Talk:History of Germany (1945–1990)

Untitled
B-class PKKloeppel (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Merging is a terrible idea. It forbids the expansion of this article because a section can only be so long. AdamBiswanger1 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Provided that the content is focused, and relevant, then the length of a section is irrelevant, and long sections can be justified. I guess you were talking the GDR merge, right?? However, that is NOT what I'm going to propose here... (RM21 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

I move that the article West Germany is merged. The reason for this is simple. It is the same country as modern-day Germany: the state created in 1949 continued to exist after 1990; the East simply merged with it. It does not need another, separate article to explain its history. More to the point, the West Germany article contains v. v. little original information. In fact, almost all of the article is already contained within this article. (RM21 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
 * How about a few paragraphs on that article, and then a separate article for both East and West Germanies. AdamBiswanger1 22:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're thinking of by 'a few'. There are more than a few paragraphs here already, but I think they should stay, not be cut down at all - because they provide insights, and context. I don't think you need new paragraphs to explain the same things, unless they need to include some information that would otherwise be missing after the merge.
 * East Germany still needs its own article, because it was a separate, internationally-recognised state (and also from the historical point-of-view); although the West was all of these things, it never ceased to exist, like I pointed out, so should only require one article. (RM21 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Misunderstanding. I'm talking about this:

AdamBiswanger1 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean taking info OUT of this article, into the others?? Well, the East Germany article is v. v. detailed, so I don't think that would need editing, really. But the other might... I still don't agree, though. I think it needs to be reverted into this article. (RM21 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Personally, I really like the article West Germany, so I don't want to see it merged. Two reasons: Chanheigeorge 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'm somebody who have no idea what the term "West Germany" means, I can read the intro of this article to know the meaning very concisely. Obviously if I'm interested in more history, I can click on the various articles, including History of Germany since 1945. If this article were to be merged, I would have to read thousands of words in some other article just to get the answer I need.
 * Even though West Germany and Germany are politically both the Federal Republic of Germany, geo-politically (for lack of a better term) they're different. I mean, look at the map of West Germany in this page: it's different from the map of Germany, right? People call FRG from 1945-1990 as "West Germany", and FRG since 1990 as "Germany". They have different meanings and deserve separate articles.

I can see what other users are saying.. but dont merge it. The pre-unification Federal Republic needs it's own article and is to big, distinct and important -it should have its own history section should have 'daughter' history articles.. The DDR article deserves to exist on it's own and both should be hyper-linked to a condensed version in this History of Germany since 1945 article. When it comes to West Germany it is interesting to note: " the Four Powers did not surrender total sovereignty to the Federal Republic until just before the reunification.". 45 years is a long time. -- maxrspct  in the mud  20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose to the merging. Way too important not to have its own article. If I type "West Germany" in the search box I would like to get an article. - ChaChaFut 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be merged; it's as worthy a topic as anything related to 20th Century history. Merging would only prove to limit the scope of the topic on Wikipedia.Syferus 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, detailed and separate information like this is better than having just the main points of the articles together. Vicer 11:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Oppose merging". West Germany was a distinct post-war state, placed by circumstances in political juxta-position to East Germany. This reality was a defining issue during its existence. West Germany played a critical part in post-WWII history and the history of the second half of the 20th century in its own right.Ekem 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarise and link, don't merge
The problem is that the title History of Germany since 1945 covers way too much ground. This entry should be used to give an overview of the period, not contain everything that has happened to Germany since WW2. Given that, this page should summarise and link to certain periods, not merge everything here. This page is already rather long. Adding more content would not be a good idea.

There are, to me, 5 clearly different stages of post-1945 German history


 * Occupation and Division
 * West Germany
 * East Germany
 * Reunification
 * Modern Germany

The first of these stages does not have an entry of its own, and I think it should. We need an article entitled History of Germany 1945-1949 or Post-WW2 Division of Germany or something like that - similar to the German entry Deutschland 1945–1949. Such an article, covering the period where Germany was simply an occupied territory, divided between the members of the Allied Control Council, would then fit in nicely between Nazi Germany and the separate states of East and West Germany.

This period, where there was no East nor West Germany, is an important period in history, even though it is only 4 years long. Within this period, events such as the Berlin Airlift and the Soviet departure from the ACC will then have a clear place.

