Talk:World War II reparations

Soviet Union?

I don't mean to sound hyper-critical, but this page at present has a huge omission. There is nothing about reparations to the Soviet Union, which were the largest reparations ever collected by nation from another. This page really needs a section about German reparations to the Soviet Union, which came mostly from East Germany. Until then, it is has to considered very lacking. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reparations to the Soviet Union? What about Soviet Union and Russian reparations towards Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and other countries? Eurohunter (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Who benefitted?

The section "Intellectual property - The Allies confiscated significant values of German patents, copyrights and trademarks" is interesting as it does not say in whose possession the intellectual property passed. Did they pass straight to companies who could use them, in the US or other Allied countries? For the sake of the argument, let us assume they all went to the US, so did the US government auction them to the companies? Did the US taxpayer aquire a share in the companies that used them? Did the US government have companies which used them?

The relevance of these questions lies in the fact that the US taxpayer had funded the war efforts and the reparations were to repay them. Beyond that, there were/are obviously the public costs of veterans, health and wheelchairs, pensions and funerals for instance, maybe college scholarships for fatherless children. These costs are with the taxpayer for many decades. Nearly 70 years after the end of war, there are still pensions and funerals to pay for the veterans. The US taxpayer would have been duped if the reparations in intellectual property benefitted companies and the costs for veterans' were solely paid by the taxpayer. If anybody reads this who could investigate this topic, I have a case: A distant relative by the name of Georg Mars held steel patents in Germany but which came through a steel factory on an island in/near Budapest, Hungary. He fled after the communists took over and found in Germany that his patents had been signed over. He would have been born around 1880 and died in Germany in the late 1950s or early 1960s. What is relevant here is just who cashed in on these patents that were transferred to the US or other Allied?

There appears to be a pattern that the taxpayer pays for the aftermath of e.g. the Iraq War although it was companies who wanted that war and intended to benefit. When the NSA spies on the Brazilian company Petrobras as the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff says, that can only mean that it is supposed to benefit Halliburton who cooperates with Petrobras. The question here is: Does the taxpayer fund the NSA for Halliburton to obtain information when oil fields are about to be auctioned off? Does Halliburton pay the NSA for the information that they receive from the NSA? 144.136.192.10 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

German-centrality

As of 2018, the article seems too German-centric. I suppose this article should relate to all WW2 reparations, therefore claims against Japan should be mentioned, or at least included in "See Also". -- Patrickov (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Video of Bill Clinton

This video from 1999 could be used to illustrate the article.

Victor Grigas (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Greece

It is not true that the German Reich was lending 476 Million RM from the central bank of Greece. I am providing here here a translated newspaper article of the WELT newspaper :

In the debt dispute with Germany, the new Greek government repeatedly brings forward claims from the Second World War. Specifically, it is said to be a bond worth 476 million Reichsmark, which the Nazi state demanded from the country without interest. It had never been repaid. The sum of 476 million is used to justify various claims on the Federal Government. Today, these are said to be worth at least five billion euro. According to the Greeks themselves, it would even be worth eleven billion.

But a glance at the archives - at the original sources - throws a new light on history. The surprising result is that there was no German bond of this value at all. There was only the demand for occupation costs, which Greece had to bear.

This is shown by a 251-sheet file with the signature R 27320, which was once kept in the Federal Archives, but is now in the Political Archive of the Foreign Office. It is not secret, but can be ordered and viewed without any problems.

Where does the "German residual debt" come from?

Of particular interest in the file R 27320 is page 114, from which the figure 476 million Reichsmark originates. There a brief account is presented - from the occupation costs borne by Greece, minus undeclared deductions and German repayments to the country. The bottom line is a sum of 476 million, known as the "German residual debt". This is clearly neither a loan nor a bond, but a calculated amount. However, according to a certain senior government councillor, Mr Nestler, this debt should be offset by free German imports into Greece. They had reached a value of 300 million Reichsmark, the reports show in the letter from Reichsbank director Paul Hahn to his boss. However, it is not clear from the attached annexes what this calculation is based on.

To take up such a calculation, however, is better avoided in Germany today. It would be downright indecent in view of the devastation and numerous violent crimes committed by the occupying power and would only further inflame emotions in Greece.

Suffice it to say that the 476 million Reichsmark was not a "bond" of any kind. This interpretation goes back to the historian Hagen Fleischer, which the Emeritus of the University of Athens with Greek and German passports explained in interviews with the ARD, for example. Cautiously, Fleischer usually puts words like credit or bond in inverted commas in this context, at least in the written form published on the website. Nevertheless, he sees this as a legal basis for Greek claims of around ten billion euros. That sum, he argues, results in a conversion appropriate to the purchasing power of the company, with a moderate interest rate.

No enforceable claims

But this is a very one-sided reading of sources, as historian Götz Aly rightly criticises. Before you evaluate facts, you must first establish them. And the file R 27320 of the Political Archive contains no indication that the 476 million Reichsmarks are anything other than occupation costs.

At that time, it was permissible under international war law to impose occupation costs on the occupied country; no claim can be derived from this alone, and certainly not one that could still be implemented after more than 70 years. It might have been different with a formal loan. It could at least theoretically justify Greece's outstanding claims on Germany - if it had existed.

It is true that the occupation costs could be formally claimed in the context of reparations negotiations. But all claims for reparations have been settled since the Two Plus Four Treaty of 1990, which Greece has also taken note of in a binding manner under international law. No one can seriously deny the crimes committed by the German occupying power in Greece between 1941 and 1944. That would also be foolish in view of the numerous sources available. But Greece cannot derive enforceable claims from this. Since 1946, Germany has supplied goods under the Paris Reparations Agreement, later provided special loans at favourable interest rates, paid a lump-sum compensation for Nazi victims or their relatives in 1960 and released many billions of euros from European pots for Athens. However, these values have largely trickled away. SchlauFuchs (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Confused about what Poland didn't get

I am no expert on the subject and as such I am a little confused reading this article as to what form of reparations Poland feels it unfairly missed out on. I understand no reparations were paid in money but rather in forced labour, confiscated property, and annexed territories. Poland is said to have waived its rights to reparations and yet it still got a solid chunk of German territories and there was forced labour of Germans in post-war Poland. Is this some of that fabled confiscated property that Poland would like a bite of? Or do Polish politicians feel the Potsdam Conference treated their country unfairly and do not accept it? I'm trying to understand. Pear-on-willow (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Pear-on-willow - Former German territories were assigned to Poland in Potsdam as compensation for the areas lost by Poland to the USSR, so that was no compensation from Germany. Poland later has waived its right to compensation from Germany due to the existence of East Germany and the Soviet pressure. There is more to the story, which I’ll try to answer later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Decisions of the Polish People's Republic were not Polish decisions. Eurohunter (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The Republic of Poland of as much legal successor to the communist Poland as the Federal Republic of Germany is legal successor to Nazi Germany. Both are bound by the deeds of the previous governments.

If you are not happy with what the Soviets did to Poland you have to ask them - their legal successor - for compensation.

