DOCSLIB.ORG

1949 Germany Crisis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1949 Germany Crisis 1 | Page April 13th Kutztown University of Pennsylvania Table of Contents Staff Welcome Letters …………………………………………………….………………………. 3 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….………............ 4-5 Brief Overview……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5-6 Topics at Hand ……………………………………………………….…………...………………….. 6-17 Questions to Answer …………………….…………………………..……………………………. 18 What is Crisis ………………………………………………………………………………………… 19-20 2 | Page Letter from the Chair Dear Esteemed Delegates, Welcome to the Cold War Berlin Crisis Committee! Being a delegate in this committee with offers you an invaluable learning experience that with help shape your understanding of global geopolitics after the Cold War. My name is Madison Colaco, and I am a senior Political Science major, Public Administration minor here at the Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. I am very excited to be serving as your chair for this committee. Good luck and Best Wishes, Madison Colaco Letter from Crisis Hello, I am Mason Smith and am the crisis director for Cold War Berlin. I am a first year Master's student and also a full-time teacher. I have been in MUN since my sophomore year in college and have attended more conferences in more places than I could name. My favorite committee was probably the Great Schism at UPenn years ago, for reasons that I can't really discuss. I am looking forward to having an excellent discussion and reformation of Germany, and I hope we divert from the terrible ideas that were implemented in our actual history. I have lived in a half dozen cities across the world and am passionate about Education 3 | Page Good luck and best wishes, Mason D. Smith Introduction The World has just begun to recover from one of the deadliest incidents in recorded history, World War II. Over two years, an estimated eleven million men, women, and children were brutally slaughtered by the Nazis in concentration camps. After the war, the conquering powers divided the country into four districts and administered the same cruelty and famine conditions to the entirety of the German people. After four years, the powers have satisfied their cravings for revenge and are willing to begin allowing the German people to reestablish themselves, with strong oversight from the conquering Powers. The year is 1949 and the Powers have decided to convene a conference to determine the fate of Germany. The Western allies, the US, UK, and France have sent their best negotiators and heads of state while allowing a plethora of people from amongst the controlled districts to attend. The eastern power, the USSR has decided that they will not easily acquiesce to the demands of the West and see the potential for future conflict from Germany. The year is 1949 and Germany finds itself at the centerpiece of world history. The main forces of the world stand on two sides with conflicting ideology and the people of Germany lie in the middle. On the one side, the traditional powers of the United Kingdom, France, and relatively recently joining the world stage due to incredible profits with little 4 | Page losses from the World Wars, the United States of America, while on the other side stands a new coalescing superpower in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The two main parties have agreed to set apart their stark differences and come to a once-in-a-lifetime meeting regarding the delineation between the two powers and what to do with Germany as they begin to rebuild after their devastation caused by Hitler and the conquering, and now occupying forces. The representatives of the people of Germany have been invited to attend, however, due to their recent behavior causing the World Wars, they have been relegated to the background despite their influences on the current events. Brief Overview As a consequence of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, Germany was divided between the two global blocs in the East and West, a period known as the division of Germany. Germany was stripped of its war gains and lost territories in the east to Poland and the Soviet Union. At the end of the war, there were in Germany some eight million foreign displaced persons; mainly forced laborers and prisoners; including around 400,000 from the concentration camp system, survivors from a much larger number who had died from starvation, harsh conditions, murder, or being worked to death. Over 10 million German-speaking refugees arrived in Germany from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Some 9 million Germans were POWs, many of whom were kept as forced laborers for several years to provide restitution to the countries Germany had devastated in the war, and some industrial equipment was removed as reparations. 