Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 14

Unref tags added February 1 2009

I added unref tags to a number of sections lacking sources.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.conklinhouse.com/genealogy/maternal/heliletter.html

Why this text is mentioned? Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Only Communists in post-ear PL

With an edit summary:

"Nonsense. What politicians of "all the wings"? There was only Soviet backed Polish Communists in Poland after the war. Another false statement removed."

a paragraph repeatedly gets removed [1].

Post-war Poland indeed became Communist and was dominated by Communists as soon as the war was over. That however does not mean that there were ONLY Communists around. In the Polish_legislative_election,_1947 and the preceeding referendum of 1946, there were still other than Communist Democratic Bloc parties, most prominently the PSL, as e.g. shown here. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And they had no influence or power whatsoever.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The PSL had at least some influence, which of course was cut down by the PPR in the war's aftermath. However, this argument is not about how influential the parties were, but about that they were there, which is an undisputed fact and surely nothing one needs to edit war against. I think Jacurek's deletions were made in good faith. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the actual sentence is "In Poland and Czechoslovakia, politicians of ALL wings" (my emphasis). Even if you count PSL this doesn't make it "ALL", just one other political party, subordinate to the PPR. And then it talks about Polish soldiers being "briefed". This is obviously referring to Polish soldiers under Soviet command only, not soldiers of other units or representing other political movements. The statement is at best imprecise and there were good grounds for removing it. If there's extra info or context in the source (sorry, can't read German) then it should be used to clarify. Otherwise it's false.radek (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains. Politicians of "all the wings" are highly inaccurate since most were either dead, in prison, underground or in exile. The only semi independent PSL had no influence and Mikolajczyk fled the country in 1947 to avoid execution. Churchill commented after his arrival in London "I'm surprised you made it out alive".

So why there is that insistence on keeping "Politicians of all the wings" in the sentence? I do not understand that. --Jacurek (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the source says so. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Which proves the idiocy of your source.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately author is wrong in choosing his words. "Political forces active in Poland at the time" is correct.--Jacurek (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the above link to the 1947 elections, you will find that there were 10 parties and some "independant" candidates. Four of the parties were within the PPR's "Democratic" Bloc. If you argue all these parties were exactly of the same kind, you need to back this up. The source says politicians "jeglicher Coleur", literally "of all colours", meaning "of all political wings", and the source is talking about 1945, when PPR's control was not yet ultimative. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which link you're referring to, can you post it here? Obviously since you put "independant" (sic) in parentheses you seem to be aware that there really wasn't any independent parties and that those 10 parties were really one (with PSL, by 1947 essentially subordinate to the Communists). And this article isn't a place to get into the nitty-gritty of the political parties at the time, but without it the quote is misleading.radek (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The above link is Polish_legislative_election,_1947. Also keep in mind that we are talking about the situation two years earlier.

I put independant in quotation marks because, unlike most of the participants in this argument, I know from my own experience how the system worked. And I am all with you saying the PPR was the one seizing control and everyone else either got his nose brown or ended up in some sort of detention. However, I dispute that the situation was already that in 1945, although the road to a de facto dictatorship of PPR cadres was already paved and, in retrospect, without an alternative that would have worked out given that the PPR cadres were only Stalin's sockpuppets, and Stalin in turn was the one with the gun. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, because Poland was controlled directly by the Red Army and NKVD in 1944/1945~and got a little authonomy later. The problem is that you know a litlle which gives you the illusion of expertise, like Brandes.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Full quote translation:

"'Jetzt werden die Deutschen erfahren, was das Prinzip der kollektiven Verantwortung bedeutet', hatte das Organ der polnischen Geheimarmee im Juli 1944 geschrieben. Und der Befehlshaber der 2. Polnischen Armee wies seine Soldaten am 24. Juni 1945 an, mit den Deutschen 'so umzugehen, wie diese es mit uns getan haben', so daß 'die Deutschen von selbst fliehen und Gott danken, daß sie ihren Kopf gerettet haben'. Politiker jeglicher Coleur, Flugblätter und Zeitungen beider Staaten riefen nach Vergeltung für die brutale deutsche Besatzungspolitik."

"'Now the Germans will get to know the meaning of the principle of collective responsibility', the outlet of the Polish secret army wrote in July, 1944. And the commander of the 2nd Polish Army instructed his soldiers on 24 June 1945, to 'treat' the Germans 'how they had treated us', causing 'the Germans to flee on their own and thank God for having saved their lifes'. Policians of all political wings, leaflets and newspapers of both states [i.e. PL and CS] called for revenge for the brutal occupation policy."

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference it to the 2nd Polish Army (under Soviet command) then.radek (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From the "nd Polish Army article: "On the 17 May it was transferred from the 1st Ukrainian Front to the High Command of Ludowe Wojsko Polskie." The quote is of June, and though the Soviets were in overall charge, the quote obviously cannot be attributed to a Soviet. Evident also by the very phrasing ("how they teated us"). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"How they had treated us. The only Germans Świerczewski met were German POWs. Many soldiers of the Army were deported by Soviets in 1940 and never met any Germans.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine but it should be noted that this was still the Soviet-affiliated Polish Army (and whatever it was on paper, it was still really under Soviet command). So if you have something like "the commander of the Soviet affiliated (or commanded) 2nd Polish Army..." (Berling?) that might work. Note also that the "outlet of Polish secret army" - well, first, which one? AK? NSZ? BCh? AL? Second, it doesn't say "Now the Germans SHOULD..." but just states what was going to happen when the Soviets got there.radek (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put in "Soviet affiliated" I'll have no argument with you as long as it won't be further "qualified" to read like the Soviets said so. Of course I know that the Polish army was not able to do anything without Soviet approval. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"to read like the Soviets said so" - but the Soviets said so. Are you against facts?Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

