The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article contains only original synthesis: a collection of weakly related events woven into an arbitrary, original pattern to serve a personal POV. Furthermore, no improvement has occurred since the last AFD, leading to the conclusion that the article can not be improved. Accordingly, this article and the accompanying category Category:Allied occupation of Europe should be deleted according to the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. Digwuren01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is factually quite accurate; however, it's awfully written and begs for sources. It sure needs a very major overhaul, but its title and subject matter are valid. --Targeman02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there was no orchestrated campaign by the Allied Powers to occupy Europe, what is that "valid subject matter"? Digwuren11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make any difference how and why a country is occupied? It's still occupation. However, I've just realized the article's title is actually very POV. Occupation of Europe? I wonder how that escaped my attention before. Occupation "of" Europe is βʊ11§#!+, "in" Europe would make more sense. I therefore change my vote to delete. --Targeman12:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear syntheses to mash together the Wester countries occupation of Germany that was over by 1956 and never brought with it any terror, deportations or complete loss of independence, with Soviet occupation of countries that lost their independence completely for fifty years... Weaving essentially two different things into one article just because the language has no separate term for temporary, without intent to annex and non-repressive occupation is synthesis --Alexia Death06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any attempt to conflate the allied liberation of western Europe with the Soviet Union's virtual annexation of Eastern Europe, which merely replaced one tyranny with another, is absurd. Nick mallory08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nowhere in the article do I see any attempt at putting the Soviet and the Allied occupants on the same level. Indeed, "In Eastern Europe the Soviet Union helped Communist regimes to power. In the west, representative democracy was established in nations under American influence." The article is about the military presence in European countries of the US and the USSR, not about living standards they introduced. And while "independence" is an extremely vague term, soldiers, tanks and barracks are easily counted. In terms of the number of soldiers deployed, both the Soviets and Allies (mostly Americans) were occupant forces, whatever the rationale of their presence. --Targeman09:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the French didn't object to British troops on the ground, nor did the Belgians revolt against the Americans. Communism was imposed on Eastern Europe by force and maintained by force and communism was overthrown the minute the citizens of those countries could demonstrate without getting shot. The 'occupation' of France was a liberation. The occupation of Poland or Estonia was exactly that, an occupation. It's misleading to pretend two different things are the same thing. Nick mallory09:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound as if I'm defending the brutality of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, but I think it's fair to presume that people pulled out of Nazi death camps by Soviet soldiers felt "liberated". Similarly, the American invasion of Iraq, for all its faults, gave the Kurds a greater degree of freedom they have ever enjoyed. My point is, there is no black and white in war and occupation. The only fairly objective comparison of occupations can be an inventory of soldiers/equipment, and the length of their stay. I think this is what the article attempts but fails for lack of solid citations and bad writing that gives the impression of a POV problem. My $0.02 --Targeman10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objective comparisons of occupations as this article attempts to do is original research, there is no source to support this comparison. Martintg11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has had ample time for improvement since the previous AfD, it still lacks sources, it is still a mess and will remain a mess. Sure, the individual facts may be correct, but these facts are tendatiously presented together to synthesise a concept that is not present in the original sources, i.e. equating Soviet and Allied occupation. Martintg11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Certainly very unsatisfactory now, but unquestionably a very significant topic deserving a decent overview article. It would not take much to improve it drastically from its current state. The nominator seems to have his own POV issues, to judge from his comment at the related Cfd he nominated: "there was no orchestrated Allied Powers' campaign to occupy Europe. Merely because a few regions in Europe were occupied by a few distinct Powers is not sufficient basis to synthesise an "occupation of Europe..." It is also rather surprising he was unsure how to classify it. Johnbod12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article WP:SYNTHesizes the concept. Check the sources. None of them mention "allied occupation of europe". There is sourced references of Allied occupation of Germany and Soviet occupation and both of them have articles as you can see. It is pure synthesis. Take two different concepts, and throw in the same article. If anyone can find an article which puts those two things together as one event then please present me such source. Suva13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original synthesis. I did comprehensive research on the topic, and I can honestly say that wikipedia is first and only place who discusses such concept. Suva13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this article violates WP:NOR, WP:POV (orWP:POVFORK), WP:V and possibly WP:POINT. Even after a first AfD nomination (which mentioned these problems), these problems were not solved. The internet links either refer to or copy this Wikipedia page, focusesses on Soviet ocupation, or mean the allied occupation of Western Germany, Austria and Italy. It would be better to name it that way ("Allied occupation of West Germany", "Allied occupation of Austria", etc.). Whatever POV one has, the Allies did not occupy the whole of Europe and it's often debatable whether it was really an occupation. So if this article continues to exist, it would better to remove the non-occupied countries which are currently included, and clarify the debatable ones. The article also needs to cite multiple reliable and notable references that use the term "Allied occupation of Europe". Currently, it seems to be a synthesis of information, possibly to advance a position as the the article does seem to be made to used to diminish the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, which is known to have been a long term and drastic occupation (i.e. the almost complete domination of the military, economic, cultural and political life of these countries). If this article is kept, I would strongly recommend to make a section about the differences between the two types of occupation in order to remove the POV (of course without making a synthesis (OR)). If you vote "keep", fix the article's problems as soon as possible, because it are very valid concerns. If this would be impossible to do, it seems that this article deserves a deletion. Sijo Ripa13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns of, especially, editors from the Baltic states, not to equate the Soviet long-term occupation of Eastern Europe with the briefer occupations by the Western allies, but leaning over backwards to express these concerns has led to some bizarre POV assertions in some of the comments in this debate, themselves OR. The Western allies governed Germany for over four years which can hardly be called a "short" occupation on any normal scale of values. Many more countries were occupied than mentioned immediately above. Johnbod14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So lets add into the article all other things that happened at the same time and were related to WWII as well? There already is an article for the aftermath of WWII linked below... This is a WP:SYNTH with a WP:POV title and possible WP:FORK...
