Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archives

Early undated discussion (probably before 2004-03-23)

Page move 2007-12-11

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

see A11:Proposed title change to Forced migration of Germans at the end of World War II

This page was moved from Expulsion of Germans after World War II to Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII by User:Xx236 (Revision as of 07:36, 30 April 2007)

I think this is a mistake. There are already a number of articles on different aspects of this topic:

and I think that this article should stay focused on the expulsion of Germans after World War II which is a large enough topic in its own right, without replicating the article German exodus from Eastern Europe. For this reason I am moving the article back to the name it has had since March 2004, (before which is was German expulsion after World War II).

If anyone disagrees with this move back to the articles original name then please raise a WP:RM so we can have a proper discussion and form a consensus on an appropriate name.

There is also a problem with with "Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II" Because the lead suggests that it is part of a hierarchy of articles for which there is a prohibition in the naming conventions "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" Currently there is no such problem with this article Flight and expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia during and after World War II -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) It's true that the Czechoslovakia article doesn't inform about the flight of Germans - only one line about the Slovakia ones. It doesn't prove there was no evacuation from Czechia and Moravia. It proves only that people aren't interested in the subject.Xx236 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Xx236 if you wish to place a WP:RM then please follow ALL the steps, which includes placing the request on the WP:RM page and setting up a discussion section on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. If there is agreement that separation of this from the evacuation and exodus articles represents POV forking, then a merge discussion may be in order. Dekimasu よ! 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that Expulsion of Germans after World War II be renamed and moved to Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII.

The page has been moved without a consensus, without a warning and without informing interested parties.
- The page was moved back from the previous name which was made after a very short and brief discussion. See Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 11#Wrong namae of the article --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The article includes data about the flight, so the current title misinforms. How can a misinforming title be better than the former one?
- As I stated above there is already an overview. This article has been for many years about the post was expulsions and despite the name change the text has not significantly changed since before the former name change. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can reedit articles about the flight and expulsion of Germans, if he/she doesn't like the current ones. Changing names doesn't help.Xx236 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The current title misinforms. It's enough to change it. If you want do divide the article into Flight of Germans and Expulsion of Germans - do it. You haven't done it.Xx236 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here needs to be looked at a bit more closely. There is, of course, a bit of real-world politics here. The expellees focus on the injustice and inhumanity of the "expulsions". Others respond by saying that the numbers being touted by the expellees include those who fled or were evacuated. There seems to be relatively little widely published data that focuses only on the expulsions but rather on the population balance computation which mixes "flight", "evacuation" and "expulsion". The easiest thing would be to merge all discussion of the three into one article and use the aggregate data. The problem is that "expulsion" is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Thus, the better thing to do is to have one article that focuses on the aggregate "German exodus from Eastern Europe during and after World War II" and a separate article that focuses only on "expulsion" but which also clearly indicates that the data is not only about "expulsion" but "flight" and "evacuation" as well.

I could go either way but, IMO, the current situation is less desirable than the ones I have outlined above.

--Richard (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on expulsion is POV.Xx236 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on expulsion may be a POV but it is a valid one. There are two distinct events, and they need to be looked at separately. The first is war time displacement of refugees. It is often the policy of the both the defender and the aggressor to encourage fear of occupation. The defender in the hope that this will encourage the defending army to fight more tenaciously. And for the aggressor there is a short term tactical calculation that enemy refugees in the rear areas will hamper redeployment of enemy defending forces and also tie up enemy resources transporting, policing, feeding and administering refugees all of which will use up enemy resources. If the refugees stay put, then the contrary happens, the policing, feeding and administering falls on the attacking army and uses up their resources.

If this is all that had happened in East Europe in 1945 it would be no more than a paragraph in the history books, because it happens in all wars (for example the French refugees in the Battle of France, are noted as more of a hindrance to that Allies than the Germans, but it was not a long term issue). What is much more significant for the development of post war Europe was the stated aim of the Allies to sort out the German question one and for all through mass expulsions, that were only made politically desirable and possible for the Western Allies because of the excuse Germans settlements in the East had given Hitler for his aggressive East European strategy.

For this reason I think we need three articles. One an overview of the problem that exists in German exodus from Eastern Europe, War time evacuation, (Evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II) and this article for the post war expulsions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

German literature, politicians and activists mix up both problems. They have been mixing it up since 1945 with the help of some non-German historians. Almost all statistics is aggregated and war victims are labelled as victims of expulsions or even if a German politician admits there was a flight, he claims that one has to die gesamte Opferzahl im Blick haben [1]. The German paragraph is de:Vertreibung#Flucht und Vertreibung der Deutschen (1944 bis 1948). I fully support any initiative of precise description, but I don't like the begin of your work. Maybe writing new articles would be better that destroing the existing ones. Do you have any paper/book to use as a framework?

The evacuation started in 1943 and ended in 1945, the expulsion started in 1944 and ended around 1950, so those processes were partially parallel. Hundreds of thousands,or millions, were first evacuated and later expelled.