And of course territories ceded from Germany and going to Poland are part of the reparations. These 100.000k² do have a value that was formerly German and is now Polish. If at the same time the Soviets grabbed territories from Poland again kindly ask the legal successor of the Sovietunion, Russia, to put that straight. ASchudak (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Poland reperations

The Poland section carries with it a clear German POV and quite literally German Government PR talking points (factual or not), not only some of the statements are nothing more then WP:SYNTH of several sources combinded to draw WP:OR conclusion, the sources themselves are problematic and less then reliable, as they erroneously claim that reparations between Poland and Germany were addresses in several past treaties and/or resolutions, yet the referenced treaties (primary sources) do not make any reference to the issue of reparations between Poland and Germany. That is why only high quality sources should be used to make authoritative statements and not opinion newspaper or magazine articles. Also, some of the statements are completely un-ture, for example when referencing the Polish Parliament's 2004 resolution, the statement in the Poland section of this Wikipedia article said: "In 2004, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement". This is a complete joke because the opposite is true! Here is the link to the parliamentary resolution from 10 September 2004 [1] and here is a piece of the translated text: "The Sejm of the Republic of Poland, aware of the role of historical truth and elementary justice in Polish-German relations: 1) states that Poland has not yet received adequate compensation financial and war reparations for enormous destruction and losses material and intangible caused by German aggression, occupation, genocide and loss of independence by Poland." How the hell do you get that wrong, claiming the exact opposite of what the parliamentary resolution actually said??? This is just one example of the blatant un-truths or misrepresentation that were added to the Poland section of this article. E-960 (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• First and foremost, the issue of reparations is NOT SETTLED (both parties need to agree to that not just one side), so this section should note that, and present both augment, not just present German PR talking points as "fact". For example in 1969, the Polish government sent a diplomatic note to the UN stating that Poland did not renounce war reparations from Germany. Not mentioned in this article before with all the German POV. --E-960 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, stop re-adding false statements that are back-up by questionable sources, how the hell are you going to justify the FALSE statement that the Polish Parliament's 2004 resolution said: "In 2004, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement", when I'm showing you the copy of the actual resolution and it says the exact opposite: "The Sejm of the Republic of Poland, aware of the role of historical truth and elementary justice in Polish-German relations: 1) states that Poland has not yet received adequate compensation financial and war reparations for enormous destruction and losses material and intangible caused by German aggression, occupation, genocide and loss of independence by Poland.". You are pushing the German government's PR talking points and false claims, not facts. How do you even begin to justify some of the false claims originally inserted into this article, when I'm showing you what was actually said??? --E-960 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that a lot of these falsehoods that were perpetrated by the German government and then popularised will start to fall apart now. As the current Polish government raised that specific issue recently, detailing among other things, how the Federal Republic since the end of the war has been... well, simply lying, the whole "Polish Death Camps" misnomer when talking about Nazi German Death Camps built during the occupation (A 2016 article by Matt Lebovic stated that West Germany's Agency 114, which during the Cold War recruited former Nazis to West Germany's intelligence service, worked to popularize the term "Polish death camps" in order to minimize German responsibility for, and implicate Poles in, the atrocities.), or how the German government asked for evidence from the Polish authorities in order to "build cases" against war criminals and to asses reparations, only to have the cases go nowhere, yet the German government then would not return the documents, this in order to conceal proof of German atrocities in Poland from future scrutiny. Here is an article about it: Tens of thousands of original documents on German crimes did not return to Poland from Germany: "Arkadiusz Mularczyk estimates that there are over 60,000 original documents in Germany about German crimes committed in Poland. Prof. Antoni Dudek believes that the German side is behaving irresponsibly as it refuses to return the documents to Poland." Having said that, how can you re-insert a blatantly false claims like the 2004 Sejm resolution example, when it is simply not true and the exact opposite of what actually happened!? Same of other claim that Poland in bilateral agreements with German waived reparation rights, do we have to paste full text of each treaty to show what actually was said and what it specifically related to? --E-960 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

1. The section is neutral and cites reliable secondary sources.
2. Your own personal analysis of primary sources is highly irrelevant here. Please read WP:OR and provide reliable secondary sources.
3. The fact that you don't like some of the information contained in the article is irrelevant as well.
4. YOU deleted reliable secondary sources (from Polish! scholars) and added sources from news magazines instead, no one else.
5. The only one who (intentionally) misinterprets sources here, is you. For next time: read the sources first before deleting them.
6. No one here is talking about this Sejm resolution except you. The secondary sources refer to a declaration made by the Polish Council of Ministers on 19 October 2004. Again, read the sources!
7. You have a highly biased POV. You generally have difficulty taking a neutral POV on Poland- and Germany-related articles.

In short: highly disruptive editing, original research, no neutral POV, and deletion of reliable secondary sources. Do you really think, this well get you far here?

Please specify what information you want to add and provide a reliable secondary source. Then we can talk about it here in a civilized manner. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

*JeanClaudeN1, I've added a "dispute" tag to the section and will open up an RfC and other dispute resolution options to ask other editors to examine the statements and the various sources and their claims. I've explained each of my edits in the edit comments. And kept the longstanding text in the article, which I originally removed as dubious, however it is clear that the claims made in various sources are contradictory. Also, I'm not going to start a discussion about "Polish scholars", but on a side note, there are plenty of Polish scholars who claim the opposite. Just like in Germany there are scholars who take the Polish perspective, and they have been quoted in the Polish media as well. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

German–Polish Border Treaty

I've removed referecne to the German–Polish Border Treaty as the source cited [2] does not reference it, and only notes the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. If I missed something please quote the exact text where the German–Polish Border Treaty was referecned. E-960 (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Added statement on the 1969 UN note and 2004 Sejm declaration

I've added a statement on the 1969 UN note in which Poland was asking the UN to step in and resolve the unsettled issue of reparations and prosecution of war criminals. Also, I added the text of the 2004 Sejm declaration where Poland's parliment passed a resolution in which it stated that Poland has not received due reparations. Both statements are backed by mainstream sources interviewing the authors of the newly published report on Poland's wartimes losses. E-960 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Primary Sources vs. Secondary Sources (newspaper/magazine articles make claims not found in treaty/resolution text)

The following statements in the World War II reparations article backed up by secondary reference sources make claims about treaties and resolutions (primary sources), which do not appear in the actual text of the documents. In fact, both claims made by the secondary source are the exact opposite of what the resolutions or treatise called for. Should these statements backed up by secondary sources be removed under WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL as the claims made by them are dubious.

Case 1.) Statement in the article says that in 2004 the Polish government re-affirmed the waiving of reparation rights in 1953, while the actual text of the Polish government's resolution says the exact opposite.

Statement in the the World War II reparations article (secondary source) states: In 2004, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement.

However, the Polish Government resolution dated 10 September 2004 text (primary source) states: The Sejm of the Republic of Poland is aware of the role of historical truth and elementary justice in Polish-German relations: 1) states that Poland has not yet received appropriate compensation financial and war reparations for enormous damages and losses material and immaterial caused by German aggression, occupation, genocide and loss of independence by Poland; The Sejm of the Republic of Poland Poland calls on the Government of the Republic of Poland to take appropriate action in this matter to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany; 2) declares that Poland has no financial obligations towards citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany resulting from World War II and its aftermath; 3) urges the Government to express its respect to the public as soon as possible material and non-material losses incurred by the Polish State its citizens as a result of World War II; 4) appeals to the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany to recognize that it is unfounded and unlawfulness of German claims for damages against Poland and ceasing to refer German citizens to court or administrative against Poland; The Sejm of the Republic of Poland is summoned by the Government The Republic of Poland to take decisive steps in the matter definitive recognition of a possible event by the Federal Republic of Germany liability for damages suffered by citizens Germans as a result of resettlement and loss of people's property after World War II world resulting from the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement and as a result subsequent repatriation processes.

Case 2.) Statement in the article says that in 1970 Poland and Germany in the Treaty of Warsaw re-affirmed the waiving of reparation rights in 1953, while the actual text of the Treaty of Warsaw does not make any reference to this.

Statement in the the World War II reparations article (secondary source) states: In 1970, Poland re-affirmed the renunciation of the 1953 agreement by concluding the Warsaw Treaty, in which Western Germany too recognized the Oder-Neisse as the final border between both countries.