I'm not from Eastern Europe or the Baltic area and perhaps it's just my opinion, but I consider 4 years to be short after the bloodiest war in history, especially when compared to the 40+ year occupation of large parts of Eastern Europe by the USSR. Doesn't really matter how to call it; the "short" was not a suggestion for the article nor did I suggest to put my opinion in the article. My concerns are however still valid. To avoid further confusion, I removed the "short". Sijo Ripa15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to say merge with Aftermath of World War II, but what little unsourced material there is to be had in this article is already covered nicely by the aforementioned. I can't see this becoming a valid article AND supplanting or complimenting Aftermath of World War II, even after the heaviest of rewrites. Sidatio17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the line of thinking with this suggestion - someone looking for "Allied Occupation of Europe" would most probably be looking for information contained in Aftermath of World War II. On the other hand, it might prevent a future creation of an article with this title or a similar title that might be "Wikiworthy". Keeping that in consideration, I don't think a redirect would be the best course of action. Sidatio16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While I agree with Johnbod that this is a worthy topic, I think that this particular article is beyond cleanup and would have to be restarted from scratch. As others indicate, it hasn't gotten any better after the last nomination, when cleanup was suggested. Use the title to redirect to Aftermath of World War II. Someday, a good article about the eras of Allied Occupation during the Cold War (1945-55), and (1955-91), can be written. This ain't it. Mandsford03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the title "Allied Occupation of Europe" which spans the period of the Cold War 1945-91, is that the Soviet Union and the Western powers were not allies. Therefore to lump in together Soviet and American occupations into one article and call it "Allied" is totally contrary to the facts of the Cold War. This is why the article should be deleted. Martintg07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There was no allied occupation of Europe for two reasons. First, Europe was not occupied by the allied forces, Germany was until 1956 and second, with the beginning of the Cold War there was no alliance.--Alexia Death10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "the Allied occupation" was always understood to refer to the nations that were Allied against the Axis powers during the war, even though they became adversaries when the spoils were divided. In addition, the occupation wasn't just of Germany, although that was the only nation "shared" by the West and East; many would argue that the continued presence of American, Soviet, British and French troops (and bases) in sovereign states was a form of occupation. Mandsford14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt many people would argue that the presence of American NATO forces in Britain, or Germany after 1956, is occupation and I doubt you could provide any reliable source to back that view. Any state could have opted out of NATO at any time, as France did, leading to the closure of US bases in France in the 1960s. So the idea that the presence of NATO forces is evidence of occupation is POV. Would you also argue that the proposed American missile defence base in Poland and Czech Republic as further evidence of ongoing American "occupation" of Europe? Martintg20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing the history of post-World War II, Allied Powers has a very specific meaning: it refers to the Allies of World War II, acting in a military alliance. It does not refer to a random collection of countries that happened to belong to the alliance; it means the alliance as a whole. Allied occupation would obviously refer to occupation undertaken by the Allied Powers as a whole. Such occupation was undertaken for Germany and Austria; see Allied occupation of Germany and Allied-administered Austria as well as Four Powers. While a case could be made that the benign Operation Valentine, being undertaken by British military but at least favoured -- as a strategically useful move -- by the rest of the Allies, could constitute such a case of allied occupation, Soviet Union's unilateral actions in Eastern Europe can not in any reasonable manner be construed as Allied Powers' undertaking. Even if we were to make reservations for the Faroe Island, no significant chunk of Europe was ever occupied by the alliance of Allied Powers. That is why the whole postulate of this article is in error; that is why the