Talk:World War II reparations

Confused about what Poland didn't get

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map of territorial changes in the aftermath of WWII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German reparations are:

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

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

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

• all these things you just quoted
• territorial exchanges

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

Reparations towards Yugoslavia

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

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

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

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

How much?

So how much did Germany have to pay? The Other Axis Nations section gives the amount in money those nations had to pay, but I can't see any amount for Germany, despite the article describing at length the form of Germany's reparations. On that subject, is this article just on Germany's reparations, or (as the title would suggest) on all of them? And (as a matter of interest) did the amount paid cover the cost of the damage? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)