Talk:Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany

Redirect

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)

Done. 2+4 2 + 4 2+4 Negotiations 2 + 4 Negotiations 2 4 Negotiations (The last one was a mistake, but oh well.) Any others? MarcusGraly 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing the navigation box

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????

Ha, I think someone really wanted to make this into something about Poland. The map of Poland on a page on Germany sure is trippy. Perhaps distracting.

I found a single reference to Poland in the body of the treaty text. While the border with Poland is defined (less specifically than in this article), it is confirmed. You'd expect the borders of the state to be defined throughout the first article of an international merger, right? Poland's mentioned for reasons you can find in the link, and I know this is really important for Poland, but not close to "perhaps the most important". The most important feature of this treaty was German unification. The provisions were against another war-capable, claim staking Germany. So that's the POV edit. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the treaty still hold?

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)

As a german I hope so. I assume that Russia has taken over the place of the Soviet Union.--Oneiros (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! Today no foreign armed forces, nuclear weapons or their carriers are stationed in former East Germany or deployed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.89.141 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Saar Region missing

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?

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)

What they got was a democratic, stable German state that they no longer had the responsibility to police. Sounds like a bargain. 109.155.172.75 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

sowjets got money; french got the euro; us got a reunifed germany in nato; only uk got nothing cause thatcher accepted no deal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.112 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And besides, it's rather the normal state of affairs that wars are followed with a peace treaty which 100% restores souvereignty and 100% ends occupation. Sometimes the loser has to "pay with a province" (Francis Joseph's expression concerning the Lombardy) - but then, Germany had paid Silesia, Eastern Prussia and so forth.--131.159.0.47 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Another of the treaty's important terms was Germany's confirmation of the internationally recognized border with Poland and Russia"

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)

Well, it was the German point of view that Eastern provinces were under Polish administration (though even in the German view, they said administration, which is much much more than mere occupation), but not necessarily the view of the rest of the world. Also, Germany itself had (somewhat) recognized the Polish border in a treaty in 1972 (or so), leaving a tiny loophole for the event of a future Reunification, but by no means more than that (which was highly controversial in the 1970s, to be sure).--131.159.0.47 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fully sovereign

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

United Berlin became a part of the Federal Republic of Germany on 3 October 1990 at the moment of German Reunification, but Berlin was still under a (soft) Occupation regime until this Treaty entered into force on 15 March 1990 and the last Allied Forces left in 1994 under its terms. Also, East Germany was absorbed by the Federal Republic upon reunification, but the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany remained present in the new territory acquired by the Federal Republic until the completion of the Allied withdrawal on 31 August 1994 under the Treaty. So, yes, parts of the Federal Republic had a presence of Occupation forces that needed to withdraw. Granted that, regarding West Germany proper (not including West Berlin that technically was not a part of West Germany), the Occupation regime had ended with the Paris Treaty of 23 October 1954 that entered into force on 5 May 1955. But the Western Allies retained an Occupation presence in West Berlin, and only left as a consequence of the Two-Plus-Four Treaty. Also, the Allied Control Council had to meet to authorize the inclusion of the city of Berlin, due to its special international status as still-Occupied territory, in the German Reunification. Furthermore, the Potsdam Agreement had created provisional borders for Germany, and had ceded areas to Polish administration pending the final settlement of Germany's borders in a definitive Peace Treaty. Therefore, the solution was still provisional, and the areas acquired by Poland were not fully Polish de jure in international law until a final decision was made in the Peace Treaty with Germany. That decision was formalized in the Treaty of Final Settlement with respect to Germany: under the Treaty, Germany as required to renounce all claim to land situated to the East of the Oder-Niesse line, and assumed before the Allies the obligation to sign a Treaty with the Republic of Poland so as to confirm as permanent and final the then existing border between them. Germany complied with that demand, and signed the German-Polish Border Treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Basto (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What can we say about the negotiations

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)

Cynical disambiguation

""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)

German sovereignty

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)

Where is the Baker-Gorbachev discussion content / Merge with Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

You are welcome to add the content as you see fit. Please follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia procedures.

Also, please consult WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have re-added the content, please do not revert again without justifying in this page. We went by a full week discussion consensus in the deletion Baker-Gorbachev Pact discussion. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baker-Gorbachev_Pact

Also, you cannot say the additions were not sourced when there were primary sources (declassified memorandum of the conversations -uploaded byNSA Archive by George Washington University ) as well as secondary renkown sources (Der Spiegel, article by the NSA, historian Mary Elise Sarotte...) Jasandia (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (CET)

Interpreting WP:PRIMARY sources is prohibited on Wikipedia. You need to find WP:SECONDARY sources.

I am also concerned that your editing is highly WP:BATTLEGROUND. You can get sanctioned for it. You made three edits here, with absolutely no edit summaries and unacceptable sources, and you reverted my edits here, again with no edit summary. You need to get off your high horse and collaborate, sincerely. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You are reverting my edits with no talk or consensus. Where in here have you discussed anything? You should be santioned for WP:EDIT WARRING, you have reverted already twice my he content without trying to argue anything, very close to WP:3RR. If you feel something could be improved or something is being interpreted, you can remove that, but instead you are erasing the whole content as a block. And yet you call me to collaborate. Please @Sandstein clarify Jasandia (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already commented on your talk page. If the two of you disagree, try looking for a third opinion at WP:3O. Sandstein 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

The background section you have restored included sentences like this:

• "The concession essentially meant that the western half of the unified Germany would be part of NATO but the eastern half would not." Isn't that interpreting?
• Or "the concession was later amended". What concession and what is that that it was amended? Where? In the Treaty on the Final Settlement? We are saying there was no pact between Baker and Gorbachev and no mention to the NATO's expansion, yet in the same article a sentence says that there is a concession and that it was amended...

