland and Czecholoslovakia and give them shelter in bombed cities after World War 2. These people were considered as strange and not welcomed at all. The expellees had bear the main burden of the lost war, although the Sudeten Germans e.g. could not even vote for Hitler. They lost their homecountries, their property and their culture of 800 years.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What difference[edit]

What is the difference between Allied-occupied Germany and Allied occupation of Germany? 98.119.158.59 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munchen and America (USA)[edit]

Hi, my wife was born in Gunsberg near New Ulm in January 1948 in hospital, out of a US Displaced Persons' camp. When trying to re-new her Australian passport, she was questioned about putting Germany as country of birth. So we looked up the history and it seemed to conform.

It brought about an interresting thing tho': As a 9 year old I stayed in Munchen in the (BayerRicherHoff) hotel in the suit that Hitler addressed the millions from (balcony). Looking out from this balcony was only ruins (in 1953) except I think you could see the RattHause where Chancellor Hindenberg was shot (or was he?). The Town center was intact behind us and wonderful concrete shell and glass structures were being built to replace the single level shops to the right. Still at the back was the fantastic new railway station that took the inter-country double-decker sleeper trains.

We talked with the British High Commissioner there and I understood he had been there since the end of the war (in charge). The railways and new shops, we understood were German inventions and paid for by them, as was the frighteningly functional police (politzi). The article about US zone is at variance with this, so it would be interresting to verify which version is closer to truth.

Is there anybody left alive who can realy say?

Cheers Verrier 218.101.74.61 (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well... In 1945, Munich was completely in ruins, as the the city center was destroyed by bombs. The reconstruction took about 2 decades... Hindenburg was neither shot, nor was he ever living at Munich. Hitler did not adress millions at Munich. A town hall is a "Rathaus". 139.139.67.70 (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One point, while the Nazi stadiums held many people but indeed not "millions," it's arguable that Hitler did address millions of Germans from there via radio broadcasts.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negermischlinge[edit]

Neger isn't a politically correct word in German, hence Negermischling isn't either. I think we should find another word! This is very insulting (by now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.128.180.2 (talk)

Political correctness isn't one of the goals of Wikipedia, on the other had I doubt that being gratuitously offensive is either.
  1. Can you propose an alternate term to use that accurately and uniquely represents this group?
  2. Was the term used at the time in question? If it was then keeping it as an historical artifact may well be the right thing to do, for at least the first occurrence, with the more current term used thereafter. This means that someone who is searching Wikipedia to find information on an obscure term they have encountered can find the article. Kiore (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know...maybe "multi-ethnic" or "mixed race" - "Menschen gemischter Herkunft" is the correct German term. 91.128.180.2 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC) unni[reply]
I have rephased this so that we do not use the word. I think it is appropriate to mention that the offensive word was used (and to translate it into a similarly offensive term). It would probably be appropriate to have citations to confirm the percentage and the use of the term.--Boson (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-In historical articles it is ok to use contemporary terms, rather than editing things out of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.242.155 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: East Germany - Satellite state of the USSR or not[edit]

A Request for Discussion has been started on whether East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) should be described as a 'satellite state' of the former USSR. Please see: Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Editors are welcome to comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, what sort of discussion would that be? It's an established, historical fact that no amount of revisionism is going to change.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the infobox's history section[edit]

In the German Democratic Republic entry, it reads "October 7, 1949 (joined the Fed. Rep. of Germany on October 3, 1990) 1949".

What is this superfluous "1949" doing there, I have no idea. I also have no idea how to fix this, as the source code doesn't give a hint as to what could be the problem. 188.55.60.164 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Mil Admin article missing[edit]

Wikipedia misses articles American Military Administration in Germany/American occupation zone/American Army of Occupation in Germany. Lacking expertise, I had real hard time to find the OMGUS page necessary (but not sufficient) for my refs.

The same for British and French.

compare: Soviet Military Administration in Germany/Soviet occupation zone.

Can anyone write those? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" Some soldiers still felt the girls were the enemy, but used them for sex nevertheless."[edit]

Are you sure this line is good for Wikipedia ? It's not exactly encyclopedic tone and link for source is broken . Anti Propagandist (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. To the extent that the sentence is not redundant, it adds nothing useful to the article. --Boson (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries' zones[edit]

Hello
I'm no expert, but I believe that Belgium (see here) and Luxembourg (see 1)also had areas of occupation within the British and French zones (respectively) which had their own military presence. Obviously "sub-zones" without the profile of US, British and French, but still worth a mention? --Brigade Piron (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right Brigade Piron! Belgium and Luxembourg had small occupation zones within the French and British zones. I also heard somewhere here on Wikipedia that the Netherlands also had a small occupation zone of Germany that was also part of the British Zone. Another thing I heard was that the Netherlands also annexed a small part of Germany after the war but gave it back later. Poland had an occupied part of Germany, but it was annexed into Poland after the war due to the Soviet Union now controling the country. 24.147.1.197 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley[reply]

Polish occupation-zone is definitely missing from the maps. The same goes for Kaliningrad/Königsberg/Ostpreußen, that was partially annexed by the Soviet Union, partially by Poland, and today is in part a part of Russia. The Poles also nominally controlled the southern part of Soviet-Occupied Berlin, even though I am not sure about how long this lasted. Information in scarce on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.0.182 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End of German Occupation by America[edit]

