This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 12, 2004. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could somebody who knows how create a couple redirects to this page, for example from "2+4," "2 + 4," "2+4 negotiations," etc.? That would be awesome, thanks. Nicolasdz 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to change the template from Template:Politics of Germany to Template:German borders. Any objections? -- Richard 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why this articel blong to POLISH history????
Out of interest, does the treaty still hold (is it still valid)? I only wonder as the Soviet Union, one of the signatories and the one to whom the agreements on arms were made to, no longer exists, is Germany still bound by the agreement? Fetu's dad ( talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Saarland used to be a UN protectorate after WWII, and after a failed vote to make it an independent country, it was reunited with Germany in 1957. Maybe somebody could link it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_%281947%E2%80%931957%29 I don't want to mess up the box. –– Mwimmer ( talk) 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Why did the Allies even sign this treaty??? It seems they are only giving up the rights they were holding over Germany and Berlin, and got nothing in return. This must be one of the most one-sided international treaties ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.194.12 ( talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote that is ignorant of International law. The former German province of East Prussia was in a "temporary administered pending the Final Peace Treaty with Germany" status for 45 years (1945-1990). It was only after the Germans in the 1990 Peace Treaty stipulated that "Germany" is only those lands within the 1990 Peace Treaty approved boundaries that the Russians and the Poles could petition for International Law to recognize the 45 year old line in East Prussia which separated the Russian "Administrators" from the Polish "Administrators" as being, post German Peace Treaty, an international boundary between Poland and Russia.
Here is from Article 1 of the 1990 German Peace Treaty:
ARTICLE 1 (1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe. (2) The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding under international law. (3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future. (4) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic shall ensure that the constitution of the united Germany does not contain any provision incompatible with these principles. This applies accordingly to the provisions laid down in the preamble, the second sentence of Article 23, and Article 146 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.243.123 ( talk) 06:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Was the Federal Republic of Germany not a sovereign state before? I think I was the one who originally wrote that Germany became a fully sovereign state with the treaty, but I think I was wrong looking back. Can anyone point to me any powers the Allies had over West Germany before this treaty was signed (aside from Berlin, which was not part of the Federal Republic)?Bold text
- 07:15, 28 December 2015 Reenem
2+4 Negotiations 2 + 4 Negotiations link here but there is nothing about the negotiations (sadly). I had heard that M Thatcher was reluctant to agree to this treaty but nothing here about the negotiations and trade-offs. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
""Final Settlement" redirects here. For the Nazi plan, see Final Solution."
Wow. How cynical to even insinuate that someone might confuse this treaty with the Nazi "Final Solution" plan.
Do we really need this disambiguation? -- 217.239.6.161 ( talk) 16:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It is said that after „Treaty on the final Settlement with respect to Germany" Germany got the sovereignty. This is not quite true. To achieve this the „Überleitungsvertrag“ (Stettlement Convention) must only have been deleted. Instead, bevor coming into effect, 15. March 1991, Germany made two new treaties with the Western Allies:
First, from 25. 9. 1990 – „Übereinkommen zur Regelung bestimmter Fragen in bezug auf Berlin“. I don`t know the british Version.
Second important: Vereinbarung vom 27./28. September 1990 zu dem Vertrag über die Beziehung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den Drei Mächten (in der geänderten Fassung) sowie zu dem Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen (in der geänderten Fassung). This agreement has been published in english (page 2)
hier. By this some parts of the Settlement Convention remaind on force or came new. --
Fibe101 (
talk)
14:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The final decision of the Baker-Gorbachev Pactaarticle deletion discussion was to merge, not delete. There has not been a single line of that page added to this article and I'm going to correct that. It's outrageous. See debate: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baker-Gorbachev_Pact
For me, it's amazing how History is now subjeted to consensus of obviously biased editors, forcing an important historical discussion (on something -NATO's expansion- which clearly trascends in time and scope this Treaty) into this article, related but insufficient. Jasandia ( talk) 10:05, 11 March 2022 (CET)
Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations points to the NATO expansion section. That is the only section you should be copying content into. You should also state in your edit summaries that you have copied content.