After this 1945-49 entry, the individual entries for East and West Germany then follow. These two states were independent states and deserve to have separate entries, just like all other historical states.

The section East-West Relations does not fit in just one entry elswehere, so placing it on this post-1945 page is ideal.

To fix all of this up would require a lot of work, but in the end it would be worth it. — 52 Pickup 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should rename it "Partition of Germany" or something along the lines "Partition of the territories of the Weimar Republic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.173 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger conclusion
There is no consenus above for a merger - in fact a majority opposed to a merger. I'm removing the tags. Mark83 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

expulsion of ca. 11 million German civilians, and the death of ca. 2.1 million more
It's a point of view of some Germans. Xx236 12:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) and a matter of fact!

The contributor was 136.199.8.128. Would he be so kind to sign his texts in the future? Xx236 08:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The estimates of looses of many groups (German soldiers, victims of bombings) have been changed many times. The number of victims of the expulsion is the difference between the total number of Germans and the sum of numbers of other groups of victims. The BdV propaganda keeps to claim the 2.1 million.

The best researched expulsion of Sudetendeutschen: "die Opferzahlen, die für die Vertreibung der Deutschen aus der Tschechoslowakei vorgelegt werden, zwischen 30.000 und 270.000 Personen schwanken", so proportionally the 2.1 million should be replaced by "between 200 000 and 2.1 million".

The article says "A transfer of the 15,000,000 Germans" - so 11 or 15?

Xx236 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of expelled Sudeten Germans is 3 million. Every objective history book confirms this. 15 million Germans were driven out of their home countries altogether, after often 800 years there. So why fumble with figures of victims.--92.229.14.161 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

expulsion of ca. 11 million German civilians, and the death of ca. 2.1 million more.
And your source is? Xx236 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is outrageously biased and should be deleted or atleast properly edited.. It appears to say that 2.1 million deaths resulted from the expulsion which is absolutely incorrect. The total expulsions include Germans who fled from the oncoming Red Army, from the Baltic countries, Romania, Sudentland region of Czechoslovakia and of course those resettled from the area taken over by Poland. The deaths, whatever the correct number did NOT result from the expulsion, BUT from the flight during war operations, whether bombing, strafing, sinking of evacuation ships on the Baltic sea, starvation, and no doubt some just murdered by mobs or advancing army units.

Syrenab 14:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to find actual statistics as I am not close to a major reference library. However from references in the German Wikipedia, I find references to the transferred population from the provinces annexed by Poland as folloes: Schlesien 1.35 million. The TOTAL population of Ost-preussen in 1939 was 2.65 Mill; of Meumark-Brandenburg 645,000; Pommern 2.4 million. In addition Sudetenland TOTAL population 3 million. Assume that 80% was transferred (close to 20% was Polish or Czech). Add all this up and the result is 8.3 million. I suppose the rest came from all of the remainder of eastern Europe (Lithuanai, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia.

Syrenab 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Syrenab, I suggest that you read the article "Expulsion of Germans after World War II", the reference to which you for some obscure reason removed from this article and replaced with a link to the German language one. In the English-language article you will find all the references you could possibly need in the "References" section and in the "External links" section. --Stor stark7 Talk 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you are Swedish, I have always considered Swedes to be very balanced and thoughtful people. That is my I am amazed that you revert to a CONTENTIOUS statement,  I repeat:

>The deaths, whatever the correct number did NOT result from the expulsion, BUT from the flight during war operations, whether bombing, strafing, sinking of evacuation ships on the Baltic sea, starvation, and no doubt some just murdered by mobs or advancing army units.< Therefore I delete this statement. As to the total number resettled, whether as a result of flight before the onslaught of the Red Army (Sources generally agree on a number of about 5 million) or subsequent expulsion under the Potsdam Agreement,  there is considerable discrepancy between different sources, but it appears to be about 3.325 million from Poland and Ostgebiet annexed by Poland, 3 million from Czechoslovakia, 0.25 million from Hungary, 0.15 million from Romania. Thius all adds up to some numbewr between 11 and 12 million. And I am using some of the sources you mention, particularly the very detailed discussion in Working Paper of European University Institute, Florence.


 * You question why I use the reference from the German Wikipedia rather than the one in the English Wikipedia. The article in the English Wikipedia is written laregely by UNREGISTERED writers, which are suspect because they refuse to identify themselves. The German article "Vertriebene" is written by registered editors.

