Talk:German-occupied Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 May 2019 and 1 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Australyeah.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

Proposing a move to the correct grammatical formulation with an en-dash. Dhaluza (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Non-controversial. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland under German occupation?[edit]

Finland was in fact never occupied by Nazi Germany, although Finland and Germany fought the same enemy, and there were German soldiers fighting mainly on the nothern frontier.

noooo what european nations occompined during world war 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.53.228 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yet again,the noobs speek,finland was occupied by the germans,there were there a huge concentrated german army and personnel. Exemple:kirkensen ad Petsamo were germans port and also germans air base . — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were German troops in Finland, however, I'm not sure whether "occupation" is a good word to describe that as it's rarely used to describe voluntary troop positioning within an area. Germany didn't "occupy" Finland in the sense they occupied, for example, Poland and France. Also, do not call other editors noobs, it's not polite and, no offense, it makes you seem like one too when combined with your spelling errors. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about WWI?[edit]

Shouldn't we have an article on German-occupied territories in WWI? There is an article on Ober-Ost... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe in ww2[edit]

Why such country as Romania,Bulgaria,Finland are not in the list? In these country were large concentration of german army,german base,and there were subject to german influence. Obvious the so called "germanic country" were ultimately slated to become part of Germany. But the romania ,bulgaria ,Finland were all in german control and influence,german politics and ideology,under a pupet states of germany In romania all raffinery,ports,cityes were controled by germany,same in and bulgaria and Finland We talk here about the nation?we talk here about the state which were subbordonary to Germany.

Like in Soviet empire after ww2, there were not incorporet in soviet union ,but where directly under soviet influnce and control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources that say they were under German control to that extent, you're free to add the information. Otherwise it's just WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:TRUTH. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Map of Occupied Europe 1941-1942 shows the British Isles shaded grey. This is a serious error that MUST be corrected. Whomever is responsible for this mistake needs a refresher course in european history.Spyglasses 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyglasses (talk • contribs)

Lithuania and Latvia[edit]

It seems rather bogus to refer to the occupation of Lithuania and Latvia by Nazi Germany, accompanied by the independent flags of those nations, since those countries had already been invaded, and their independence extirpated, by the Soviet Union.Eregli bob (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it should be rather the opposite considering the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union was illegal. H2ppyme (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Can someone please tell me what "Occupied countries of Nazi Germany:" is supposed to mean? It makes no sense neither as a phrase nor in context, since it includes the German occupation regimes with the occupations of other Axis allies. --Constantine ✍ 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria and Romania[edit]

Just like Finland, I would like to remove Bulgaria and Romania from the list. The presence of retreating German troops after both countries nominally declared war on Germany after the political changes hardly constitute an "occupation". These were troops stationed in countries allied with Germany. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy Tunisia[edit]

Vichy Tunisia, in French North Africa, and under pro-Nazi Vichy rule, should be added, because it was occupied by Nazi Germany from November 1942 till May 1943. Can you please add this information. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia Perlman You should also add inline citations to reliable sources, please take the time to read Help:Referencing for beginners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

add inline citations[edit]

Thank you for your advice and reference. Unfortunately, I am an old lady, who is a very slow learner - it's still very hard for me to learn how to modify and use template.

Graa, can you help me please if I provide you the references/

Thank you for your kindness.Henia Perlman (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I´m sorry, but that seems very impractical in the long run. You´ve been on WP for a year, and if you wish to add material, being able to add sources is not optional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Henia Perlman, I added a citation to uncited content in The Holocaust about a very similar sentence. Having found it in a book, using Google books, I formatted the citation using http://reftag.appspot.com/ -- All you need to do is add the url from the query, press "load" and then make sure that the information (like the page number(s) are correct)... and then copy the citation into the article after the newly added information. (Here's a list of books with dates of occupation: in this query.)
Is your source a book? What is your source?
As you noticed, I added a warning on your talk page about needing to add citations to content that you are adding to an article, so it would be good to resolve this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Henia Perlman, I see that more was added to the intro - again without citations - after warnings on your talk page and on article talk pages. So, for the moment I am moving your added content here -- which is likely going to be summarized a bit differently anyhow: "Vichy Tunisia ruled by Vichy France and the government of pro-Nazi Pétain was occupied by the SS, and the German army during six months, from November 1942 till May 1943."
Please see the section below. Please, please, please don't add anything back to the article. I am trying to work with you and would really hate to add the block notice, but it seems that is where things are headed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Vichy information[edit]