The conflict here seems to boil down on the term "wings". How about replacing it with "parties"? It wouldn't be too far from the source, and those who think all parties were of the same "wing" anyway won't be offended anymore. I however object to have "Polish politicians" without a qualification (could mean "all" or "two" or anything else). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They were even not real politicians, they were Soviet "servants". Political forces active in Poland at the time would be probably more accurate but let's see what Radek thinks about that.--Jacurek (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the conflict has more to do with the fact that the expulsions were organized and carried out by the Communist authorities, while non-Communist Poles where more worried about their own hides at that point (as early as 1944 in fact). Having it as "parties" still conveys the mistaken impression that there were multiple "real" parties in Poland as opposed to just Communist affiliated ones and some Potemkin like puppets (like SD and "Catholic Parties" - Pax - in the article you linked to (thanks!)). Why not source it to the PPR "and affiliated parties" or something like that? (I'll address this issue in the other section too)radek (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well all the proposed qualification would be so far from the source that I would find it hard to leave the ref in place. But howw about putting a short "qualification sentence" before that sentence? Something like "In post-war Poland, Communist PPR managed to reduce all parties to puppets.[ref]" (must be style improved). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Something like that might work though it would depend on the phrasing. And in the statement by the commander needs to be made explicit that this was the Soviet-affiliated army. I'm too tired right now to think of the right phrasing.radek (talk)

Soviet Army and NKVD controlled all Poland "liberated" in 1944 and big part of Poland in 1945 as front zone. The "Polish" PKWN "signed" such treaty with Soviet Union. "Elections" - stop your propagnada. BTW - we have a problem, the quoted book by Dmitrów was printed in 1987, which means it was censored, i.e. certain parts of the text might have been removed and the author self-censored himself. Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Polish" army was controlled by Soviets till 1989, the control became weaker after expulsion of Rokosssowski, but still existed. Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews

(split from above)

In addition, I would love to hear someone explain to me what violence against Jews in post War Poland has to do with the expulsion of the Germans?--Jacurek (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The areas from where the Germans were expelled became resettled at the same time, and it is worth mentioning who was settled there. All those settled there formed the stock of today's population of the area, except for the Jews, who left only a decade later. If we drop this fact, the reader will assume that the Jews still "have their share" there, which is not the case. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are talking about Jews who left Poland a dacade later..(two to be correct). My question once again is... What violence against Jews has to do with the expulsion of the Germans?--Jacurek (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really hard to see the relevance here. More relevant would be the fact that most people settled in those areas would be those who were simultaneously expelled from what used to be Eastern Poland. I don't think anyone would make the mistaken inference you allude to since a very low portion of Jews survived the Holocaust in Poland and this is generally known. In particular, the main areas where anti-Jewish violence occurred in Poland after the war, like Kielce and maybe the area around Lublin where completely different areas. Basically the two topics have nothing to do with each other.radek (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They are connected insofar, as the Jews settled primarily in Lower Silesia and Stettin, areas from where the Germans were simoultaneously expelled, and that pretty large Jewish communities existed there for a short time. For me it is not clear why we should drop the fact that they left again a few years later, even if a mention of this fact only costs half a sentence with a wikilink. Even if the most famous events of violence happened east of Lower Silesia, they still caused the Jews that lived there to move out. (Not the only cause, but an important one and also a "trigger event".) Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the source for where they settled? In the sense that they settled there more than other areas or more than non Jewish Poles settled there (I mean, I'm sure some settled there)? Even then, this is a very weak and tenuous link and the text that should be removed is WAY more than half a sentence. It is still irrelevant.radek (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is NO CONNECTION between violence against Jews in post war Poland and the expulsion of the Germans. The intention of the person who inserted this information in the first place was to portray Poles in a bad light. Kind of, "look what the Poles did to us Germans and look what they did to the Jews also". This is clear to me....Jews were the real victims (during the war and after) but the Germans suffered ONLY because of the "insane" polices of their Nazi leaders and the war they started. Sorry that I had to finally say it....--Jacurek (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Many Jews settled in Lower Silesia. They organised Jewish cooperatives and hoped to get some kind of authonomy. The Communists decided to homogenise the society around 1948 and the majority emigrated at that time, not in 1968. Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is still off topic (and so the text being discussed does not belong in the article) but this is something I didn't know about. Is there a source available for this? Specifically for the autonomy/homogenization thing, not the settlement thing (as I said before, I'm sure SOME Jews settled in those areas)? And the cooperatives?radek (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[2] about Pomorze Zachodnie. Bielawa and Dzierżoniów were Jewish centers in Lower Silesia, there is a book by Szeynok about Jewish settlers in Lower Silesia (I don't have it).Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

and?....this is still off topic as far as the article goes...these Jews were Poles also and their later exodus from Poland was NOT connected and NOT influenced by the expulsion of the German population AT ALL. We can create a page "Jews in Pomorze Zachodnie" if you want.--Jacurek (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the violence by Poles against Jews is particularly relevant to the subject matter of this article. This article is about the expulsion of the Germans, not the fate of Jewish communities in postwar Poland. Whereas it would seem relevant that the Germans were replaced by Poles and Jews, subsequent violence against the Jews is not directly related to the earlier expulsion of the Germans, but was due to a whole host of other factors. I'm not sure that the mere presence of Jewish communities in these territories means that there is a direct relation between the violence against the Jews and the earlier expulsion of the Germans, and that the fate of those communities merits mention in this article. The issues faced by the Jewish community in postwar Poland are well documented in other articles, and it would seem unnecessary to mention them here. This content of this article is contentious enough, without dragging other unrelated issues into it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Communist Poland was a land of violence. Germans were forced or allowed to leave, Jews were allowed to leave, Poles were shot when running away. Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That said, I am unsure as to what point you are trying to make or its relevance to the discussion at hand. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The German idea of expulsion says that independent cruel Poles expelled Germans. The history of post-war Poland is much more complicated and taking the "expulsion" out of the Communmist context is pure manipulation. The same people murderd Germans, Poles and Ukrainians. Now some Germans and Ukrainians say - you nasty Poles, you have murdered our people. But AK soldiers died at the same time in the same places. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Settlers