Syrenab 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The American Alfred Maurice de Zayas is a member of the UNO and expert of the expulsion of Germans after World War 2. He is absolutely unbiased.--92.229.14.161 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Civilian Deaths due to Occupiers
I have found research in the past showing that Germany suffered a large loss of life due to punishment, negligence and incompetence by the occupying forces following WWII; something that is completely separate from the numbers dealing with ethnic cleansing (euphemized as expulsions) of Germans in former eastern territories. I have noticed no mentioning of anything here … is there properly referenced material out there regarding this? Nonprof. Frinkus 08:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're after. But here are some examples of what is available on "Western Germany". As primary sources you have for instance
 * Herbert Hoover's 1946 - 1947 factfinding mission to Germany. (Report No.1), (Report No.3)


 * "The high cost of vengeance", 1948 By Freda Utley, available for download as PDF (14MB)


 * The Journal of a Retread; The observations, problems, and comments of a food and agricultural officer in Military Government in World War II Col. Stanley Andrews U.S. Army (Retired) Alamo, Texas 1975 (A siseable chumk of the book deals with Germany)

Af for secondary sources I would suggest:


 * Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe Available as MS Word for Windows file (3.4 MB) (the result of the conference on Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe held at Duquesne University in November 2000.)

The sections:
 * 1 Section: by Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II pp. 274 - 288

and
 * 2 Section by CHARLES M. BARBER, ''The Isolationist as Interventionist: Senator William Langer on the Subject of Ethnic Cleansing, March 29, l946 pp.244 - 262.

As well as the PDF Report available for download from this page.
 * The Road Ahead: Lessons in Nation Building from Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan for Postwar Iraq, by Ray Salvatore Jennings May 2003, Peaceworks No. 49, United States Institute of Peace

A snippet from the writing of Richard Dominic Wiggers. In the end, tens of millions of Germans lived through at least several years of malnutrition and deprivation in the wake of the 1945 surrender. It is unlikely that any historian will ever be able to calculate how many civilian deaths can be attributed—either directly or indirectly—to the prolonged suffering that prevailed in postwar Germany. What is certain is that many more POWs and civilians suffered and perished than needed to in the aftermath of World War II, and that the victorious Allies were guided at least partly by a spirit of postwar vengeance in creating the circumstances that contributed to those deaths.

For a comprehensive study of the applied economic policies in both "West" and "East" Germany I would suggest as reading
 * Money and conquest; allied occupation currencies in World War II. by Vladimir Petrov

For what went on the the half of "Eastern Germany" that was not annexed by the Soviet Union and Poland I would suggest
 * Norman M. Naimark. The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. Harvard University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-674-78405-7

Then there's book such as
 * John Dietrich, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (2002) ISBN 1-892941-90-2 (Deals fairly comprehensively with the entire situation from the tentative begining of the creation of an Allied occupation policy ca 1943 through the occupation to ca. 1949. He also includes issues such as the Allied use of German forced labor.

The Jewish Brittish humanitarian Victor Gollancz wrote a string of books. I have not read any of them, but the titles of a few texts sound intresting. E.g.
 * Our threatened Values (1946)
 * In Darkest Germany (1947) (mentioned in this article)

