Talk:Morgenthau Plan/Archive 2

Bakker-Schut-Plan
thumb|Broschüren mit Annexionspropaganda (von 1945) I found in the german wikipedia the Bakker-Schut-Plan.a dutch annextion plan for wide areas in north-western germany .does somebody know the connection betwen this and the the morgenthau plan. ist a variation of it.

--131.173.252.9 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article I remain puzzled: Are you saying the Morganthau Plan was never carried out? It is my understanding it was carried out (killing between 5.5 and 15 million nice white Germans - the range of figures simply represents my ignorance) while the U.S. authorities denied it was being carried out. The policy was reversed circa ?1950. [Incidentaly I have a copy of the plan, which is fairly brief; should I post it?] Source: the book 'Crimes and Mercies'.
 * Which specific measures of the plan, as listed in the article, do you think were carried out? Dividing the country north and south?  Making it an international zone? Agrarian? What? Jayjg (talk)  17:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Morgenthau Plan was broadly implemented. Not just the division of Germany and the lose of a third of its territory (Silesia, Danzig) but first of all by the complete dismantling of whole economic sectors in which Germany had a leading technology, like Aerospace. Germany lost most of its Aircraft industry, being the most important part of it sent to the U.S. I don´t know how many patents were stolen by the U.S. but it is evident an great part of American post-War economic recovery was led by patents, factories and brain drain stolen from Germany. Just a little part of it was returned under the Marshall Plan....but whole economic sectors were never returned neither by the U.S. nor by the USSR.--88.24.242.203 (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of details about relief organisations
The following text does not appear to be relevant to this article, and (in my opinion) it definitely doesn't belong in the Overview section. "In 1945 the German Red Cross was dissolved[11][12], and the International Red Cross and other international relief agencies were kept from helping ethnic Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel.[13] The few agencies permitted to operate within Germany, such as the indigenous Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German infants[14] the U.S. State Department forbade it.[15] In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that, German civilian adult death rates had risen to four times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels.[16] In early 1946 U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally bowed to pressure from Senators, Congress and public to allow foreign relief organization to enter Germany in order to review the food situation. In mid-1946 non-German relief organizations were finally permitted to help starving German children.[17] During 1946 the average German adult received less than 1,500 calories a day. 2,000 calories was then considered the minimum an individual can endure on for a limited period of time with reasonable health.[18]" --Boson (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I disagree with you as to the relevance to the article, but I would consent to moving it down. Motives:
 * "Many Americans today suppose that “we put Germany on its feet after the war,” but the truth is more nearly the opposite. U.S. policy was intended to inflict economic privation. As part of the JCS 1067 punishment philosophy, U.S. forces were not supposed to provide ordinary relief. Troops were specifically ordered not to let American food supplies go to hungry Germans. American households were instructed not to let their German maids have leftovers; excess food was to be destroyed or rendered inedible (Davidson 1959, 85). A German university professor pointed out that U.S. soldiers “create unnecessary ill will to pour twenty litres of left-over cocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy among my countrymen” (qtd. in Davidson 1959, 86)."
 * the above text connects it nicely with JCS1067, i.e. with the Morgenthau plan, but perhaps it should simply be copy pasted into the JCS 1067 sub-section then. We should add to it also the info that the Americans were deliberately destroying food rather than letting hungry Germans eat though...


 * Looking at it from a formal standpoint we can also use the "official" version as to why food shipments to hungry Germans were stopped.
 * "'Germany had been closed to relief shipments until December on the grounds that they might tend to negate the policy of restricting the German standard of living to the average of the surrounding European nations. CARE package shipments to individuals remained prohibited until 5 June 1946." (Footnote 13).
 * The part on "restricting German standard of living" is verbatim from the industrial plans for Germany, which also derived from the Morgenthau plan. An option, less favored by, would be to move it to that article instead (and also adding a new sentence on American official occupation policy to destroy food in Germany).
 * --Stor stark7 Speak 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic book on plan not referenced?
James Bacque's "Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950". Does not appear to be referenced. This is particularly disturbing because I put it in, so it has been actively removed. This is a basic book on the subject of the plan. Its tone is moderate, excessively so.