(split from above)

More relevant would be the fact that most people settled in those areas would be those who were simultaneously expelled from what used to be Eastern Poland.radek (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is untrue, most of the settlers were from Central Poland. (Sourced in the respective articles). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong...please...did you look at the sources? Most settlers came from Kresy, what used to be Eastern Poland, they were expelled to so called "recovered territories".--Jacurek (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And regardless, the violence against Jews that occurred was not really in the areas that the Germans were expelled from making your point above irrelevant.radek (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just while we're on the topic, I think initially a lot of the settlers might have been from Central Poland but this changed gradually 1945 and 1947 and by the time of Wisla there was a large influx of people (not just Poles) from Ukraine etc. ("Ukrainian" used to be a slang term for a inhabitant of Wroclaw/Breslau in 1950's and 60's). But like I said, this has no bearing on the relevance of what happened in Kielce etc and that paragraph is still irrelevant.radek (talk)

Poland was also the scene of numerous post-Holocaust attcks on surviving Jews, precipitating their fleeing that country. The brutality of the Kielce pogrom and other events put an end to the hopes of many Jews that they would be able to resettle in Poland after the end of the Nazi Germany occupation and precipitated a mass exodus of Polish Jewry. In the words of Bożena Szaynok, a historian at Wrocław University:"...Until 4 July 1946, Polish Jews cited the past as their main reason for emigration. After the Kielce pogrom, the situation changed drastically... From July 1945 until June 1946, about fifty thousand Jews passed the Polish border illegally. In July 1946, almost twenty thousand decided to leave Poland. In August 1946 the number increased to thirty thousand. In September 1946, twelve thousand Jews left Poland.

All this (completely off topic) has been added today by the new user. Few more lines and the article has to renamed to "Expulsion of Germans after World War II and the Kielce pogrom". I still wonder what are the real intentions here...?--Jacurek (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is a good illustration of the logic behind this article: to prove how evil the Poles are. Sigh.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the settlers, people from Central Poland dominated not only before Operation Vistula, but also thereafter. See e.g. Karl Cordell, Andrzej Antoszewski, Poland and the European Union, 2000, p.168, ISBN 0415238854 (preview available online at google books). In fact, Central Poles made up for more than half of the settlers, all other groups together constituting the other near-half. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this view represent a consensus among scholars? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget also immigrants from France ąnd Yugoslavia, Greek Communists.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that settlers from Central Poland prevailed. One of the reason was German policy 1939-1944 - robbery and destruction.

There was a common part of Jewish, German and Polish flight from Poland - Sovietisation, repressions. There was also a difference - see "An Eye for an Eye".Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Beevor

Anthony Beevor's book Downfall has some pretty hair raising accounts of at least the flight as the Red Army advanced. I noticed he wasn't cited in the text.radek (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alleged expulsions

Which English language source describes the policy of pre-war Poland as "expulsion"? Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood libel

Two articles about blood libel are quoted in the article. It's not the right place to discuss the subject.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliability issue

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Ulf_Brunnbauer.2C_Michael_G._Esch.2C_and_Holm_Sundhausen Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, would you please outline why you think the source is not reliable instead of just removing it pointing out an alleged unreliability in the edit summary. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, the book is reliable. Now, please explain why this trivia generalization is helpful to this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Geheimarmee

What is Geheimarmee? Is it poetry or historiography?Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Geheim = secret, hidden; Armee = army. Above, I translated it "secret army". Skäpperöd (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's poetry. Some Geheimarmee did say allegedly something, page unavilable in Google.Xx236 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Detlef Brandes has written a anumber of texts about Czechoslovakia. It doesn't make him an expert in Polish matters. Poland wasn't Czechoslovakia 1945-1948. Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Read the review of Brandes' long book - [3]:

• Brandes is an expert in Czechoslovak matters
• The main subject of his works is historical context of the deportation of Germans. You misuse his work. And yes, almost all Poles didn't like to have German neighbours in 1945. Not because the Poles were genetically cruel, but because of German rules in Poland 1939-1944. You probably don't know the subject, if you open it here. Xx236 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse his work? Please explain where and how, I really have no idea what you are talking about. And this is a pretty serious accusation. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Noone said the Poles are genetically cruel or anything like that. The quote is about Polish politicians and army commander. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"für die brutale deutsche Besatzungspolitik" - it's a shame to write something like that and to quote the phrase. German policy in Poland was about 10 times more cruel than in Bohemia-Moravia. Xx236 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify: You think it is a shame that he only wrote "brutal"? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame to describe in one phrase German repressions in B+M and Poland. It's typical for Brandes, who extrapolates his Czech expertise on Poland, but unacceptable here.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If the quoted commander of the 2nd Army was Karol Świerczewski, he wasn't Polish, but a Soviet citizen and officer, who signed at least 29 death sentences and was responsible for death of thousands during the last days of war.Xx236 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that he was a Pole. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also interested in who this commander was. It's really hard to consider Swierczewski a Pole. Like I said before, if it is made clear that these were Communist/Soviet authorities briefing the soldiers of the Soviet controlled Polish army, and that it wasn't "all" political parties but "all the political parties allowed by the Soviets" then something like that can be in there. Once again, note that the "secret army" (again, which one?) statement is not prescriptive but descriptive - it just states what is about to happen. Which I think was clear to everyone once the Soviet army was successfully pushing the German army from Poland.radek (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"It's really hard to consider Swierczewski a Pole." Well he was born in Poland 1897, spend his childhood there, went to the Soviet Union in 1915, was educated there at a Polish school, was then in Soviet army service, commanded the Polish armies during late WWII, became a Polish minister after the war, and died in Poland. Without playing down his evident ties to the Soviet Union - he was a Pole. One could add and link his name to the statement (there sure were not two commanders of the 2nd Polish army in June 1945). Skäpperöd (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't a Pole, people like him declared that they identify as Soviet Man and SU is their homecountry, but will work where they will be sent. Btw you missed the part where he fought against Poland.--Molobo (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"...the "secret army" ... statement ... just states what is about to happen." What's wrong with that? The title of the subsection the sentence is/was/will be in is "Punishment for Nazi aggression". In this section, we need sourced statements that punishment was one reason for the subsequent treatment of the Germans. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see page 92, which describes post-war justice, quite liberal comparing to the German one (see e.g. Valkyrie extermination of Germans). Page 95 describes massive deportation in Europe. Pages 93-94 aren't available. There are 6 sources quoted there with numbers 33-38. Xx236 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 33 sources the statement of the 2nd Pol. army commander to a "Edward Dmitrow, Warszawa, 1987". All other footnotes are irrelevant for the quote. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, I need hours to teach you basic history. Why should I? Get some reading before you teach others. You quote a text, you don't understand. It's a bad practice.Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers of the former "Geheimarmee" were persecuted like Germans or more harshly than Germans since 1944/1945. So the opinion of the journal was without any meaning.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish politicians and army comand call for punishment of Germans for Nazi aggression

