Talk:Allied-occupied Germany

Austria

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)

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

Austria, part II

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

Article content (and name?)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• History of Germany since 1945
• Morgenthau plan
• The industrial plans for Germany
• History of the European Communities (1945-1957)
• Saar (protectorate)
• Allied Commission
• Allied Control Council
• Allied High Commission
• Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories
• Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe
• Denazification
• Eisenhower and German POWs
• Oder-Neisse line
• Potsdam Conference
• Soviet occupation zone
• Group of Soviet Forces in Germany
• Soviet Military Administration in Germany
• The rehabilitation of Germany after World War II
• War children
• Werwolf

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes From Potsdam

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)

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)

france

"Initially, despite being one of the Allied powers, the French were not to be granted an occupation zone due to concerns over the great historical animosity between France and Germany, as well as the smaller wartime role played by the French within the alliance" hum well actually it was because eisenhower disliked de gaulle and regarded him as suspect (he wasn't sure de gaulle would be a reliable ally vis-à-vis the reds). it was churchill who convinced eisenhower because he feared to have the reds as neighbours since france was the only european continental ally before great britain... imagine a red eurasian continent... (it happens in Casshern)

• • • Actually, it's the funnier bullshit I've ever read. Ike really respected de Gaulle and if it's true that Churchill was a main support of a french military presence in Germany, the Frenchs didn't need any permission to have it : the 1st French Army has conquered the area from French border to Berchtesgaden (Hitler's mansion in the Bayern Alps)***** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.244.84 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • Actually you are wrong because you didn't get the message. DeGaulle was not respected by the Russians and when the Allied leaders decided at Yalta to give eastern central Europe to the Stalinists (and to surrender this part of the European population to their murderers), Stalin told his allies to compensate any French desires within their own occupational zones. 139.139.67.70 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

basically churchill wanted to take retirement in southern france (that's what he did), a thing that would had not been possible with france falling in the reds hands like all eastern europe did before. :) more seriously de gaulle made the free french appeal on 18 june 1940 two days after petain his surrender and he became head of free france de jure... and france fought in 1939 while the US were hailing hitler as cute man of the year in the times, the russians were german allies per molotov-ribbentrop pact just like vichy france so... so? so it can't be a question of time behind this but politics, geopolitics actually, to keep the balance between east and west with france as a buffer state just in case of a soviet western invasion. Paris By Night 08:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Eastern part of central Europe was given to Stalin at Yalta on intend. 139.139.67.70 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nazi" Germany

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)

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)

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)

Was the GDR a "satellite"?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Resistance in Occupied Zones

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)

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)

Policy

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)

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)

"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)

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)

The situation in Germany was dire ?

"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)

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)

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)

What difference

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

Munchen and America (USA)

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)

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)

Negermischlinge

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)

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