Your Western analogy is wrong. The war in the East was extremely cruel and German evacuation was totally different. No nation in the West evacuated millions in winter, under bombs.

The majority of victims died during the war. So you claim that the expulsion was worse than the massacres. Are you sure?
Your description is one of many. This one below has the same value as yours:
- millions of Germans were allowed to run away to a free country, later also a rich one.
- millions of Poles weren't informed they would be imprisoned in Soviet zone so they stayed until it was too late to run away.

or an another one:

- millions were transferred from East to West - Russians into Germany and Poland, Poles into Germany, Germans into Central and Western Germany or America. Now you write an article about the expulsion of Germans. Where is the one about the expulsion of Poles? Are the Poles less human than the Germans?

Xx236 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you write in a very emotive way which does not bring clarity to the conversation. For example you write "So you claim that the expulsion was worse than the massacres. Are you sure?" Where have I written about "massacres" and where have I said that expulsion was worse than anything else let alone massacres?

I gave France as an example for clarity, but I could just as easily given many more, for example the German population that came from areas in what was post World War II often called East Germany and fled as refugees before the Red Army were a population transfer that was not as politically significant as those expelled from east of the Oder-neisse line. Which is not to say that population movements from East Germany to West Germany during the Cold War were not significant at that time, just that those movements did not have the long term political effect that the expulsions did.

Further who is claiming that anyone is less human than anyone else? This is an article about the "expulsion of Germans after World War II", it s not about Poles (It seems to me that some of the other issues you raise for example about Poles staying or leaving are covered in articles like Western betrayal).

You have not addressed the question that as there is already an overview article (German exodus from Eastern Europe) and a general one about German population transfers during the latter half of World War II (Evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II), why do you wish to have a second overview article when by moving this article to the name you are proposing there will no longer be a specific article about "expulsion of Germans after World War II"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the move that indicates its not only about expulsions. Flight sounds good.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you (Piotrus) think this article should cover the movement of Germans during and after the war as we already have an overview article (German exodus from Eastern Europe) and one for the war (Evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II), why should the focus of this one be moved from just post war to cover both? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Memorial controversy

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

In The Economist 2007/2008 Christmas edition (19 December 2007) is an article A winter honeymoon which has the following:

The substantive issues are unchanged. Germany wants to build a centre to mark the fate of millions deported after the war from historically German lands in eastern Europe. Many of their old homes are in Poland. But rather than volubly objecting to the plan, which is backed by a vocal émigré lobby in Germany, Mr Tusk blandly defused the row. “There should be no taboo subjects. We are friends, and friends can't get themselves into a situation of not talking to one another,” he insisted. Poland is hoping for German support for its own historical project, a second world war museum in Gdansk. The new Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, also favours a museum of totalitarianism in Brussels, to put the monstrous regimes of the 20th century on the equal footing that many in eastern Europe believe is right.

Until I read it I had not realised that the name of this article could be seen as political. As I mentioned above from the point of view of an English language encyclopaedia, the decision by the the Western Allies to support in the words of Winston Churchill:

Expulsion is the method which, insofar as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions (Clare Murphy WWII expulsions spectre lives on BBC online 2 August, 2004. De Zayas, Alfred M. (1979) Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans, Routledge ISBN 0710004583. Chapter I, p. 1 citing Churchill, Parliamentary Debates,House of Commons, vol. 406, col. 1484)

is central to this article as the evacuation before the expulsions was not part of Allied policy and should not be mixed with the Allied policy to expel the Germans, as it muddies the moral questions that need to be highlighted in the Allies decision, particularly the Western Allies decision to support this policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)~

The article was written during months by many editors. You don't care to read the whole discussion and you impose yor point of view. You move the article without asking anyone and now I'm not allowed to return the old name because you don't agree. It's rather vandalism than editing.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware we have a different articles for evacuation. If this is the case I withdraw my earlier support for renaming of this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'm aware of the different articles, of the lack of statistical data and of German POV. So I still don't see any reason to accept any POV imposed by White Western Men.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What precisely does "White Western Men" mean? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This category includes people who don't care to read the long discussion but come and impose their point of view. Or evwentually the one by a British newspaper and US lavyer. Summarizing -my POV is O.K, your POV is POV and should be corrected, because I know better. You vandalised the article you haven't written. Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

this forced migration of ethnic Germans resulted in the transfer of between 13.5-16.5 million

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Millions run away during the war and weren't allowed to return. It's an another expulsion than the one described in the article.

If this article is about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, it should be about the expulsion.Xx236 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no known figures on how many Germans fled and how many were expelled after the war. Lysy^talk 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some numbers.
The fate of millions should be described even without the numbers.
The current article misnforms more than it used before the change of its name.

