2006-09-17 11:13:31 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Actually this is a loaded question. They were German citizens because another country claimed and occupied the territory. However, the citizenship is a status below any rights because Hitler was only interested in his people. Not other occupied nations so they were not or ever 1st rate citizens. After the end of WWII France gained occupation of its nation back, and only the outer frindges of France like Alscace, Strausburg, and so forth have both citizenship under the Yulka treaty. They considered neutral territories of both Germany, and France so they have 1st rate citizenship of both. Why? Well WWII was not the only time these territories were conqured WWI, 100yrs war, Napoleanic wars, etc... So for all the trouble, and to make sure other occuaptions ever take place the people are neutral eventhough France occupies those territories. Germany can not claim the land, but France has no rights on the people.
2006-09-17 14:04:40 · answer #1 · answered by foxy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, because the state France still existed with his administration in it. It was occupied not annexed.
Problem for the poor folks in Alsace - Lorraine (as with Luxembourg and a little part of Belgium where they spoke German). These parts where formally annexed to form part of the Germany. The young men of these regions found themselves in the situation that they had been soldier for the French, after that they where send as German soldiers to Russia (if they staid in the West they would have deserted to England).
2006-09-17 11:21:54 · answer #2 · answered by Rik 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's all determined by who wins. The French would have objected to the occupation and completely rejected any German claims after their independance.
If the Germans had won, then yes.
The one with the guns and the power is the one who dictates law.
2006-09-17 11:17:57 · answer #3 · answered by BiBJ 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hardly. It was an occupation is all it was. Does that make any children born in Japan betwee 1945 and 1952 Americans?
2006-09-17 13:54:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They could claim dual citizenship on a case by case basis.
2006-09-17 11:21:39 · answer #5 · answered by Grist 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you are going to admit that Iraqi children that were and are being born in iraq as an American citizens , then it will be true ... smug
2006-09-17 11:16:28 · answer #6 · answered by Ayman 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