In the section Expulsion of Germans after World War II#Punishment of ethnic Germans for Nazi aggression, the following sentence is disputed and keeps getting removed: In Poland and Czechoslovakia, politicians of all wings and army commanders asked for revenge for wartime sorrow; Polish soldiers were briefed to "exact on the Germans what they enacted on us, so they will flee on their own and thank God they saved their lives".

Reference: Detlef Brandes in Ulf Brunnbauer, Michael G. Esch, Holm Sundhaussen, Definitionsmacht, Utopie, Vergeltung: "ethnische Säuberungen" im östlichen Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts, LIT Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2006, p.93, ISBN 3825880338

URL:[4]

Quote from source (German original): "'Jetzt werden die Deutschen erfahren, was das Prinzip der kollektiven Verantwortung bedeutet', hatte das Organ der polnischen Geheimarmee im Juli 1944 geschrieben. Und der Befehlshaber der 2. Polnischen Armee wies seine Soldaten am 24. Juni 1945 an, mit den Deutschen 'so umzugehen, wie diese es mit uns getan haben', so daß 'die Deutschen von selbst fliehen und Gott danken, daß sie ihren Kopf gerettet haben'. Politiker jeglicher Coleur, Flugblätter und Zeitungen beider Staaten riefen nach Vergeltung für die brutale deutsche Besatzungspolitik."

English translation: "'Now the Germans will get to know the meaning of the principle of collective responsibility', the outlet of the Polish secret army wrote in July, 1944. And the commander of the 2nd Polish Army instructed his soldiers on 24 June 1945, to 'treat' the Germans 'how they had treated us', causing 'the Germans to flee on their own and thank God for having saved their lifes'. Policians of all political wings, leaflets and newspapers of both states [i.e. PL and CS] called for revenge for the brutal occupation policy." [5]

Those who disagree with this sentence outlined their reasons in the sections above. I will give a brief summary, and the disagreeing parties are welcome to add summaries of their concerns in case I missed anything.Skäpperöd (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC) From RFC page: "There is a dispute whether Polish politicians of all wings and the Polish army comand in 1945 called for punishment of Germans for Nazi aggression." - which "Polish army" - the one in the West or the Soviet one? Which "Polish politicians"? The quoted text is about the politicians living in Poland, but not obviously "Polish". It doesn't mention exiled ones. The question should be removed because of its errors.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliability

User:Piotrus disputed the reliability of the source and for this reason removed the sentence twice, this is why I started Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Ulf Brunnbauer.2C Michael G. Esch.2C and Holm Sundhausen. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing

Some users think the source is not correct in stating that "In Poland (...), politicians of all wings and army commanders asked for (...)". They argue that only Soviet controlled Communists were present on the political and military scene in Poland at the end of WWII, therefore removed it, but until now failed to back their assertion with a source. Though I am not denying Soviet/Communist impact, I think that in 1944/45 they were not the only ones active in Poland, though of course ultimatively successful in establishing a totalitarian regime lateron, and that the phrasing used by the source and resembled by the disputed sentence is ok.

However, as eg stated above in the "Proposed compromise" section, I am not opposed to add a qualification about the Soviet impact. Such a qualification could either be added within the sentence, if it does not derail it to a degree that the footnote wouldn't reference it anymore, or as a separate sentence preceeding the disputed sentence. What I am opposed to is simply deletion of sourced material. If another source states something different, we should integrate both instead of deleting one, same goes for sources that could be used for above mentioned qualification on Soviet impact. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