I expect The Swedish author Stig Dagermans book "German Autumn" (Tysk Höst) would also be intresting reading. --Stor stark7 Talk 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank-you very much for pointing me to even more great material :-) … you are the best! Before doing any edits here, I will extract information in a proper fashion after going through most of this material and some of my own.  Looks like in addition to the expulsions, there could be another few million casualties to be added on that might need to be mentioned.  I was shocked in one of the books to read "The Morgenthau Plan for the pastoralization of Germany, had it been carried out, would have constituted the greatest act of genocide perpetrated in modern times … since their soil is incapable of supporting more than the present agricultural population, at least thirty million people would have died of starvation."  Though the occupiers did lots of neglect and many mistakes, and cost countless lives (if only people did not start WWI for nothing, which was all it was), it could have been worse is some people had their way.  Nonprof. Frinkus 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. As regards the Morgenthau plan, well, Morgenthau himself acknowledged in 1947 that the policy of de-industrialisation of Germany that was still being carried out then was in fact the Morgenthau plan. There is for instance the Potsdam conference where the Allies reached an agreement that Germany was to be reorganized with primary emphasis on agriculture and peaceful domestic industries. In early 1946 agreement was reached on the details of the latter, Germany was to be converted into an agricultural and light-industry economy. German exports were to be coal, beer, toys, textiles, etc — to take the place of the heavy industrial products which formed most of Germany's pre-war exports. (James Stewart Martin. All Honorable Men (1950) pg. 191.) Then you have the Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067 JCS 1067 ,which grew directly out of the Morgenthau plan, which prohibited the U.S occupation authorities to help the Germans in any way save for agriculture and in fact was hoped would lead to the further deterioration of the German economy. It was in effect until July 1947 when General Marshall citing “national security” as grounds finally managed to get president Truman to rescind it. Marshall seems to have feared that the Germans would turn to the communists for help. On March 20, 1945 President Roosevelt was warned that the JCS 1067 was not workable: it would let the Germans "stew in their own juice". Roosevelt's response was "Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!". Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, "Why not?".(Michael R. Beschloss, The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1941–1945, pg. 196.) General Eisenhower, the first commander of the U.S. occupation zone was in fact a champion of the Morgenthau plan and distributed 1000 copies of Morgenthaus book “Germany is our problem” which detailed Morgenthaus vision for Germany, to his subordinates. ( Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect, p.422.) Nice way of giving an order without actually having to put something in writing…  Now Morgenthau was kicked out of office by Truman fairly quickly, but that does not seem to have done much difference to policy. Anyone that dared to complain about the harsh treatment of the Germans was automatically branded as a Nazi sympathiser by the Morgenthau people that seemed to permeate the U.S. bureaucracy. Vladimir Petrov shows in his book how the so called “Morgenthau boys” sent out by the U.S. Treasury to Germany worked very hard for the first two years of occupation to dismantle or otherwise destroy as much German industry as possible by interpreting JCS 1067 as harshly as possible. The British were apparently more sensible than the U.S., but since they were financially very weak and dependent on U.S. goodwill they seem to have gone along with US policy for the most part. Petrov concludes that "The victorious Allies … delayed by several years the economic reconstruction of the war torn continent, a reconstruction which subsequently cost the US billions of dollars." Funnily enough it was the British that were the last to stop dismantling German industry in 1950. possibly in an attempt to get rid of competition on the world markets. Seems they were pretty much forced to stop dismantling. I don’t know the value of the physical material destroyed or taken out of Germany, but there was also plunder of other sorts. Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years the U.S. pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. John Gimbel comes to the conclusion, in his book Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 Billion dollars, (equivalent to around $100 Billion dollars 2006, by my estimate). (Norman M. Naimark The Russians in Germany pg. 206) Compare that to the Marshall plan reconstruction aid which was extended to also include Gernamy in the years 1949-1952 and which totalled $1,45 Billion dollars ($14,5 Billion dollars 2006). And that was in the form of loans instead of free the aid received by nations such as France and the UK. I’ve written a bit about U.S. food and forced labor policy in Eisenhower and German POWs, I suppose that as those subsections are fleshed out with more text and additional secondary sources they should be made into articles in their own right. If you have the time to spare I can recommend reading some truly primary sources just to get a feel for what was going on. The [Truman Presidential Library has placed a huge amount of "oral history" interviews with government officials online, for example: Interview with E. Allan Lightner, Jr. LIGHTNER: Well, to us those months between V-E Day and mid-'46 seemed a long time. That's when much of the dismantling was taking place. It was a crucial period when much time was being lost in restoring the economy and our group in CE found that we were being opposed at every turn by those who wanted to carry out literally the provisions of JCS-l067. You know, Jimmy Riddleberger was the one who sweated out this whole business of dealing with the Civil Affairs Division of the War Department during the days of planning for the occupation of Germany, and also later on in dealing with the Kindleberger group. MCKINZIE: You look at the period between the Morgenthau plan and the Marshall plan, one of which represents a "salted earth" policy, and the other an industrial development policy. The question of historians who are always concerned with pinning things down to precise things inevitably comes down to: what was the turning point? Was there any particular event or any absolutely crucial time period in which the change from the Morgenthau plan to the direction of the Marshall plan was made? LIGHTNER: I think it was fairly gradual. I think the military had their directives based, as I said before, very much on the philosophy of the Morgenthau plan, the basic JCS-l067.

