Talk:Young Plan

opinion?
"The plan ultimately failed, not because of the U.S. Congress' refusal to go along, but because it became irrelevant upon Hitler's rise to power."

This sounds like an opinion to me. This should be perhaps reworded to be more straightforward. I will do this but I think a reference is needed. How can we be sure that the plan perhaps did not fail but just became irrelevant when Germany repudiated the debt. Sadly even this part has no references. The German version of wikipedia just says after Hitler came to power, Germany stopped paying the interest. "By the time of his appointment the Young Plan was dead – even if it had not been beforehand. " This page has an opinion too http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/young_plan_1929.htm

[response to above]

The effects of the Great Depression and the stock market crash of 1929 resulted in investments from J.P. Morgan & Co. to end in Germany, making it no longer possible to meet its repayments under the Young Plan. The global conditions itself caused the ending of reparation payments under the Young Plan, not because "the plan ultimately failed" of its own making. Thomas Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Co. for example a year before Hitler was elected had predicted Germany would have to end its reparation payments, as France defaulted on their own war debts in 1932, and Great Britain almost defaulting as well. The NSDAP had lost all political support from the German people while Germany was recovering under the Dawes-Young Plan of 1924-1929, the Great Depression ended the recovery and lead to the rise of Hitler.

see: "The Myths of Reparations" by Sally Marks, and "American 'Reparations' to Germany, 1919-1933" by Stephen A. Schuker

"boring"?
"The plan was formally adopted at the second Hague Conference, in January 1930 but this case is very boring". Is this a genuine inappropriate remark or graffitti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbruce01 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * why should be boring?, explain it better, thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Reparations amount?
Are you sure that the reperations were set to over 25,000,000,000? i have reason to believe that the reparations were around $9,150,000,000? It as around £4,900,000,000 if you look at the German reparations page.

"The Young Plan—which set the total reparations at $26,350,000,000 to be paid over a period of 58½ years...A final effort was made at the Lausanne Conference in 1932...reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million"

So which is it, 26 billion or 32 billion. Because i don't see where this 'original' comes from. The original from the Dawes plan? that was 132 billion, and so was the Versailles reparation bill. Please clarify what these amounts are referring too.

My source tells me the young plan set it at 37 billion gold marks and i don't know what that converts too at that time, but this article doesn't mention specific enough changes from Dawes to Young. It would be easier to keep values in marks for the purpose of comparing Germany's own economy from other articles and so forth.

I agree that the currency should be in marks, to make it easier to compare with the Dawes Plan. Are there any figures in marks that could be incorporated? --Macman 11 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * German gold mark says 1 gold mark = $0.25 but this article says "The Young Plan reduced further payments to 112 billion Gold Marks, US $8 billion in 1929 ... the annual payment, set at two billion Gold Marks, US $473 million, ..." The two US $ figures seems to use different conversion rates, neither being $0.25. Could someone clarify ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Liberty Law)
I propose to merge the content of Liberty Law into here. That article is currently without any sources and needs cleanup; but it is also best covered in a broader context, I think.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberty Law clearly is discrete from the Young Plan. However, as the current entry does spends some space on explaining the context (Young Plan & war reparations), and that it is not that big, they could be merged together, with "Liberty Law" fitting in a sub-section of "Young Plan" as "Opposition to war reparations: Liberty Law" or something like that. Maybe that would help reduce words & gain space, in view of WP:WPNN. Since this merge proposal is not evident, I suggest Wolterding to make a draft of the merge which would demonstrate that merging both articles wouldn't be simply adding one to the other, but actually reducing the lenght of the "Liberty Law" entry by merging it here. If in the future the Young Plan article becomes too long, a spin-out would still be possible. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have merged the text directly, and added two references (unfortunately in German only). Please feel free to improve it, or if you find it absolutely unacceptable, to revert it. --B. Wolterding 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which Agreement?
"This agreement had been preceded by bitter diplomatic struggles, and its acceptance aroused nationalist passions and resentment. It also weakened, rather than helped, the advocates of a policy of international understanding." Which agreement - the Young Plan, or some subsequent agreement? It isn't made clear in the text to which agreement the author is referring. Zargon2010 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent Events
Should this section be moved to the end of the article, immediately preceding the References? Zargon2010 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Paterson?
Who/what is Kurt Paterson (first section title)? I am actually genuinely interested if he is a related person, but I've never heard of him, and neither has Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter13542 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Third sentence of article makes no sense to me.156.98.129.16 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I find the article has no sense.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
Third sentence makes no sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.129.16 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rhineland
Didn't the Young plan also lead to the removal of British, French and German troops from the demilitarized Rhineland? ShallowThought42 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

" Edwin L. James" "Young Plan"
" Edwin L. James" "Young Plan" - Search ——24.7.56.99 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Dawes Plan
I have made a small edit to the Dawes Plan reference. The Dawes Plan did not fail - it served as the driver for what is sometimes called The Golden Era in Weimar Germany. It did not fix things for all Germans, of course. I have simply amended to remove the uncited comment. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)