Your edits also deleted content from the Background section, and otherwise messed with it in other ways. You do not have any concession to do so. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I have erased some interpretation on the edits I had done such as the one on 'Gorbachev contradicting later declassified documents' and the 'apease the Soviets'. Also, I have added a secondary source to the 'unacceptable' quote by Gorbachov refering to the Eastward expansion of NATO (another article by Der Spiegel) Jasandia ( talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You added this sentence:
New documents point that Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty— because he received assurances that NATO would not expand to Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, or French President Francois Mitterrand among other Western leaders. [1]
The source says:
Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.
In the first place this is WP:COPYVIO (or WP:CLOP, as some people might call it) and is illegal. Secondly, the source doesn't say "new documents point" to this. It seems rather like the author's own assessment. So it should be attributed to the author. I rather doubt the documents show anything as definitive as this statement implies. And, note that this is a blog, a poor-quality source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Hello everybody, the article makes the following claim:
"Furthermore, the Federal Republic was required by the treaty to amend its Basic Law so as to be constitutionally prohibited from accepting any application for incorporation into Germany[citation needed] from territories outside the territories of East Germany, West Germany and Berlin (although Germany is permitted to maintain research stations in Antarctica; at present it has ten)."
I have never heard of this, just checked the Treaty and the German Basic Law and could not find anything in this regard. Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannsg.logitech ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The section dealing with this is pro-Russian viewpoint only and is totally unbalanced, this section should give a quick view of the state-of-play. The details added and only relevant to why this is viewed, by Russians as a promise made and broken, these opinions/discussions should be in the main article only and balanced i.e. in the main, refuted there. Thoughts The Original Filfi ( talk) 12:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This sentence is at the end of the article and links toward the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France.
Where on earth can an agreement of the sort be infered from this text? Is it this part "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents"? Because it sounds like a bit of stretch. JBKeita ( talk) 17:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Should the article also mention the addendum to the treaty that allowed NATO forces to cross the Cold War line?
Sarotte, Mary Elise (2021). Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 103–104. ISBN 978-0-300-25993-3.
The secretary [James Baker] and Genscher were able to break the impasse by using an idea Zoellick had floated earlier in the day: a written addendum to the treaty. Put more precisely, the formal treaty would continue to state, as Moscow wanted, that foreign troops would be neither stationed nor deployed east of the 1989 inner-German dividing line. However, deployed would be defined—per the new addendum, or “agreed minute”—solely at the discretion of the government of a united Germany. That minute served as written confirmation that foreign NATO troops could cross the Cold War line after all. As Zoellick explained afterward, “we needed to secure that possibility because, if Poland were eventually to join NATO in a second step, we wanted American forces to be able to cross East Germany on their way to be stationed in Poland.”
The idea satisfied the other signatories as well. All parties consented to add the “agreed minute” to the treaty just in time for the signing to go ahead after all. Some later reproductions of the treaty mistakenly dropped the minute altogether, mistakenly assuming it was trivial. It was not. The Western allies even insisted that all parties sign under the minute as well as under the treaty, so the final, official document bore two full, identical sets of typed titles and handwritten signatures. Shevardnadze signed both of the relevant pages, thereby surrendering Soviet legal rights, setting the slow withdrawal of Soviet troops in motion, and allowing, after completion of that withdrawal, NATO’s foreign forces to cross the Cold War line at the discretion of the German government.
-- Jo1971 ( talk) 16:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This section is based on an article in the newspaper Junge Welt which is far-left and described by German authorities as "hostile to the constitutional order". I have doubts if this source is compatible with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, I would suggest to remove this section unless somebody provides a better source. -- Jo1971 ( talk) 16:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor, user:JusticeForce, has made an issue of the following sentence with a detailed explanation of when a treaty takes effect Germany also agreed to sign a separate treaty with Poland reaffirming the present common border, binding under international law, effectively relinquishing these territories to Poland. This was done on 14 November 1990, with the signing of the German–Polish Border Treaty. I reverted his change saying there was nothing wrong with the sentence as it was. Taking umbrage he started an edit war. The date here, 14 November 1990, refers to when Germany signed the treaty, not to when it took effect. This makes the editor's explanation interesting and correct but not relevant: he is wp:forking. Another concern is he had changed the sentence that was referenced. I cannot read the source but I assume, in good faith, that it confirms what the article says. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 12, 2004. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could somebody who knows how create a couple redirects to this page, for example from "2+4," "2 + 4," "2+4 negotiations," etc.? That would be awesome, thanks. Nicolasdz 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to change the template from Template:Politics of Germany to Template:German borders. Any objections? -- Richard 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why this articel blong to POLISH history????