However, the Warsaw Treaty text (primary source) states: Article I. 1. The Polish People's Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany agree that the existing border line, the route of which was determined in Chapter IX of the Potsdam Conference Resolution of August 2, 1945, from the Baltic Sea directly west of Świnoujście and from there along the Odra River to the place where the Nysa Łużycka flows into the river and along the Nysa Łużycka river to the border with Czechoslovakia, it constitutes the western state border of the Polish People's Republic. 2. They affirm the inviolability of their existing borders, now and in the future, and undertake each other to fully respect their territorial integrity. 3. They declare that they have no territorial claims against each other and will not make such claims in the future. Article II 1. The Polish People's Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany will be guided in their mutual relations and in matters of ensuring security in Europe and in the world by the goals and principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations. 2. Accordingly, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, they will settle all their disputes only by peaceful means and, in matters concerning European and international security, and in their mutual relations, they will refrain from the threat of violence, or use of violence. Article III 1. The Polish People's Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany will take further steps towards the full normalization and comprehensive development of their mutual relations, the permanent basis of which will be this Agreement. 2. They agree that it is in their common interest to expand their cooperation in the field of economic, scientific, scientific and technical, cultural and other relations. Article IV This Agreement shall not apply to bilateral or multilateral international agreements previously concluded by or relating to the Parties. Article V The present treaty is subject to ratification and will enter into force on the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which will take place in Bonn. In witness whereof, the Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties have signed this Agreement. This Agreement was drawn up in Warsaw on December 7, 1970 in duplicate, each in Polish and German, both texts being equally authentic.[3]

References

E-960 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• REMOVE The claims presented by the two statements in the article, which cite secondary reference sources are dubious, and their interpretations of the two documents in question are highly controversial, not to be taken as undisputed and un-bias facts, or presented in the Wikipedia narrator voice for that matter.

• Comment: Came here via a bot summons. Contemporary news reporting combined with an editor's interpretation of treaty (primary) documents is not a good way to determine phrasing. Secondary, reliable sourcing from specialists should always be the first option. I can agree that the sentence in Case 2 is poorly written and both could be better sourced, for example: "In 1970, in concluding the Warsaw Treaty, where Poland's final border was agreed, Poland extended to the FRG the 1953 agreement with the GDR which renounced further reparations." "In 2004, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement." Those statements are in accord with Polish government policy from 1970 until quite recently. That the *present* Polish government has changed policy on *previous* Polish government actions does not invalidate the statements (NB use of "in 1970" & "in 2004").

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, indeed I also agree that the original wording is not very good, and on a side note I noticed you were able to provide additional references, which shed more light on this matter. What's interesting is that one of them says "The renunciation of such claims was confirmed by the Polish deputy minister of foreign affairs, J. Winiewicz, during the course of the negotiations leading to the normalization treaty of November 1970", yet no mention of this point is made in the actual treaty text. I think this is why it is such a complex matter, and why high quality sources are needed, because making a verbal promise during negotiations, under international law is non-binding and does not carry any weight unless it is written down in the treaty. Perhaps the wording in the article should be adjusted to make note of this; that the waving of reparation rights was re-confirmed during the treat negotiations, however the Warsaw Treaty of 1970 does not actually cover this issue in its text. --E-960 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

E-960, you need to understand that your own personal analysis has no relevance on Wikipedia. The sources do not say "a verbal promise during negotiations, under international law is non-binding" and "however the Warsaw Treaty of 1970 does not actually cover this issue in its text." This is original research. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, we as editors have this option, just becasue a source says something does not mean it is the best one to articulate the issue, and the inconsistancies are the proof of it.

Goldsztajn, thank you for the additional references. I think your suggested rewording is indeed better. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The user E-960 (intentionally?) misinterprets statements in secondary sources to push his POV. The secondary sources do not refer to the (non-binding) Sejm resolution mentioned above, but to a declaration made by the Polish Council of Ministers on 19 October 2004 in response to this resolution. In this declaration the 1953 renouncement was re-affirmed. This information can be found in numerous reliable secondary sources (see e.g. citations in the article).

This makes this whole RfC pointless. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, please do not WP:ASPERSIONS or WP:ABF. None of the two sources provided reference the "Polish Council of Ministers" and only one mentioned "2004" not "19 October 2004". I'm citing the Polish Sejm (Parliament) resolution made on 10 September 2004. So, how can you argue these are reliable high quality sources if they they don't even provide accurate and important information, and if there were differing view on this within the Polish government, the sources sure as heck did not bother to articulate that point. Yet, you accuse me of WP:POVPUSH, all the while excluding references noting that the Polish government repeatedly raised the issue of reparations. So, you only build my case that these two statements should be removed under WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, because the sources used to back them up are not accurate enough to properly cover this complex and sensitive topic. --E-960 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Again: This information can be found in reliable secondary sources and it is also pointed out that the declaration of the Polish government (19 October 2004) was a response to the resolution of the Sejm (10 September 2004). See e.g. Please read the sources. It's okay to mention the Sejm resolution in the article, but you can't remove information about the government's response at the same time.

References

JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: We should probably add to the article that the 1953 declaration to waive reparation rights was made by the Polish Council of Ministers, yet under the Constitution of the Polish People's Republic which came into force in 1952, it was the Polish Council of State which had the authority to undertake such a decision, this not only makes the 1953 political declaration illegal under Polish law, it carries no weight under international law because proper diplomatic steps were not take to inform the German State of Poland's intentions and formally settle the issue in a way that would be officially recognized by the international community. Instead a bunch of informal political declarations were made under pressure from the Soviet Union, which carried no weight under international law, and were actually illegal under Polish law.

References

--E-960 (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, unless you provide reliable secondary sources. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BESTSOURCES. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I concur with JeanClaudeN1, proposals here are based on original research. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• @E-960: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 7,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at WP:RFC/HIST. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Redrose64, JeanClaudeN1 and Goldsztajn, the issue is complicated to say the leaset, the two flagged statements, which are the subject of this RfC use low quality sources, pls refer to the above disscussion and example regarding "2004". There has been an Arbitaration Committed decision to use high quality sources on topic related to Poland in order to prevent sloppy, imprecise and vague statements from being included in the Wikipedia articles, which can be misunderstood by the reader. That's why I'm recomending removal, per WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or at lest change the wording per sources presented by Goldsztajn. We as editors have this option, just becasue a source says something does not mean it is the best one to articulate the issue, and the inconsistancies are the proof of it. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" and I'm simply showing by citing the treaties/resolution text that those sources are... well, not very good as articulating the point. --E-960 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I want to highlight that even one of the German language reference sources cited[4] stated that "contradictory statements" were made by the Polish side, however, this Wikipedia article presented the whole issue as if it was case closed and until 2022 everyone in Poland agreed to that. That's why I raised the issue of accuracy. --E-960 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see complexity in the sourcing. The sources are pretty clear on the renunciations in 1953 and 1970. The two sentences under discussion here are correct in that they reflect the position of the Polish government at that time. What has changed is that the present Polish government no longer considers those renunciations valid and seeks to do this by reinterpreting previous agreements. I'm not against additional text which outlines the current Polish government change in policy, nor do I believe is JeanClaudeN1. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Goldsztajn, I went ahead and included more detailed information in the article from the sources you provided yet JeanClaudeN1 removed it. Why? That's just Wikipedia:Sanitizeing the article. The Polish government has several branches, the Parliament (Sejm) the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister) and the President, etc.; including text which states who said what and to provide exact dates is legitimate information. Instead, JeanClaudeN1 is basically POV-pushing the German government's narrative, yada, yada, yada, the "Polish government" renounced all claims, case closed. Well, even one of the German newspaper articles said that the Polish government institutions put out "contradictory statements". Also, JeanClaudeN1 is abusing the definition of what WP:OR; pointing out that a reference source is not very good and providing example is not me conducting original research, even Wikipedia guidelines say: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." and "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."[5] --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Stop making false accusations. Did you include the wording suggested by Goldsztajn? "In 1970, in concluding the Warsaw Treaty, where Poland's final border was agreed, Poland extended to the FRG the 1953 agreement with the GDR which renounced further reparations." "In 2004, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement." JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  As Goldsztajn said, there is no problem with the two sentences. Not all sources are at the same level of detail. But that does not invalidate these sources. Both sentences correctly reflect the position of the Polish government at that time.