Of course I'm entitled to correct unclear aspects of the article or porly sourced. And to add more information if it's properly sourced and the articles lack it in the first place. Where was Gorbachev proposal of the USSR joining NATO? And Baker argument that Germany would b better in NATO than neutral? Isn't that relevant on an article called 'Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany'? Jasandia (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Those sentences are summarising the scholarly source that has been cited. If you wish, I can produce quotes from it that say similar things. But I should also warn you that you should not be deleting well-sourced content silently, in the midst of other edits of your own. Any contest of the existing material should be clear and needs to stand on its own, and the contest stated clearly either in the edit summary or the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And respecting what you are erasing of Gorbachev proposal on joining the NATO? That shouldn't be in the article? Or Baker's comment that Germany would be better in NATO than neutral? This is the memorandum, it's not the only one and other sources discuss it as you kno https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between Jasandia (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no difference to me what is in that document. It is a private discussion between two superpowers and they might say hundreds of things for hundreds of reasons. I am not allowed to take them at face value and include them in an encyclopedia. If there are worthy facts, they would be discussed in scholarly sources. So, that is where you need to look. You should not even be touching this highly contentious article without having read scholarly analyses of these matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a full analysis by scholars of not only that memorandum, but a lot more! The was even a prior reference in the article referring to that same source and scholars analysis in 2017 (including the one you mentioned before -Savranskaya Blanton- which I did not originally add, by the way:

• Quote from the previous version: "In December 2017, George Washington University National Security Archives researchers Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton discovered declassified documents that they argue challenge this narrative."
• The NSA huge analysis: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

These scholars clearly state that: "The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.". This is not a simple conversation, the scholar talk of documents, in plural.

Also, other analysis and references on the topic were present before, by the way:

• Quote from the previous version: "An analysis by Marc Trachtenberg in 2021 concluded that "the Russian allegations are by no means baseless" Jasandia (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Jasandia is correct and the article is still wrong. 2A04:EE41:3:12EA:ED9E:8301:D422:7E47 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to make improvements to the existing content, without altering its meaning or corrupting it in other ways. In this edit (apparently your first edit), you added a huge passage under an existing source "Savranskaya Blanton", thereby making it appear as if your content is sourced to that article. This is a very dangerous kind of corruption (WP:FAKE), which any careful editor will revert on first sight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What passage? Perhaps that was a mistake because I copied a template to write my source because I don't recognise that Jasandia (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok so now that we have reached a compromise. As i was saying in your (talk). Of course I want to cooperate. What I don't want is for you to erase the whole block. I erased one of my own editions which was actually interpreting on Gorbachev comments on 'not having discussed NATO expansion'. Also, I admit after all these years I don't come to Wikipedia that much and a lot of things still elude me, so please tell me if I am not using the right info in my sources templates.

Finally: please feel free to touch or change whatever you feel and is well intentioned and sourced. If you believe there are fragments that should be gone and you have doubts where they came from please tell me as well, and I can argue it. Also, from my general perspective:

1- Background should include some information on the Baker-Gorbachev talks, not only a reference as before to 'the famous not one-inch', because there was no explanation that that referred to NATO's expansion and anyone coming to read this would not understand unless they know what that 'famous' sentence was about.

2- Baker proposal of a unified Germany under NATO should also be present in the article -given than the promise of 'not one inch' came after he first talked to Gorbachov of a unified Germany in NATO. Not one inch eastward excluding Germany.

3- I think Gorbachev proposal of the USSR being in NATO could also be of interest... I agree that this in particular has not that much to do with Germany, but it's background from the negotiations of the Treaty. In any case, please notice that I was opposed to merging this privios negotiations /assurances to the USSR with this article... but that was the consensus. I still belive this is a topic that diserves its own article, a trasdends Germany reunification / this Treaty. Jasandia (talk) 18:12, 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)

New documents point

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.

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

Factual error / "accepting any application for incorporation into Germany"

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)

@Hannsg.logitech: If you have looked through the treaty and the constitution and found the information to be wrong, given that the sentence has no source, I think you should feel free to go ahead and delete it. LongLivePortugal (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia as an author and no trained (international) law expert. I will give it a bit more time and more opinions, before deleting info here.. Hannsg.logitech (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Baker-Kohl-Gorbachev agreements.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Eastwood expanding of this article

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. ThoughtsThe Original Filfi (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"In 1997, NATO and Russia signed a treaty stating that each country had a sovereign right to seek alliances."

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)

Addendum that allowed NATO forces to cross the Cold War line

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 should definitely be part of the article. 2A04:EE41:3:12EA:ED9E:8301:D422:7E47 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Claimed German violations

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)

Adament new editor and treaty dates

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)