Talk:History of Germany since 1945

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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

Contents

[edit] 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:
Main article: East Germany
Main article: West Germany
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:

  • 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.

Chanheigeorge 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


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)

[edit] 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 de: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Af for secondary sources I would suggest:

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.

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

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.[1] 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. [2][3] possibly in an attempt to get rid of competition on the world markets. Seems they were pretty much forced to stop dismantling [4]. 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.

  • Ch. a) Only reparations worth havg = G. export markets.

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.

  • P.M.

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

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


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)