  Please read WP:INTEGRITY. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  JeanClaudeN1, this statement from a published book, not a short news/opinion website is more detailed (WP:BESTSOURCES): "The renunciation of such claims was confirmed by the Polish deputy minister of foreign affairs, J. Winiewicz, during the course of the negotiations leading to the normalization treaty of November 1970." The reason for this as stated before noting Wikipedia guidelines: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." and "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."[6] --E-960 (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I think that JeanClaudeN1 is abusing the definition of what WP:OR is simply raising the point that a newspaper/magazine source is not high quality and show examples in not OR. An academic source such as a published book or academic journal will always trump a newspaper/magazine article (there are even disclaimers in Wikipedia guidelines to be cautions of using them because some by not be entirely accurate or precise). --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  The only one here adding dubious sources from Polish news websites is you. See e.g. [7], [8] and [9].

  At the same time, you removed reliable secondary sources from scholars. See e.g. [10], [11] and [12] JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @E-960:} We shouldn't need to do that. I'm pointing out that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, the entry for this RfC is showing at the bottom of the page without a statement or timestamp - compare it to any of the others on that page. This indicates a malformed RfC, specifically, one that fails WP:RFCBRIEF. The way to fix this is to either (a) insert a brief and neutral statement, with timestamp, after the {{rfc}} tag on this page above the present; or (b) significantly shorten the present statement to perhaps a quarter of its present size or even less. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll try to trim the description. --E-960 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, if the more detailed re-wording of those statements which I edited are kept (citing on the more in-depth reference sources, including those provided by user Goldsztajn) and JeanClaudeN1 stops removing them, I could cancel this RfC because though the two statements were not removed, they were re-phrased with wording which contain more detail and are more accurate, per higher quality reference sources. --E-960 (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  The problem still exists. If you cannot supply a brief and neutral statement by 18:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC), I shall cancel this RfC myself as being in breach of guidelines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: What you are doing there is deep-diving into primary historical documents, writing an essay with our own interpretation of history. Thats the literal definition of WP:OR. Thats not how Wikipedia works. Its not on us to interpret historical sources, we use secondary sources which do that for us. Dead Mary (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Dead Mary, I offered to drop this RfC if JeanClaudeN1 stops removed the more detailed statements I added which are back-up by reliable sources (in fact two of those sources are published books referenced by another user who commented on this RfC). Also, I think the definition of OR is being stretched here; me raising a point that some sources are not really detailed or accurate enough (WP:BESTSOURCES) is not OR. Original research is when some editor started to add their own research on a topic (like someone doing their own calculations and observations to prove flat-earth or something). Pointing out that there is a discrepancy, is not OR, if there was a reliable source which said, the "country of North Canada", me looking a map and saying maybe we should not include this source (even though it is reliable) because there is no such country, maybe the author did not word the article properly and it should have said the north Canadian country side. --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: E-960, how about a compromise? As a sign of goodwill, I included both Goldsztajn's wording and your wording. I guess we agree that Polish ministers are representatives of the Polish government. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, the problem with the new wording is that the text makes certain assumption which are not clear form the sources, like "Poland extended to the FRG the 1953 agreement with the GDR which renounced further reparations" the sources only say that Polish official re-confirmed the 1953 agreement, however it is not clear if this was actually "extended" to West Germany or what. Btw, on a side-note this was a standard approach dictated by the Soviet, where they kept certain details ambitious in order to create uncertainty. Best example of this is the current Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, where the Soviets deliberately created enclaves and did not de-mark the boundary, this is why they hoped that only their influence will keep the two sides form challenging the uncertain status-quo. At this point, I'm considering raising Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion to go sentence by sentence, and source by source to ensure the adequate level of detail in the text and to use best possible source descriptions. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Sanitizing the article (Poland section)

User JeanClaudeN1 is sanitizing the article, he keeps removing the text I added which is based on mainstream reliable reference sources (two sources even provided by another editor who commented on the RfC); this text contains names, exact dates and more detail descriptions of who said what and when (WP:BESTSOURCES). So, for all the initial talk about about how statements should only be backed up by reliable sources, user JeanClaudeN1 now does not want certain text to be included even though it is back-up by a reliable source and quoted for that matter. Which only leads me to believe that he is POV pushing. Trying to exclude reference sources that don't fit his narrative, all the while adding even more text to support his POV.

Heaven forbid the reader actually gets a bit more context on this controversial issue, instead of basically the German government's PR talking points of... yada, yada, yada, the "Polish government" renounced all claims, case closed, let's keep this as short and general as possible, because details might actually raise questions about it. E-960 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Example:

Text that JeanClaudeN1 removed (back up by a reliable source): "On 19 October 2004 the Polish Council of Ministers put out a statement saying: "The declaration of 23 August 1953 was adopted in accordance with the constitutional order of the time, in compliance with international law laid down in the UN Charter." Why would this detailed statement back up by a reliable source be a problem? Well, because in another statement quoting the Head of the Bureau of Parliamentary Analysis who said that, quote: "The Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland of 1952 reserved issues concerning the conclusion and ratification of international agreements for the Council of State (a collegiate body performing the functions of the head of state), and not for the Council of Ministers." So, let's be specific if a relaible reference source has that information, instead of using generic statements like the "Polish government" said this or that, lets reference who; the Council of Ministers, the Parilment (Sejm), the Persident, or just a minister or a diplomat, etc. --E-960 (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

E-960, you need to stop with your original research and false accusations. The majority of secondary sources say "the Polish government". As several users have mentioned ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]), your own personal analysis and highly biased POV is irrelevant here (see WP:OR). You keep repeating the same arguments without convincing anyone. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• JeanClaudeN1, you really need to stop with with Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. I'm including additional detail in the Poland section using WP:BESTSOURCES and I'm even quoting them directly in order to avoid confusion; that's not WP:OR. You are just fighting to keep your POV in the article, and in the process you are removing those statements you don't like, all along adding even more text to reinforce your POV — below are the statements I augmented with more detail and sources:

New statement 1 (and reference source cited with quote): In 1970, the 1953 renunciation of reparation rights was confirmed by the Polish Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Winiewicz during the course of the negotiations leading to the normalization treaty of November 1970.

Old statement 1: In 1970, in concluding the Warsaw Treaty with West Germany, the Polish government confirmed the renunciation of 1953.

New statement 2 (and reference source cited with quote): In response to the resolution, on 19 October 2004 the Polish Council of Ministers put out a statement saying: "The declaration of 23 August 1953 was adopted in accordance with the constitutional order of the time, in compliance with international law laid down in the UN Charter."

Old statement 2: In response to this resolution, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement.

References

How do you even being to argue that these statements are WP:OR, you just don't want them in because they disrupt you POV, adding detail about exactly WHO said WHAT and WHEN is not disruptive and you have no argument for it other then Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. All along adding even more text to reinforce your POV, while removing those two statement. --E-960 (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

E-960, Wikipedia is not about whose POV is better represented in the article, but about what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Core content policies. The sources are very clear on the position of the previous Polish governments (as already pointed out by Goldsztajn in the RfC). Why did you ignore the input of other users?

So far you have not provided a single reliable source yourself. All the information you added to the article in the last few days is based on poor quality sources. Your proposals here are based on original research, and reinterpretation of sources provided by other users. This is not a good basis for a discussion.