5 | Page The Cold War, which at the time were considered a sense of heightened tensions divided Germany between the Allies in the west and Soviets in the east. Germans had little voice in government until 1949 when two states emerged: Federal Republic of Germany(FRG), commonly known as West Germany, was a parliamentary democracy with a free capitalist economic system and free churches and labor unions. German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly known as East Germany, was the smaller Marxist-Leninist socialist republic with its leadership dominated by the Soviet- aligned Socialist Unity Party of Germany(SED) in order to retain it within the Soviet sphere of influence. History Following the German military leaders’ unconditional surrender in May 1945, the country lay prostrate. The German state had ceased to exist, and sovereign authority passed to the victorious Allied powers. The physical devastation from Allied bombing campaigns and from ground battles was enormous: an estimated one-fourth of the country’s housing was destroyed or damaged beyond use, and in many cities, the toll exceeded 50 percent. Germany’s economic infrastructure had largely collapsed as factories and transportation systems ceased to function. Rampant inflation was undermining the value of the currency, and an acute shortage of food reduced the diet of many city dwellers to the level of malnutrition. These difficulties were compounded by the presence of 6 | Page millions of homeless German refugees from the former eastern provinces. The end of the war came to be remembered as “zero hour,” a low point from which virtually everything had to be rebuilt anew from the ground up. At the Potsdam Conference (17 July to 2 August 1945), after Germany's unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945, the Allies divided Germany into four military occupation zones — France in the southwest, Britain in the northwest, the United States in the south, and the Soviet Union in the east, bounded eastwards by the Oder-Neisse line. Berlin, the former capital, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone, was placed under joint four-power authority but was partitioned into four sectors for administrative purposes. An Allied Control Council was to exercise overall joint authority over the country. At Potsdam these four zones in total were denoted as 'Germany as a whole', and the four Allied Powers exercised the sovereign authority they now claimed within Germany in agreeing 'in principle' the future transfer of lands of the former German Reich east of 'Germany as a whole' to Poland and the Soviet Union. These eastern areas were notionally placed under Polish and Soviet administration pending a final peace treaty but in actuality were promptly reorganized as organic parts of their respective sovereign states. In addition, under the Allies' Berlin Declaration (1945), the territory of the extinguished German Reich was to be treated as the land area within its borders as of 31 December 1937. All Nazi land expansion from 1938 to 1945 was hence treated as automatically invalid. Such expansion included the League of Nations administered City- State of Danzig (occupied by Nazi Germany immediately following Germany's 1 September 1939 invasion of Poland), Austria, the occupied territory of Czechoslovakia, Suwalki, 7 | Page Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, post 27 September 1939 "West Prussia", post 27 September 1939 "Posen Province", northern Slovenia, Eupen, Malmedy, the part of Southern Silesia ultimately detached from 1918 Germany by action of the Versailles Treaty, likewise, the Hultschiner Laendchen. These arrangements did not incorporate all of prewar Germany. The Soviets unilaterally severed the German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers and placed these under the direct administrative authority of the Soviet Union and Poland, with the larger share going to the Poles as compensation for territory they lost to the Soviet Union. The former provinces of East Prussia, most of Pomerania, and Silesia were thus stripped from Germany. Since virtually the entire German population of some 9.5 million in these and adjacent regions was expelled westward, this amounted to a de facto annexation of one-fourth of Germany’s territory as of 1937, the year before the beginning of German expansion under Hitler. The Western Allies acquiesced in these actions by the Soviets, taking consolation in the expectation that these annexations were merely temporary expedients that the final peace terms would soon supersede. Expulsion The northern half of East Prussia in the region of Königsberg was administratively assigned by the Potsdam Agreement to the Soviet Union, pending a final Peace Conference (with the commitment of Britain and the United States to support its incorporation into PrussiaRussia); were and was incorporated then annexed into byPoland the Soviet on a similar
Recommended publications
  • The Oder-Neisse Line As Poland's Western Border