Contrast this with the inclusion of a large list of Time articles. Time is very "patriotic" as we all know well.

By covering up atrocities we make ourselves complicit; we make it possible for further atrocities to occur; we have blood on our hands.

I'm afraid this is a particularly clear example of Wikipedia having been turned. Anybody give a toss?

Thousand apologies if the reference is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporus (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the contribution of yours that was removed was a link to a Web site promoting James Bacque and his books. The best place for a link to that Web site is probably the article on James Bacque. I would agree that the plethora of "further reading" items should be removed, including the Time articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of books or magazine articles by subject. Books and magazine articles should be referenced in footnotes to substantiate statements made in the article, including statements about reports in the American media. It may be appropriate to reference a few authoritative books on some subjects. Discussions of James Bacque and his works are covered elsewhere, e.g. in the articles Disarmed Enemy Forces, Other Losses and James Bacque --Boson (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is surely appropriate for a bibliography to be included in an article. If it is extensive then so much the better.  James Bacque, as far as I know, was the first to get access to the Russian archives.  His book is scholarly. We all know perfectly well that the problem with the book is it accuses the victors, the allies, especially the Americans, of gross crimes against humanity.Sporus (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be a problem that some people have with the book. Though it seems to be generally recognised that he drew attention to some things that had ben neglected, some historians apparently have problems with the reliability of his estimates. His books receives quite a lot of weight in more relevant articles (possibly too much weight relative to his standing as a historian). Other historians, like Professor Greiner, who wrote a whole book on the Morgenthau Plan, get no mention at all in this article.
 * My normal reaction is to be sceptical of statements that begin with "We all know perfectly well that . . .".
 * Wikipedia, like other encyclopaedias, does not normally have such long lists of additional reading and Web links. The appropriate guideline talks of a "reasonable" number.
 * --Boson (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a truism that the victor writes the history book. Is Wikipedia happy to become part of this terrible tradition?  There is powerful evidence that of the order of 10 million Germans were killed by the US in the period 1945-1950.  A generalized appeal to sobriety in this context appears to imply, "Speak no evil."  Whatever it is it is not sobriety.
 * Sporus (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one book that was actually on the subject of the article was written by Bernd Greiner. I believe he is German, and I have no reason to classify him as one of the "victors". Feel free to suggest improvements to the article based on the information in his book and give his book as a reference. Do you have specific suggestions for improving the article and/or making it better conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Boson (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can sombody translate this german wikipedia articles into english
Belgische Annexionspläne nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (= Belgian Annexion plans after World War Two [Uwe, a german friend ;o])

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgische_Annexionspl%C3%A4ne_nach_dem_Zweiten_Weltkrieg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerkingdom (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourgian Annexion plans after World War Two [Uwe, a german friend ;o]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgische_Annexionspl%C3%A4ne_nach_dem_Zweiten_Weltkrieg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerkingdom (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeling? Really?
Keeling is a primary source for this article? Really? So much for grabbing a few quick facts and references from wikipedia.... --184.99.178.223 (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence it was used in the article, and I've deleted it from the list of primary sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Germanophobia not consistent with NPOV
A phobia is a psychological disorder characterized by an irrational and persistent fear. This categorization implies that Wikipedia is ascribing such a psychological disorder to the proponents of the Morgenthau Plan. Apart from the article on germanophobia itself, it is difficult to imagine a case where the category can be assigned without violating NPOV.--Boson 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's be frank, the real reason for the Morgenthau Plan was anger, hate and revenge against the Germans, and given what the Germans did, who can blame them??? What the Nazi's did was a million times worse than anything Islamic terrorists have done, and look at how most people hate them.68.164.0.172 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what the german did in 1944 to evoke "anger, hate and revenge" from the USA? The holocaust only came out when the war was over... Also, what the nazi did was far worse than anything Islamic terrorist have done, that maybe right, but it wasn't worse of what the US did to the natives or England/ France/ Belgium did to Africa or what Israel is doing in Palestine or what USSR did in Ukrain (Holdomor anyone?) So? The only clear point is: FDR administration was a warmonger administration like Bush, and FDR was a Germanophobic.201.79.44.87 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Morgenthau's Pastoral Policy"
Google ("Morgenthau's Pastoral Policy") and a man, who visited the university where Woodrow Wilson's papers were kept was supposedly escorted by a grad student with access to them to see the document. Reference: A person on the web has setup a blog to call Lyne a liar about various things, but instead of asking a UT official if at any time UT Law School had any courses there taken by William R. Lyne, the blogger instead asks if Lyne was an alumni (which typically means a graduate class member who UT Law would likely hit up for a yearly donation?).
 * William R. Lyne. Pentagon Aliens (1993. 306 pages, Creatopia, 3rd edition, PB, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9637467-7-1)

