Talk:Reichskommissariat of Belgium and Northern France

Reichskommissariat was a type of government agency

A former country infobox is being used for this article[1], but a Reichskommissariat was in fact a type of administrative office headed by a government official known as a Reichskommissar, so a government agency infobox is better suited.

More broadly, a commissariat is a department or organisation, headed by a commissary who is a government official charged with oversight. A government agency is defined as an organisation in the machinery of government that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions. Since a Reichskommissariat was an organisation that was responsible for the oversight and administration of territory occupied by the Germans, it was in fact a kind of Nazi government agency, not a country and so a former country infobox isn't really applicable here. --Nug (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly understand where Nug is coming from here and I thank him for taking it to talk. I reverted the original edit because I felt that, while "former country" is not really perfect, it has much more useful fields for the purposes of this article. I certainly don't disagree about the nature of a Reichskommisariat, but I think that it's less interesting to the average reader as a government organization (comparable with the Ministry of Health or something else of the sort) than as a kind of "former country" (i.e. the Belgian state of 1944) - we are talking about the governance of a country here (almost a "former country" in fact!), even if it fits within the auspices of another. Perametres for maps, dates, chronology, "successor states" etc are all very useful and Nug's proposed template cannot do that. I'd also add that the distinction between a country and an occupied country (as far as infoboxes are concerned too) is probably not that sharp. Anyway, I'd certainly welcome others' input here - it potentially has implications for a hell-of-a-lot of articles of similar scope... I'll raise it as a rfc at WP:MILHIST and WP:Former Countries —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The government agency info box also has parameters for maps and dates, but country specific things like chronology or "successor states" etc, should really go into a country article like German-occupied Belgium where using a former country info box may be better there than here in an article about an organisation. While the distinction between a country and an occupied country may be small, certainly there is a distinction between a country and its administration, or between an occupied country and its occupation administration. Let's not confuse articles about countries with articles about governance of a country. While it may be less interesting to the average reader, the reader would certainly appreciate and prefer factual clarity and consistency. --Nug (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The overall "German occupation of X" articles are designed to cover the general history of the period rather than the polity per se, but I take your point. I still think that being able to move through polities with the same infoboxes just makes things immeasurably easier. Would you perhaps consider Template:Infobox former subdivision as a compromise? The Reichskommisariat was, after all, part of the Greater German Reich... —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Occupied territories aren't really considered independent polities in the normal sense as sovereignty is being contested and thus the state of occupation is essentially provisional. There is general agreement in the sources that the legitimate government of an occupied territory retains its sovereignty but that sovereignty is suspended in the area for the duration of the belligerent occupation. Although the occupant establishes authority over the occupied territory, he does not acquire sovereignty over it. Sovereignty is only transferred at the conclusion of hostilities, usually via peace treaty.