Then there’s the absolutely fantastic UK National Archives that makes available such stuff as transcripts from war cabinet meetings. transcript 1, transcript 2,  transcript 3,  transcript4

For example from transcript 3. In the meeting on May 18th 1945, the U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill discusses the amount of German labour they will request for use in the British agriculture. In the meeting on June 11th 1945 they discuss the provisions made for Slave labor in the Yalta conference protocol, and how many slaves the Russians should get.

Directive takes a/c of that, but shd. state it specifically. b) Also wd. like to omit last sentence in para 15. If we count against R. claim the labour they take, we cd. get the total figure up to $20 billion. $16.000 m. value cd. be assigned for 4 m. slave labour.
 * Ch. a) Only reparations worth havg = G. export markets.

At Yalta R. made it clear tht. their claim was exclusive of labour.
 * P.M.

Have fun and sorry to have gotten so long winded, guess I got carried away....--Stor stark7 Talk 21:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

EU
"Germany has been arguably the centerpiece of the European Union (though the importance of France cannot be overlooked in this connection)." is this not biased towards Germany and France? I see no reason to mention any other EU country in this, especially overlooking other big nations like Britain. Is Germany arguably the center? Would it not be better to say its at the center, not the center, there are other big players too.

Germany and France are the motors of a united Europe. It is the memory of a violent past and the confirmation of a great friendship now.--92.229.14.161 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is this Richard Dominic Wiggers guy anyway?
Details about allied mismanagement, or deliberate punative measures against the German population (The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II), seems to just come from this one source, and is repeatedly used in other articles (Eisenhower and German POWs, Allied war crimes during World War II).

Sorry, but who exactly is this Wiggers guy anyway? I've Googled different permutations of his name, and I haven't come up with any website that suggests he is a credentialised historian with a published track record.

Does the original writer have any details on Wiggers, or a more established historian who can confirm these details? Much of the article is predicated upon the one guy. Kransky (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's lots of pertinent data from multiple sources in Morgenthau Plan which precisely address "Allied mismanagement/deliberate punative measures against the German population" . . . See in particular the sections "JCS 1067" & "Implementation".


 * Repeating from above section, Civilian Deaths due to Occupiers

Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe Available as MS Word for Windows file (3.4 MB) (the result of the conference on Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe held at Duquesne University in November 2000.). . . Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II pp. 274 - 288


 * Also, "Richard D. Wiggers" can be googled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"WIGGERS, RICHARD DOMINIC, Ph.D., holds a B.A. in History and Journalism from Carleton University, an M.A. in History and International Relations from the University of Ottawa, and a Ph.D. in History and International Law from Georgetown University. He has worked as a Senior Historian with the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section of the Canadian Department of Justice (1987-93) and as a research consultant on native lands claims (1993-94). Since 2001 he has been employed as a Senior Policy Analyst coordinating university policy for the New Brunswick Department of Education, and he continues to teach university courses on World War II and Popular Memory, Modern War Crimes, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Dr. Wiggers has won numerous scholarships, awards, and research grants and has published several dozen chapters, articles and book reviews. The article that he contributed to this publication is derived from his Ph.D. dissertation (2000), which is entitled 'Creating International Humanitarian Law: World War II, the Allied Occupations, and the Treaties that Followed.'" (Published in Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: "Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe" Columbia University Press, (2003) ISBN 0-88033-995-0)

Richard D. Wiggers contributed Chapter 10 "From Supreme Authority to Reserved Rights and Responsibilities: The Institutional Legal Basis of German-American Relations" in Detlef Junker, Editor, "THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY IN THE ERA OF THE COLD WAR, 1945-1968 - A HANDBOOK, Volume 1", Cambridge University Press, 2004. (It's on Amazon.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

European Union is missing
The integration process and the level of involvement needs to be described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.102.206 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing expulsion of Germans from Poland and Soviet Union, from the Sudetenland, and from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Romania, was authorized by the Allies in Potsdam
1. The following statement should be changed in the article, "The ongoing expulsion of Germans from Poland and Soviet Union, from the Sudetenland, and from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Romania, was authorized by the Allies in Potsdam . . ." The Potsdam Agreement stipulates, "The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner."

2. Also, the following is from the Wikipedia subject "Potsdam Agreement": "Because the Allied Occupation Zones in Germany were under great strain the Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary were asked to submit an estimate of the time and rate at which further transfers could be carried out having regard to the present situation in Germany and suspend further expulsions until these estimates were integrated into plans for an equitable distribution of these "removed" Germans among the several zones of occupation."

