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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Black Tulip]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch Eastindies and Dutchwestgermanies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expelled Dutch citizens 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hunte or Weser?

message: 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)
thread_title: '...asked Germany...'

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108214521/http://www.npogeschiedenis.nl/andere-tijden/afleveringen/2000-2001/Eisch-Duitschen-grond.html to http://www.npogeschiedenis.nl/andere-tijden/afleveringen/2000-2001/Eisch-Duitschen-grond.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916034724/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS031.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS031.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010220627/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs31.html to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs31.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Obviously non-neutral language - External link