I was a GI in Bavaria about 1961-1962. We were told one day that we were no longer an Army of Occupation but _______ . Clearly this pre-dates the 1990's. Shortly after this I was given a speeding ticket by a German cop (deservedly) even though the car I was driving had American Armed Forces plates on it. So when did the occupation end? In phases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:E80:678:1022:2A55:A16A:E10D (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Population Statistics[edit]

Considering the 1939 Reich census vs 1946, subtracting Austria, 10 million Germans have disappeared. Wikipedia is vague on number of those perished in the battlefields vs. during the occupation with breakdown by causes for the latter. This article is the first place one would look for at least a link to another Wikipedia article on this. The events right after the capitulation, the Soviet or Western policies such as the Morgenthau Plan, and conditions in the Soviet or U.S. camps for Wehrmacht soldiers caused more casualties than the French zone this article only mentions. Also discussion about the Soviet zone in general is too thin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.128.195.243 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italy and Yugoslavia, territory annexed by Nazi Germany[edit]

During World War II, Nazi Germany annexed most of modern-day Slovenia in 1941 to be affixed to the Ostmark (Austria, itself joined to Germany ion the Anschluss), and, with the capitulation of the Kingdom of Italy to the Allies, parts of northeastern Italy. Of course these annexations were not recognized by the Allies and were undone promptly. At the least, Nazi Germany annexed parts of Italy that had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Hitler refrained from taking territory from Italy until Italy changed sides during the war, but the late (and short-lived) annexations were real. There is some ambiguity about Venice, but none about Alto Adige or Trieste.

A well-meaning reversion in good faith may need to be reverted. Pbrower2a (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allied-occupied Germany. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Allied-occupied Germany. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French zone of occupation[edit]

I have reverted the attached edit:

"Despite its being one of the Allied Powers, the French Republic was at first not granted an occupation zone in Germany. Later, however, the British government recognised the role of France during World War II in Europe, and agreed to cede some western part of it’s zone of occupation to the French Army.[1] This created a French zone of occupation in the westernmost part of Germany. It consisted of two barely contiguous areas of Germany along the French border that met at just a single point along the River Rhine. It included the Saargebiet, which was disentangled from it on 16 February 1946. By 18 December 1946 customs controls were established between the Saar area and allied occupied Germany. The French zone ceded further adjacent municipalities to the Saar (in mid-1946, early 1947, and early 1949).{{citation needed|date=January 2015}"

This is not accurate; and the cited source does not support it. See below from Jessica Reinhisch 'The Perils of Peace' oup 2013. TomHennell (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"France had a zone that made little structural, political, or economic sense. The French occupation territory was created out of areas formerly allocated to the British and American zones. The Americans retained key cities such as Stuttgart, and key infrastructures such as the motorway between Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, and Munich. The French area contained several Länder whose capitals were outside the zone (Karlsruhe in Baden, Stuttgart in Württemberg, and Cologne in the Rhineland). Only one city, Ludwigshafen, had more than 100,000 inhabitants. Despite being the most rural zone, it was far from self-sufficient. French leaders, aware of these shortcomings, periodically attempted to revise the boundaries. In March 1945, de Gaulle urged his commanders to trump the Americans by arriving first in the south-western territories. Successful in the ensuing race, de Gaulle then refused to hand over Stuttgart to the Americans. This battle ended in a political debacle: French troops were forced to clear out of the city, and French–American relations barely had time to recover before discussions in the ACC caused more serious and permanent disagreements."

References

  1. ^ Capet, Antoine (14 October 2011). "Finest Hour". Churchill Archives. Retrieved 18 February 2018.

Polish zone within the British zone[edit]

Please add a source for the section on Polish troops in the British zone, and elaborate, if possible. I’m not challenging the verifiability, but there should be a source, and the section does not mention an end date or discuss the important issue of the conflict between the Polish government-in-exile and the Soviet-backed leadership. What happened when Britain withdrew recognition of the government-in-exile? Were the troops considered British or Polish? Roches (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of websites that could provide citations and further details : https://polishhistory.pl/to-this-day-strong-memories-remain-in-the-netherlands-about-general-maczek-and-his-men/ https://www.historycampus.org/2015/european-opportunity-gone-wrong-polish-troops-in-germany/ TomHennell (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left-hand traffic in the British occupation zone?[edit]

Topic moved to Talk:Left- and right-hand traffic#Left-hand traffic in the British occupation zone in Allied-occupied Germany?

Add section "Conditions in occupation zones" (or similar) & move applicable info out of "Occupation policy"?[edit]

The current “Occupation policy” section seems to contain a lot of information that has less to do with Allied policy/administration than with general conditions. Would anyone be opposed to creating a new section labeled “Conditions in the occupation zones” and moving that sort of information into that section?

I would then add a tighter overview to the “Occupation policy” section that focuses on the Allied approach to their zones—currently writing this up. Trellbailey (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good plan. Furius (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is done! The new "Occupation policy" section relies pretty heavily on a single source and could definitely use more info, but now that it's actually about policy matters + has a framework in place I hope it will be easier for people to expand and add info/sources to the relevant subsections. :-) Trellbailey (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allied-occupied_Germany&oldid=1216449497"