I made this a separate section to keep the two conversations separate:

This keeps happening to me lately, apparently I should get better at keeping topics apart. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested, I wondered about "Africa in Europe" so I asked about it here: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think the information from this edit should be handled? For instance, one option is to put the Vichy France / Tunisia info a note to the info for France in the table, perhaps after the timeline for occupation column, rather than having it in the background section. In addition, should the scope of the addition be French North Africa, rather than just Tunisia?–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the currently very short text in the article, it seems a little overly detailed. Perhaps simplify to something like "Germany also occupied (parts of?) French North Africa". I assume Africa is formally "covered" by the wikilinked "French Republic", but a note clarifying that France was bigger somewhere could be a good idea, I have no objection to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, makes sense to have a short summary statement. I think it would be good to have the dates. Is there a preference for whether it's in background or a note?
My thought is: it's a side-comment and the background is short, so it seems like it's WP:UNDUE weight to have this in the background when the section is just a few sentences. It seems like it should be a note (Notes section or footnote under the France section). What are your thoughts, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Henia Perlman, and whoever else has an opinion?
In the short run, since it does not seem that there's a specific source, I will look for one for a citation and will take a stab at a draft sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, too, that there is further conversation on the Military History page, but it seems to be placing a light weight on the importance of the information in the article about Europe. I'll keep an eye out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a draft, summarizing and rephrasing what Henia had added to the intro and Background sections:

"At the time of the war, France had territory outside of the European continent that during the war was ruled by pro-Nazi Vichy France. Of French North Africa, Tunisia was ruled by Vichy France and the government of pro-Nazi Marshal Philippe Pétain was occupied by the SS, and the German army during six months from November 1942 till May 1943."

I will make a citation (or citations) from sources from this query once final wording is worked out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Vichy Information[edit]

"At the time of the war, France had territory outside of the European continent that during the war was ruled by pro-Nazi Vichy France. Of French North Africa, Tunisia was ruled by Vichy France and the government of pro-Nazi Marshal Philippe Pétain was occupied by the SS, and the German army during six months from November 1942 till May 1943." I am sorry Carole but I do not agree to your editing as it does not reflect the historical reality of the time, at all.

And where is this sentence? In which article?

Frankly Carole, I was expecting honest collaboration and help for a new comer. I did notice an editor putting a reference in the correct template. You just deleted my citation.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your issue here? The draft needs reworking but it does reflect, roughly the chain of events. We can certainly improve it. You seem to only accept help and collaboration when you agree with it. This has to stop. Now I have officially offered you mentoring on your talk page Henia. I need a reply. Conditions of mentorship will follow. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German-Occupied Europe[edit]

1. Sorry Simon, I accept your mentorship. I am completely getting lost, and frankly, Carole could just have put my citation, in article Holocaust, in the correct way.

2. Can you insert please, my change, for the article, with verifiable reference/citation: German–occupied Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe

German–occupied Europe or Nazi Europe refers to the sovereign countries of Europe “(including the North African colonies)” 1, which were occupied by the military forces of Nazi Germany at various times between 1939 and 1945 and administered by the Nazi regime.[2]

Reference/Note 1: Introduction to the EHRI Country Reports on Holocaust History and Archives https://www.ehri-project.eu/national-reports EHRI = European Holocaust Research Infrastructure

3. I am still working on Carole suggestion for a compromise that reflects the "contemporaneous context" in a "precise language" (instruction of the ushmm)

Thank you Simon for mentoring me!Henia Perlman (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia have you deleted my draft? It was at the bottom. I am not happy with that reference Henia. It is a website intro page and it does not give the exact information you claim. I would rather we used a book. As you will see from my draft, your point is incorrect. Tunisia (Algeria fell very quickly into Allied hands in 1942) was only under direct German control from November 1942 to May 1943. I will copy my draft over to here. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Draft[edit]

Restoring Simon's draft:

On the outbreak of the war, France had extensive territorial possessions in North Africa. After The fall of France, these territories came under the military and political control of Vichy. In November 1942 after the Allied invasion of North Africa, Germany invaded and occupied the previously unoccupied Zone of France and poured troops and material into Tunisia to parry the Allied invasion. From November 1942 until the Axis collapse in Tunisia in May 1943, the territory was under the control of the German Wehrmacht and elements of the SS.