as long as "politicians of all wings " is dropped there is no problem on my side. At that time the "politicians of all wings", from LEFT TO RIGHT, were NOT present in Poland. Most were dead, already in communist prisons or IN EXILE. Mikolajczyk was the only one allowed to get back for a very short period of time and he neither represented all wings. He was a Socialist. Author you are sourcing used WRONG WORDS to describe Polish political scene at the time.--Jacurek (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is better to qualify what the author said by stating that "politicians active in Polish politics advocated...". This thus excludes those that were "dead, already in communist prisons or IN EXILE". If necessary, make this exclusion explicit in the text. Also, if the source is inaccurate in his description, we should find another source who impugns the accuracy of this source. --Richard (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly !--Jacurek (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to the phrasing above, as I can hardly imagine the source is talking about non-active politicians and thus the ref could be left as is. As I said multiple times before, I am also open for a more detailed qualification, though separate if it would otherwise interflict with the footnote. Jacurek? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing to "politicians across the political spectrum,[71][72] which narrowed during the post-war Communist take-over," and hope everyone is satisfied with this. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Politiker jeglicher Coleur, Flugblätter und Zeitungen beider Staaten riefen nach Vergeltung für die brutale deutsche Besatzungspolitik" is unsourced POV - it's idiotic to compare the situation in stable Czechoslovakia, where legitimate government ruled till 1948, and Soviet occupied Poland. A statement of this kind about Poland should be based on something - a description of "Politics" in Poland 1945 and opinions of responsable politicians. The quoted text doesn't. Lets formulate it this way - "The majority of survivors of German crimes in Poland hated Germans." It's close to your idea, but much more precise. It's quite obvious that many Poles wanted revange (but not all, many settlers from Eastern Poland believed that exclusive criminals of WWII were Soviets or Ukrainian nationalists and were friendly to Germans). We should inform the reader why the Poles hated Germans. Are you aware of German crimes in Poland? BTW - the quoted book lists Lidice, but doesn't any of hundreds Polish villages burned by Germans. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reader is informed about Nazi policies in occupied Poland by lots of articles, the very section is titled "Punishment for Nazi aggression", and the sentence itself ties the politicians' statements to the wartime sorrow - that's why the sentence is in there in the first place. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The title Punishment of ethnic Germans for Nazi aggression misinforms. Maybe "Punishment of ethnic Germans for Nazi crimes". Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The paragraph doesn't even mention Poland, the content is "standard" - Jews, Soviet POWs, Lidice. So the reader isn't informed at all, why the cruel Poles persecuted Germans.Xx236 (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased to a more general application of Nazi crimes and linked a list containing all main articles dealing with Nazi occupation. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept your role in editing this part. You keep to repeat to rephrase the same short paragraph of low value. Swierczewski wasn't a Polish general, he was a Soviet one, delegated to control the Poles. Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Evacuation and flight of Germans during the war"

Below excerpt is from "Evacuation and flight of Germans during the war": "Late in the war, as the Red Army advanced westward, Germans feared reprisal for their associations with the Nazi regime" Comment: Within the millions of Germans affected, they were much more likely fearful of being invaded by a foreign army rather than some supposedly shared collective guilt. Where is the research on millions of Germans feeling collective guilt for something that happened during the war? The above excerpt leans toward being part of a jeremiad (you English as a Second Language folks can look up jeremiad via Google, select Merriam-Webster). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid point. As a whole, Germans feared the invading (liberating) Soviet troops. Some Germans feared reprisal from the locals for their associations with the Nazi regime. Which fear was greater? I think it varied from case to case but probably the fear of the advancing Soviet troops. --Richard (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename? Please see related proposal

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#A_need_for_cooperation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Persona debate

Laws are typically imprecise, especially in attempts to encompass "classes" of people. Communist Laws of course are the exception, since the world still stands in awe of Communist jurisprudence.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Xx236, are you doing yeoman work in behalf of Molobo? (Example, deleting comments in response to Molobo's righteousness) What is your relation to Molobo -- is this some sort of "ethnic thing" (e.g., Brother Slavs Stay United, ad nauseam)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia, we discuss Expulsion of Germans after World War II. It's not an open forum and not a right place to attack editors. Would you be so kind to sign your texts? I have removed two comments, which I found not related with the subject. If you don't agree, you can always restore the texts, eg. "My guess is 123".

Many former (?) Nazis organized the "expelled" after the war or took part in creation of the myth of "expulsion". The credibility of such politicians and "historians" is low.Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, you assert that "Many former (?) Nazis organized the "expelled" after the war or took part in creation of the myth of "expulsion"." This is a topic that is not covered in this or any article in Wikipedia that I know of. Can you expand on this so that we can add a section on it? --Richard (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, Please explain what you mean by the "myth" of the Expulsion. If it was a myth, why doesn't Wikipedia correct the title of the present subject to "Mythical Expulsion of Germans after World War II"? In order to buy into that myth one would have to believe that 12 million Germans all "flew away" from Eastern Europe before the the Soviet Army even arrived. Why, the Soviet Army didn't even see a German civilian (except for the 17 they killed in East Prussia) until they crossed the Oder-Neisse future boundary line between Germany & Poland. What a wonderful Story! What imagination! What Scholarship!~~ANNRC —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please, sign your contributions.
2. Please don't interpret my texts. Any reeder can check, what I have written. There is no problem of real German victims. There is a problem of German anti-Polish and anti-Czech (but surprizingly not anti-Russian) propaganda and people, who run away from occupied Poland, like Erika Steinbach, and now claim to be "expelled". According to such logic children of Auschwitz commander were "expelled" from their sweet home in the death camp.Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, the troll(s) is/are here (referring to ANNRC). For the record I want to note that as of right now I disagree with Xx236 and consider "Expulsion" to be a perfectly adequate description for the phenomenon this article covers. They were 'expelled' - the possible POV problem here is trying to make it look like "the Poles" were responsible for this rather than the Soviets and the communist Poles, or ignoring the broader context (that thing called WWII and associated developments). But we really don't need the incivility and disruptions that too often pop on other pages. If ANNRC continues in that vein, then just delete those comments.radek (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

German idea of "Vertreibung", translated as "Expulsion", includes not only expulsion proper but also Flight, Soviet/Esatern allies war, war crimes and drawning ships, US+UK bombings, sometimes all German deaths during WWII. I'm not able to check all articles about "expulsion" of Germans, if they use the word "expulsion" as "forced deportations". As I have written before many "expelled" weren't expelled by force. In fact they had to apply for emigration permit or travelled from Siberia or USA to Western Germany, never seeing a Pole or Czech. Germans who died in POW camps or prisons outside Poland or Czechoslovakia are qualified sometimes as victimes of Polish/Czech expulsion. What does such language give to readers?