Xx236 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of the sentence to be a little bit less misguiding. When you write "there are some numbers", do you have anything specific in mind ? --Lysy^talk 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bernadetta Nitschke, Wysiedlenie ludności niemieckiej z Polski w latach 1945-1949 - about 6 000 000 evacuated from the East. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this number refers to the post-war period only and to the territory of Poland only. "Dokumentation der Verteibung" claims that the number of Germans in the East in the moment of end of WW2 was 4.4 million, and Nietschke mostly agrees with that (in fact she suggests 3.9 million). So how could she arrive at 6 million deported ? --Lysy^talk 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused. In the context of this article it should be not from Poland only. --Lysy^talk 08:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages 69-70.Xx236 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Un-focused

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article wanders all over the place, diverging from the purported title wildly. For instance, it cites reports by Polish soldiers of rapes by French soldiers in Germany, and deaths in internment camps set up in Norway (?) for German refugees. This smacks of a political agenda to stir up sympathy for WWII-era Germans. While it's certainly a great idea to make sure that all sides of the story are given light, it doesn't excuse diluting articles with information that should be elsewhere. Cerowyn (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere - where?
I'm coresponsible, or even the main responsible. The original article was based mainly on German BdV ideology:
- expulsion was a fuzzy word for any crime agaisnt German civilians (including war casualties and criminal errors of German administration)
- the expulsion took allegedly place in the East (not in the West)
- millions died.

I have tried to explain the difference between the flight and the expulsion, quote examples of acts called expulsion in the East but ignored if they happened in the West, find real numbers of victims. If you can - make the article better, but don't write the BdV stories.

The title was Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after World War II, moved to Expulsion of Germans after World War II but not edited according to the title. The word expulsion isn't defined here. If we discuss only the post-war expulsion, so we mean real expulsion, ban of returns, flight of Nazi criminals, German POWs tranfers around the world, emigration of German Jews to Israel and many other population movements. Xx236 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The expulsion of Germans is about the post war "population transfer" as proposed out by the Big Three at the Yalta Conference (February 4, 1945) despite some misgivings that Churchill expressed at the time[2] he had already condoned the idea in the House of Commons on 15 December 1944, "Expulsion is the method which, insofar as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions."(Clare Murphy WWII expulsions spectre lives on BBC online 2 August, 2004. De Zayas, Alfred M. (1979) Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans, Routledge ISBN 0710004583. Chapter I, p. 1 citing Churchill, Parliamentary Debates,House of Commons, vol. 406, col. 1484) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The connection between Churchil's speaches, real life and BdV propaganda is limited and this article should be about real life rather than about the UK impact on the world politics.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

decision by the Big Three is directly relevant to the history of countries in north eastern Europe, in a way that is not true for the countries of Scandinavia and countries west of Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whch doesn't make the victims from Scandinavia and countries west of Germany less victimized. BTW - the weak two (USA and UK) accepted almost all Stalin wanted in Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam.Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism and the expulsions

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

To answer briefly the question that Dr. Dan asked in your last edit summary, "Yes", we are saying that the Germans were expelled partly due to nationalism (I didn't write "ultranationalism", somebody else did that).

The claim here is that, through their support of the Nazi occupying forces, the Volksdeutsche Germans showed that they were not part of the Polish and Czechoslovakis nations and this was part of the reason they were expelled.

Please note that there is no definitive answer as to why the Germans were expelled. It's not as if there was a clear-cut debate in academic and policy-making bodies discussed in the media and deliberated in the legislature. They were just expelled with some reasons given and many reasons not given.

When I started editing this article almost two years ago, there was an edit war in progress about what the "real" reason was for the expulsions. I proposed and implemented an approach which does not attempt to establish definitively what the "real" reason was. The article attempts to present all reasons that have been proffered for the expulsions without commenting on which reasons are more plausible than others.

I admit that the article would benefit from having more citations of reliable source who make these claims. If anyone can provide such citations, it would be much appreciated.

Remember... we're not trying to say "the Germans were expelled because of reason X and not because of reason Y". What we are trying to say is "According to source A, the Germans were expelled because of reason X. On the other hand, source B, says the Germans were expelled because of reason Y."

--Richard (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the inhabitants of Breslau to be Volksdeutsche? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main nationalist was, according to your logic, Joseph Stalin. Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You've said this before. Can you document it with a citation to a reliable source? Is this your personal opinion or is it the opinion of someone who can be considered a reliable source? --Richard (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty with this and related articles is a tendency to personalize the discussion as if we as editors have to believe an argument is true in order to advocate that it be inserted in the article. This is not true at all. We can advocate putting what we believe are falsehoods into the article if the falsehood commands a substantial following in the "real world". Thus, we should not be talking about whether it is true that the USSR, the Poles or the Czechoslovaks expelled the Germans due to nationalist feelings. Rather, we should be talking about whether there is a significant position that makes this argument. Can we find a citation to support the assertion that this is a significant POV? If not, it should be removed. --Richard (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a basic difference between Poland and Czechoslovakia -

Poland was ruled by Soviet proxies and trains were bringing people expelled from the East to a partially deserted Poland as the result of big three border moves
Czechoslovakia had a democratic government and no refugees.

The discussion about feelings should be moved rather to Love or Hate. It was global politics.

