Talk:Potsdam Agreement

2002-2004
There seems to be nothing here but the text of the Potstdam agreement itself. This should be an article about the Potsdam agreement, discussing its implications and history and all that kind of stuff, not a dump of the text. Bryan Derksen, Saturday, April 13, 2002

Well, now that the text has been moved off, wouldn't it be nice to have some article about the agreement rather than a stub, as Bryan Derksen suggessted? Anyway, in the meantime, this change seems problematic:

Initiative Potsdamer Abkommen This is a website of the antifa/inipa group, which was organized by the SED communist GDR German Democratic Republic.

Annotating references isn't a bad thing; there should be more of it. But is this accurate? In fact, exactly what is it? "the SED communist GDR" doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps it's supposed to mean"the SED, successor to the communist party of the GDR"? And even so, we perhaps need some documentation of the connection. The text on the site uses "anti-fascist" pretty heavily, but otherwise is it characteristically the old GDR line? Dandrake 20:58, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the paraphrased information in this article doesn't even match the sources at the bottom of the page. I only glanced over it, but the biggest thing I saw was VII. Austria - where the article here states that Austria should pay reparations, whereas the actual agreement states "It was agreed that reparations should not be exacted from Austria." UltimaGecko (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Signators / Signatories
Hi. Is there a reason why the article uses "signators" rather than the perhaps more common "signatories"? If it is a specific technical usage then fine, though it would be good to know. Likewise if this is just an AmE/BrE thing then fine, let sleeping dogs lie. But if there isn't some good reason for it, would the more common form (if it is) perhaps not read more easily? Do feel free to enlighten me. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, What is the source of the commentary to the text of the Agreement? Some of it is unbelievably childish and obviously someone's pet interpretation. Any (credible) sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.62.223 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Finland is very much neglected in this article. Hmmm - acceptable, since she was neglected in the Potsdam conference too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.65.240 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Potsdam Agreement or President Decrees (Benes Decrees) ?
No Czechoslovak (Czech) legal norm (decree, law, etc.) ever existed that would have dealt with the displacement of the German population. The conclusions of the Potsdam Conference were confirmed by its signatory states in 1996--Posp68 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Koenigsberg
The article states it "had already been incorporated into the Soviet territory by amendment of the country's constitution." Is there a source for this? I've spent the evening trying to find any reference to it at all in the 1936-1977 Soviet constitutions, with no luck. --Golbez (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Korea
This says there were agreements about Korea, but nothing is mentioned in the article. MB 02:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Potsdam Agreement - which did not mention Korea (and could not do so). There was a separte Potsdam Declaration of the three powers then at war with Japan (the USSR was then still neutral); which set out terms for Japanese surrender.  In the course of the Potsdam Conference there was a military agreement between American and Soviet commanders, that the USSR would occupy northern Korea; and the Americans would occupy southern Korea.  It was not till after the conference (and after the USSR had declared war and advanced into Korea) that the Americans proposed the 38th Parallel as the division between the two occupation zones. TomHennell (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)