    The Oder-Neisse Line As Poland's Western Border

    Piotr Eberhardt Piotr Eberhardt 2015 88 1 77 http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/ GPol.0007 April 2014 September 2014 Geographia Polonica 2015, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp. 77-105 http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0007 INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL ORGANIZATION POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES www.igipz.pan.pl www.geographiapolonica.pl THE ODER-NEISSE LINE AS POLAND’S WESTERN BORDER: AS POSTULATED AND MADE A REALITY Piotr Eberhardt Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw: Poland e-mail: [email protected] Abstract This article presents the historical and political conditioning leading to the establishment of the contemporary Polish-German border along the ‘Oder-Neisse Line’ (formed by the rivers known in Poland as the Odra and Nysa Łużycka). It is recalled how – at the moment a Polish state first came into being in the 10th century – its western border also followed a course more or less coinciding with these same two rivers. In subsequent cen- turies, the political limits of the Polish and German spheres of influence shifted markedly to the east. However, as a result of the drastic reverse suffered by Nazi Germany, the western border of Poland was re-set at the Oder-Neisse Line. Consideration is given to both the causes and consequences of this far-reaching geopolitical decision taken at the Potsdam Conference by the victorious Three Powers of the USSR, UK and USA. Key words Oder-Neisse Line • western border of Poland • Potsdam Conference • international boundaries Introduction districts – one for each successor – brought the loss, at first periodically and then irrevo- At the end of the 10th century, the Western cably, of the whole of Silesia and of Western border of Poland coincided approximately Pomerania.
  • The Long-Lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on Its Spatial Equilibrium

    The Long-Lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on Its Spatial Equilibrium

    IZA DP No. 10095 The Long-lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on its Spatial Equilibrium Christoph Eder Martin Halla July 2016 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor The Long-lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on its Spatial Equilibrium Christoph Eder University of Innsbruck Martin Halla University of Innsbruck and IZA Discussion Paper No. 10095 July 2016 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character.
  • Yalta Conference

    Yalta Conference

    Yalta Conference 1 The Conference All three leaders were attempting to establish an agenda for governing post-war Europe. They wanted to keep peace between post-world war countries. On the Eastern Front, the front line at the end of December 1943 re- mained in the Soviet Union but, by August 1944, So- viet forces were inside Poland and parts of Romania as part of their drive west.[1] By the time of the Conference, Red Army Marshal Georgy Zhukov's forces were 65 km (40 mi) from Berlin. Stalin’s position at the conference was one which he felt was so strong that he could dic- tate terms. According to U.S. delegation member and future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, "[i]t was not a question of what we would let the Russians do, but what Yalta Conference in February 1945 with (from left to right) we could get the Russians to do.”[2] Moreover, Roosevelt Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. Also hoped for a commitment from Stalin to participate in the present are Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (far left); United Nations. Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, RN, Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal, RAF, Premier Stalin, insisting that his doctors opposed any (standing behind Churchill); General George C. Marshall, Chief long trips, rejected Roosevelt’s suggestion to meet at the of Staff of the United States Army, and Fleet Admiral William Mediterranean.[3] He offered instead to meet at the Black D. Leahy, USN, (standing behind Roosevelt).
  • The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR

    The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR

    The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR: From Rejection to Selective Commemoration Corinna Munn Department of History Columbia University April 9, 2014 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Volker Berghahn, for his support and guidance in this project. I also thank my second reader, Hana Worthen, for her careful reading and constructive advice. This paper has also benefited from the work I did under Wolfgang Neugebauer at the Humboldt University of Berlin in the summer semester of 2013, and from the advice of Bärbel Holtz, also of Humboldt University. Table of Contents 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….1 2. Chronology and Context………………………………………………………….4 3. The Geschichtsbild in the GDR…………………………………………………..8 3.1 What is a Geschichtsbild?..............................................................................8 3.2 The Function of the Geschichtsbild in the GDR……………………………9 4. Prussia’s Changing Role in the Geschichtsbild of the GDR…………………….11 4.1 1945-1951: The Post-War Period………………………………………….11 4.1.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………11 4.1.2 Public Symbols and Events: The fate of the Berliner Stadtschloss…14 4.1.3 Film: Die blauen Schwerter………………………………………...19 4.2 1951-1973: Building a Socialist Society…………………………………...22 4.2.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………22 4.2.2 Public Symbols and Events: The Neue Wache and the demolition of Potsdam’s Garnisonkirche…………………………………………..30 4.2.3 Film: Die gestohlene Schlacht………………………………………34 4.3 1973-1989: The Rediscovery of Prussia…………………………………...39 4.3.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………39 4.3.2 Public Symbols and Events: The restoration of the Lindenforum and the exhibit at Sans Souci……………………………………………42 4.3.3 Film: Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria………………………..45 5.
  • Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society Volume One

    Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society Volume One

    Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society Volume One: Proceedings of the Sixth AESOP Conference on Sustainable Food Planning “Finding Spaces for Productive Cities” November 5–7, 2014 Leeuwarden, the Netherlands Edited by Rob Roggema Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society Volume One: Proceedings of the Sixth AESOP Conference on Sustainable Food Planning Edited by Rob Roggema This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Rob Roggema and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9474-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9474-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations ..................................................................................... ix List of Tables ............................................................................................ xix Preface ...................................................................................................... xxi Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 PART I: Spatial Design Chapter One ................................................................................................
  • Revisiting Zero Hour 1945

    Revisiting Zero Hour 1945

    REVISITING ZERO-HOUR 1945 THE EMERGENCE OF POSTWAR GERMAN CULTURE edited by STEPHEN BROCKMANN FRANK TROMMLER VOLUME 1 American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University REVISITING ZERO-HOUR 1945 THE EMERGENCE OF POSTWAR GERMAN CULTURE edited by STEPHEN BROCKMANN FRANK TROMMLER HUMANITIES PROGRAM REPORT VOLUME 1 The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. ©1996 by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies ISBN 0-941441-15-1 This Humanities Program Volume is made possible by the Harry & Helen Gray Humanities Program. Additional copies are available for $5.00 to cover postage and handling from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Suite 420, 1400 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-2217. Telephone 202/332-9312, Fax 202/265- 9531, E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.aicgs.org ii F O R E W O R D Since its inception, AICGS has incorporated the study of German literature and culture as a part of its mandate to help provide a comprehensive understanding of contemporary Germany. The nature of Germany’s past and present requires nothing less than an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of German society and culture. Within its research and public affairs programs, the analysis of Germany’s intellectual and cultural traditions and debates has always been central to the Institute’s work. At the time the Berlin Wall was about to fall, the Institute was awarded a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities to help create an endowment for its humanities programs.
  • The European Committee of the Regions and the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union

    The European Committee of the Regions and the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union

    EUROPEAN UNION Committee of the Regions © Fabrizio Maltese / ONT The European Committee of the Regions and the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union 01 Foreword by the president of the European Committee of the Regions 3 02 Foreword by the prime minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 5 03 Role of the European Committee of the Regions 7 04 The Luxembourg delegation to the European Committee of the Regions 10 Members of the Luxembourg delegation 10 Interview with the president of the Luxembourg delegation 12 Viewpoints of the delegation members 14 05 Cross-border cooperation 22 Joint interview with Corinne Cahen, Minister for the Greater Region, and François Bausch, Minister for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure 22 Examples of successful cross-border cooperation in the Greater Region 26 EuRegio: speaking for municipalities in the Greater Region 41 06 Festivals and traditions 42 07 Calendar of events 46 08 Contacts 47 EUROPEAN UNION Committee of the Regions © Fabrizio Maltese / ONT Foreword by the president of the 01 European Committee of the Regions Economic and Monetary Union,, negotiations on TTIP and preparations for the COP21 conference on climate change in Paris. In this context, I would like to mention some examples of policies where the CoR’s work can provide real added value. The European Committee of the Regions wholeheartedly supports Commission president Jean-Claude Junker’s EUR 315 billion Investment Plan for Europe. This is an excellent programme intended to mobilise public and private investment to stimulate the economic growth that is very The dynamic of the European Union has changed: much needed in Europe.
  • German-Speaking Community of Belgium Becomes World's First