Polish nationalists wanted independence. They got the expulsion instead. If they were so influential, why didn't they got the independence? Do you have texts by Polish politicans - we prefer the pleasure of robbing Germans rather than the burden of independence?Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Xx236, you bring up a very good point in contrasting Poland and Czechoslovakia. I believe that, as you have said before, "this article misinforms" in the sense that it suggests that the expulsion of Germans was a single phenomenon conceived and executed in parallel across multiple countries with the same motivations and methods.

Some of the problems of this article were transported by me to Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II and Flight and expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia during and after World War II. However, the creation of those two subsidiary articles allows us to use them to describe the background, motivation and details of the expulsions more specifically to each country.

However, this summary article now suffers from the attempt to suggest that there was a single set of reasons that applied to all Eastern European countries from which Germans were expelled. A more nuanced description would make it clear that not all countries in Eastern Europe were in the same situation after the war and thus, when looked at more closely, the motivations and nature of the expulsions were also not identical.

In brief, this article is a mess and we need to look for ways to address these issues. I'm open to ideas. A massive rewrite may be in order.

--Richard (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You stress Esatern Europe. What about the Western one?Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of millions of muslims believe that the USA is a devil. Is this opinion proportionally represented here?Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over the reasons and justifications for the expulsions

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I'm a little lost as to the purpose of the "Controversy over the reasons and justifications for the expulsions" section. Is it there in order to present the alleged justification of the expulsion ? Or to discuss the reasons ? It seems these two ideas are mixed together, causing confusion. Anyway, shouldn't the opinions there be attributed ? E.g. did anyone ever claim that the purpose of the expulsion was to "attempt to restore demographics in areas previously occupied by the Nazis" ? --Lysy^talk 07:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in September:

Mostly speculations

There are many speculations in this article, why the Germans were expelled. The decision was made by a small group of Soviet leaders, mostly by Stalin [3]. It was a part of mass population transfers in Europe. The speculations should be reduced and labelled as speculations.

Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To Lysy

Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt what the reasons for the expulsions were? It seems to me that the real reasons are lost in the murky fog of history. There are speculations and allegations galore. These should be easier to document than the "real reasons" which, I suspect, will never be determined with certainty.

To Xx236

The speculations should be cited to reliable sources or removed. They were put there because, when I started editing this article two years ago, this article was a battleground amongst opposing factions insisting that one reason or another was the reason why the Germans were expelled. The compromise that I crafted was to put all the reasons put under the heading "Purported reasons for the expulsions". All I did was reorganize what other editors had already put into the article. When I reorganized the article, I assumed that all the reasons could be cited to a reliable source. However, if a purported reason cannot be cited to a reliable source, it is OR and should be removed. If it's OR, then take it out and leave it out until someone can provide a citation to a reliable source.

--Richard (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The almost reliable sources are Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam notes.Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NO! I'm sorry but those are primary sources and anything we say based on those documents is WP:OR (i.e. your interpretation or my interpretation of the meaning, background and ramifications of those documents). We must quote from secondary sources who have analyzed those documents and notes in the context of history and based on their training and expertise. You say the decision was made by Stalin. Where's the secondary source that says this? Others have inserted other things into this article which you call "speculation". If it's speculation by a Wikipedian who is otherwise unknown, it is OR. If it is speculation by a historian (even a biased historian such as Alfred-Maurice deZayas), it can be included as part of our commitment to WP:NPOV. deZayas has his POV and it is biased but he is a reliable source about that POV. He may not be right but he is a world-recognized personage and so his opinions should be presented here. EVERY "speculation" in this article must be sourced to a reliable source such as deZayas (or at least some half-way respectable PhD in history or international law).

--Richard (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Red Army occupied Poland and Soviet occupation zone. The Red Army was controlled by Soviet leaders. The leaders were able to move borders, to kill or imprison any person in this area, to transfer millions of people, not mentioning whole plants and goods worth billions of USD, and they did it. The other armiesin this area were relatively weak Polish and Ukrainian guerillas. Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked in an academic article in Polish "Studia Śląskie" 2000, t. 59 PL ISSN 0039-3355,Cygański M., Polityka czterech mocarstw wobec nowej zachodniej granicy Polski po II wojnie światowej. The paper describes Stalin's policy and I believe it's standard knowledge, available in hundreds of books in English. Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what knowledge ? I'm lost. --Lysy^talk 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About Big Three policy toward Poland.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Xx236 wrote "I believe it's standard knowledge, available in hundreds of books in English". Then please find just one that makes the assertion and cite it.

On a slightly different tack, perhaps the problem is that we are really talking about three things:

Who made the official decision (Stalin supported by Churchill and FDR)
Who implemented the decision (Red Army supported by local militia, local authorities, local mobs and the puppet Polish government to the extent that it existed at the time)
Who supported the decision (presumably the overwhelming majority of the Polish people unless you want to argue that the Poles were so cowed by the Soviets that they didn't dare express their opposition or that they were so preoccupied with their own postwar woes that they couldn't be bothered to care about the Germans being expelled).

Now, if we just insert the above into the article as is, it is OR. However, I believe we could find somebody who addresses these questions. And, if we can, I think this would help address Xx236's complaints about the "reasons" for the expulsions.