Out of interest, does the treaty still hold (is it still valid)? I only wonder as the Soviet Union, one of the signatories and the one to whom the agreements on arms were made to, no longer exists, is Germany still bound by the agreement? Fetu's dad ( talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Saarland used to be a UN protectorate after WWII, and after a failed vote to make it an independent country, it was reunited with Germany in 1957. Maybe somebody could link it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_%281947%E2%80%931957%29 I don't want to mess up the box. –– Mwimmer ( talk) 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Why did the Allies even sign this treaty??? It seems they are only giving up the rights they were holding over Germany and Berlin, and got nothing in return. This must be one of the most one-sided international treaties ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.194.12 ( talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote that is ignorant of International law. The former German province of East Prussia was in a "temporary administered pending the Final Peace Treaty with Germany" status for 45 years (1945-1990). It was only after the Germans in the 1990 Peace Treaty stipulated that "Germany" is only those lands within the 1990 Peace Treaty approved boundaries that the Russians and the Poles could petition for International Law to recognize the 45 year old line in East Prussia which separated the Russian "Administrators" from the Polish "Administrators" as being, post German Peace Treaty, an international boundary between Poland and Russia.
Here is from Article 1 of the 1990 German Peace Treaty:
ARTICLE 1 (1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe. (2) The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding under international law. (3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future. (4) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic shall ensure that the constitution of the united Germany does not contain any provision incompatible with these principles. This applies accordingly to the provisions laid down in the preamble, the second sentence of Article 23, and Article 146 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.243.123 ( talk) 06:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Was the Federal Republic of Germany not a sovereign state before? I think I was the one who originally wrote that Germany became a fully sovereign state with the treaty, but I think I was wrong looking back. Can anyone point to me any powers the Allies had over West Germany before this treaty was signed (aside from Berlin, which was not part of the Federal Republic)?Bold text
- 07:15, 28 December 2015 Reenem
2+4 Negotiations 2 + 4 Negotiations link here but there is nothing about the negotiations (sadly). I had heard that M Thatcher was reluctant to agree to this treaty but nothing here about the negotiations and trade-offs. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
""Final Settlement" redirects here. For the Nazi plan, see Final Solution."
Wow. How cynical to even insinuate that someone might confuse this treaty with the Nazi "Final Solution" plan.
Do we really need this disambiguation? -- 217.239.6.161 ( talk) 16:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It is said that after „Treaty on the final Settlement with respect to Germany" Germany got the sovereignty. This is not quite true. To achieve this the „Überleitungsvertrag“ (Stettlement Convention) must only have been deleted. Instead, bevor coming into effect, 15. March 1991, Germany made two new treaties with the Western Allies:
First, from 25. 9. 1990 – „Übereinkommen zur Regelung bestimmter Fragen in bezug auf Berlin“. I don`t know the british Version.
Second important: Vereinbarung vom 27./28. September 1990 zu dem Vertrag über die Beziehung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den Drei Mächten (in der geänderten Fassung) sowie zu dem Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen (in der geänderten Fassung). This agreement has been published in english (page 2)
hier. By this some parts of the Settlement Convention remaind on force or came new. --
Fibe101 (
talk)
14:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The final decision of the Baker-Gorbachev Pactaarticle deletion discussion was to merge, not delete. There has not been a single line of that page added to this article and I'm going to correct that. It's outrageous. See debate: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baker-Gorbachev_Pact
For me, it's amazing how History is now subjeted to consensus of obviously biased editors, forcing an important historical discussion (on something -NATO's expansion- which clearly trascends in time and scope this Treaty) into this article, related but insufficient. Jasandia ( talk) 10:05, 11 March 2022 (CET)
Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations points to the NATO expansion section. That is the only section you should be copying content into. You should also state in your edit summaries that you have copied content.
