Talk:Occupation of the Rhineland

Re-edit

I am not sure what I think about the irony of such substantial changes being made without consultation on the talk page, but containing the following repeated requests "" The problem is that the rewritten version is not very accurate and indeed quiet contentious. At the least the previous opening sentence was quite clear and concise:

"The Allied occupation of the Rhineland took place following the armistice that brought the fighting of World War I to a close on 11 November 1918."

In fact the occupation of the Rhineland was a more a consequence of the German Revolution of 1918–19 in that this had led to collapse of the Imperial German Army. Check the Brussels Soldiers' Council. In fact it was often the Soldiers' Councils which organised the German withdrawal. In the case of Belgium they were linked to the Cologne Soldiers' and Workers' Council. Check Opposing Fascism: Community, Authority and Resistance in Europe, particularly the chapter "The German revolution defeated and fascism deferred: the servicemen's revolt and social democracy at the end of the First World War, 1918–1920": Cologne had been taken over by revolutionary sailors from Kiel.So really the opening sentence, "The Occupation of the Rhineland from 1 December 1918 until 30 June 1930 was a consequence of World War I, in which the Germany had suffered a military defeat against the Allied powers." is inadequate. Leutha (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

additional comment from a passing historian: The initial paragraph of this section is deeply problematic and - arguably - pro-fascist. It seems to support the stab in the back myth by suggesting the reason for the allied occupation of the Rhineland was to do with the German revolution, and not the allied need to remove the German military threat permanently after the armistice and before the full peace. Thereafter, it was maintained as a sureity. A particular problem is the failure to mention at all that the war ended when it did because of German collapse, but why it ended was comprehensive allied victory in the 100 days campaign. Not to mention the defeat of the German army in the field as a key cause (it does not have to be the only cause) is a problematic position to take and associated with a view of history taken primarily by German nationalists and fascists. Please edit to include a reference to military defeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.161.57 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The above editor is correct: the introduction of an article about the occupation on the Rhineland is not the place for unnecessarily long prattle about the reasons for the defeat of Germany. The occupation of the Rhineland is the consequence of the defeat of Germany and the terms of the armistice, period. More context and details about the circumstances of the defeat and the role of the German Revolution should be moved to a context section and moved out from introduction. Also, placing a hidden comment to "Please do not change the first paragraph without prior consensus" while changing this introduction to an obviously non-consensual version does not sound good in terms of respect of the spirit of Wikipedia! This borders on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Place Clichy (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No quite sure where these arguments are coming from, and bandying about terms like pro-fascist without any evidence are far from helpful. Check Ralph Haswell Lutz's The German revolution, 1918-1919: The Kaiser vehemently resisted abdication until 9 November:

"Thus the War Lord (i.e. the Kaiser) learned the truth on the soil of that gallant country which he had ruthlessly invaded five years before. The scene was dramatic. Suddenly he announced that the Chancellor, the first adviser of the crown, as well as the army and navy, had deserted him. Even when he was told that the roads to the front and to the interior were closed by mutinous troops, he could only bring himself to agree to a conditional abdication as Kaiser. But before Berlin could be informed of this decision. Prince Max of Baden had on his own initiative announced the Kaiser's abdication in Berlin. "I am and remain King of Prussia and as such with my troops," the Emperor exclaimed, when told of the action of his Chancellor. That too, however, soon proved impossible." Thus it was the mutinous soldiers who forced the Kaiser to abdicate, thus facilitating the signing of the Armistice. Leutha (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing lead-section 5/3/21

Despite the request not to edit the lead-section, I have taken the liberty of removing irrelevant material concerning the reasons for Germany's military defeat. You may notice that this is not covered in the main article, and therefore does not belong in the lead-section. In any case, the lead was rather too long, relative to the main article. Valetude (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Western Germany 1923 en.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

New material

I plan to add a large amount of new material within the next few weeks to cover the non-military side of the occupation, which is almost entirely missing now. That will mean a new lead section, which obviously has been contentious. The new material breaks down into the following sections: Versailles negotiations; Treaty provisions (with a link to the text of the agreement on the occupation that was signed along with Versailles: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch28); Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission; Separatism; Ruhr occupation; German–Allied relations; Propaganda; Black Horror on the Rhine; and End of the occupation. I don't plan to include anything in the lead section about why Germany lost the war because it's not directly related to the occupation. My initial draft of the core of the lead section is as follows (leaving out for now the summary of the newly added material):

The Occupation of the Rhineland placed the region of Germany west of the Rhine river, along with four bridgeheads to its east, under the control of the victorious Allies of World War I from 1 December 1918 until 30 June 1930. The occupation was imposed and regulated by articles in the Armistice of 11 November 1918, the Treaty of Versailles and the parallel agreement on the Rhineland occupation signed at the same time as the Versailles Treaty. The Rhineland was demilitarized, as was an area stretching fifty kilometres east of the Rhine, and put under the control of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission, which was led by the French commissioner and had one member each from Belgium, Great Britain and the United States (the latter in an observer role only). The purpose of the occupation was to give France and Belgium security against any future German attack and serve as a guarantee for Germany's reparations obligations. After agreements on those issues were reached in the 1929 Young Plan, the occupation of the Rhineland ended on 30 June 1930, five years earlier than originally set down in the Treaty of Versailles.

Thoughts & suggestions welcomed. GHStPaulMN (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)