We also have to be careful to distinguish between the "wild" expulsions and the official expulsions as the answers to these three questions are different between the two expulsions.

--Richard (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One more comment about the basic charge that Xx236 is making. He asserts that the "purported reasons" section is "mostly speculations". Well, my sense of it is that the history of this time is so murky that much of the history is speculation. There's nothing wrong with speculation provided that the speculation is made by a reliable source and based on sound historical methodology. Unacceptable speculation is when it's Original Research advanced by unaccredited Wikipedians. (That's not a personal attack, the phrase covers Lysy, Xx236 and everybody else here including myself). The real problem with the "Purported reasons" section is that too much of it is unsupported with citations to reliable sources. Let's either cite it or take it out.

--Richard (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There exist two worlds - mine and yours. In my world totalitarian leaders do what they want, in your world people believe politicians. You cannot explain Poland 1944-1945 using US ideas. Soviet leaders moved Poland to the West, so yes, many Poles supported the expulsion and the annexation as a copensation. But the majority of Eastern Poles preferred their homelands. They didn't know anything about Lower Silesia or Prussia, they didn't plan the annexation and they were transferred to some places, sometimes in Siberia, sometimes in former Eastern Germany.

Tomasz Arciszewski declared in 1944 he rejects Wrocław and Szczecin [4].

No serious Polish politician demanded Oder-Neisse line before Poland lost Wilno and Lwów.

I don't like the speculations because they cover the real decisions - compare the number of lines in Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. Arciszewski isn't even mentioned there.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Polish people's referendum, 1946 - 33% voted against the Oder-Neisse border.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Curzon Line quotes some sources.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Migration"

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

The Germans removed from east-central Europe east of the Oder-Neisse line and the Czech border did not "migrate" — a word that in English denotes either a voluntary mass journey or in the case of animals, esp. birds, an instinctive seasonal movement. The Germans, esp. those expelled from Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig (Gdańsk), and East Prussia, and from the Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia, were expropriated and forcibly expelled. For 1.5 million to 2 million Germans, the force used was lethal. This process certainly is not conveyed by the neutral term "migration."

Any student of WWII knows that the Nazi Germany set this entire process in motion with agression and atrocities on an even larger, more horrific scale, but let us not obscure the true nature of what was done in revenge to German human beings in 1945-49. History is what actually happened.

Further, in the case of Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig (Gdańsk), and East Prussia, these territories were not "non-German land" — they were, or recently had been in the case of Danzig, part of Gemany, and were inhabited before the war (and before the Nazis) by 10 million Germans.

Sca (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits to the article. For the record, these edits by 66.24.109.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed a substantial amount of text. Olessi (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the bold step of reverting to the point before the edits by 66.24.109.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed a substantial amount of text. I'm sorry to undo any good work that was done after that point but I think we should discuss any major deletions of text. --Richard (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Further, in the case of Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig (Gdańsk), and East Prussia, these territories were not "non-German land" —" It was only German due to centuries of conquests, genocide, ethnic cleansing and colonisation. It was taken from native people and thus rightfully it was a non-German land. Something doesn't become German just because its non-German citizens are driven off or dominated by colonists from Germany. --Molobo (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was only Polish due to centuries of conquest, too.

The dividing line between Germanic and Slavic peoples (later Germany and Poland) swung back and forth many times over the centuries. If we made a high speed animation of a European map, we would see borders wiggle all over the place, and the one between Germany and Poland would be one of the wiggliest.

Nationalists of either side "justify" territorial claims by referring to a freeze frame in that hypothetical animation that suits their claims best. Polish nationalists refer to a time when the Polish border was at its westernmost position (good for them), German nationalists refer to a time when the German border was at its easternmost position (what else is new). Neither argument is valid. And it's not wikipedia's job to take sides.

The original inhabitants of these territories were neither Poles nor Germans anyway. The "original" claim probably goes to Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon. Anorak2 (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you will point to original countries being founded by Cro-Magnon people I will be happy to agree. So far the truth holds that it were non-Germans that founded the first modern states in the area, and that in turn were victims of Germanisation.--Molobo (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to notify an admin. Your edits are unacceptably POV. Anorak2 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS the Cro-Magnon remark was tongue in cheek. The ethnicity of the first humans in Europe is unknown. But we know positively that they were neither Germanic nor Slavonic, as Indo Europeans only migrated in approx. 4,000 years ago, assimilating those who were there earlier.

The history of Germanic/Slavonic neighbourhood, migrations and border shifts is also quite a bit more complicated as nationalists try to present them. Anorak2 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see who formed the first modern states in the region.--Molobo (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a quote that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt considered "who created the first modern states in the region" when making their decision? Otherwhise it's irrelevant to this page. The fact that you think it's important is no reason to include it. Anorak2 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why this is all over Potsdam conference documents. For example page 758, pages 761-762 United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers : the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference) 1945 Volume I (1945)[5]

--Molobo (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"conquests, genocide, ethnic cleansing and colonisation. It was taken from native people" I beg your pardon what else happened to the german inhabitants of modern-day polands western areas? The germans who today are just a minority in these lands have a status similar to the few polish populations that existed within the ancient german borders before 1933 and are losing slowly all of their identity. The greatest part was just chased away or killed . This happened many times in the past, but just as you said- "centuries", it wasn't done in such a short time and in this dimensions. The german territories in the west were peacefully assimilated by france over centuries.