While I understand that being able to move through polities is a convenient feature, the way in which we attempt to shoe horn these existing templates into these articles doesn't really adequately convey these concepts found in reliable sources. The predecessor/successor links Template:Infobox former country really represents the formal transitions between polities, e.g. at the conclusion of wars and/or enacted peace treaties, etc. When you have temporary occupation conditions, particularly when the frontline sweeps back and forth, then that gets confusing. I don't think Template:Infobox former subdivision solves the problem. Given that thre are a large number of articles about occupied territories, perhaps the solution here is to create an new template Template:Infobox occupied territory where we can have all the desirable parameters we need. --Nug (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - I don't agree. The most appropriate infobox for this entity, which is a territorial one, is Infobox settlement, not Infobox former country. This was discussed ad nauseum during the development and promotion of Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories. The suggestion made at Milhist talk (pointing to this discussion) that you can extrapolate from the Reichskommisariats to all occupied and annexed territories is an entirely false one. If this suggestion was successful, it might apply to all of the Reichskommisariats, but not more widely. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I never considered Infobox settlement before, but it actually makes sense. But it is not clear what you are "Strongly opposed" to, the notion that a Reichskommissariat was an administrative entity rather than a territorial entity, or the use of Infobox former country? I would have thought that German-occupied Belgium was the territorial entity deserving of something like Infobox settlement, while this article Reichskommissariat of Belgium and Northern France is about the administrative entity that governed this territorial entity. I'm not familiar with the discussion at Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, could you summarise that debate? Cheers. --Nug (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I may have been too hasty (based on the note left at Milhist), or perhaps we really are at cross-purposes here. There is a lot of confusion and strange logic around regarding WWII occupied territories. German-occupied Belgium is not the territorial entity as the Germans defined it, which really is the only definition that matters for an occupied territory. The Germans combined Belgium and Northern France as one jurisdiction and defined its territorial boundaries and the laws that applied in that area, so German-occupied Belgium and Northern France or German-occupied territory of Belgium and Northern France might be accurate names for the territorial entity in which this administration operated. While I agree that a Reichskommissariat was an instrument of civil administration (which had a parallel military one) and some sort of government entity infobox might be appropriate, it should be remembered that German-occupied Belgium and Northern France was initially under military administration, and then became a Reichskommissariat only in 1944, from memory. In my view, Infobox settlement should be used for articles about occupied territories, where they were not merely annexed or absorbed into Reichsgau, Infobox former country should not be used, as it is entirely misleading, they were not countries. Government of National Salvation is a case in point. This was a puppet government in an area of Yugoslavia that was under German military administration, not a former country. What are the weaknesses with Infobox government agency that make it unsuitable for use with this type of article? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, infobox settlement looks quite good to me and works as a nice compromise, particularly if it's already been discussed at length elsewhere. Nug, are you happy with this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean for this, or for territory articles? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For this article alone and for the Military Government article too. The territory article (German occupied Belgium?) is fine as it is in my belief - Northern France and Belgium did not just "merge" in 1940. Both were governed separately at a "real" level and still culturally believed themselves to be part of their pre-1940 territories (in terms of popular royalism, petainism etc. that were popular in each) and this is consistent with the nature of virtually all WP:RS on the topic. Northern France should be covered in German occupation of France, along with the other occupied zones which is, after all, what the casual reader would expect. A merger of topics risks a German POV too - privileging the administrative unit over the real country.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that schema, because the entity for all practical purposes during that time was the occupation one, not the pre-occupation one, despite the technicalities of the law of armed conflict. Cultural aspects are way down on the scale compared to the occupation regime which dominated all significant aspects of life in these territories during German rule. But my only real interest here relates only to the idea that whatever is decided here will be applied to other occupied territories. I would strongly oppose that. My personal view is that Infobox settlement should be used for the territorial entity, and I agree with Nug that Infobox government agency would be the best infobox for governing entities like this one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker and strongly oppose the change (can't a guy take a break without everything going south?? :)). The "government agency" in this case is the governing body of this civil occupation territory. Its like changing the infobox at Illinois with an infobox for the Government of Illinois. Its fundamentally silly, and seems to rest on someone being over-enthusiastic about his/her discovery of the meaning of the word "commissariat" :). -- Director (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So you agree with Peacemaker? He actually states "I agree with Nug that Infobox government agency would be the best infobox for governing entities like this one". Reichskommissariat is closer to Government of Illinois to a since they were both governing agencies. We don't go putting Infobox U.S. state into Government of Illinois. --Nug (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The confusion here stems from the fact that the names for both the administrative territory and its governing body are the same. This article, however, is about a territorial entity, not the German government agency that ran it. This article's topic is Illinois, not the Government of Illinois. -- Director (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no confusion. The article Reichskommissariat states "Reichskommissariat (English: literally Realm Commissariat; plural Reichskommissariate) is the German designation for a type of administrative office headed by a government official known as a Reichskommissar (English: Realm Commissioner)." This article's topic is the Government of Illinois, not Illinois. Reichskommissariat Norwegen is equivalent to Government of Illinois, while the territory administered by the Reichskommissariat Norwegen, Norwegen, is equivalent to the territory administered by the Government of Illinois, Illinois. --Nug (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty confusion. You appear to be confused in that you don't understand that the territory this article covers is named after that "administrative office". The topic of this article (and of all other Reichskommissariat articles) is, and always has been, the German territorial entity referred to by that name. Not just its governing office. In fact, having an article about the governing office as such would probably be below NOTE. -- Director (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No less notable than Government of Illinois. "Because it always has been" isn't a valid argument, particularly if it has always been messed up. It would be more appropriate to put Infobox former country (or even Infobox settlement) into Occupied Norway since that article is actually about the territorial entity under administration of Reichskommissariat Norwegen, as that article Occupied Norway states "Civil rule was effectively assumed by the Reichskommissariat Norwegen ('Reich Commissariat of Norway')".

With respect to this article, German occupation of Belgium during World War II should have the inbox former country, that article states "After the success of the invasion, a German military government was established in Belgium, bringing the territory under the direct rule of the Wehrmacht….. From 1944, the SS and Nazi Party gained much greater control in Belgium, particularly after the military government was replaced in July by a Nazi civil administration, the Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich." Clearly, German occupation of Belgium during World War II is the territorial entity (you can only occupy territory) and that article refers to both Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France and Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich as the government of that territorial entity. --Nug (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically. German occupation of Belgium is a history article, not a territory one - i.e. the history of Belgium during the German occupation and, besides, not every article needs an infobox! For a comparison, it's France in the Middle Ages not Kingdom of France. An infobox would be not help the interpretation of the article and as such is really extraneous. The governance is already treated (in depth) in the Administration section. Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you disagree an infobox should go into the article about the German occupation of Belgium in WW2 because it is a history article. The main issue here is that Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France and Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich are governing entities, like the Government of Illinois. The article Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France even has an org chart! And they are referenced as governing entities in the Administration section of German occupation of Belgium during World War II, hence infobox government agency is more suitable for Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France and Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich. Do you agree with that part? --Nug (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think it is suboptimal (not so much because of its a "government agency" box per se, but because the perimeters are better suited to the CIA than to what one wants to know about a regional administration) but I can see a certain rationale behind it. It seems to me we should stop focusing on the title and, using WP:Commonsense, focus on the parameters that should be included to aid the reader. My objection, such that it is, is that the "government agency" box doesn't seem to do that. I'm thinking especially about the "successor" and "predecessor" flags for easy navigation, start and end events (not just dates) and possible flag... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Elements such as "successor" and "predecessor" flags for easy navigation, start and end events as well as dates are even more relevant to a history article such as German occupation of Belgium during World War II, but navigation between governing entities isn't necessary. What has changed between Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France and Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich, the governed territory remained the same, the same German occupation, did Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France have a different flag to Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich? Just the leadership and the name of the bureaucracy had changed. We don't have "successor" and "predecessor" flags between Di Rupo Government and Michel Government. --Nug (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Purported 15 December 1944 annexation