Lyne is a older person who writes about UFOs originating from Earth derived from Tesla electromagnetic propulsion systems. Lyne promotes in his various books that Germany was raided for its scientists, etc, for project paperclip, that resulted in two programs at NASA being run--An UFO covert op, and the public rocketry program for satellites, unmanned exploration, and moon shots.

In Lyne's account of events, he claims to have seen these historical documents where Morgenthau post WW1 during the time of the Treaty of Versailles Peace Talks proposes / advances a plan to Woodrow Wilson and the assembled negotiators to make Germany into farming pasture land, (devoid of people?), to prevent the German people from entering into wars in the future. A 90 minute Google video explains Lyne's alternative conspiratorial (fantasy/plausible?) views on history involving Hitler, UFOs, Nasa, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. In this video, the claims about the pastoral policy are present.

When I did my initial search for this William R. Lyne mentioned "Morgenthau's Pastoral Policy" via Google, one of the links lead me to this "Plan" wiki article. However, given that this plan also seems to have had the same goals as to preventing Germany from getting involved in future wars, this Morgenthau guy might have advised Woodrow Wilson just as Lyne claims that he did in this early 1900s document?

Has anyone else seen mention of or the actual pastoral policy papers in order to make reference to this in this wiki article about this later plan? Oldspammer (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me as if Lyne has jumbled up a number of facts, but the adviser to Wilson would probably have been Henry Morgenthau Sr. (who was at the Paris Peace Conference), not Henry Morgenthau Jr.. Lyne refers to a Hans Morgenthau.--Boson (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mortality Rate
Is there any way we can have a medical expert analyze this and tell us just how many people would've died due to the systematic starvation/forced heavy labor policy imposed by the allies? Several years of less than half the required nutrients in addition to lack of shelter & over crowding/poor sanitation aren't liable towards long-term survival. I can just imagine how many miscarriages/child deaths resulted as well. Plus the fact that desperate mothers, trying to save their children would've been forced into prostituting themselves to GIs to get a few scraps... it's mass rape by extortion & worse than the Soviets atrocities. (Charles Lindberg himself took advantage of at least 3 such women in such fashion)

It's a shame our media (what would Oprah say about this?) refuses to cover this, it was the greatest atrocity in America's history. We had an OBLIGATION to feed them all after stealing a quarter of their land from them. Unlike Hiroshima/Nagasaki, WE HAD NO EXCUSE for doing this, it was torturing Germans for the crime of being German, Nuremberg's 'intention' (only the leaders were guilty) notwithstanding, we conditioned them to believe they were ALL EVIL AND DESERVED MISERY. As a result, no other people is filled with more self-hate as they are.96.238.134.140 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, we get along quite well these days, thank you. -- 91.62.232.117 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Who? The occupants? 139.139.67.70 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * David Irving would disagree. See German Laws. Google video search "David Irving" Oldspammer (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most eye-witnesses would disagree, as most babies had been starving when born between 1945 and 1948... 139.139.67.70 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if this all actually took effect (which most of it really didnt eisenhower shipped in a ton of food in the first year) the soviets would still have us beat, by far. This plan was more of a dont give them anything type plan, wheras the soviets were openly raping and murdering people. I know people like to make the americans look evil but the fact is we treated the germans, for the most part, alright, the germans actually fought across their country to surrender to the americans because the americans treated them better. (although we turned them back voer to the russians because we really had no idea how bad they were and we didnt have the resources to feed them).