Of course there was no such a thing as a polish "conquest", after all poland had no choice but to move west. But you should be ashamed to denie the suffering of a few million people or even call it rightful with ancient-history arguments. It was right to give Alsace-Lorraine back to France after WWI and WWII, but it was just a typical WWII-warcrime to give the far east parts of germany to poland. If your family has lived in a land for six generations, I would say it's not exagerated to call them "natives"- more "native" anyway then the descendants of first people who founded a nation in this area hundreds of years ago who never lived on these territories before they started a reconquista-colonisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.118.92 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

To completely reverse all editing changes without consultation strikes me as arbitrary. And how can there be a "discussion" if there are no changes to discuss?

Here's my critique of just the first TWO paragraphs of the existing, very flawed article:

"… from various European states and territories in the first three years after World War II."

Misleading. "Various states and territories" implies that the Germans were ethnic interlopers scattered around other, non-German countries. In fact, a majority of the prewar/pre-Nazi German population – 13.5 million out of 16.5 million, or about 80 percent – were from either the parts of prewar/pre-Nazi Germany annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union post-Potsdam (10 million, including Danzig), or from the so-called Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia (3.5 million), where they had been indigenous for scores of generations. In these parts of prewar/pre-Nazi Germany and Czechoslovakia, Germans constituted either all of, or the overwhelming majority of, the prewar/pre-Nazi population.

It’s only those ethnic Germans resident in Hungary, Romania and prewar Poland who were minorities in the areas in which they lived.

Also, the expulsions took place not only in "the first three years after the war," but in the first four postwar years (ending in 1949 in Kaliningrad Oblast), and took place also during the last three months of the war in Europe.

"The policy had been agreed to by the Allies during the war …"

Misleading. The Western Allies did not finally "agree" to the expulsions until Potsdam, which ended in August 1945, and even thereafter — officially, at least — considered the Oder-Neisse border provisional, pending a supposed peace treaty with a united Germany. These matters were not finally resolved de jure until 1990.

"… but its implementation caused more suffering than was envisaged by the authors of the policy."

One can only call this retrospective speculation seasoned with wishful thinking. First, who were the "authors"? The subtext here seems to be an implication that "the Allies," i.e. the U.S. and Britain somehow now are included as "authors" along with the U.S.S.R. Completely false. The U.S. and Britain grudgingly acquiesced to the border changes and expulsions demanded by Stalin and the Lublin Poles at Yalta (2/45) and Potsdam (7-8/45).

As far as the suffering created, I doubt Stalin or his Polish protégés ever felt the slightest regret, seeing as the Germans in their Nazi guise had inflicted untold suffering upon their peoples during the war. This was revenge, and Red Army propaganda near the end of the war made that quite clear. ("Kill the fascist beast….") This had been and continued to be a savage, pitiless conflict on both sides.

"…a considerable exodus of German refugees from the areas under threat of occupation by the Red Army."

Why use such bland language for a situation characterized by panic? A more accurate statement would be, "thousands of German civilians had fled to the west, despite the Nazi regime’s official refusal to evacuate people from eastern Germany."

"... haphazardly implemented evacuation orders of the Nazi German government in 1943, 1944, and in early 1945."

Where did we get 1943? Never heard of any "evacuations" of the population in 1943. Such would have been considered treason by the Nazis. In late 1944, there were there limited evacuations – more accurately, refugee treks – from extreme eastern East Prussia, in the wake of the Nemmersdorf massacre (let's don't quibble about what happened there). But in the rest of eastern Germany, evacuations were ordered only after it was too late for most residents to escape. Many refugee treks and groups were overrun by the Red Army and/or fired upon by the Red Air Force in East Prussia, Danzig and Pomerania. (Read Donhöff, among others.)

"…based on their own decisions to leave in 1945–1948."

This is absolutely ludicrous! The German inhabitants of eastern Germany did not sit down and calmly "decide" to leave their homelands – they were summarily expropriated and expelled. In 1945, they were allowed to bring a few personal belongings out on their backs if they were lucky. If not, they were robbed of every last possession except the (usually ragged) clothing they wore, and marched overland to the Oder-Neisse border. Thousands died along the way from exhaustion, starvation, ill-treatment and disease (typhus and malaria).

Later on, at the insistence of the Western Allies (principally the British), the expulsions became somewhat more humane, with transport by very slow-moving freight trains (similar to those the Nazis employed to ship the Jews to death camps) – but this was never a voluntary process. It’s true that eventually the remaining German inhabitants of what had been prewar/pre-Nazi eastern Germany came to view their expulsion to the rest of Germany as their only hope of survival, but this hardly gave the process a free-will aspect. It was ethnic cleansing.