article can not be improved and needs to be deleted. Digwuren23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martintg, I accept your point below, but wish to remark that rearranging the order in which comments are posted, as you did, is liable to alter their meaning by altering the context. The comment posted by me above was written to be read consequent on the comment posted by Mandsford above at 14.37 on 2 August, as the time of my posting will show. Kretzsch21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there or was there not agreement of the American, Russian and British leaders, who had been aligned in their opposition to Hitler since his invasion of Russia, on the partition of their influence in Europe, which was reinforced on both sides by military presence, of the two super-powers? I take it there was. Were these positions afterwards reinforced by the creation of military bases and the siting of strategic nuclear ICBMs on the soil of those nations against the popular will of many of the members of those nations? Did that create a military standoff which we call the Cold War based on the polarization of interests towards the economic, strategic and power ambitions and rivalry of the two super-powers? Could Poland or Britain realistically at any time have thrown off the military presence of the corresponding super-power? Whose propaganda do you want to believe? The question is not whether you or I wish to call it an occupation, but whether it has ever been called an occupation in print during the past sixty years, even if the people calling it that were not the voice of official government. I feel sure that there have been many organizations representing Green and Pacifist opinion which have called it precisely an occupation, though no longer by superpowers as allies. I cannot bring forward the publications which would reference the history of European opposition to the stance of the two superpowers in Europe during the Cold War, but I feel sure that there are those who could, and Wikipedia should certainly represent that voice. The article should therefore exist, but it should begin with the premise that calling it an occupation is a political viewpoint not accepted by the official authorities which presided over it. The present form of the article is not suitable. Kretzsch21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are arguing for is to retain this article as a POV fork to represent the unreferenced viewpoint of a radical minority. You rhetorically ask if Could Poland or Britain realistically at any time have thrown off the military presence of the corresponding super-power?, Well yes, France did in the 1960's. So could have Britain if it chose too. Poland could not, as the violent Warsaw Pact intervention in Hunguary and Chechoslovakia proved. Martintg23:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot to respond to there. Essentially, the Allies divided up Germany into four zones, and maintained bases on the soil of their zones for decades thereafter. I hate that anybody has gotten upset over the notion that anyone would "argue" that having foreign army bases in one's homeland might be "a form of occupation". Most of us over the age of 40 can remember hundreds of thousands of German protestors turning out when we shipped our cruise missiles over there. True, it was the result of a treaty, albeit one signed between the victors and the vanquished. I guess it's a matter of perspective... what is it they say, history is written by the winning side. I remember Jimmy Carter describing an argument with Helmut Schmidt over our "visitors", with Schmidt yelling, "Germany is NOT your 51st State!!" Yeah, I guess that the word "occupation" might sound sinister, but it's less ambiguous than "Allied presence in Cold War Europe". Mandsford22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article about the allied division of Germany, it's called Allied occupation of Germany. The article under discussion spans all of Europe between 1945 to 1991. Interpolating the allied occupation of Germany to span Europe is WP:OR. Additionally, having the term "Allied" in the title, whether as occupation or presence, would suggest that NATO and the Warsaw Pact were in fact allies. This is nonsense. Martintg23:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Germany and decades, it's generally accepted that the occupation of West Germany ended in 1955. Soviets attempted to claim sovereignty of East Germany from the same date as well, and credited the Stalin Note for this arrangement, but the general consensus is that East Germany remained occupied until the Berlin Wall fell. (Incidentally, crediting Reagan for that is just as fake as crediting Stalin for the Paris agreements that brought sovereigntytoWest Germany.)
