Talk:Allied-occupied Austria

this doesnt make sence: The "thirty-second decision" of the Council of Foreign Ministers to grant South Tyrol to Italy (September 4, 1945)
South Tyrol had already been awarded to Italy in 1919 as part of the Versailles Treaty ending World War One - that's probably what the "thirty-second decision" of the Council of Foreign Ministers was all about i.e., simply verifying a legal decision in international law decided in 1919. Since Italy had "changed sides" in WW2 and finished the war on the side of the Allies it was pro forma that they would get to keep their ethnic German Austrians in South Tyrol (of course, ethnic Germans that relocated there during WW2 were another matter). If Italy had NOT changed sides, then they would have likely lost South Tyrol back to Austria (which at the time was "Occupied Austria"). Since Vienna was in the Soviet Zone it didn't take much for the Soviets to install their preference for heading the eventual new version of the Austrian rump state (Austria was a rump state dating from 1919).

To repeat: ethnic German South Tyrol was awarded to Italy following World War ONE as a War Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Role of Figl
I would not know why Figl was “just barely acceptable by the Soviets”, as found out in 2009. At that time we Austrians jugded jokingly that Figl’s strength against getting drunk from Vodka softened the Russians and they sympathized with him. It was popular belief that we owe Figl for our liberty. – 5.146.166.4 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC) (Austrian, 75). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs). Sorry for missing signature: Fritz Jörn (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Rape
Why aren't the rape crimes mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.204.188 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems very strange that the section on the Soviet occupation that discusses, or rather mentions, sexual violence and other war crimes against civilians focuses on the effect on the reputation and morale of the perpetrators rather than the impact on the victims. Is there a reason the discussion is being framed in this way? It seems counterintuitive, to say the least. Particularly distasteful, again, to say the least, is the instance where the violent rape, murder and plunder of civilian populations are euphemised as 'misbehaviour'. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)