"…in no East European nation were all ethnic Germans forced to leave."

This is not too much different from saying the Nazis didn’t kill "all" the Jews — true in a narrow sense, but beside the point. In most cases, those Germans who remained behind, esp. in the new Poland, either were bilingual or related by marriage to Poles, or were considered indispensable to operation of key industries. Anyhow, nearly all the ethnic Germans of east-central Europe are gone today – the main exception being in Upper Silesia, around Opole (ex-Oppeln), where they were considered "autochthons," important to the coal and steel industry. The others, or their descendents, were allowed to leave only post-Ostpolitik, in the 1970s and ’80s. Why should we care how many were left in 1950?

Sca (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analyzation of the facts. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent comment. In another words the Poles outsmarted Joseph Stalin annexing Eastern Germany occupied at that time by hundreds thousands Soviet soldiers. The Poles were disguised as Iroquois so the Soviets didn't understand what was going on. Polish nationalistic leaders Bolesław Bierut, Jakub Berman and Władysław Gomułka implemented plans of their teacher Roman Dmowski. White is black and I'm a camel.Xx236 (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's late here (1:22AM) and I have not the time to look at your points above in detail right now although since I am familiar with you, I expect your points will be on target and reasonable.

You are welcome to "edit forward" from my reversion. I only took the drastic step of reverting out all the recent edits because of the anon IP editor's unexplained deletion of text that were brought to our attention by Olessi (see above). If you believe that the text in question should be deleted, then please delete one section at a time with at least an edit summary explaining why the text should be deleted.

I don't have a problem editing or deleting text. I just want everyone to understand why the text is being deleted and give editors a chance to debate the deletion of the text.

--Richard (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, when I get around to it, I'll edit at least the first 2 grafs. Sca (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead is bad. I suggest we keep rewriting it; while some issues may be controversial, some of the above (ex.1943) most likely won't be.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

annexed by Polan is false. Granted to Poland. Poland didn't exist as an independent state to annex anything.Xx236 (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC) It’s only those ethnic Germans resident in Hungary, Romania and prewar Poland - what about Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia outside the Sudetenland? Xx236 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) during the last three months of the war in Europe - quite recently the title was changed to after WWII, now last three months. last three months aren't after the war.Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "The policy had been agreed to by the Allies during the war" - allegedly misleading. Poor allies, didn't know about Katyn, Holocaust, now you claim they didn't know about the expulsion. So why did they accept the allegedly unexpected millions of German refugees? Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) similar to those the Nazis employed to ship the Jews to death camps - exactly the same in which Poles were transported from Germany to Poland after the war and similar to those in which millions of Poles were transported during the war to Siberia or from Soviet Union to Poland. Either you don't know the subject or you misinform. BTW - Western Jews were frequently transported by Nazis in passenger cars.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Baltic Sea Germans were evacuated in 1943.
"pitiless conflict on both sides" - only one side started the war and keeps complaing till today that the war was cruel for them. Wasn't it more rational to become rich in Germany instead to die in Eastern Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Several authors are trying to push a nationalist POV into this page using biased vocabulary and unbalanced presentation of facts, possibly unsourced claims as well. Please everyone help stop these edits, thank you. Anorak2 (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has been a poor quality due to this since its creation. It indeed attracts a lot of opinionated users, and has a lot of grievances from various POVs. Until it is properly referenced, this will not change.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is who decides what is properly referenced. Our POV is always right. Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is heavily pro-German and anti-Czech and anti-Polish. And doesn't not clearly state that this migration was implemented and carried out mostly by the Germans themselves and by the USSR. Poland was essentially invaded and controled by the USSR - American dood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.109.251 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Post 9 May 1945 "migration" carried out by the Germans ????? Get a clue: the Soviets were in control of Poland & their "Zone" of Germany, which originally included the "Polish Administered" territories of Silesia, Main Pomerania & Southern East Prussia. The Germans in those areas didn't do anything without "guidance" from the Soviets & Polish Communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.18.161 (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobos latest Edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm getting fed up, so I'll just leave Molobo (talk · contribs)s latest edit with a pointer to it, so people can decide for themselves whether to revert back or let it remain.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is simple, the term was used by Government of National Unity, not by communists only, also the territories had milions of Poles by 1945(from a 1,3 milion Poles in 1939), so a minority Polish population already existed. I just wanted to be precise.--Molobo (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So simple that you deleted both sourced text and source and replaced it with something completely different and un-sourced.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I sourced the minority the question. The communist government was of course completely false as the term was used by Government of National Unity where they were non-communists. Also the main proponent of territorial change was Mikolajczyk-a non-communist.--Molobo (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed a book source that said the government was communist, and that Recovered Territories was propaganda. You have not provided any source that says the government was non-communist. All you have done is make statements, and sourced another topic, and claimed it was "per request." This should be evident to anyone who actually checks the edits.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah the claim is false.