    German-Speaking Community of Belgium Becomes World's First

    Linked with German-speaking Community of Belgium becomes world’s first region with permanent citizen participation drafted by lot Ambitious model for innovating democracy designed by G1000 Eupen, 26th of February 2019. The German speaking community of Belgium is to have a permanent system of political participation using citizens’ drawn by lot, next to the existing parliament. Following a model designed in collaboration with experts from the G1000 organization, a permanent Citizen Council will decide each year on the topics needing consultation. Each of them will be debated by an independent Citizens’ Assembly leading to concrete policy recommendations. Both bodies will be composed of citizens drafted by lot. The Parliament of the German-speaking community engages itself to implement these recommendations in their policy- making process. A milestone for deliberative democracy During its plenary session the 25th of February 2019, the Parliament of the German speaking Community of Belgium in Eupen has voted unanimously to institutionalize citizens drawn by lot in political decision-making. With this decision, the smallest region in Belgium and Europe is writing history: nowhere in the world will everyday citizens be so consistently involved with shaping the future of their region. In times of historic low trust in party-politics, the German-speaking citizens of Belgium will have the competence to put issues on the political agenda, propose their own policy proposals and monitor the follow-up of these recommendations by their parliament and government. Politicians in turn will be able to submit difficult and thorny issues to independent Citizens’ Assemblies. A worldwide trend Ever since the G1000 Citizen Summit in 2011, the idea of a permanent citizen council drawn by lot has been receiving increasing interest as a solution for the current democratic crisis.
  • Table S2), Which 23 156 We Used for Our Analysis

    Table S2), Which 23 156 We Used for Our Analysis

    Originally published as: Verkerk, P. J., Lindner, M., Pérez-Soba, M., Paterson, J. S., Helming, J., Verburg, P. H., Kuemmerle, T., Lotze-Campen, H., Moiseyev, A., Müller, D., Popp, A., Schulp, C. J. E., Stürck, J., Tabeau, A., Wolfslehner, B., Zanden, E. H. van der (2018): Identifying pathways to visions of future land use in Europe. - Regional Environmental Change, 18, 3, 817-830 10.1007/s10113-016-1055-7 [Please note: This is the submitted version of the paper before peer-review] Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 Identifying pathways to visions of future land use in Europe 1 2 2 3 Pieter J. Verkerka*, Marcus Lindnera, Marta Pérez-Sobab, James S. Patersonc, John Helmingd, 3 e f g a 4 4 Peter H. Verburg , Tobias Kuemmerle , Hermann Lotze-Campen , Alexander Moiseyev , 5 5 Daniel Müllerh, Alexander Poppg, Catharina J. E. Schulpe, Julia Stürcke, Andrzej Tabeaud, 6 6 Bernhard Wolfslehneri, Emma H. van der Zandene 7 7 8 a 9 8 European Forest Institute, Sustainability and Climate change programme, Yliopistokatu 6, 10 9 80100 Joensuu, Finland 11 10 bALTERRA, Wageningen University & Research centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA 12 13 11 Wageningen, the Netherlands 14 12 cLand Use Research Group, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK 15 13 dLEI, Wageningen University and Research centre, PO Box 29703, 2502 LS The Hague, the 16 14 Netherlands 17 e 18 15 Department of Earth Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV 19 16 Amsterdam, the Netherlands 20 17 fGeography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, 21 22 18 Germany 23 19 gPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegrafenberg A 31, 14473, Potsdam, 24 20 Germany 25 21 hLeibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Theodor- 26 27 22 Lieser-Strasse 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany 28 23 iEuropean Forest Institute, Central-East and South-East European Regional Office, c/o 29 24 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstr.
  • <K>EXTRACTS from the REPORT on the TRIPARTITE