Also, please stop deleting scholarly sources without a valid reason. Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@E-960, again, I concur with @JeanClaudeN1; the changes you have been making do not reflect the sources, but rather emphasise interpretations you personally hold. To reiterate, the sources are absolutely clear: the position of the Polish government in 1953 and 1970 was to renounce further claims of reparations against Germany (both the GDR and the FRG). That the present Polish government no longer accepts those positions is immaterial to the historical timeline. FWIW, headlining this section "JeanClaudeN1 is sanitizing the article" is both a personal attack and not in good faith. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn and @E-960 A new, straightforward RfC concerning the matter needs to be re-started. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, from my perspective, there's one editor who continues to inject original research into the article on this topic, despite at least three editors repeatedly highlighting this. The RfC above, however construed, has no support other than from the initiator. I'm uncertain another one with similar intent, even if better worded, would really address the root problem (viz. OR pushing). However, I have no opposition to any editor making a new proposal. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, if you read the discussion you will notice that I said I was willing to drop the RfC if the more detailed statements I included are kept, however JeanClaudeN1 keeps removing them despite me including reliable reference sources (one of them you citied) and even quotes to show they are accurate - you can see them just above. --E-960 (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Dead Mary, there is certainly NO consensus to change the article in such a dramatic way as you did, at this point there was only the dispute about one statement regarding the negotiators leading up to and the 1970 treaty. So, flipping-the-table and splitting the Poland section into two sub-sections is a bit too much. Also, you accuse me of not following proper editing standards, yet you go in and in a "Wikipedia narrator's voice" write in that the Oder-Neisse line was to be counted as reparations, nothing could be further form the truth (however some claim this informally like the German government, and it's cited by some reliable sources). However, it is just ONE PERSPECTIVE, so it should not be presented as undisputed fact using Wikipedia narrator's voice no less, which is what you did. Btw, was the Morgenthau Plan plan some kind of reparation - I ask this rhetorical question because many other academics view the Oder-Neisse line as it's alternative, and not connected to reparations in any way.

I will go ahead in the next day or so and initiate either a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion to go over the remaining disputed statement sounding the 1970 treaty and its negotiations, which myself and JeanClaudeN1 went back and forth on. Btw, this topic is not a clear cut issue, I don't even pretend that it is, so to keep adding more and more text basically arguing German government's POV that this is a closed issue, is bias; it is not and there are sources to dispute this, and even different branches of the Polish government had conflicting views on this. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Dead Mary, JeanClaudeN1, and GizzyCatBella, btw, the German historian who does think Poland has a case is Karl Heinz Roth. So again, this is not a one sided issue, and literally every point connected to this matter has different interpretations and disputed interpretations. You are welcome to use this source as well written by his on this subject here: [18], I will have a look as well. --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  One left-wing German physician-historian, whose area of speciality is social history during the Reich, quoted recently in Polish state media, does not make the issue complex. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  My reply above is perhaps too pithy. Let me rephrese: Roth (and Rübner) is certainly part of contemporary historical reinterpretation of the issue of reparations and I have no objection to a discussion around *contemporary* debates of this issue. But we need to differentiate between contemporary debates and the historical policies of the governments. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I concur with Goldsztajn. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Goldsztajn and JeanClaudeN1 please, you throw around accusations of not following Wikipedia guidelines, then you make such blatantly bias and POV-ish statements, trying to discredit reliable mainstream published reference sources (this is a QUALITY academic reference source, not a bunch of opinion/news webpages written by commentators who gloss-over details). Btw, JeanClaudeN1 just seems to be adding sources, which just fit your POV, and then discredit entire books written on this subject, all the while pushing low quality webpage articles. --E-960 (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I don’t concur with @Goldsztajn --> @E-960 you need more eyes here. Make your write up on those noticeboards clear and short while describing the issue (again - make sure that it is neutral and brief). The last RfC was too long and complex. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about reparations. Adding information about the actual topic of the article ("reparations") is not "drastic change" its the core information this article should provide. This is literally what this article is about. There is nothing cotroversial about the facts I added. I find it very strange that I have to argue for the inclusion of absolutely basic information about reparations in an article about reparations. Please don't remove sourced information. Dead Mary (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• @E-960: please consider changing the section heading to a neutral one. The current heading criticises a user which is not appropriate. Please see WP:TALKHEADPOV for the relevant guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I'm struggling here to present both sides of the issue, and I tried to insert a coupe of statements which included the other view of this complex issue. I included statements form reliable quality reference sources, yet user JeanClaudeN1 just removes them. Then user Dead Mary completely changes the entire Poland section (in the process removing my sourced statements), and when I presented quality sources for their review on this subject matter like this book written by a German historian de:Karl Heinz Roth called REPRESSED, REMITTED, REJECTED German Reparations Debts to Poland and Greece user Goldsztajn dismisses the sources saying: "One left-wing German physician-historian, whose area of speciality is social history during the Reich, quoted recently in Polish state media". I really don't want to be calling out folks, but this is blatant Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --E-960 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of reliable secondary sources

E-960, you keep removing reliable citations from the article for no valid reason while at the same time adding poor quality sources (e.g. an article on a Polish news website based on a comment by a PiS politician) [19], [20]. Please stop doing that and use only reliable secondary sources on this topic (-> articles in scholarly journals, academically focused books, articles from reputable institutions etc.). Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything wrong with using Polish Press Agency as a reference to source current issues. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@E-960 Here for example - instead of writing:

• However, no formal diplomatic note was presented to the East German government. -->[21]

Compose it (and back it up with PAP sources without removing other sources)

• According to Józef Menes from the Council of the War Loss Institute, no formal diplomatic note was presented to the East German government. etc. - okay? -

GizzyCatBella🍁 02:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, we don't need a tail at the end of a statement citing a string on opinion/news webpages (which is what you are doing), two or three is sufficient. Also, you cry foul on this issue, yet you remove statements back-up by books written on this very subject, which provide an additional level of detail. Pls remember Wikipedia guidelines: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." and "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."[22] --E-960 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we both know that these are again false accusations from you. I am beginning to doubt your good faith. You again removed several reliable secondary sources, e.g.: JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@JeanClaudeN1 - Could you please clarify the reason behind your removal of all these references? I'm particularly curious about all sources in the section "Publications" as well as references to the United Nations and Polish Sejm. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've been following the discussion on and off, and in re this edit, I'm not sure why Roth is being removed. Please help me understand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I think that we should resolve the two original statement already being discussed first, instead of adding new statements to be discussed and debated. Also, the new text added was written in the "Wikipedia narrator's voice" saying that the Oder-Neisse line was part of the reparations. However, this is Roth's view, other historians do not share this assesment, and they cite the fact that NO DOCUMENT says that, and that this Oder-Neisse line narrative is just that a narrative not fact. So, if we start to add Roth's view on this we'll need to counterbalance it with view of other historians, however at this point anything I add even with a reliable reference source gets deleted by JeanClaudeN1.--E-960 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

References

No consesus for the major changed introduced to the article

Dead Mary, there is no consensus to the major changes that you introduced to the Poland section. The initial debate I had with JeanClaudeN1 was regarding two statements at this point. However, you went and not only significantly changed the Poland section you also inserted even more POV-ish material. POV-pushing only one side of the argument and removing the statements I added which presented the other side of the argument. Is this your version of a restoring "balance" to the article - remove statements and sources included by me and adding even more POV which you support... blatant bias!

Seriously, it's like Olaf Scholz and Annalena Baerbock typing away at this article. With their only argument being: "dam it... the issue of Polish reparations is closed... what part of DAMN IT don't you people understand".