Your edits also deleted content from the Background section, and otherwise messed with it in other ways. You do not have any concession to do so. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I have erased some interpretation on the edits I had done such as the one on 'Gorbachev contradicting later declassified documents' and the 'apease the Soviets'. Also, I have added a secondary source to the 'unacceptable' quote by Gorbachov refering to the Eastward expansion of NATO (another article by Der Spiegel) Jasandia ( talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You added this sentence:
New documents point that Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty— because he received assurances that NATO would not expand to Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, or French President Francois Mitterrand among other Western leaders. [1]
The source says:
Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.
In the first place this is WP:COPYVIO (or WP:CLOP, as some people might call it) and is illegal. Secondly, the source doesn't say "new documents point" to this. It seems rather like the author's own assessment. So it should be attributed to the author. I rather doubt the documents show anything as definitive as this statement implies. And, note that this is a blog, a poor-quality source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Hello everybody, the article makes the following claim:
"Furthermore, the Federal Republic was required by the treaty to amend its Basic Law so as to be constitutionally prohibited from accepting any application for incorporation into Germany[citation needed] from territories outside the territories of East Germany, West Germany and Berlin (although Germany is permitted to maintain research stations in Antarctica; at present it has ten)."
I have never heard of this, just checked the Treaty and the German Basic Law and could not find anything in this regard. Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannsg.logitech ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The section dealing with this is pro-Russian viewpoint only and is totally unbalanced, this section should give a quick view of the state-of-play. The details added and only relevant to why this is viewed, by Russians as a promise made and broken, these opinions/discussions should be in the main article only and balanced i.e. in the main, refuted there. Thoughts The Original Filfi ( talk) 12:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This sentence is at the end of the article and links toward the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France.
Where on earth can an agreement of the sort be infered from this text? Is it this part "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents"? Because it sounds like a bit of stretch. JBKeita ( talk) 17:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Should the article also mention the addendum to the treaty that allowed NATO forces to cross the Cold War line?
Sarotte, Mary Elise (2021). Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 103–104. ISBN 978-0-300-25993-3.
The secretary [James Baker] and Genscher were able to break the impasse by using an idea Zoellick had floated earlier in the day: a written addendum to the treaty. Put more precisely, the formal treaty would continue to state, as Moscow wanted, that foreign troops would be neither stationed nor deployed east of the 1989 inner-German dividing line. However, deployed would be defined—per the new addendum, or “agreed minute”—solely at the discretion of the government of a united Germany. That minute served as written confirmation that foreign NATO troops could cross the Cold War line after all. As Zoellick explained afterward, “we needed to secure that possibility because, if Poland were eventually to join NATO in a second step, we wanted American forces to be able to cross East Germany on their way to be stationed in Poland.”
The idea satisfied the other signatories as well. All parties consented to add the “agreed minute” to the treaty just in time for the signing to go ahead after all. Some later reproductions of the treaty mistakenly dropped the minute altogether, mistakenly assuming it was trivial. It was not. The Western allies even insisted that all parties sign under the minute as well as under the treaty, so the final, official document bore two full, identical sets of typed titles and handwritten signatures. Shevardnadze signed both of the relevant pages, thereby surrendering Soviet legal rights, setting the slow withdrawal of Soviet troops in motion, and allowing, after completion of that withdrawal, NATO’s foreign forces to cross the Cold War line at the discretion of the German government.
-- Jo1971 ( talk) 16:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This section is based on an article in the newspaper Junge Welt which is far-left and described by German authorities as "hostile to the constitutional order". I have doubts if this source is compatible with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, I would suggest to remove this section unless somebody provides a better source. -- Jo1971 ( talk) 16:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor, user:JusticeForce, has made an issue of the following sentence with a detailed explanation of when a treaty takes effect Germany also agreed to sign a separate treaty with Poland reaffirming the present common border, binding under international law, effectively relinquishing these territories to Poland. This was done on 14 November 1990, with the signing of the German–Polish Border Treaty. I reverted his change saying there was nothing wrong with the sentence as it was. Taking umbrage he started an edit war. The date here, 14 November 1990, refers to when Germany signed the treaty, not to when it took effect. This makes the editor's explanation interesting and correct but not relevant: he is wp:forking. Another concern is he had changed the sentence that was referenced. I cannot read the source but I assume, in good faith, that it confirms what the article says. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)