Talk:Occupation of the Ruhr

Untitled

The occupatıon was seen as break of the peace treaty so that the German offıcers feeled not any more bındet wıth thıs treatys and started a task force wıtch ınıtıated planes for the reshapıng of the German army. One can say thıs occupatıon was the ınıtıal start of the Second world war. J

I really would disagree, it didn't really initiate the German army to start the second world war; however it did cause and upward surge in the popularity of nationalism (thus the Nazi Party) in Germany. R R34p3r2006 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This page WRONGLY has a redirect from occupation of the Rhineland

Sheredot (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC) corrected by self after working out how to do it.Sheredot (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Most sources date the Ruhr occupation from 1919 or 1920. Very confusing. Are they all wrong? (76.119.204.89 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

WPMILHIST Assessment

lol. It's rare to see an article that's shorter than its bibliography. LordAmeth 06:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet there's no footnotes. If I knew which cleanup tag was approative for bibliographic sources without footnotes, I'd place it at the top of the article. Jon (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you've never looked inside an academic German work before. :-) Historian932 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Absurd hyperbole

"Particularly galling to the French was that the timber quota the Germans defaulted on was based on an assessment of their capacity the Germans made themselves and subsequently lowered"—"galling" to the French? The entire TofV was radically punitive, this is like calling it "offensive" if a slave doesn't jump high enough when his "master" tells himt to. Combined with later sentences arguing that the *British* wanted harsher measures, which opening lines in the *same* paragraph say was the *reverse* this article needs some serious rewrite by someone who knows the topic well. Right now it smells of contradiction and French supremacism. Historian932 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you did not look into how human minds work. There is no supremacism over here: French merely had a crisis of their capabilities not corresponding to their wanted ideals, combined with a humilation resulted from how the war must have looked stupid to them, and how their ideals were being betrayed. Whenever someone is trying to deceive you, you feel offended, that is how it normally functions, whether you like it or not. Meanwhile, there is no human and no country who does not think opposite things at the same time; yet the article does not say that British wanted "harsher" measures, it says they did not want the milder measures, this is a very different thing. - 91.122.12.137 (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently BOTH of you didn’t bother to read the purpose of the Talk Pages at the header of every TP, nor WP:FORUM or WP:SOAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.40.110 (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Lithuanian takeover

The occupation of Memelland - which happened at the same time with the diplomatic support of the war winners - should also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.184.14 (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sympathy for Germany

"Internationally the occupation did much to boost sympathy for Germany, although no action was taken in the League of Nations since it was technically legal under the Treaty of Versailles." The first part sounds very vague. Maybe there's a point to specify what the word 'internationally' means, and what this sympathy manifested itself in? - 91.122.12.137 (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo caption/translation

Perhaps a native German speaker can answer this - the caption for the photo of the gymnasts marching says the translation of "Wir wollen niemals Knechte sein" as "We never want to be vassals". It seems to me a better translation would be "We will never be vassals" - is that correct? It has been a while since my German classes, so I'm not an authority by any stretch. N9XTN (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's about right. But Knechte does not mean vassals, it's servants. The language is strange anyway and it would be best to leave the translation out. 80.132.77.6 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Area occupied - map and description please

The article would benefit from a map shewing the area occupied, as well as a description in the text. The existing map appears to refer to the occupation of the Rhineland, and the text is not clear. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (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)

Free State of Bottleneck

Should the Free State of Bottleneck be included in the Infobox? It's article does mention it dissolved during the occupation. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:402F:B477:B2FA:7C42 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)