Talk:Allied-occupied Germany

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article content (and name?) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes From Potsdam

message: 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)
thread_title: france

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Policy 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The situation in Germany was dire ?  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Munchen and America (USA) 

message: 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.
:# Can you propose an alternate term to use that accurately and uniquely represents this group?
:# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Negermischlinge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: East Germany - Satellite state of the USSR or not 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in the infobox's history section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Mil Admin article missing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  " Some soldiers still felt the girls were the enemy, but used them for sex nevertheless." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other countries' zones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  End of German Occupation by America 

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing Population Statistics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italy and Yugoslavia, territory annexed by Nazi Germany 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730153721/http://armee.lu/historique/armee_apres_liberation-debut.php to http://www.armee.lu/historique/armee_apres_liberation-debut.php
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) 11:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731081922/http://www.landeshauptarchiv.de/index.php?id=485&printView=1 to http://www.landeshauptarchiv.de/index.php?id=485&printView=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210024250/http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=115015309 to https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=115015309
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) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  French zone of occupation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Polish zone within the British zone 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: This sounds like a good plan. Furius (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Add section "Conditions in occupation zones" (or similar) & move applicable info out of "Occupation policy"?