Talk:Potsdam Agreement

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

2002-2004

There seems to be nothing here but the text of the Potstdam agreement itself. This should be an article about the Potsdam agreement, discussing its implications and history and all that kind of stuff, not a dump of the text. Bryan Derksen, Saturday, April 13, 2002

Well, now that the text has been moved off, wouldn't it be nice to have some article about the agreement rather than a stub, as Bryan Derksen suggessted? Anyway, in the meantime, this change seems problematic:

Initiative Potsdamer Abkommen This is a website of the antifa/inipa group, which was organized by the SED communist GDR German Democratic Republic.

Annotating references isn't a bad thing; there should be more of it. But is this accurate? In fact, exactly what is it? "the SED communist GDR" doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps it's supposed to mean"the SED, successor to the communist party of the GDR"? And even so, we perhaps need some documentation of the connection. The text on the site uses "anti-fascist" pretty heavily, but otherwise is it characteristically the old GDR line? Dandrake 20:58, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the paraphrased information in this article doesn't even match the sources at the bottom of the page. I only glanced over it, but the biggest thing I saw was VII. Austria - where the article here states that Austria should pay reparations, whereas the actual agreement states "It was agreed that reparations should not be exacted from Austria." UltimaGecko (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Signators / Signatories

Hi. Is there a reason why the article uses "signators" rather than the perhaps more common "signatories"? If it is a specific technical usage then fine, though it would be good to know. Likewise if this is just an AmE/BrE thing then fine, let sleeping dogs lie. But if there isn't some good reason for it, would the more common form (if it is) perhaps not read more easily? Do feel free to enlighten me. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, What is the source of the commentary to the text of the Agreement? Some of it is unbelievably childish and obviously someone's pet interpretation. Any (credible) sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.62.223 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)