Talk:Dutch annexation of German territory after the Second World War

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


Untitled[edit]

The German Wikipedia seems to have made a decent attempt at this article:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakker-Schut-Plan

Stor stark7 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the German Wikipedia we found out, that the so called Bakker-Schut-Plan was kind of unimportant. There were plans for annexations in the Gouvernment of the Netherland, but this Bakker-Schut-Plan was not official or pionting the way. In my opinion someone tried to create a kind of key word for decreasing the German responsibility. (Something like: "Maybe the Germans were bad but the others were to. Look what the Netherlands tried to do with the "Bakker-Schut-Plan".) So I suggest that you change the Lemma to something similar like the German or Netherlandian article, someting like "Plan for annexations by the Netherlands after WWII" and make some changes to the text.
Bakker-Schut was a member of the official Dutch state commission, ordered to specify more general plans: he had the task to work these out in detail. So it was an official plan, in principle part of the official and overt Dutch policy between 1946 and 1949. However, it's true the Dutch government was internally divided over the issue. And we Dutch are of course no better than the other Germans :o).--MWAK 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tulip[edit]

The lede contains a few paragraphs referring to Black Tulip that do not seem to belong in this article, at least I do not see the relevance. However, I am a bit reluctant to just remove it since this is clearly something negative about the Netherlands and I am Dutch. What do other people think?--KarlFrei (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay in, since it characterizes the post-war atmosphere in the Netherlands, which is relevant to the article. (I'm also Dutch btw) On a relating issue: the paragraph about the Black Tulip states that it was the U.S. who retaliated by expelling Dutch people, whereas the article on the Black Tulip states the British military did. The latter is the correct statement as I remember it. Neither article references a direct source on it, but I can probably find one if needed. It's not my article though.. is someone still working on it? Jwortelboer (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Eastindies and Dutchwestgermanies[edit]

I am from the Netherlands bordering german state of North Rhine Westfalia (NRW) and given the sorry state the decades long rule so called of the social democratic party has left us in, I am all for the Dutchwestgermanies.--Radh (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can sombody translate that to english Belgische Annexionspläne nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerkingdom (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled Dutch citizens[edit]

Does anyone have any information about what happened to the 100.000 expelled Dutch citizens? Did Britain expel 100.000 people from their homes and everybody (the Allies) was okay with that? 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertseguer (talk • contribs)

Hunte or Weser?[edit]

The article describes the Weser as the proposed border for Plan A yet the map shows the claims going only as far as the Hunte.--Countakeshi (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Belgian annexation plans after the Second World War — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerkingdom (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerkingdom (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'...asked Germany...'[edit]

In October 1945, the Dutch state asked Germany for 25 billion guilders in reparations....

— How could this be possible, since in at the time no government of "Germany" existed? Presume what is meant is that the Netherlands asked the Allied Control Council for Germany, or some other four-power occupation entity, for reparations. (Interesting sidelight to WWII.) Sca (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch annexation of German territory after World War II. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dutch annexation of German territory after World War II. 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) 02:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously non-neutral language - External link[edit]

Obviously non-neutral language: "Interview with Perry Laukhuff, secretary of mission with U.S. Political Adviser for Germany, Berlin, 1945-49 Describes how amongst other nations the Netherlands tried to grab German territory in 1949" 1) That is only his point of view. 2) He is by no means a neutral observer. "I had an interest in Germany which I suppose was both semi-academic and emotional if you like, or sentimental, simply because my -- well, not simply because -- but my grandparents were born in Germany...." 3) Germany had, quite recently, 'grabbed' ALL of the territory of the Netherlands (and a list of other countries). 4) Reparations are not a "grab". 5) Americans are in no position to judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War 6) America wanted an intact West Germany as an ally against the Soviet Union, and so was in no way a neutral arbitrator. So this is a link to a heavily-biased opinion of very dubious historical worth, and at the very least the description should be neutral in its language. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the article, "...it had already been established at the Yalta Conference that reparations would not be given in monetary form." (Of course, none of these smaller European nations were party to that agreement, none having been invited to the Yalta Conference!) Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are facts, whether uncomfortable to read or not. This not an NPOV issue. RS's can take a non-neutral POV - we report what THEY say.50.111.44.55 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only 'facts' here are: 1) He used the word 'grabs'. 2) He is not a neutral and reliable source of information on the overall situation. So you could say 'his opinions are unpleasant', etc., but it's not correct to frame the situation as 'the facts are uncomfortable'. My point, however, was not that his opinion cannot be taken into account as part of this page (with proper debate and context), but that the language in the description is non-neutral. "Describes how ... the Netherlands tried to grab ...." Does that seriously seem acceptable to you? Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_annexation_of_German_territory_after_the_Second_World_War&oldid=1207065842"