 * You are talking about which year? At first, only the care packages organized/ donated by religious and humanitarian groups did help to feed people. 139.139.67.70 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary relevance and assessment
"The general German view, as expressed by their government, is that the Morgenthau Plan was of no significance for the occupiers' policy toward Germany but that Nazi propaganda on the subject had a lasting effect and that it is still used for propaganda purposes by extreme right-wing organizations"
 * Could we just eliminate that statement? It simply reads like propaganda itself. --41.151.109.84 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and will go ahead and eliminate the sub-section and the propaganda-like content that was inappropriately included in it. joepa T 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The section could doubtless be improved, but some coverage of the historiographical perspective and contemporary mainstream and official German views seems appropriate. At least, we should include the view, expressed by official German organizations, that, since the War, the Morgenthau Plan has been and still is instrumentalized by right-wing extremists and misrepresented as a Jewish-American plan to enslave Germany.  So it does provide a small counterweight to the tenor of much of the rest of the article. Ideally, we should have more of a historiographical discussion. Such a discussion should adequately cover the views of contemporary German historians and organizations, as well as those of American historians like Michael Beschloss. However, I do not relish any attempt to provide such a balanced historiograhical review, because it would be likely to act as a magnet for revisionist POV pushers.--Boson (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence should at the very least be modified, since whoever wrote it misrepresents the given source. To start with, the source says nothing about a general German view. The source comes from an agency linked to the German ministry of the interior, but it is not a government page, the German government has not given any official blessing to it. Only text on the site bundesregierung.de can be said to represent the official government. Therefore it is fake to say it is expressed by their government. And also a very important part has been cherry-picked out. The text speaks of the later occupation and policy towards Germany. The person who made the translation misstranslated later into subsequent. And in the main text this aspect is deliberately eliminated entirelly. A reasonable reading of the source is that it states that the Morgenthau plan was of no relevance for the later occupation and germany policy, probably meaning the occupation 1948 to 1955 and germany policy 1955 onwards, but this caveat has been cherry-picked out.--91.221.144.58 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to address your concerns. --Boson (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the sentence "Für die spätere Besatzungs- und Deutschlandpolitik blieb der Morgenthau-Plan ohne jede Bedeutung." immediately follows the sentence " Der Morgenthau-Plan verschwand bereits Ende September 1944 in der Versenkung, ohne von den zuständigen Gremien jemals formell diskutiert worden zu sein.", the original translation appears appropriate to me, but I suppose that your interpretation is possible (if unlikely) so I have changed the translation and the text to allow other interpretations (at the cost of some clumsiness of expression). The whole tenor of the cited article is that a radical plan was put forward, a more lenient version was then noted with approval (billigend zur Kenntnis genommen) by Churchill and Roosevelt but, following leaks and protests (the American Secretary of War called it a crime against civilization), it was consigned to oblivion as early as the end of September 1944. In the cited article, there is no mention of any implementation of the plan whatsoever. This may be in stark contrast with the version presented by revisionist historians, or others; it may be in contrast with a version presented earlier in the Wikipedia article; but it is the view presented by the article on the official site of the German Federal Agency for Civic Education, which - as you say - is an agency "linked to the German ministry of the interior". Indeed, it is not some independent body with vague links to the Ministry of the Interior; it is a Behörde, an official federal government agency. --Boson (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Can sombody translate that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.206.155 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Varianten der Teilungspläne
Fachressorts der britischen und amerikanischen Außenministerien diskutierten unter anderen Plänen auch folgende Grenzziehungsvarianten.


 * Annexion von Teilen Hinterpommerns durch Polen bei gleichzeitiger Grenzziehung an der östlich gelegenen Glatzer Neiße
 * Zusammenschluss Österreichs mit Ungarn zur Donauföderation (kleine Lösung)
 * Annexion westdeutscher Grenzgebiete durch die Niederlande bis an Rhein und Weser (Niederländische Annexionspläne nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg)
 * Annexion kleinerer Grenzgebiete durch Belgien über das Eupen-Malmedy Gebiet hinaus
 * Annexion kleinerer moselfränkischsprachiger Grenzgebiete durch Luxemburg
 * Zusammenschluss Österreichs mit Ungarn und der Tschechoslowakei zur Donauföderation (große Lösung)

Insbesondere auf Drängen Stalins wurden diese Pläne jedoch erheblich verändert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.206.155 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative partition plans
Internally, the British and American foreign ministries discussed a number of other plans, including the following alternative territorial changes.