This is my proposed wording. Irondome (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
On the outbreak of the war, France had extensive territorial possessions in North Africa. After The fall of France, these territories came under the military and political control of Vichy. In November 1942 after the Allied invasion of North Africa, Germany invaded and occupied the previously unoccupied Zone of France and poured troops and material into Tunisia to parry the Allied invasion. From November 1942 until the Axis collapse in Tunisia in May 1943, the territory was under the control of the German Wehrmacht and elements of the SS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henia Perlman (talk • contribs)
Irondome It´s a fine text, but if you add this to "Background" that section will be very France-heavy. Then again, the section could certainly use expanding, and one has to start somewhere. This article is basically a list, and there's nothing wrong with that. A different approach could be to have sections for each/most countries, summaries in text of the "Countries occupied by Germany during World War II" articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Draft[edit]

Sorry, Simon, I will have to rework your draft.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henia Perlman (talk • contribs) 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Simon Draft[edit]

Sorry, Simon, unlike some historians, I have been trained and urged by the website of the ushmm (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum), a source that editors at Wiki have been citing, to use "precise language" and 

the "contemporaneous context" -
it is a must, especially with history of the Holocaust, because of Holocaust deniers.

There was a discussion, somewhere in Wiki, and the editors agree about what consisted "France" - very smart and knowledgeable people!

Historians such as Bauer, Kaspi, Cohen, Berg, Longerich, Gilbert, Yahil ... tell about the persecution of the Jews in Vichy North Africa in their section: Europe, and subtitle France or in another way.

Poznanski, a French Holocaust expert in the Holocaust in France, and whom I met at international Holocaust conferences, is very careful in using the correct and precise terms, such as: metropolitan France or the Metropole or mainland France, or continental France, as De Gaulle called the part of France in the European continent.

1. Unlike statements by many historians, France didn’t fall, but signed an armistice. 2. Your draft is too long. I will work on it later. 3. “France” has been used by many historians in an incorrect way.

France is a transcontinental country, with mainland France and France overseas (like Hawaii for the states= the French Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transcontinental_countries

TODAY, France: • France: Metropolitan France is in Europe, while the five Overseas Departments and six Overseas Collectivities are in other continents. Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Martin, Saint-Barthélemy, and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon are in North America, French Guiana is in South America, Mayotte and Réunion are in Africa, and New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna are in Oceania. These Overseas Departments and Collectivities are integral parts of France, as are the uninhabited French Southern and Antarctic Lands and Clipperton Island.

During the war, France = Metropolitan France + France overseas which included French Algeria (an integral part of Metrop., with dept. 91, 92, 93, 94 – like in mainland France), the 2 protectorates of French Morocco and Tunisia, which used same money, stamps and legislation like in the metropole).

After the landing of the Allies, Alger, in Vichy Algeria, became the new capital of France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France “France (French: [fʁɑ̃s]), officially the French Republic (République française [ʁepyblik fʁɑ̃sɛz]), is a country with territory in western Europe and several overseas regions and territories. The European, or metropolitan, area of France extends from … Overseas France (France d’Outre-Mer in French) include … During the Iron Age, what is now metropolitan France was inhabited by the Gauls

I will try to work later on your draft. I sincerely appreciate your mentorship!

Thank you!Henia Perlman (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c):France fell Henia. It was destroyed as an Allied military power. My draft is historically correct and the links give context by linking to other articles. I frankly do not see the relevance of trying to describe the status of Tunisia or Algeria etc, except in that they were controlled from Paris. We also had an Empire. These were colonies also. Please stop removing my links in addition. The draft, with a few words trimmed, is sufficient. Now I must sleep. Please do not make any further edits to articles while I am off line until we can discuss. We have a lot of work to do with just this edit. One thing at a time please! Sleep well. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I was off-line for several hours. The draft I put together, Henia, came from the information that you had added to the intro and the Background, which I removed with this edit.
The goal is to be short and sweet, per comments on this article talk page from and the Military History talk page, where my take is that this article is about Europe, so it should be just a brief statement. The Vichy France article is a place to go to for more detail.
I have no idea what you mean about me removing citation information -- see the edit, there was no citation information in the article and I didn't see anything here. If you have a source, that's great and very helpful. My query also came up with a number of potential sources, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, Simon... sounds like you have this well under control.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Carole you are welcome to continue contributing. I think I need all the help I can get..Irondome (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your valiant efforts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And includes you too Gråbergs Gråa Sång also! :) Simon. Irondome (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sure. If we don't hear back from Henia, I assume we just drop the edit, since this is about Northern Africa. We could add a See also, though, about Vichy France regarding French North Africa occupancy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry all, the conversation then continued on my T/P. I made some recommendations about what sources to use, etc. [[2]] Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German Occupied Europe[edit]

Good morning everybody,

Carole advised me to post my modification also in "Talk" of the article, and maybe "add a See also, though, about Vichy France. Well, reader will have to click there and read "Terminology."