There are two sides of each story, so I would appreciate some balance here, and cool it with POV-pushing the German government's view of the subject matter. E-960 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: again, this is an inappropriate section name. This is a declarative statement asserting a position of one particular editor. Talk page discussions are shared between editors, so such approach is inappropriate. See: WP:TALKHEADPOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

E-960, I think Dead Mary just wants to improve the article. If you know scholars who have a different point of view, you can cite them and add that information to the article. I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that. But unless you cite a source, it's nothing more than WP:OR. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, the problem is that those statements added in by Dead Mary are also controversial, and were added without making a reference to the historian whose view they reflect, also they are written in the Wikipedia narrator's voice (as if they were a universally accepted as undisputed facts). However, Roth claims that the Oder–Neisse line and the former German lands east of it were part of the reparations. Well, there are historians who claim that those former eastern German lands were a substitution made by the Soviets to compensate Poland for the loss of Kresy and the Curzon Line, and have nothing to do with German reparations to Poland. --E-960 (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@JeanClaudeN1 - and you rightly believe that Dead Mary is here to improve the article. The problem is that the version proposed by Dead Mary inacurately defines the issue as solved (view of the German government) without a proper representation of remaning claims (view of the Polish government). I requested the page to be protected. Please also keep in mind that this page is under active Arbitration remedies (see talk page notice) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Diplomatic note

E-960, you keep inserting the following sentence into the Poland section: However, no formal diplomatic note was presented to the East German government. Since you present this information in Wikipedia's narrative voice, there should be academic sources saying that this is a relevant aspect in the reparations question. However, your sources are articles from Polish news websites (both from September 2022) quoting a PiS politician and someone from the Polish "War Loss Institute" (-> certainly not reliable, neutral sources). Instead, can you please cite a reliable academic source that discusses this aspect? Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@JeanClaudeN1 There is nothing wrong with these sources. PAP is the biggest and the oldest news agency in Poland. Think Reuters for the rest of the World. We are examining recent events here. (How many times this has to be repeated to you?) You also didn’t address the question of why you removed all those references. Here is the link again. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you in more detail: it's not about whether PAP is a reliable source or not. Again: the quotes cited by E-960 are not originally from PAP, but from a PiS politician and someone from the Polish "War Loss Institute". However, E-960 does not present these quotes as opinions (and even if he did, it would be questionable whether these opinions are relevant here, because they only repeat what is in the Polish government's report). JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@JeanClaudeN1 Why did you remove all these sources? (question asked for the 3rd time) - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Because a private anonymous blog post is not a reliable source and you can't paste an entire document into an article. Please just read the discussion on this account's talk page and feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have a question.

Do you have anything to say about the actual content of my reply? Otherwise I'll have to assume, unfortunately, that you're distracting from the topic because you don't have any arguments. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Fact check --> is this [23] a "private anonymous blog" to you? I don’t think so. There are numerous other scholarly references you removed. Why? I guess we'll talk about is elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

After looking at it again today, I saw that the user also added a list of general references (-> no citations) as a subsection of the document he inserted into the article. So to me it looked like this subsection was part of the document. In the end, the responsibility for making changes to the article clear and understandable to other editors lies with the person making the changes. Nevertheless, I should have had a closer look. For general references, there is a bibliography section at the end of the article and I am not against adding more quality sources to it. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

These were extremely useful references and should be also used in the Polish section. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Paid Reparations Section Removal

Can you perhaps stop removing the factual statements about the paid reparations to Poland? These are basic factual statements about the literal core topic of this article. There is absolutely nothing "POV" about writing that "In 1972, West Germany paid 100 million Deutsche Mark (DM) as compensation to Poles...." etc. Please note that I didn't touch the other disputed part of the article about whether Germany should pay additional reparations and all. So can we perhaps not mix these two issues? Thats why I made an additional section for the paid reparations, so we can split the non-controversial from the controversial stuff and continue working on the article. My additions about the paid reparations are not controversial at all and sourced by a good RS. Dead Mary (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For reference, I am talking solely about this:

---

The victor powers of WWII concluded at the Potsdam Conference, that the Soviet Union would collect and distribute the Polish share of German reparations. The Soviet Union calculated a share of about 10 billion US Dollars slated for the newly formed Polish state. On 16 August 1945, the Soviet Union concluded an agreement with the Provisional Government of National Unity outlining the Polish share. Poland would receive 15% of the reparations extracted by the Soviet Union in its occupation zone plus another 15% of the goods already taken by the Soviets from the now Allied Western occupation zone. Furthermore, Poland would receive 15% of the Soviet share of the German merchant fleet. Poland would also receive all former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse.

The Soviet Union shipped Eastern German goods to Poland until 1953. The total value of the paid reparations from Eastern Germany to Poland amounts to 10.2 billion US Dollars (1938) - or 180.54 billion in inflation adjusted (2018) US Dollars.

Poland and Western Germany concluded several treaties and agreements to compensate Polish victims of German aggression. In 1972, West Germany paid 100 million Deutsche Mark (DM) as compensation to Poles that had survived pseudo-medical experiments during their imprisonment in various Nazi camps during the Second World War. In 1975, as result of the Helsinki Accords negotiations Germany paid 700 million Deutsche Mark to Poles who, during Nazi occupation, had paid into the German social security system but received no pension. An additional 600 million Deutsche Mark were paid as "political compensation". Furthermore, Poland received a long-term loan of 1 billion Mark on favorable interest conditions.

Payments made to Polish Holocaust victims as part of the 1980 "Hardship Fund" of the Claims Conference amount to about 500 million Deutsche Mark.

After the German reunification, Germany and Poland established several foundations, which provided additional funds for Polish victims of WWII. In 1992, the Foundation for Polish-German Reconciliation was founded and received an initial amount of 500 million Deutsche Mark from Germany. From 1992 to 2004 the foundation would pay out 732 million Złoty to victims of Nazism. An additional 42.7 million Euro were provided by the Austrian "Reconciliation, Peace and Cooperation" fund. In 2001 Germany created the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future, which would pay compensation to former concentration camp and civilian forced laborers. The initial amount slated to Poland was 3.5 billion Zloty (975 million Euro) plus an additional tranche in 2015, amounting to a total payment of 1.232 billion Euro.

References

---

There is no reason to not have this in the article. Dead Mary (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Map Podsdam Conference I have undone the unnecessary removal of the map by user E-960 because it is directly related to the article. All the reparation measures listed are directly related to the Potsdam Conference. In so far it is absolutely logical to also show a map of the teretotial changes. Miniplenty (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dead Mary, I already explained above that this is not a one sided issue, you present disputed views as facts, and add statements like this: "Poland would also receive all former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse." as if this claim was universally agreed upon (also it would be great if you could include the book name and the original quote from the book to see if your statement appropriately capturing what the source states, we had issues with WP:SYNTH, and the statement on "Soviet Union shipped Eastern German goods to Poland..." appears to be synthesis because for one sentence multiple pages in the book are cited). However, this is just one interpretation. Nowhere (no agreement, no treaty) does it say that the Oder-Neisse line was part of a reparations deal, and yet others claim that the Oder-Neisse line was reparations to Poland for the Curzon Line in the east (so clearly, it can't be both, it a disputed view), so stop presenting such issues in the Wikipedia narrator's voice. Also, in the process of adding even more text backing the German government's point of view, you remove text which articulates the opposite position. --E-960 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• The issue of reparations not a closed matter. Pls see this article from Politico "Poland to Germany: Deeds, not words, will foster reconciliation" [24] So, don't present it as such. --E-960 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

E-960 I am not sure I can follow you. Are you claiming that Germany ceding territory east of the Oder-Neisse line is a "disputed view"? Are you living in an alternate reality where this didn't happen? Are you denying that Germany co-founded the “Foundation for Polish-German Reconciliation" and paid 500 million Deutsche Mark into it? Are you denying that Germany paid "100 million to Poles that had survived pseudo-medical experiments" in 1972? Are you denying that in 1975 Germany paid 700 million + another 600 million as compensation to former Polish laborers? Are you denying that Germany founded the "Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future" and paid 1.232 billion Euro? Are you denying that Polish citizen gained about 500 million Deutsche Mark as part of the 1980 "Hardship Fund" of the Claims Conference? Why are you deleting these basic facts from the article?