 * Annexation of parts of Farther Pomerania by Poland, with the border drawn at the Eastern Neisse
 * Union of Austria with Hungary to form the Federation of the Danube (small solution)
 * Annexation of western German border areas by the Netherlands up to the Rhine and Weser (plans for Dutch annexation of German territory after World War II)
 * Annexation of minor border areas by Belgium beyond the Eupen-Malmedy region
 * Annexation of minor border areas with populations speaking Moselle Franconian dialects by Luxembourg
 * Union of Austria with Hungary and Czechoslovakia to form the Federation of the Danube (big solution)

Under pressure from Stalin, however, these plans were altered considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boson (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias
What we have hear is the same that has happened in the article on Drang nach Osten: the text has been taken by contributors with clear German nationalist sympathies to a place far beyond that taken by the corresponding articles in the German wikipedia.

For that matter, it would be interesting to see what sort of factual arguments can be given to support Hoover's position. What is not analysed here is the extent to which pro-German sympathies and early Cold War panic contributed to the shelving of the plan. Feketekave (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * German nationalist sympathies ? - details please. 84.139.235.50 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does the English language Wikipedia have to conform on articles with the German Wikipedia? Do you dream up such "appeals to propriety"?  How many German civilians died as a result of the 1945-47 disguised Morgenthau Plan? (The US Army tied its own hands through legalists in critical positions, all of whom resigned more or less concurrently when their scheme could be carried no further).  Regarding German deaths in the US Zone between 1945-47, please spare the "they would have died anyway" salvation code words.  I am a US Army veteran, Feb 1962 to Feb 1965 (my MOS was Morse Code operator).  The USA was being pragmatic in changing policies -- the greatest driver was the Soviets' announced position that the USA was deliberately starving the Germans, plus the US concern that the continued starvation would result in all of Germany going Communist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to be taught the difference between intentional and unintentional starvation. My uncle was in the American army in WWII and after the war--LOTS of food WAS shipped to alleviate famine in Germany, and the notion that any famine was intentional is not only false but insulting. Anyway, given what Germany did during the war, they don't have a leg to stand on--including the civilians, almost all of whom loved Hitler when the Wehrmacht was kicking ass, and paid no mind to the smell of human flesh burning from some of the camps that were in Germany. Germany is damned lucky they got a single roll of bread and the fact that today many of them bitch about it, and get pissed that Poland took some of their land indicates a clear lack or either remorse or understanding of the horrors they inflicted on millions of people. Every time I read or watch something on WWII, I'm amazed that the Allies didn't fragment Germany back to the way it used to be back in the days of the Holy Roman Empire. They started the worst, most murderous war in human history, and during it, committed the most wicked, depraved act of evil ever concocted by the human species (and that says a hell of a lot!). They should count their blessings and quit their bitching (and I'm HALF German).68.164.0.172 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unintentional starvation" was caused by the "Morgenthau boys'" implementation of JCS 1067 . . . an unusual observation. What was the start date when "LOTS of Food WAS shipped to alleviate famine in Germany"?  Note: There's plenty of research re such matters as the referenced "start date", so it shouldn't be hard to find (guessing is worthless).  Also, it might help if you researched who the "Morgenthau boys" were and what official positions they held in the early U.S. German Occupation structure.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.243.123 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This article could be a reprint from the Volkischer Beobacter. It definitely seems to have a German revisionist POV --- one almost expects a reference to Morgenthau's being Jewish. Oh wait, there are a couple (but they're tastefully subtle). The article also ignores COMPLETELY efforts to undermine the Morgenthau Plan by New York- and London-based bankers. See James Stewart Martin's "All Honorable Men" (http://theviewfromthepoopdeck.blogspot.com/) for a firsthand account of how Western capitalists successfully blocked decartelization of German industry. According to Martin, expropriation of German factory equipment became largely symbolic, mostly involving obsolete equipment, and was driven by strident French demands for compensation. Aviation technology was of course a principal source of military power (even under the Weimar Republic, civilian aviation was merely a front for the development of military aircraft); it's not surprising that it was dismantled by the victors. Martin's experience butting heads with the bankers shows that subversion of Allied policy by financial interests began even before the shooting had ended. ... Nazi control of Germany was only diluted by their loss of the combat phase of WW2, it certainly didn't end with it; they used the Red Scare to insinuate themselves back into positions of power in West Germany --- and elsewhere. The section dealing with the Red Cross appears to have no relevance; intentional starvation of German citizens was not a stated objective of Morgenthau's plan. The tenor of this article suggests to me that pro-Nazi propagandists are alive and well on the Internet.  --Captqrunch (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bela et al book as source
with mostly the section by Wiggers. Here is an academic review of the work:. Some quotes from the review:

" the piece by Robert H. Whealey downplays the severity of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, accuses the U.S. media of being anti-Serb, and is both confused and strangely obsessed with the role of "Zionists" in discourse on the former Yugoslavia."

" The introduction specifically states that Germans have been the greatest victims of ethnic cleansing during the twentieth century in Europe"

"These are among the most poignant and heart-wrenching contributions in the entire book, but their academic or analytical value is strictly limited. "

"The contributions on ethnic Germans are mixed in quality. On the one hand, the chapter by de Zayas makes wild accusations and excoriates the Allies and particularly Czech President Eduard Benes, while those by Scott Brunstetter, Janos Angi and Nicolae Harsanyi are superficial."

"For all the breadth of case studies, a vital missing element prevents this book from actually being a study of twentieth-century ethnic cleansing in Europe, and turns it into a much narrower, parochial affair: there is not a single paper on the ethnic cleansing of any ethnic or religious group by Germans or Germany, and there is no specific analysis, even comparative, of the Holocaust. This lends an often surreal air to the book: Jews and the Holocaust are mentioned more than twenty times in individual essays, and the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Germans (including, but not limited to the Holocaust) is clearly the largest and most important instance of ethnic cleansing in Europe, but not a single essay is devoted to it. This was a deliberate choice"

''" this volume is very good at describing the suffering of German minorities in individual (national) cases, but does not ask why so many Eastern and Central European countries expelled and persecuted their German minorities after the Second World War. Only very slight mention is made of the collaboration of these German minorities with the Third Reich in war crimes and other exactions against the non-German populations, and no analysis of them is made. The reader is left with a string of often heart-rending stories of suffering and injustice, but little or no analysis of why such injustice might have occurred, except to evoke communist thugs, venal neighbors or the evil ethnic nationalism of President Benes. But the problem runs even deeper. Many of the contributions are implicit or even explicit pleas for the acknowledgment of the suffering of the ethnic group with which the author identifies, and the book skates very close at times to a frankly revisionist exercise in comparative ethnic suffering. This impression is only accentuated by the fact that a majority of contributions are based mainly on secondary sources, and many are superficial. The quality of contributions varies greatly."''

All of this is a polite, academic, way of saying the source is propaganda. Anyways, most of the text sourced to this book is not even directly relevant to the Morgenthau Plan. Removing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for the plan
Article fails to mention reasons for the plan being developed by Morgenthau. He mentions them in original document.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Re:. Please stop removing text sourced to reliable, academic sources. The initial given reason was that "the bpb has revised it". This was false - the bpb didn't "revise" anything, a link simply went dead as happens all the time. Additionally there was a second source given for the content. Hence, even if "the bpb did revise it", the second source would still support the text. Finally, I updated the link to the source, which is from Handbuch des Antisemitismus: Judenfeindschaft in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Volume 3, a publication of Walter de Gruyter, a "a scholarly publishing house specializing in academic literature."

