[fwenzel]

No. I am just seeing a difference between occupation and having troops from foreign allies stationed on one's soil. If all non-local troops are "occupation" in your book, then I guess the US are occupying South Korea also? And Italy? And Israel?

[brilee]

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-do-koreans-compla...

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2012/12/quick-thought-about-p...

Yes, the US are in fact occupying South Korea, and South Korea does not like it.

[jpatokal]

No, the US Army is "occupying" a chunk of prime real estate in Seoul, in kind of the same way that the United Nations HQ "occupies" a chunk of prime real estate in NYC. Both cause complaints from the locals, but unlike a real occupation, South Korea could tell the US (and the US could tell the UN) to GTFO any time they wanted to.

[lostlogin]

Now I see what you mean - I mistook the bit you wanted a citation for. Now I get it, even if your point was 100% correct, there must have been a point when the foreign troops in Germany went from occupation to (?) stationed..?

[sgift]

Yes, 1954/55: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Paris_Conferences

"The London and Paris Conferences were two related conferences in London and Paris in September–October 1954, that decided about full sovereignty of West Germany, ending of its occupation, and its admittance to NATO."