The TRJN government was composed of:

   Prime Minister: Edward Osóbka-Morawski (Polska Partia Socjalistyczna)
   Deputy Prome Minister, Minister of Regained Territories: Władysław Gomułka (Polska Partia Robotnicza)
   Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform: Stanisław Mikołajczyk (Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe)

The entire government was composed of:

   * PPR: 7 people
   * PPS: 6 people
   * Stronnictwo Ludowe: 3 people
   * PSL: 3 people
   * Stronnictwo Demokratyczne: 2 people

As you see they were many non-communists in it(only PPR were communists). This of course changed later, but that is outside this topic.--Molobo (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Army and NKVD controlled Poland 1944/1945. Stronnictwo Ludowe wasn't a party but a PPR-controlled group. PPS included people like Cyrankiewicz and other future PZPR activists. Xx236 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about a related subject

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

~~See Talk:Vistula-Oder_Offensive#Stop_re-inserting_this_section. Andries (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)~~

Solved Andries (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many articles

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See the articles listed at Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_during_and_after_WWII.

I think it is important to distinguish the following subjects and have one main article on each subject

population transfers between WWI and WWII
flight and evacution during WWII
post WWII expulsion

Andries (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject has been discussed many times. German government supports the idea of Expulsion (Vertreibung) which includes flight and evacution during WWII and post WWII expulsion (both in the East). There are only few independent sources. Xx236 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

How many extremist points of view does it take to change a light bulb?

Sca (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is probably inappropriate for a Wikipedia talk page but, I'll bite... how many extremist points of view does it take to change a light bulb?

I'd say... "As many as you like... however, note that the extremists will argue endlessly over the following questions:

Whether the light bulb is, in fact, dead
Whether the light bulb died from natural causes or from actions of evildoers
Whether the environment of neighboring rooms is such that other light bulbs have also died, thus proving that light bulb death was not unique to this location but a fact of life after the war
Whether it is morally justified for the light bulb to be dead given the evil done by some while the light was working
Whether the light was working illegally due to the illegal aggression and occupation of those who had previously occupied the room
Whose fault it is that the light bulb is dead and whether the light bulb did anything to cause its own demise
Whether the light bulb should be changed now given that it has been dead for so long
Whether those who are now sitting in darkness should be compensated monetarily for their suffering
Whether those who wish the light bulb to be changed are really just demanding monetary compensation for wrongs done to their forebears who suffered when the light bulb died
Whether the light bulb was ever working at all or whether that is just a theory of revisionist historians.
Whose light bulb is it, anyhow? This being difficult to ascertain given that the light bulb has been changed many times during the course of history.

DISCLAIMER: The above reply is a humorous response to a joke question. None of the above should be construed to imply anything about the author's views on any topic other than that of changing a light bulb.

--Richard (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard — kudos! — Great response! I was hoping someone would come up with a comprehensive answer.

Is there any particular article from which you drew on your Wiki experience for this masterful reply?

Sca (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: But you forgot to mention the following issues:

The manufacturer of the light bulb in question.
How long the light bulb in question had been in the socket in question.
Whether it had been in a socket in another room or building prior to being screwed into the socket in question.
Whether the light bulb that preceeded the one in question was from the same manufacturer or a different one.
Whether the previous light bulb had been removed before its time, or had simply burned out from use over an extended period.
What manufacturer's light bulb was the original light bulb (German: Urglühbirne) indigenous to this socket.
And most importantly — whether the present light bulb should be replaced by another, or rather by an energy-efficient flourescent fixture meeting EU standards.

Sca (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget the all important question of how much of the light bulb had died during the war as opposed to "after" the war and whether the Wikipedia article on dead light bulbs should be titled "during and after the war" vs. "after the war".

Let us also not forget to discuss the flight, evacuation AND expulsion of light bulbs lest people think that all light bulbs have died only due to expulsion and not due to flight or evacuation.

--Richard (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What would Heinrich Göbel and de:Heinrich Göbel do? Or de:Carl Heinrich Florenz Müller? -- Matthead Discuß 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we forgotten a key peripheral issue? — Whether a proposed memorial to the dead light bulb should be erected in the adjacent room, or whether doing so would constitute a revisionist ploy to romanticize the dead bulb's period of lighting.

And, do those who oppose such a memorial really believe that only light bulbs replaced before their time in this room should be honored by memorials and monuments, and that any attempt to brighten the image of light bulbs replaced in other rooms would darken the reputation of all light fixtures in general?

Sca (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires to point out that the light bulb who first postulated that the bulb socket rotates around the light bulb, rather than the light bulb around the bulb socket, was łigkt bułb (lightus bulbus), the BRIGHT light bulb, who at the head of light bulbs loyal to the light bulb king, defended his light socket from dead light bulb knights.

This room is affected by the Bułb (Light) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes: For sockets, use dead light bulbs between 13:08 and 19:45. -- Matthead Discuß 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulb bayonet mounts --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And, we haven't even begun to address the issue of wattage. Can someone state the basic POVs? Sca (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Legacy of the expulsions

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This paragraph is about the legacy, not about Wilhelm Gustloff ship. If you want to discuss the Wilhelm Gustloff (ship), do it there.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who was the third power?