This article isn't about "expulsion" only, it's quite obvious. Some explanation is needed, if even some authors don't understand the problem.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's some major problems with the article (for example, the section "Pre War Poland" has pretty much nothing to do with Pre War Poland). But that's really a problem with the article content not its title. And yes it's true that some who, um, departed, were not "expelled by force". Still I think there is a consensus among historians that the overwhelming majority that, um, departed, were either "expelled by force" or left in fear of "force" (the coming of Red Army, mostly). The subject of those Germans which left Poland somewhat later on voluntarily is a separate one (and hence doesn't belong in this article). So is the subject of Germans who emigrated to Germany without ever seeing Poland and who later claimed "expelee" status (in fact this can be included in the article). Same goes for German POWs. But this just means that the article content needs to be cleaned up and de-POVed. But the phenomenon was real and it was 'expulsion' (as in forced departure or departure under threat of force). Work with article content, not it's title.radek (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's your POV. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a conversation stopper. What is? That these were 'expulsions'? I think that's generally how it's viewed by historians. Again, this does not imply any kind of special 'victimhood' status for the expelees.radek (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

English language academic text about "deportation" of "Polish" Jews from Nazi Germany: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/germany/deportations/deport.002 Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USHMM text [6].Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the academic reference to the deportation of Polish Jews from Nazi Germany before World War 2 started? What does that have to do with background on the expulsions of the Germans following World War 2? If it is intended as another log on the fire to show that the Germans "deserved" what happened to them, it is going quite a distance to attempt to make a point. Claim POV if you will, but the needed perspective in all of this is that Stalin was the driver (especially when he got the Western Allies to sign off on the ethnic cleansing at Potsdam). Stalin didn't care who did what to whom (in the past) while he was engaged in his post-World War2 empire building. Stalin was limited only by what he couldn't connive out of the 3 Western Powers. In order to keep Europe destablized I'm sure that Stalin would have pushed for Poland boundary to be set at the Dutch Border if he could have gotten away with it (it's the old divide and conquer formula). . . maybe the Polish Army could have been used in northern Germany as an Occupation Army for 15 years or so (or until more European countries became Communist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Would you be so kind to sign your contributions? The best solution is to register yourself.
• It's not the problem of background but vocabulary. The same kind of forced migrations should be given the same name. If expulsion of Jews is called "deportation", the title of this article isn't obvious.Xx236 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a distinction: Let's say (a hypothetical) that the deportations were carried out in 1932: the Polish Jews in Germany were not German citizens - many had been there a long time. Every day the US deports people, some who have been in the US for a long time. Why people do not apply for citizenship over a long period of time is an individual decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"hypothetical" - lets return to facts.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the Germans from the Polish Administered eastern German provinces were approved by the Potsdam Agreement to be "Orderly and Humanely Transferred" to "Occupation" Germany, my candidate for replacing "Expulsion" in the above Wikipedia title is, "Unorderly and Inhumane Transfer of Germans from Polish and Soviet Administered Eastern German territories". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, does anyone remember the name of the Polish TV show (I watched it in late 70's/early 80's) about a Polish boy who was kidnapped and taken to Germany for "Aryanization", then after the war found himself back in Poland but was all Germanized (couldn't speak Polish, etc.) and had trouble finding himself in post war Poland? I think it ran on Teleranek or right after it. It's been bugging me for months.radek (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all Germans who organized expellee organizations in West Germany after the war were former Nazis . . . Some were simply expellees. (They didn't have to fall under the influence of "former Nazis" in order to organize expellee organizations.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But they did. They were indoctrinated by racist Nazi propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a collective assessment, namely that all German expellees were all adherents/converts to effective "racist Nazi propaganda". Human nature simply isn't that way -- even people who have been unfairly treated will sometimes turn the other cheek -- it's what the Christian message is all about. I don't accept that all the German expellees became born-again Nazi Aryans intent on exacting the ultimate revenge on the so-called sub-human Slavs. Some Germans and "Slavs" intermarried, so it is absurd to try to make some absolutist case for genetic-defect human behavior. Try researching what physical anthropology has come up with in comparing samples from both German & Polish populations (alleles, blood types, physical characteristics, etc.) -- both "Poles" & "Germans" are products of numerous tribal affinities from the distant past -- there was no "German" or "Polish" proto-tribe . . . there were many tribes involved in both situations. Example: typical "German" physical characteristics in Southern Bavaria are more like those in Austria & northern Italy than they are of a sampling of Germans intermixed with Danes in northern Germany.