Please stop removing the content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Partionioning of Germany
To article:

The original proposal outlined three steps: - Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states. ??? - so the Allies were already "planning" that East and West-Germany would be "created" in August 1944!!!! RIDICULOUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.136.144.248 (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to check, the "external links" section contains a link to a facsimile of the original memorandum, which states, under the heading "Partitioning of Germany":

The remaining portion of Germany should be divided into two autonomous, independent states,
 * (1) a South German state comprising Bavaria, Wuerttemberg, Baden and some smaller areas and
 * (2) a North German state comprising a large part of the old state of Prussia, Saxony, Thuringia and several smaller states.
 * So no, it envisaged the creation of North Germany and South Germany, not East Germany and West Germany.
 * --Boson (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy
I've just removed the material referenced to the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy as it does not appear to be a reliable source. The book's publisher Alora Publishing looks like a publisher of WP:FRINGE-type works judging from what it chooses to highlight on its website, and I could not find any reviews of the book in reliable sources, and many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites. The author's website is also not typical of that of a neutral historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Worldcat shows it owned by 1319 libraries, a very substantial number. This of course does not mean it is an authority, but it might appear to be of considerable interest.  Google Scholar shows it has been cited 16 times, as follows: .  DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (I wrote this is response to an OTRS query asking aboutthe removal of the book)
 * I'm not aware of the number of libraries a book is in being an indicator for a book meeting WP:RS. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Archiving
If there are no objections, I will shortly configure auto-archiving for threads that have been dormant for more than 90 days. --Boson (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be great Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Assessment
That's an official assessment from a national org - respectable source, but still not historical consensus among scholars. Also even had the plan had no significant effects on later events (not true, considering the already sourced details in the main texts), one should not give the impression that the bad things that actually happened (and like in many other historical occasions, were put under the umbrella term of "Morgenthau Plan" by some people, not necessarily neo-nazis but also people who lack detailed knowledge) were not real and these were the results of Hitler's propaganda.

I.e. German people heard the propaganda that if they surrendered, the Jews should enslave them. they surrendered, one Jewish person suggested a vengeful plan, it was not followed throughly, but bad things did happen (some victorious powers actually tried to impose retro-development, wanted to annex lands, kept the living standard low...etc until the more far sighted views of some leaders like Churchill and Hoover prevailed due to these nations' own interests). Then fact is, bad things did happen, not propaganda. Will add more later. Deamonpen (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my understanding as well. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian concerns or unfeasibly?
Herbert Hoover said that in order to reach the goal the Allies would have had to kill or deport 25 million people. Did he mean they did not possess the means to do that? Or did he mean it would be genocide to try? His use of the word “people” indicates the later.

2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
 * Dummy reply to enable normal archiving --Boson (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Dietrich
What makes Dietrich book unreliable? the author who is a former DIA official or Algora? Deamonpen (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Algora Publishing is not exactly the Oxford University Press, and being a retired Customs and Border Protection Officer and a former (undefined) employee of the Defence Intelligence Agency does not guarantee academic competence and neutrality. He is not a history professor and appears to have a revisionist agenda that does not represent mainstream views. --Boson (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Book is recommended by multiple authors. The revisionism itself is a controverisal topic depending on which circles of historians you belong to. As wikipedia is neutral, an author should not be dismissed just because he is a revisionist. about being unverifired, Benn Steil describes him as such. also what part of the article describes The_Agora as lacking academic quality? And I am unaware that wikipedia says only professors should be presented. If a work, a relatively new one at that, is discussed buy other authors without having a widespread negative reputation, I think that meet the conditions. We do not say here that we support the author's opinions or anything. If being professor is the only criteria, I'm afraid many renown scientists and scholars, even genius, fail that test. Trevor J. Barnes and Jeremy Crampton has the following opinion


 * Partition was only part of a larger, far more controversial plan for the future state of Germany known as the Morgenthau Plan. Developed during 1944 by Morgenthau it remains controversial even today. John Dietrich gives a stark assessment: “the plan was designed to completely destroy the German economy, enslave millions of her citizens, and exterminate as many as 20 million people”(Dietrich 2002: 3). This admittedly revisionist argument nevertheless points to the radical nature of this plan, a version of which was signed at the Quebec OCTAGON Conference by Roosevelt and Churchill in September 1944.

so according to them, revisionism itself does not mean that the author's opinions have no merits.