That's what I suggested, without undue weight, and with modification in capital:

German occupied Europe German–occupied Europe or Nazi Europe refers to the sovereign countries of Europe, INCLUDING FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (ref. 1) which were occupied by the military forces of Nazi Germany at various times between 1939 and 1945 and administered by the Nazi regime.(ref. 2)

ref. 1. “In November 1942, … French North Africa … this extension of Europe ...” Kaspi, André Les Juifs pendant l'occupation. Seuil, Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1991; p. 175.

German Map of Europe of the German general staff dated 20, 1942; 

in p. 3 of article written by Dr. Norbert Kampe, historian and then Director of the Wannsee House, and published in

SHALOM/VOL. XLI/PRINTEMPS 2004/PESSAH 5764 http://www.shalom-magazine.com/pdfs/41/Fr/KAMPE%20FR_41.pdf

“Under the French-German cease-fire agreement, North Africa was considered part of unoccupied Vichy France” http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205726.pdf

Ref. 2. Encyclopædia Britannica, German occupied Europe. World War II. Retrieved 1 September 2015 from the Internet Archive.

I am not objective, but I think that he modification, with reliable sources, is simple and sweet. What do you think?

Thank you, Have a wonderful day! Henia Perlman (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a clarification, I said: ":You're working with Simon / Irondome, so posting something on his talk page to work on developing content, citations, etc. is a good thing. I just meant that otherwise, content should be posted on the article talk page."–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: lack of consensus. OP withdrawing orginal suggestion. Discussion showed substantial support for another title and OP will relist as such. (non-admin closure) Facts707 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


German-occupied Europe → Nazi Germany-occupied Europe – Article deals only with German occupations during the period of Nazi Germany. Doesn't consider World War I, etc. Facts707 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the article itself specifies in the lead paragraph that the period under consideration starts with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. Pre-September 1 events, which constituted the prelude to war, are not directly incorporated into this article's timeline. Also, "German occupation of...", rather than "Nazi occupation of..." represents a series of titles, such as German occupation of Estonia during World War II, German occupation of Latvia during World War II, German occupation of Lithuania during World War II or German occupation of Luxembourg during World War II. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's what the article says at all. Yes, it gives the dates 1939-45 in the lead, but then it says "during and shortly before World War II, generally administered by the Nazi regime" (my emphasis). The 1938 dates are given in the table and there is nothing that specifically limits the scope of this article to the war time dates. As for the title, those examples are also at odds with your proposal; should it not therefore be German occupation of Europe during World War II? PC78 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking part of my above comment. Per other articles I believe the title should either be German occupation of Europe during World War II or German occupation of Europe, 1938–1945. In any case, disambiguation should be needed as parts of Europe were occupied by Germany during World War I (or else, expand the scope of the article to include that period). PC78 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. I would include in my support your proposed titles, German occupation of Europe during World War II (an already familiar title form — first choice) and German occupation of Europe, 1938–1945 (second choice). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, however, that if the originally proposed title is to be used, an en-dash is required in accordance with MOS:SUFFIXDASH (i.e., Nazi Germany–occupied Europe). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nazi" as an adjective is wrong in those cases, but not in this case, since here it is modifying Germany. The main article is at Nazi Germany. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom's proposal, but support (or at least don't oppose) Roman Spinner's suggestion. I also oppose anything with "occupation of Europe" in the title. I don't think the ambiguity is a big deal as it stands because there are no competing articles about German occupations of Europe and, arguably, the Nazi period is the only one anybody normally describes as "German-occupied Europe". Srnec (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per User:Calidum, but also because the name suggested is not English (hence the reason why the current title starts with "German" and not "Germany"). If you are wanting to use this the it will have to be turned around to "Occupation of Europe by Nazi Germany". -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your basis for suggesting that "the name suggested is not English", PBS? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "German" in this context is an adjective, "Germany" is a noun. eg "a german car" not a "a Germany car". "A german occupation" not "A Germany occupation"; but "An occupation by Germany" not "An occupation by German". -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is to say you would prefer "Nazi German–occupied Europe" to the proposal? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the alternative proposals discussed above? PC78 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not prefer "Nazi German–occupied Europe" (although it is better grammar, better still is "Occupation of Europe by Nazi Germany"). However as I stated before I would prefer the name to remain as it is. No only does it meet the requirements of WP:AT using Nazi can be seen as a POV because it implies that somehow Germany and Nazi Germany are not one of the same thing (good Germans and bad Germans and "never the twain shall meet"). -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another angle, I support any ...occupation of Europe... rather than ...occupied Europe... because the article is about the occupation of Europe, not so much Europe during an occupation. The difference may appear subtle in this case, but I think it is reasonable to differentiate. Facts707 (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that. "German occupation of Europe, can mean that Germany is in Europe, or at least includes the territory of Germany while "German occupied Europe" excludes Germany, because "occupied" is a term of art in international humanitarian law and was established by Hague IV (1907), if not before. It is a shortening for "occupied territories" see Article 42 "Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised". -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, your quote of Art. 42 uses "occupation" as a synonym for "occupied" in its second sentence. Also I don't think a typical reader would consider "German occupation of Europe" to infer merely that the country of Germany is in the continent of Europe. Facts707 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 June 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved, Lack of consensus. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