• Please sign your contributions.
• All German expellees organisations were more or less German nationalistic. People with other views didn't join them or were hardly visible. Maybe Mr Hupka was different, but his case was quite complicated.
• Statistically people of 1945 were different than us. Germans were statistically Nazi racists, after 12 years of propaganda. Poles hated Germans, statistically. Some Germans loved Poles, some Poles loved Germans but weren't collabolators. Exceptions. I have read, that many German eyewitness accounts of rapa victims had to be censored when published, because of the racist language. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the German expellee organizations were "nationalistic" - millions of people were expelled off land that their ancestors had lived on for ca. 700 years. It's human nature to feel that such treatment was excessive. I think you expect average Germans to be "too Christian" inasmuch as they should have rationalized their plight by saying that they deserved it completely for supporting the Nazis. Not all Germans supported the Nazis, but it was a police state, so to stay out of trouble one kept their ideas to themselves. Surprisingly, there were Germans who accepted their fate, since it was wrapped up in losing the war, "Victor's justice", etc. . . . but it was still difficult when they have memories of young children dieing during the expulsions. Polish priests and bishops kicked German priests and bishops out of large Roman Catholic domains such as (I will use the 1945 word): Breslau. They were supposed to be all Catholics, but nationalism even got in the way for Catholics. (German Catholic priests died at Auschwitz, etc. during WW2) (There were even Roman Catholics in Hitler's Waffen SS; there were also Ukrainians in the Waffen SS and Muslims from Bosnia in the Waffen SS. There were also "draftees" in the Waffen SS, namely Germans who didn't volunteer, but were ordered to go in. In the US the US Marines pretend they were always all-volunteer - there were many draftees in WW2, Korean War & Vietnam War who were "put" in the Marines without any choice.) For many Germans Hitler and his racial theories were a joke (but again, most shared with only trusted friends) . . . the Germans knew there was no such thing as an Aryan "Proto-German Tribe" - that was Hitler & Himmler's Romantic notion harkening back to some Medieval Time i.e., it was their fantasy-world. None of the Nazi hierarchy fulfilled the Aryan ideal (although many Poles did i.e., tall, thin, blonde & blue-eyed) -- people made jokes about Aryans being tall like Goebbels, thin like Goering, & blonde like Hitler. Sure Nazi racist propaganda had its impact on people, but the main fault is that the German Catholic & Lutheran/Evangel. Churches did not more strongly stand up against racist notions, notions which were against the Christian message.ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Using racist wording was a problem for the expellees and such language has been censored by editors. "the Germans knew" is your generalisation, you hardly can know what people "knew" 65 years ago. I don't know how many Poles used to know that the Communist system was wrong. After the fail of the system the majority of activists claimed they were either social democrats or managers, they didn't accept the ideology (but 3 000 000 joined the party).

Let's not compare Korean War and the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Were you aware that the US Army did not treat involuntary members of the Waffen SS the same as voluntary members when giving post-war discharges? . . . Also, the Holocaust did not coincide with the 1 Sept 1939 beginning of World War 2.ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII in Poland wasn't a "war" but German/Soviet extermination and robbery.Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The concept of "War" covers such matters. "War" isn't fair, or just, or balanced, or logical . . . "War" simply "is".ANNRC~~

The concept of "War" covers rather war than extermination of children 1000 km from any front line. WWII was different in the West and in the East, connecting the two worlds with one word misinforms. SO I prefer numbers than fuzzy words.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC) In SU the state of war continued 1917-1991. The WWII gave many people some freedom, because functionality became sometimes more important than ideology or paranoya.Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My sources

• [7] Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• [8]Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• I haven't invented "Mythos Vertreibung", see [9].Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• [10]Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• [11]Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• [12]Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Federation of Expellees discusses Nazi background and recent past (2003) of many "Expellees". Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize the political background here. But the fact that many of the 'expellee organizations' are/were organized by former Nazis doesn't change the fact that it was a real phenomenon. Now this phenomenon is being used for political and ideological ends (might as well state here that I have very little sympathy for the expellees myself. Basically, once you go through all the victimized peoples of WWII, by the time you get to the German expellees there just isn't that much sympathy left to be had, never mind the enthusiastic support for the Nazis that typified the German inhabitants of those regions pre and during the war). But it's still a verifiable historical fact, and countering one set of lies with historical distortion just isn't encyclopedic.radek (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish expellees weren't allowed to organize till about 1989. German ones were financed by German state. What was a bottom-up a phenomenon and what was designed by politicians including former Nazis? A complicated question, not solved yet.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but that's info to be included in the article not a reason to change the article title.radek (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

12-16 million German expellees; 3 million Polish expellees, including a percentage of "Polish Ukrainians" "sent West" -- maybe you have better figures?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