    <K>EXTRACTS from the REPORT on the TRIPARTITE

    Volume 8. Occupation and the Emergence of Two States, 1945-1961 Excerpts from the Report on the Potsdam Conference (Potsdam Agreement) (August 2, 1945) The Potsdam Conference between the leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain was held at Cecilienhof Palace, the home of Crown Prince Wilhelm Hohenzollern, in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. The Soviet Union was represented by Josef Stalin; the U.S. was represented by President Harry S. Truman, who had only been in office for a few months, having succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. Winston Churchill represented Great Britain at the start of the conference, but after the Labor Party won the elections of July 27, 1945, he was replaced by the new prime minister, Clement R. Attlee, who signed the agreement on behalf of Great Britain on August 2, 1945. The agreement reached by Stalin, Truman, and Attlee formed the basis of Allied occupation policy in the years to come. The provisions with the most far-reaching consequences included those concerning borders. It was agreed, for example, that the Oder- Neisse line would be established as Poland’s provisional western boundary, meaning that Poland would undergo a “western shift” at the expense of German territories in Pomerania, Silesia, and Eastern Prussia. It was also agreed that the territory around East Prussian Königsberg would be ceded to the Soviet Union. In addition, the conference settled upon the “transfer” of Germans from the new Polish territories and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. These measures constituted an essential basis for the division of Germany and Europe.
  • The Failed Post-War Experiment: How Contemporary Scholars Address the Impact of Allied Denazification on Post-World War Ii Germany

    The Failed Post-War Experiment: How Contemporary Scholars Address the Impact of Allied Denazification on Post-World War Ii Germany

    John Carroll University Carroll Collected Masters Essays Master's Theses and Essays 2019 THE FAILED POST-WAR EXPERIMENT: HOW CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF ALLIED DENAZIFICATION ON POST-WORLD WAR II GERMANY Alicia Mayer Follow this and additional works at: https://collected.jcu.edu/mastersessays Part of the History Commons THE FAILED POST-WAR EXPERIMENT: HOW CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF ALLIED DENAZIFICATION ON POST-WORLD WAR II GERMANY An Essay Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts & Sciences of John Carroll University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts By Alicia Mayer 2020 As the tide changed during World War II in the European theater from favoring an Axis victory to an Allied one, the British, American, and Soviet governments created a plan to purge Germany of its Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the Allies agreed to reconstruct Germany so a regime like the Nazis could never come to power again. The Allied Powers met at three major summits at Teheran (November 28-December 1,1943), Yalta (February 4-11, 1945), and Potsdam (July 17-August 2, 1945) to discuss the occupation period and reconstruction of all aspects of German society. The policy of denazification was agreed upon by the Big Three, but due to their political differences, denazification took different forms in each occupation zone. Within all four Allied zones, there was a balancing act between denazification and the urgency to help a war-stricken population in Germany. This literature review focuses specifically on how scholars conceptualize the policy of denazification and its legacy on German society.
  • Chapter 3 the Work of National Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law 10

    Chapter 3 the Work of National Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law 10

    Chapter 3 The Work of National Military Tribunals under Control Council Law 10 Jackson Maogoto On 20 December 1945, the Allied Control Council promulgated Law No. 10 (CCL No. 10), which was to govern all further Nazi prosecutions in domestic courts.1 The law was the fulfilment of the vow made by the Allied Powers in the course of World War II to return war criminals so they could stand trial before tribunals in the ter- ritories in which their crimes had been committed.2 Many advances in enriching international jurisprudence and fleshing out the substantive content of international criminal law were made by post-World War II domestic tribunals in implementing the Nuremberg legacy. These national trials reaffirmed the triumph of international law over certain aspects of sovereignty. Literally thousands of trials were carried out in domestic tribunals in different countries and regions of the world subsequent to the Nuremberg and Tokyo international trials. CCL No. 10 was closely modelled on the Nuremberg Charter. Like the Nuremberg Charter, it abrogated the act of State doctrine3 and rejected superior orders as a defence.4 Prosecution was also not barred by any amnesty, immunity or pardon which may have been granted by the Nazi regime.5 It not only provided for a wide range of penalties for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but, like the Nuremberg Charter, 1 Allied Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity (20 December 1945), Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No 3, Berlin, 31 January 1946 (‘CCL No.