German-occupied Europe → German occupation of Europe during World War II – Previous move request showed significant support for this title. It's also consistent with various per country articles such as German occupation of Belgium during World War II. Facts707 (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. DrKay (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support. Clear and consistent. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This also helps disambiguate it from some World War I-era occupations. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "occupation of Europe", since Germany always occupies some of Europe and never occupied all of it. You can add "during World War II" to the present title. Srnec (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That also applies to the current title: 'German-occupied Europe' is the part of Europe occupied by Germany. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and this article is about the part of Europe occupied by Germany. It is restricted in time and, although I think it is almost a term of art unto itself, we can disambiguate in other ways if need be. Srnec (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a typical reader would consider an article with the title "German occupation of Europe" to infer merely that the country of Germany is in the continent of Europe. Facts707 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither do I. But I do think a substantial number would find it odd-sounding. It's like saying "Britain should not leave Europe". I doubt it would actually confuse many people (at least not in the UK or Europe), but it is still a little odd. Srnec (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not necessary for nominators to support their own nominations.
    There has only ever been one German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Srnec (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support if for no other reason then to make sure the reader knows what he is getting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven this is not a valid reason under the Article Title policy (see WP:PRECISION). Your argument leads to very verbose titles. The place to put the detail is in the first paragraph of the lead as that text shows up in internet searches and under the mouse pointer if the appropriate toggle is on. -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that whilst someone with a passing knowledge may know that Germany did not occupy Europe in the 14-18 war someone else may not, thus we identify what war we are talking about (as we do on other topics). But you will note it is only a wael support, at the end of the day you are also correct.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not opposed to a name change but the proposed one is badly formed, as others have said it covers a period that starts before the second world war and they didnt occupy all of Europe. German occupations "in" Europe is closer and doesnt sound like they occupied all of Europe. MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the current title it isn't clear whether it is about German occupation during the Franco-German war, World War 1 or World War 2. --Nug (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. See my comment in the above RM also. Calidum 05:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; "German occupation of Europe during World War II" is too long, and "German-occupied Europe" is just as clear. Also, Germany occupied parts of Czechoslovakia before WW2 began, so the name would be misleading. I propose a different name, "Nazi-occupied Europe", since that differentiates it from when Germany invaded other countries in WW1. "Nazi-occupied Europe" would be just as good a clearing up and confusion, and it would be more accurate. Bill Williams (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Due to WP:CONCISE but makes no difference what I say given there's clearly a lack of consensus. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Proposed title is unnecessary elongation. Piling on to be clear there is a consensus against this proposal. --В²C ☎ 18:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons outlined above. No title will ever be perfect. Besides, it is a term with enough popular use to justify a slightly more expansive scope that would include puppet states not literally "occupied".—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@User:Facts707

  1. Accuracy: German occupation of Europe started with Czechoslovakia in 1938 which was prior to the Second World War. Above you say it started with an annexation of part of Cz, not an occupation -- something I question -- however as the article sates "On the morning of 15 March [1938], German troops entered remaining Czech parts of Czechoslovakia", which was prior to the Second World War.
  2. Precision. German occupation of Belgium during World War II includes "during World War II" because there is an article called German occupation of Belgium during World War I in the case of Norway it is German occupation of Norway because there has only been one.