Deamonpen (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much in that to support the argument that Dietrich is a reliable source, though it depends, of course, on what the reliable source is supposed to be supporting. Sources that present non-mainstream views can be reliable sources for those views - providing those views are presented as such and are not given undue weight. If we fail to do that, we mislead readers. If the geographer qualifies his quotation from Dietrich as an "admittedly revisionist argument", perhaps we should also do something to avoid misleading the reader. If book reviews expressly stress the author's "hard revisionist" viewpoint or include things like "scarce in original research but rich in interpretation based on flawed assumptions" we may also need to put the authors views in an appropriate context. Linking "Book is recommended by multiple authors" to a Google search for the book is not especially helpful. I have no idea what you mean by "also what part of the article describes The_Agora as lacking academic quality?" Let's see what others think.--Boson (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

And the historian also agrees that Dietrich does a good job pointing out the radical nature of the plan which was signed by the Allies leaders. and I repeat, revisionism itself should not be a reason not to accept an argument. I don't generally like revisionism, but the concept is controversial and Wiki as a neutral source cannot just claim that such historians are inherently negative. I don't want to mislead the readers or anything. If you want I will include the whole quote, or you can do it yourself. I don't understand what you don't understand. I used google search so that people would not claim I choose assessments selectively. Yes, neutral third party is welcome. Deamonpen (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of whether such historians are "inherently negative", It's a question of whether they are mainstream, and how much weight should be given to their views. We don't accept or reject an argument. We present notable views, but if views are, for instance, generally regarded as fringe or part of a wider political agenda, we don't ignore that. We should, perhaps, also talk more about the views of Herbert Grabert and associates, but they would also need to be contextualized.   --Boson (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This book is totally unreliable. It was added to multiple articles by a POV pusher. The obscure publisher appears to only put out rather fringe works and its website at the time claimed that the Allied occupation of German had been a "genocide" and a "holocaust", so they can't be considered accurate or a noteworthy opinion. I removed references to this book from multiple other articles the POV pusher had frequented in late 2014, and must of missed this one. I set out my reasoning at the time at Talk:Forced labor of Germans after World War II. Someone claiming to be the author of this book contacted me in 2015, leading to a discussion of it which is at User talk:Nick-D/Archive 14 (I have no way of knowing whether that person was in fact the author). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, the publisher is suspicious then. In your claim though you pointed out that Dietrich was not mentioned by serious works. He is though. The one above is an example, Edmund Osmańczyk also seems to use him as a main source for his Morgenthau Plan article. I put Dietrich here together with many other authors and I know nothing about the POV pusher. I think he can still be quoted together with Barnes's opinion, though? Although if you guys argue for removal I will not oppose now. I have called for neutral third side and I accept you as such.
 * Also, Boson, I don't think as wiki editors we can naturally assume that revisionists are either the minority or having political agendas. No dictionary I've read say it as such, only that revisionism is described as attempts to established a another view which is different from the previously established views. Richard the Lionheart's (who I like) antifans now seem to be the majority. And when a historical fact is very controversial, different groups are always going to accuse the other side of having agendas, and I have not seen Barnes clarifies his position on revisionists. One can say, for example, talking about the Rommel Myth, the neutral/positive/hagiographic authors (the majority) actually agree with revisionists that many earlier sources seem to have agendas, and criticism regarding revisionists having agendas of their own, although exists, but is actually rarer (up until now). The thing here is that the former group argues that while there was propaganda, in this case  propaganda mostly reflected reality, or that it is hard to say for sure, or in some case authors are even more hagiographic than earlier sources.

Sorry for the late reply, I'm busy lately. Deamonpen (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morgenthau Plan. 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/20070927122952/http://www.tk-marinesystems.de/press.html?year=2002 to http://www.tk-marinesystems.de/press.html?year=2002

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) 11:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender
The issue of Germany's "unconditional surrender" was announced by FDR at the January 1943 Casablanca Conference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference DEddy (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)