This article and the related articles Reichsgau Flandern, Reichsgau Wallonien and District of Brussels all claim that some sort of annexation happened on 15 December 1944, but provide no reliable sources for this claim whatsoever. Upon review, all sources indicate that these were just plans, that were never really carried out. The only action that appears to have been taken on 15 December 1944 is the appointment of Jef Van de Wiele as "Head of the Flemish Liberation Committee" (Dutch Hoofd van het Vlaamsche Bevrijdingscomité, German Leiter des flämischen Befreiungskomitees) by the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (Willem C.M. Meyers, La "Vlaamse Landleiding", p. 250-251, NEVB). This doesn't necessarily mean that the (envisioned) 'Reichsgau Flandern' was established/created on 15 December 1944, nor the 'Reichsgau Wallonien', nor the 'District of Brussels', nor that the Reichskommissariat of Belgium and Northern France (which most definitely was created by Hitler's decree on 13 July 1944) ceased to exist on that same day. This is jumping to conclusions. If Van de Wiele wasn't appointed Gauleiter, there is no reason to assume that a Reichsgau had been established. Moreover, if we do accept this hypothesis for the sake of argument, why wasn't the 'Reichsgau Wallonien' established a few days earlier on 8 December 1944 when Degrelle appears to have received a similar appointment as leader of the Comité de Libération wallon? (Meyers p. 250-251) Why are the same dates for Flandern, Wallonien and Brüssel given?

A self-proclaimed government-in-exile led by Van de Wiele (self-proclaimed title "National Leader of the Flemish people", Dutch Landsleider van het Vlaamsche volk), Verschaeve, Broms and Jacobs (Meyers p. 246), called the Landesleitung Flandern / Landsleiding Vlaanderen, was already established several weeks earlier, apparently in Pyrmont Castle in Bad Pyrmont, which they had to evacuate on 1 November 1944 (Meyers p. 247). The meeting scheduled for 16 November 1944 in Bad Pyrmont never took place; instead, the Landsleiding fled to Potsdam, and eventually held its first meeting in Ústí nad Labem (German Aussig) in Sudetenland, as Van de Wiele told Himmler in a 7 December 1944 telegram (Meyers p. 249). The appointment that Von Ribbentrop bestowed upon Van de Wiele on 15 December 1944 was Leiter des flämischen Befreiungskomitees (French "Chef du comité de Libération flamand"), apparently not legalising his self-proclaimed title Landsleider van het Vlaamsche volk in the process (Meyers p. 250-251), let alone appointing him to Gauleiter of any Reichsgau Flandern. This is WP:SYNTH. Moreover, there is evidence that in January 1945, Van de Wiele was still talking to Foreign Ministry representative Diehl about his ideas about the establishment of separate Reichsgaue or Reichsmarken for Flanders and Wallonia; he didn't care whether they were called Reichsgau or Reichsmark, as long as the 'artificial' Belgian state was split and destroyed and the 'unnatural union' of Flemings and Walloons was brought to an end (Meyers p. 263). This tells us that this apparently had not yet happened under German law, and negotiations about the future political/administrative division were still ongoing and had not yet settled, and Van de Wiele was still trying to convince the Nazi German leadership of his own vision. I think it's pretty unbelievable to claim that Van de Wiele had been appointed as the Gauleiter of a newly created Reichsgau Flandern on 15 December 1944, but a month later he was still complaining about how the German leadership had not yet split Belgium in two. He's not talking about how the German military should expel the Allies from Belgium (because everyone in the Axis camp agreed on that), but about the legal future of Belgium (which they apparently still disagreed about).

I think we've got enough evidence to conclude the Reichsgau Flandern, Reichsgau Wallonien and District of Brussels were never formally established, let alone annexed by Nazi Germany, that they were all just plans that were never carried out, and that the 15 December 1944 date only refers to Van de Wiele's appointment as "Head of the Flemish Liberation Committee", which is not even close to being appointed Gauleiter of the Reichgau Flandern. Josef Grohé probably nominally remained Reichskommissar of Belgium and Northern France until 8 May 1945. And, since all three pages are mostly just WP:CONTENTFORKs of each other about political entities that were never actually established, I think it's appropriate to merge them all to Reichskommissariat of Belgium and Northern France. They are mostly unsourced anyway, and their existence as separate articles can only be misleading for our readers. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)