3. Proposed restatement: "The ongoing expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, Poland (to include the assigned Administrative Territories of most of Eastern Germany beyond the Oder-Neisse Line), and Hungary, was authorized by the Allies at Potsdam . . ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The expulsion was authorized by the Potsdam Conference in 1945 indeed, but especially Czechoslovkia and Poland had wanted to get rid of their large German minority long before. In Potsdam Stalin put Britain and America under pressure. Churchill stated " We have slaughtered the wrong pig"--92.229.14.161 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Which Germany Was "Reunited" in 1990?
In an attempt to avoid "extraneous commentary", maybe someone will step up and announce precisely which "Germany" was reunited in 1990? Here's a clue: it wasn't the "Germany" of, for example, April, 1945, namely the Germany which the victors considered as precisely defined by Germany's 1937 borders (Note: the Germany within the 1937 borders was the Germany that the WW2 victors used as the only template from which to carve up "Germany"). Did the victors create a new "Germany" in the summer of 1945, namely "Occupation Germany"? ("Occupation Germany" was the Germany of the 1937 borders minus all German land east of the Oder-Neisse boundary). The outer boundaries of "Occupation Germany" ended up in 1990 coinciding precisely with the "reunited" Federal Republic of Germany (Saarland notwithstanding). If the victors did in fact create a new "Germany", then that 1945 created "Germany" (AKA "Occupation Germany") only existed until 1949 (when the separate countries of West Germany (BRD) and East Germany (DDR) were announced to the world). . . so, is it the case that the "Germany" reunited in 1990 was the "Germany" that only existed in history between the years 1945 & 1949 (AKA "Occupation Zone Germany", or stated another way, "the four occupation zones of Germany taken together")? BTW: There wasn't much "unity" in the 1945 to 1949 "Germany", since the 4 victors were all busy going their separate ways ... until Bizonia happened, which was followed by Trizonia. . . but Trizonia never reached across into the Soviet Zone. . . so, the 1945 to 1949 "Germany" (of a precise land area that had never existed before being precisely defined as "Germany") was somewhat schizophrenic. . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda in en.wikipedia.org
This reads like just another grievance article written by German nationalists (or crypto-nationalists) who cannot get their views accepted in the German-language wikipedia. What would be the parallel article in de.wikipedia? Feketekave (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you jump in & point out specific examples of limitations in the article? Stating facts in so doing would be an asset.  Use of the phrase "reads like" would be a good lead in to a precise explanation, using facts and examples, supportive of that position.  For example, a comparison between Potsdam authorized population transfers and the Nuremberg Trials' realization that ALL population transfers are war crimes (an explanation how the thinking changed in that dated interim would help).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody should have the chance to state his opinion. That is democracy. So how would you define German nationalists? I do not think their Englisch would be good enough for a discussion here.--92.229.14.161 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about 1945-1990 history
95 % of this article dealt with 1945-1990 history, the lead section dealt exclusively with Cold War history and not modern history (the last 20 years). For this reason, I removed the very small section about "Germany today", which should be a separate article on German post 1990 history. The same solution is chosen for other countries, like History of Poland (1945–1989). Also the German Wikipedia has an article on de:Geschichte Deutschlands (seit 1990) (History of Germany (since 1990)). Urban XII (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 95% is a weird calculation IMO, and if anything, it should have been expanded, not deleted.--Nero the second (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should two completely different historical eras be covered in the same article, when they are covered in separate articles for other countries that weren't even divided? This is a matter of consistency and following established standards. Urban XII (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no standard related to the matter, you will find many articles called "history of [country] since 1945", look around--Nero the second (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Move request
History of Germany (1945–1990) → History of Germany since 1945 — The article has had this name for a very long time, until Urban XII moved it with the intention of creating a History of Germany since 1990 that, as of this writing, does not exist, and deleted the section "Germany today" in the process. I want the article back to the old name, at least until Urban proves he has enough material for a new article, and of course the intention to create it.--Nero the second (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as a nominator.--Nero the second (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC) withdrawn pending expansion of History of Germany since 1990.--Nero the second (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" refers to estimates of deaths much lower than the 2 million figure. Perhaps they should be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Carine (talk • contribs) 05:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article has never had any significant content on German post-reunification history (one short (and extremely lacking) section out of 20 sections in total, no mention of anything else than Cold War history in the lead). Also note that I have started drafting and translation work at User:Urban XII/History of Germany since 1990, based on de:Geschichte Deutschlands (seit 1990). I expect this article to be ready in a few hours, at least in a preliminary version. Urban XII (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Forced labor reparations
The article says "By 1947 it is estimated that 400,000,000[dubious – discuss] Germans (both civilians and POWs) were being used as forced labor by the U.S., France, the UK and the Soviet Union." The 400 million figure is absurdly high considering the population of Germany is about 82 million, and was comparable in 1947, certainly never anywhere close to 400 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.44.186 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section is too long, biased against East Germany and does not summarise the main body of the article.Nescio vos (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor Grammar and Spelling Corrections
I've noticed a few spelling and grammar errors that I am taking it upon myself to fix. They are very small and don't affect what is stated in the article at all, so they really aren't worth listing here. If you want to know what they were check the prior revisions. Levontaun (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of Germany (1945–90). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buchanan.org/pma-99-1105-wallstjl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity in lead
While reviewing this article I came across the following passage in the lead: "Seven million prisoners and forced laborers left Germany, most of whom died either during their emigration of starvation, due to harsh conditions, or because they were worked to death. Over 10 million German-speaking refugees arrived in Germany from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe." This is hopelessly vague - German prisoners? Former prisoners of Nazi Germany? What does this have to do with the information about the German-speaking refugees? I can tell whoever wrote the passage had a specific idea in mind, but I'm unable to parse what that idea is without diving into the article - I think that's generally considered a cardinal sin for a lead. Jacotto (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of Germany (1945–90). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105122535/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/german/staff/fulbrook.htm to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/German/staff/fulbrook.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Germany (1945–90). 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/20080514021020/http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks49.pdf to http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks49.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709055340/http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/history/marshall.html to http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/history/marshall.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004721/http://www.ostberlin.de/en/ to http://www.ostberlin.de/en/