Accordingly, it is important to see that the criteria for occupation's boundaries of parts of Germany are not presence of formerly Allied Powers' military; rather, it is the political independence and self-administration. In 1955, West Germany became sovereign, but a lot of formerly occupying military of USA remained, becoming protective forces. (Somewhere, Petri Krohn has claimed that this made West Germanyaclient stateofUSA. Obviously, this is ridiculous.) Similarly, neither end of the Wall nor the official date of German reunification were significant militarily, but they had immense political ramifications -- and it is those ramifications that delineated the end of East Germany's occupation. Digwuren23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the nature of Wikipedia, it is possible to have articles describing minority points of view, provided they are not the point of view of the editor merely, but are a matter of record concerning a significant number or group of people which can be referenced. It would be possible, for instance, to describe the Quaker response to state militarism, its attempt to withdraw tax payments in proportion as they are used for military purposes, and its efforts (for instance in Northern Ireland in the 1970s) to persuade soldiers to relinquish arms despite their failure to get round the Incitement to Disaffection Act. If I am arguing for a POV Fork it is not for any personal point of view of my own that I wish to claim it, but for the quite undeniable and (I am convinced) reference-able fact that a large lobby of European opinion has existed certainly since the 1950s which has been opposed to the prevailing cultural and military influence of the two superpowers within the sovereign (or supposedly sovereign) states of Europe; and that this situation, however altered it was since 1945, was the outcome of the immediate post-war consensus under the forces allied against the Rome-Berlin Axis. The instance given by Digwuren above relates to Germany, but similar arguments could be brought forward from other states. Presumably it is not the intention of Wikipedia to suppress any reference to 'minority' opinion? Minority opinion is a political and historical fact. As Mandsford remarks, there is a long and well-attested history of public protest in this context: in Britain it goes back at least to the Aldermaston Marches etc. 'Can't you hear the H-Bomb's Thunder'? Kretzsch12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you are talking about something entirely different rather than this article. Yes, there were anti-nuclear marches in Britain, but this is not evidence that Britain was occupied by the USA, and I seriously doubt you could find any serious scholarly paper that claims they were. France was able to eject US forces and close down American bases in the 1960's, I don't recall neighbouring NATO forces sending tanks into Paris as a result, so why would Britain fear ejecting the Americans? Clearly because Britain was not occupied, but US troops were there purely at the invitation of a sovereign British government to enhance British security. Martintg12:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to prolong this and I think you will win the deletion you wish - I have not opposed it - but with regard to the above comment I would say that until 1991 it would have been impossible to imagine the British unilaterally insisting on the departure of, say, the 81st TFW from Bentwaters or Mildenhall without a reprisal in the form of economic tariff adjustments in all transatlantic dealings which would have rendered Britain's economic dependency upon USA so apparent that it would have been crippling. British strategic decisions unpopular in America were usually answered by the suggestion of some such economic key to the maintenance of support and agreement. Naturally the Greenham Common protestors, for instance, were forcibly removed by British personnel since it would have been monumentally inflammatory for USA personnel to have exercised similar powers over British civilians. I do not wish to disparage Anglo-American friendship at all, but merely observe that whenever Britain has maintained her external relations in that way she has usually been accused of economic imperialism. Kretzsch16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is one interpretation, I guess. Yes, it is true that Britain was fearful of the consequences of an American withdrawal. The consequence they feared was not economic reprisals from the USA, but rather they feared Soviet hegemony in Europe and its consequences had US troops been withdrawn. Martintg21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, redirect, delete, keep, whatever... anything to bring this long-winded discussion to an end. I think I'll go occupy the bathroom for awhile, bringing all my weapons with me :P Mandsford18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that 1st nomination income was "keep and improve" it hasn't improved since then, quite the contrary. Suva09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely note that point. Hey, all I did was explore the possibility that there are alternative views on the subject. The article title itself is admittedly hopeless. I'm not offended if no-one agrees with me! My Vital Bodily Fluids are in fine order. I am outvoted anyway. Kretzsch13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are alternative treatments. Usually, they differ in interpretations of various details, nuances, and application of focus. However, the one ostensibly presented in this article is not a notable alternative treatment of World War II history, but instead, a WP:POINTofPetri Krohn.
Having promised myself to make no further comment, your last remarks, Digwuren, made me look a little further. I know nothing of Petri Krohn, but having visited his page and then followed it to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, I find that the discussion on the present page is nothing more than the continuation of a rather highly personalised debate in which several contributors to the present page have already been active elsewhere. I had no intention of stumbling in on a private party, and I beg you to Excuse My Dust. But Now as to revisionism, allow me to say in response to your comment directly above, that I cannot help viewing the article on And you are lynching Negroes, and the bland ease with which you refer to it, with distaste. I share the view of User:PalestineRemembered in his or her posting on the discussion page there dated 1 August 2007. In this, as in the Tallinn question, and in the fate of Europe over the past 60 years, you are speaking of matters which concern and have completely shaped the lives, families, clans, cultures and spiritual freedoms of immense numbers of people, not merely the matter of the adjustment of a red line in an historical atlas. We are not in the sphere of simple text-book answers. I carry no brief for political extremists of any kind. I also saw the American planes set off from English soil in 1985 or 1986 to bomb Libya, and heard Kate Adie's broadcasts on the BBC in the following days. That, as a statement of public but non-governmental opinion as to an action by USA from Britain, right or wrong, good or bad (I do not offer here a judgement), is one that is also On The Record. I think the title of the article that we are discussing on the present page is meaningless, but I will argue that it should remain as long as possible so that other editors can become aware of the methods of discussion which are being employed. Kretzsch11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
