This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / German / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force North American military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Germany Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Former countries: Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 4–10 September 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 2, 2004, July 17, 2005, July 17, 2006, July 17, 2007, July 17, 2012, July 17, 2015, and July 17, 2018.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Microwavemade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peteweil31.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As we have come to expect when people post texts here, the 'Partial text' of the Potsdam conference is poorly handled. Question 1 - Why should anyone ever believe that an editable text is accurate? Anyone can, after all, 'edit this page right now' and insert whatever vandalism or personal weirdness they like. Question 2 - Even if the text were accurate and stable, why is the text of the agreement here rather than an article on the conference, its effects, etc. The text is not helpful in the absence of a serious article. Texts like this should remain external links and people can go read them if they like. Wikipedia should be a collection of original entries about texts, not a collection of texts. Based on these objections I have cut the 'Partial Text' and left the entry which preceded it. --MichaelTinkler — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelTinkler (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2002 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text was put on this site some months ago, to read. No one took it off. It was from the british-forces.com , but the site is closed by now. I do not believe that the complete text should stay. H.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.62.xxx (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The decision to drop the atomic bomb was not made at the conference and was not mentioned to Stalin at any time during the conference. Stalin would not agree to its use as he did not want US influence in Far East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.255.16 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under Participants, it states that the two atomic bombs were dropped on August 8 and 11, when it was actually AUGUST 6 AND AUGUST 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.208.165 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sentence was changed and is not the same as in the other section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Poland (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding, "...after rejecting Japan's conditional surrender...", can we get a citation for that? I do not know if Japan actually did conditionally surrender, but if they did it seems too important to leave uncited. P g chris (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under results the first sentence seems to be, well wrong, when it says 17,000 heads of government. I'm not sure if this is a mistake, vandalism or a case of the wrong terms.

-IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Since the article clearly states at the beginning that it was a meeting between the big three, which does not include any of these countries it seems redundate to mention that they were not present later. The way it is currently worded it suggests that the three should have been invited, which may be true, but this is an encyclopedia article- meaning we don't pass judgement we merely report. Further more if you read any article on any other website or from an academic journal they do not mention the exclusion of these three from the meeting. Text that refers to them not attending the conference should be removed because it is irrelevant, suggests some sort of conspiracy or judgement, and make this article seem rather amateurish along with some other things. This topic is too important to have major flaws in it at this point in the life of wikipedia. Flashdornfeld (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed ((weasel)). Instead, place template in section to which it applies, or better yet, use ((weasel-inline)). This will be a better indication to editors as to the portions which need improvement. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stalin, who had known of its existence long before Truman ever knew, through espionage, encouraged the usage of any weapon that would hasten the end of the war. Please source this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.246.128 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, the words like "Stalin's troop" sounds like a propaganda. It was the USSR's Red Army that occupied Europe.
Second, the sentence "Soviet troops had expelled the armies of the Third Reich from country after country in Eastern Europe, but instead of withdrawing his troops Stalin had left them there." is odd: it is ridiculous to expect victorious army's troops to withdraw immediately after the hostilities had ended. Of course, would Stalin be a normal leader he had to withdraw the Soviet troop within few years. However, by the moment Potsdam conference started there was nothing unusual in the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. British and American troops also weren't withdrawn from continent immediately after the war ended. Third, the atomic bomb was tested by the US not "the Allies".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is m understanding that the Conference ended with an "agreement" rather than a legally binding treaty as had been envisaged at the start of the Conference. I think this is very important as this "disagreement" is indicative of the post war mistrust between the Soviets and The West leading to the partition of Germany into the Bundesrepublik and the DDR.

Can someone who is better informed of the details then me add this aspect of the Potsdam Conference to his Wiki page?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdownie (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The assertions in this article are indeed rather strange and should perhaps be corrected, especially as the suggested final character of "agreements on borders" is concerned. Churchill for instance currently stressed the preliminary character of those "border agreements", stating that he, as a representative of a democratic state, has not the legal right to agree in behalf of his country to border shifts. As a matter of fact, the agreements were taken with the proviso that a final settlement on borders should be achieved by means of a future peace treaty. In this context it should also be noted that today Poland's Eastern border fairly precisely runs along there, where according to the Western Allies it should have run along already in the year of 1919, namely along the Curzon Line. Between the end of World War I and about 1923, Poland under Pilsudski moved its Eastern border by military force and under disregard of the Curzon Line by some 100 kilometers toward the East. In these newly conquered territories the Polish population was in the minority, varying locally between about 5 percent and 25 percent of the total local population. -- Ziegenspeck (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted the rather strange paragraph about "Polish diplomat and politician Michael W. Zwierzanski" I can't find anything about this man (is he Michal Rola-Zymierski?) or his proposed "Flim Test". This information was added by an anonymous editor from a Syrian IP address (User:66.198.41.24) on the 20 April 2009.--Payo (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Said paragraph has returned---I'll delete it again. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intro doesn't say WHAT the conference was about until 2 paragraphs later... Wouldn't it be more concise if the article stated what the conference was for, when it took place, and who was involved? saumaun (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this complaint strongly. What WAS the Potsdam Conference? Why did these people assemble in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.162.89 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although a marginal issue during the Conference, the division of Vietnam at the 16th parallel as agreed to by the Allied leaders had disastrous consequences and ought to be mentioned in this article. Chattanougat (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact I find a lot of major discrepancy in someone trying to avoid implications of USA Unilateral changes to suit a later SFPT of 1951 incompatibilities. Here for example I am altering the wording"Allied Chiefs of Staff at the Potsdam Conference decided to temporarily partition Vietnam at the 17th parallel (just south of Da Nang) for the purposes of operational convenience." is simply incorrect.