E-960, please explain for each sentence from my additions what these in your opinion "disputed facts" are and why it should not be in the article, and make an alternate proposal on how to add this into the article. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• " and the statement on "Soviet Union shipped Eastern German goods to Poland..." appears to be synthesis because for one sentence multiple pages in the book are cited)."

This is not "synthesis", its a statement of fact ("Soviet Union shipped Eastern German goods to Poland") from the prose text together with a table which spans several pages about the amount of German payments to Poland. What is your angle here, are you accusing me of lying and faking sources? You realize this is a serious accusation? Please concentrate on the facts instead of wildly accusing me of things. Dead Mary (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dead Mary, first off your citations are incomplete and do not even include the book name you are trying to cite, it just says "Roth" (I would like to go over what the book actually says to see if your statement accurately captures the context — do you have a link to the book text?). Also, you do not release the fact there is a difference between OFFICIAL REPARATIONS and post-war looting, which is what Soviet Union engaged in, arbitrarily taking stuff. Simply equating or assuming one with the other does not make it OFFICIAL, the very fact that in 1953 Soviet Union pressured Poland to wave reparation rights, and then pressured East Germany to accept Oder-Neisse line shows that there was nothing official about it, and despite some folks making the equation between the two, these things were not a one-for-one swap, but were mutually exclusive. --E-960 (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

E-960 What? You cannot find what book "Roth" is? Are you doing this on purpose? You are on WP for about 10 years and do not know how citations work? This is standard citation style. The actual book name is in the Bibliography section. Its right there. You obviously didn't even look before writing. Regarding your other points, I don't even know what you mean. "I make no difference between OFFICIAL REPARATIONS and post-war looting???" What? Were do you even get this from? Please read my proposed additions again. There is nothing about "post-war-looting". We are talking about 10 factual sentences about payments made from Germany to Poland. Also, what do you mean with 'accurately captures the context'? What "context" do you need for "Germany paying 600 million to former Polish forced laborers"? I am still waiting for a valid argument on why not to include this in the article. Dead Mary (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you just re-check what you added as a source here:[25]. Your citations only says "Roth (2022), pp. 231-233.", etc. at the bottom of the article, no hyperlink is included to the book and no full name provided. Instead of launching personal attacks, why don't you provide a proper verifiable citation (usually if someone adds a short citation it will have a hyperlink). In any case, we don't need to be splitting the Poland section into further sub-sections. --E-960 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say anymore. Are you playing with me? How are you unable to find "Roth" in the "Bibliography" section of the article? Like how is this even possible? Its right there, with authors, years, publisher etc. Dead Mary (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

>>"In any case, we don't need to be splitting the Poland section into further sub-sections."

So I assume, you have no objections to the presented information I want to add? Dead Mary (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I do have objections, as mentioned before I do not see a need to create a sub-sections. Also, finally thank you for saying that for some weird reason you decided to use a Bibliography for the book citation instead of the standard link approach used throughout this article. In any case, I'll start to review the text, GizzyCatBella mentioned she has a PDF copy of the book. I'll also add that I'm not sure your approach of listing everything that Germany (East or West) paid to Poland is warranted, as it amounts to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In response, I can take the new Polish Government report and list everything that Poland was not compensated for, everything from stolen bank deposits, destroyed works of art, infrastructure, buildings, and on and on. This government report is lengthy and we can add all the things that Poland was not compensated for and seeks reparations on. --E-960 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

So aside from not making a new paragraph, you have no objection to the content? Some of these payments are already in the article. Adding another 4 sentences about the remaining ones isn't really a big deal. Dead Mary (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing; then we'll start listing everything that Poland was not compensated for? So, in short I don't think it's a good idea. Btw, I'm trying to get a copy of the book to see the section, as Google Books has that chapter blanked out. --E-960 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how this has anything to do with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is an article about reparation. Writing what payments Germany made to Poland is exactly what this article is supposed to be about. We are are talking about 3 sentences here. There are already a few treaties listed. The only thing my addition does is adding the remaining few payments not already described and improves the sourcing. These sentences are already an extremly condensed summary of the entire issue, its actually the opposite of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dead Mary (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Map of territorial changes in the aftermath of WWII

E-960 It is increasingly frustrating how obviously Polish Wikipedia authors use the English-language WIKIs to spread some kind of Polish "alternative history" without any facts. For example the connection between reparations and the territorial displacement of Poland after 1945: Of course it was about compensations to Poland. Poland lost infrastructurally comparatively underdeveloped areas in the East, which it won only in the 1920s in a war with the Soviet Union and where there was no Polish ethnic majority. In the west, on the other hand, Poland was able to gain an area that was significantly better developed, even in comparison with the Polish heartland. In the end, this was exclusively at the expense of Germany with the loss of almost 20% of its territory and 8 million displaced persons. Of course, this played an important role in the conclusion of all treaties between West Germany and Poland as a kind of reparation. Until PiS came to power, every Polish government accepted this as a matter of fact. If you act as if this has no significance, this is almost ridiculous.

For all other claims on your part, other users have already listed enough real facts. So please stop vandalizing this article. Miniplenty (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Recovered territories/former German territories in the east were NOT (let me repeat, were NOT) classified or designated as reparations during the Potsdam Conference simple as that. This was nothing more than an arbitrary border shift decided on by the Big 3 (in fact the Polish Government in exile was against such a radical border change). If there is a historian who claims that somehow Recovered Territories were OFFICIAL reparations from Germany to Poland for WWII losses, or from Soviet Union to Poland for the loss of Kresy that is their minority view on the subject. Hence, WP:ONUS "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". --E-960 (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Miniplenty, stop accusing other editors of vandalism, the map[26] you want to keep in the article does NOT relate to reparations. It simply says "Occupation map of Germany after WW2", so you are using WP:SYNTH to correlate occupation with reparations. --E-960 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the Potsdam Agreement article, Oder-Neisse line ≠ reparations. --E-960 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course former German territories in the east were not classified as reparations to Poland. Get your facts right @Miniplenty before you post. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Miniplenty and strike this please -->So please stop vandalizing this article [27]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"Recovered territories/former German territories in the east were NOT (let me repeat, were NOT) classified or designated as reparations during the Potsdam Conference simple as that.

E-960 This is your personal opinion, based on your personal WP:OR into a WP:PRIMARY source (the Potsdam agreement). As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union did take the value of the former German Eastern territories in account, when calculating reparations owed to Poland. There is not a single historian who does not at least discuss the transfer of territories from Germany to Poland when talking about the reparation topic. Deleting any mention of these territorial changes on a page about the aftermath reparations of WWII is ridiculous.