--PBS (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precision: Legally and formally after the agreement with the Czech President, Emil Hácha, German army entered Czech part of the dismembered Czechoslovakia (one day before the Slovak State was proclaimed), and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was proclaimed. This was not annexed in a traditional way to Germany - unlike other territories, but remained separate and was administered as well separately, formally having Czech leaders but having German supervision and control. The fact some English terminology or some wiki pages discuss and as well refer "occupation" even by the result of the Munich agreement or what happened later, should not make us confuse with a real military occupation (!= legal annexation or authorization). Thus using the argument for the former Czechoslovakia before 1 September 1939 is fallacious...the fact the German army "occupied" the Sudetenland or the Czech lands was the result of legal agreements and contracts that are not identical with the "traditional" military occupations that are made lacking such, however this is not true for Poland or other territories with military occupation, where the other party did not agree or allowed this. So, just careful!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The Munich agreement only covered Greman speaking areas adjacent to Germany. The argument you are putting forwards about the other areas was used in the Hostages Trial. The legal judgment (1948) on this can be see in the article under the section "Clarification of military occupation". -- PBS (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PBS: Just to clarify, above I was only quoting the title and lead sentence of the article German occupation of Czechoslovakia. I think any debate on that particular part of WWII may be more appropriate on that article's talk page. Facts707 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, post-trials or judgments are not necessarily relevant for issues back in time, we have to always regard the contemporary situation per WP:NPOV as well. Any legal annexations' by-product is the evident military occupation (the same goes for any mutually agreed action concerning any sovereigns territory, etc.), it's not something extra and I emphasize again we should not confuse it with that type of occupation, when contrary the subjects will/agreement/authorization etc. happened the occupation. Another example, the annexation of the Memel-land to Germany was as well agreed in the end by Lithuania (we do not investigate conditions why someone would agree to cede something, this question could then be raised by every treaty, also by the ending treaties of WWI or II, when those who signed to cede territories may POV regard their territory to be "occupied".) Thus, it is irrelevant if is was adjacent or not, German-speaking or not, etc., because the agreement has been made with the Czech president legally and formally (circumstances is another issue, as in every historical event), this is not a classic type of occupation. However, in case - as reflected by others - there are several inconsistencies concerning more WP articles in these subjects, we should find a standard solution, but it should not be i.e. the Allied (post) viewpoint of historical events, but totally neutral! I think at first glance, we should distinguish WWII occupations (war conditions) with the other ones. Secondly, we have to distinguish "legal occupation" with illegal (not (mutually) agreed/authorized/etc.) occupations, by a careful and professional evaluation.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I could debate this in detail with you (as I consider your views on WP:NPOV on this issue wrong), but this is not the forum to do so as the debate is straying off topic. You may reply to this posting because you want to get the last word in, if you do, then so be it, but I will not continue this thread. -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this move request be relisted (as done by nominator) or deleted without a closing summary (as done by another user)? As stated at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog: "Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation." A fairly brief discussion among a half-dozen editors on a level 5 importance article is what I would call "minimal participation". Facts707 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You have misunderstood what I have written on your talk page (User:Facts707#Requested move 24 June 2019). I have not suggested that this Requested Move should be deleted without a closing summary. I have suggested the independent editor who reviews this RM should make the decisions to close it or relist it. It is not up to an involved editor to do this and most definatly not the nominator. So as no one has suggested closing this RM without a closing summary remove/close this malformed RfC that is disruptive to the standard RM process. -- PBS (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Division between two parts of Europe[edit]

This Wikipedia doesn not have a page about occupation, the closest page is also Military occupation, "Military or belligerent occupation" so "occupied and civil occupied" should be linked together. "The rules of occupation are delineated in various international agreements".
The Germans did not obey the rules, they exterminated, annected, drafted, robbed, expelled, etc. in Eastern and Southern Europe. Occupation of Western Europe was different, This page does not inform about the differences.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added hitler[edit]

Hitler was dictator of Nazi Germany, which conquered and annexed many territories under his dictatorship, and he was the supreme leader of the Reich. More accurate description.

Albania[edit]

Albania was an independent kingdom before Italian and then German occupation. Not part of Yugoslavia. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map of German occupied territory[edit]

Why is the map of German occupied territory File:German Reich 1942 (Extended).svg being removed? [3] Meters (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure; given that this is ostensibly multiple editors I'm going to assume it's a sock puppetry issue. I'm going to revert and urge the user to come to the talk page while recommending page protection. — Czello (music) 08:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German-occupied_Europe&oldid=1209101196"