to read correctly North of Hue Refer Wikipedia :-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Demilitarized_Zone) "Geography ~ The Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone ran from east-west near the center of present-day Vietnam (spanning more than a hundred kilometers) and was a couple of kilometers wide. It ran along the Ben Hai River for much of its length, and an island nearby was controlled by North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam War. Although it was nominally described as being at "the 17th parallel," almost all of the zone lies to the south of the parallel, with only a small portion of the zone near the eastern shore actually including the parallel. It was around a hundred kilometers north of the city of Huế.--113.187.0.140 (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Corrected --Robbygay (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no period following the middle initial S. S stands for nothing because his parents couldn't agree on the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikalac (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Relationships amongst the leaders, Point 3 needs a rewrite since the first half paints Truman as someone gullible who believes Stalin is an honorable man and will not annex countries if only all his demands are agreed with and to not ask Stalin for anything in return. But almost a sentence later Point 3 goes into detail as to Truman's almost paranoid distrust of Stalin , the whole while suspicious of anything to do with communism - carefully analyzing Stalin's motives unlike his trusting predecessor Roosevelt.

Thanks Meishern (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning that Stalin wanted the Allies to invade Spain, remove Franco from government, and reestablish the Second Spanish Republic. However, US and UK did not agree as they were afraid of the influence USSR would have in the new Spanish government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A citation is needed for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Korean War article states : "At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea[65]—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference" but this article does not mention Korea. We need articles to be mutually consistent and complimentary. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Aftermath section, the following statement is controversial and possibly factually incorrect: "The justification was that both cities were legitimate military targets, to end the war swiftly, and preserve American lives; however, the early timing suggests that Truman did not want Stalin, who was set to invade China August 15 to remove Japanese occupation, involved in the terms of Japan's surrender." Rather than saying that "the early timing suggests" a more neutral phrasing is preferable.

Also I believe that Stalin promised to declare war against Japan by the end of September, not August 15. In mid-August Stalin was still transferring his intended invasion force east. It has been argued that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima forced Stalin to accelerate his invasion plans. Hence, absent firm evidence for the August 15 date, the questionable time reference was deleted.

Hence my replacement text: "The justification was that both cities were legitimate military targets, to end the war swiftly, and preserve American lives. However, to some the timing has suggested that Truman did not want Stalin involved in the terms of Japan's surrender." Wsjacobs (talk)

"To some" is classic weasel wording. You need to say who, with an appropriate cite, and since this is hotly debated, you need to cite the rebuttals by (for example) Frank and Maddow. --Yaush (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you know a specific reference, please feel free to supply it. Replace my text "To some" with text such as "To some (e.g., Frank and Maddow) ..." If you do so, provide your specific reference. Wsjacobs — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This phrase in the lead sounds odd: "...gathered to decide how to administer punishment to the defeated Nazi Germany...", especially because the word 'punishment' appears exactly once in the article, and that's in the lead. Perhaps the original meaning was "...gathered to decide how to administer the defeated Nazi Germany..." Any objections to changing to what I have in the latter instance? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I fear an edit war, I think it appropriate to explain why the former is preferable. This article is about the Potsdam Conference. This section summarizes what was agreed to at the Potsdam Conference. It is true, and can be discussed in the section on the consequences of the Potsdam Conference, that the actual subsequent Soviet actions amounted to ethnic cleansing and forced removals. But this is not what the Western Powers agreed to at the conference; they agreed to "orderly and humane" expulsions, with the quoted language coming directly from the agreement. The distinction may seem meaningless in retrospect, but would have been important to Churchill and Roosevelt at the time.

Quoting the language of the agreement, and subsequently pointing out how the Soviets interpreted it, is not a whitewash. --Yaush (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a commonplace (but nevertheless true) that deteriorating US relations with France in general (and De Gaulle in particular) represented a more severe problem in the immediate post-war government of Germany than did the counterpart deterioration of relationships between the US and the Soviet Union. So there must be an explanation in the 'leaders' section as to why one of the four key Allied leaders wasn't invited to Potsdam. I have cited the reverted material (no shortage of supporting references) and restored it. TomHennell (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeGaulle wasn't the true "key" fourth Allied Leader. That would have been William Lyon Mackenzie King, the Canadian PM. But the Canadians refused to participate in the occupation of Germany. Canada contributed a lot more to winning the War than France did. But the French military had expanded considerably by 1945 and the major Allies expected France to resume its prewar position as a major power.Pascalulu88 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Pascalulu88Reply[reply]

I’m not sure what’s going on: but the BBC’s On This Day pice gives the conference’s start date as the 16th July.

Is it possible to do some double checking and revision?

Thanks.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IWM site has 17th https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-the-potsdam-conference-shaped-the-future-of-post-war-europe TomHennell (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]