Besides, you thinking whether these territorial changes were reparations or not is completely irrelevant, because these territorial changes did actually happen and it is ridiculous to remove any mention about them. Dead Mary (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not opinion, pls see the Potsdam Agreement article. --E-960 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Potsdam Agreement border changes were not reparations. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Territorial changes in the aftermath of WWII are discussed and presented in every historic work about this topic. Removing information about the territorial changes in the aftermath of WWII in an article about the aftermath of WWII is ridiculous. The graphic has been in the article for about 10 years. If you want to remove it, please present valid arguments to do so. Your personal interpretation of a primary source is not an argument. The territorial changes after WWII are discussed in every work about this topic – eg in the already presented sources in the in the bibliography section. If WP:RS discuss this issue, we have to present this information too. Do you want me to make a RFC to ask whether this graphic should be in the article? Dead Mary (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The image description reads "Occupation zone borders in Germany", so the map does not claim that it is referencing anything related to reparations, only occupation of Germany, and it is nothing more than WP:SYNTH to say occupation zones = reparations. Also, again read the Potsdam Agreement article, nowhere does it say that the border changes were classified as reparations, and the majority of historians do not even make such a claim, so if there is an author(s) that equates border changes with reparations it is a minority view and an opinion WP:ONUS "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" when it comes to every opinion out there. --E-960 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dead Mary It tells you in the article --> In the case of Poland, the acquired territory was a compensation for the Eastern Borderlands annexed by the Soviet Union, which lands had been assigned to Poland as a result of the Peace of Riga in 1921.- GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources? Volunteer Marek 17:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Dead Mary, in book Repressed, Remitted, Rejected: German Reparations Debts to Poland and Greece by Karl Heinz Roth it states on page 147, Chapter 5 that: "At their first summit, held in Tehran in November 1943, the three powers had agreed in principle to fall back on the Curzon Line when determining Poland's border. In return for using this line, Poland was to be entitled to the Oder as its new Western Border". So, Oder-Neisse line was compensation for Curzon line, not German reparations to Poland. --E-960 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I never made a statement about whether these territorial changes were "reparations" or not. Its completely irrelevant for our discussion. The point is, these territorial changes - whether they were a "reparation" or not - are always discussed by RS when the topic of "WWII reparations" is being covered (as you proved yourself by quoting a RS). Naturally we should mention them on WP too. It’s ridiculous to completely erase any mention of territorial changes in the aftermath of WWII in an article about the aftermath of WWII.

Territorial changes did happen. And they were huge. We are an encyclopedia. We should cover them. Dead Mary (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dead Mary This article is about reparations not territorial changes. You are edit warring against multiple editors at this point. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And these territorial changes are covered in every RS about this topic. Its an integral part of this topic. Or are you going to delete the entire "Poland" section now, since half of it deals with these exact territorial changes? Half of the "Poland" section deals with the German-Polish border, but you refuse to have a map for it? Dead Mary (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Allies finally agreed for German reparations to be paid in the following forms:

• Dismantling of the German industry
• Transferring all manufacturing equipment, machinery and machine tools to the Allies
• Transferring all railroad cars, locomotives and ships to the Allies
• Confiscation of all German investments abroad
• All gold, silver and platinum in bullion or coin form held by any person/institution in Germany
• All foreign currency
• All patents and research data relevant to military application and processes
• Requisition of current German industrial production and resource extraction
• Forced labour provided by the German population

Where of you see territorial changes @Dead Mary? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, The arguments have only marginally to do with the graphic of the Allied occupation zones. Even if one ignores the fate of the German eastern territories, the overview is important for the understanding of the reparations. For example, the fact that under the Potsdam Agreement Poland received its share of reparations from the Soviet Union mainly from the Soviet occupation zone.

Secondly, the fact that the recognition of the Oder-Neisse border did not play any role in the question of possible reparations is absurd. For the Federal Republic of Germany this has always played a central role. And of course, as is already correctly stated in the "Poland" section of the article, for the 1970 treaty it was expressly confirmed by the Polish side in advance that there would be no more claims for reparations, and then the treaty on confirmation of the border was concluded. Both in the 2+4 treaty - which was submitted to Poland for notification - and in the Polish-German Neighborhood Treaty, the border was confirmed and all further claims to whatsever were waived. Miniplenty (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella What even is your argument here? Surely you understand this article is about the broad topic of "WWII Reparations" and not just the provisions of the "Potsdam/Yalta agreement"? (which is what you quote there) And reliable sources do cover the territorial changes in the aftermath of WWII as an important part of the "reparations" after WWII. Several of these annexations, like Kaliningrad, the Dutch-German-Exchanges, as well as the occupation of the Saar territory (to extract coal and steel for the French economy) have been explicitly made as reparation and compensation for the war. Dead Mary (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, please note that in book Repressed, Remitted, Rejected: German Reparations Debts to Poland and Greece by Karl Heinz Roth it states on page 147 that: "At their first summit, held in Tehran in November 1943, the three powers had agreed in principle to fall back on the Curzon Line when determining Poland's border. In return for using this line, Poland was to be entitled to the Oder as its new Western Border". --E-960 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the point. Territorial exchanges after WWII in the context of reparation are covered by every RS. If RS cover this topic heavily (which the very book you just quoted does too btw), then we have to cover these topics too. The Dutch annexation of the German border area, the French occupation of the Saar, and the annexation of Kaliningrad by the Soviets have been explicitly made as a compensation and reparations for WWII.

Regarding the former Eastern German territories: Some parties certainly considered this a "reparation". Since you are already quoting Repressed, Remitted, Rejected: German Reparations Debts to Poland and Greece by Karl Heinz Roth, you could read a bit further to the chapter about the The Polish-Soviet Reparations Agreement from 16 August 1945 on page 234:

Furthermore, the very first article of the aggreement made clear that, in view of the contracting parties, the territories ceded to Poland formed an integral aspect of the reparations. In the agreement, the USSR waived the assets left behind by the Germany in Poland, as they did all economic assets in 'that part of German territory that is to be transferred to Poland'.

Again, whether this is the ultimate truth or not, whether you agree with that or not, is a completely different topic. It is covered by RS and we have to cover it too. Covering it doesn't mean we agree with it. Dead Mary (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s relevant point, how many time it has to be repeated to you that:

German reparations are:

• Dismantling of the German industry
• Transferring all manufacturing equipment, machinery and machine tools to the Allies
• Transferring all railroad cars, locomotives and ships to the Allies
• Confiscation of all German investments abroad
• All gold, silver and platinum in bullion or coin form held by any person/institution in Germany
• All foreign currency
• All patents and research data relevant to military application and processes
• Requisition of current German industrial production and resource extraction
• Forced labour provided by the German population.

Not territorial changes. Read the article and stop edit warring agains multiple editors- GizzyCatBella🍁 03:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What "reparations" are for us here on WP, is defined by what reliable sources say. Reliable sources do define reparations as

• all these things you just quoted
• territorial exchanges

Thats why they are in the article. Because WP:RS say so. The very same sources which give the list you just quoted, also talk in lengths about the territorial changes. There is no distinction, no break, its in the same chapters. When reliable sources discuss all of these things, we have to put all of these things in the article. Thats how Wikipedia works. Also, I am not "edit-warring" anything. I am simply restoring all the content you randomly delete from the article. Dead Mary (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Reparations towards Yugoslavia

The Article states that Yugoslavia received 36 billion US dollars as reparations, the linked article titled: “World War II reparations towards Yugoslavia” however, does not state this, it says: “Yugoslavia was compensated the total sum of $35,786,118 which represents the value of the old dismantled German factories and other industrial facilities that were transported to Yugoslavia.” Almost exactly a year ago my first Wikipedia account to which I lost the password, edited that article, at the time I removed the trailing comma (it used to read “$35,786,118,”). I simply assumed that the author meant millions, I didn’t bother to check weather any other article made that mistake.

Now that I have discovered this article I wonder weather the original author actually meant 36billion. This sum however seems unrealistic given that in another article simply titled “War reparations” the total value of all german industrial equipment dismantled was claimed at only $23 billion. This also consistent with a 1990 news article which said:

“Belgrade filed claims for $36 billion in war damages under a 1946 Paris agreement but has managed to collect less than 0.1 percent of that amount, mostly in West German-made machinery, Tanjug said.”

https://www.upi.com/amp/Archives/1990/02/21/Yugoslavia-to-press-for-war-reparations/3181635576400/ Onekx666 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)