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) 03:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Biased image of the expulsion
Only camps in Poland are listed. The most terrible crimes took place in Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Potsdam Declaration stated - the Allies accepted Stalin's genocidal politics and instructed EE nations to be gentle. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At some time a subsection about German children (Norway) existed and was removed. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The rapes are described in a different subsection. Both rapes and expulsions and forced labor were parts of Stalin's poltics.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections
Some sections are referenced, the other ones aren't. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A series of people's congresses were called
What is a "people's congress"?Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sudetenland ?
stripped of its war gains and lost territories in the east to Poland and the Soviet Union - Sudetenland doesn't belong to either group.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , well technically, Sudetenland was not actually part of Nazi Germany at the time. {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 15:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Occupation zones; eastern territories; expulsions
I have tried to tidy up these sections and issues - which were formerly confused, and consequently inaccurate. For the most part relying on numbers from Nicholas Stargardt, The German War and R.M. Douglas, 'Orderly and Humane'; which I take to represent a current scholarly consensus. I realise that elements of these sections of the article have also been criticised as biased (though I am not sure which, as the discussions above on this talk page are old, and the article now is much different). Happy to discuss and amend further. TomHennell (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Germany (1945–90). 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/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) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Inner German relations
I think there should be a separate page for the inner relations, as is for example de:Innerdeutsche Beziehungen.--194.30.48.189 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Four divisions???
In the article, it says there were 4 divisions of Germany after WW2. However, technically, there are 7 divisions: the American one, the British one, the French one, the Norwegian one, the two parts given to Poland and the Soviet Union. If you don't count territory given to others, then there are 5 divisions. {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 15:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what I can find, it looks like the Norwegian troops taking part of the Allied occupation were stationed in 1947 in the British zone and so did not have their own distinct zone created immediately at the war's end. I think that is why a lot of sources describe Germany being divided into four parts post war, into the American, British, French and Soviet occupation zones.JMM12345 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Numbers don't add up
Under the country comparison chart, in the Main religions section for East Germany, it says, "70.0% Irreligion 25.0% Evangelical Church in Germany 10.6% Roman Catholic" Added together, that should total pretty close to 100% considering that there are only three numbers and that they are all rounded to the tenth of a percent, however, by my math, that is more than 105%.JMM12345 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345