never mind the enthusiastic support for the Nazis that typified the German inhabitants of those regions pre and during the war As opposed to those Germans in other regions? I beg your pardon. Anorak2 (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The, um, "former eastern provinces of Germany" and Prussia had the highest levels of support for the Nazis in 1933 [13].radek (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that line of argument is complete rubbish. First of all expulsion cannot be justified as "punishment" for voting results. Second, it's not even true, look at the map closely. Upper Silesia has lower NSDAP results than some regions in former West or East Germany. Third, not all Germans there were pro-NSDAP, but all of them were expelled regardless of their political beliefs. Even including Nazi victims. Anorak2 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the expulsion can be justified as punishment for this either. Still, that's how the voting patterns played out. And yes, you're right the region of Opole had "only" average support for NSDAP. And of course not all Germans there were pre-NSDAP. But lots were.radek (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: when referring to a region of pre-1945 Germany WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF pre-1945 Germany, why not slash the name due to its historical context? e.g., Opole/Oppeln, or Oppeln/Opole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page. I don't care if you want to use Oppeln on the talk page either.radek (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Our dear anon, forgot that Opole region was home to large number of Poles(around 400-500.000 IIRC)-obviously they wouldn't vote for Nazis like many Germanized Masurians who are a counterexample.--Molobo (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with radek. If there are reliable sources who argue that the Expulsions are a myth, then we should add that information to this article. We should not, however, give them undue weight. It may be difficult to determine how much weight to give them but that is the job of an encyclopedia editor. Let us start looking at Xx236's sources and try to determine how to incorporate them into this article. --Richard (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim that expulsion of millions and mass crimes were a myth, but rather that some German ideology was created during 1950-ties. The word "Verteibung" decribes many processes and German state isn't going to change its language to an academic one (sources has been quoted here [14]).Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Any migrations of Germans during and after WWII weren't "exclusive". It was a part of general totalitarian cooperation and war, the biggest parts of it were Soviet collectivisation, German Holocaust, Soviet "reconstruction" of the post-war Europe. Do really German contributors believe that mass crimes were something special after 25 years of Communism and 5 years of war and German occupation? The "Expulsion" wasn't the biggest comparing to Soviet "transfers". Nationalistic POV is POV, "class" motivated crimes were also crimes. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure where you are going with your paragraph. Soviet collectivisation was pre-World War 2. You seem to be saying that the SU had 25 years of Communism, followed by "5" years of war, which included German occupation, and therefore their "mass crimes" against the Germans are being over-reacted to by "German contributors". I think you need to realize that many folks you might perceive to be "German contributers" are not citizens of FRGermany - some come from Australia, Canada, the USA, etc. You do bring up an interesting point, namely how many millions did Stalin deport within the SU in the 1930s. However, to say that 12 to 16 million Germans, many of whom were in fact expelled, thus become relatively insignificant in comparison to Stalin's 1930's internal policies is asking quite a bit. There is (or was) a distinction between "crimes" committed in one's own country on the one hand, and International War Crimes: war crimes across international borders always become de facto international war crimes. The USA, Britain & France knew that the Communists were committing war crimes against German refugees in the Spring of 1945 - they were also aware that there were "bigger fish to fry", so much was done to "look the other way." Unfortunately for the Germans, they not only were the "bad guys" of just recently (& the American public continued for awhile to sustain that idea after the war), but also the American Press wasn't as "mature" as in later years -- in the present time such atrocities could no longer be hidden - that is due to worldwide internet/cell phone/photo features/fax - the main evidence of Soviet atrocities against the Germans in those days was in the deportation trains that showed up in Berlin train stations & the condition of their inhabitants. BTW: The American public started to overcome the revulsion against "the Germans" (at one time "German" and "Nazi" meant the same thing in the USA) as stories started coming back of unfair treatment of women & children i.e., starvation diets & where the US Army turned back food packages sent by German-Americans to relatives in Germany (the turn-back was courtesy of "the Morgenthau boys": Chair-borne chicken colonels in the US Army Financial Administration of the US Occupation Zone of Germany who did their best to starve German women & children & who all resigned once their support system was lost). "German" is the largest shared ethnicity in the USA, so at some point German-Americans were going to tire of automatic definition of "German" as being equivalent to Nazi. Then there's the fairy tale myth of "War Brides" -- it early on focused on English women who married American GIs during & after the War & then came to the USA. There is a much larger category that the US media for years and years pretended didn't exist: Post-war brides . . . and these were mostly German girls: thousands and thousands of them who married US GIs during the 45 year Cold War stationing of the US Army in West Germany. So, welcome to the real world: thousands of US kids have grandfathers who served in the German Wehrmacht. . . . It appears there are many individuals from Eastern Europe who can't quite get over the "Collective Guilt of the Germans" theme(it comes out in ever so subtle, and not so subtle asides at times) -- that narrow perspective simply doesn't wash anymore in most places. It was rejected by the proceedings of the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46 (American spelling: Nuremberg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that people with German roots from Norther America happen to misuse freedom of speech existing there - they don't care to learn, they aren't controlled by political corectness and law, they weren't taught at school even elementary history of Europe and their source is rather eyewitness account of a family member than academic History of Poland. Imagine a sweet German town. In 1945 wild Poles arrive, kill, rape and expell. Those bad Polacks! We did nothing, we were good Germans, we joined Hitlerjugend and NSDAP as anyone, we were drafted, we were suffering during the terrible war. Why the vengeance?

If you don't like the collective guilt of the Germans, why are "Caucasian" US citizens paralyzed by collective guilt of white people? Slavery ended 140 years ago, discrimination about 40 years ago. German occupation of Poland ended 90 years ago, Nazi crimes 60 years ago, comparable numbers. The majority of ancestors of the contemporary Whites fought against the South or came to the USA after 1865. The majority of ancestors of contemporary Germans participated in German crimes in Europe during WWII.

I personally don't belive in any genetical collective guilt. The same in genetical victimhood, declared by many Germans. So I don't see any reasons to organise a museum of expulsion of Germans in the former capital of the III Reich where people generally ignore German crimes toward non-Jewish Poles. If Germans want sympathy, they should learn their history to understand the others. Germans are proud to solve their historical problems with French vitims and collabolators. They need 10 times so much work to solve German problems with Polish victims.

I believe that this article should explain the historical context of 1945 situation, not any collective guilt. US soldiers allowed sometimes to kill KZ wardends without fair trial. Wasn't it better to expell Germans from Poland to prevent such vengeance? There was no law in post-war Poland. The old police was demoralized by Germans, the new police accepted criminals and uneducated people. The main "criminals" were Polish nationalists rather than Germans.Xx236 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My answer - YES, the deportation of 15 (?) million was a small problem comparing to the collectivisation and Great Hunger (millions of expelled , millions dead victims), the Holocaust or even German crimes toward non-Jewish Slavs. What is your problem with WWII? WWII in Western Europe was a nice time for non-Jews comparing to standard life in Soviet Union. Real crimes toward Germans should be investigated rather than gross accusation of alleged 2 millions of victims. The problem is that Germans seem to prefer their alleged two million rather than real crimes, committed mostly by the Soviets or deaths caused by themselves.Xx236 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Some trains arrived to Germany and were photographed, other trains arrived to Wrocław, Szczecin or some Siberian station and weren't photographed. It doesn't mean that the fate of Berlin newcomers was worse. People in Poland travelled frequently on the roofs of train cars and died in accidents, Germans travelled in cars. Xx236 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are so many misconceptions in this paragraph, I don't even know where to begin. Wake up, wikipedia articles aren't playgrounds for nationalists. Anorak2 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article, see above - it's a discussion about the article. Yes, you are right - wikipedia articles aren't playgrounds for nationalists, including the German ones and their supporters, quoting German nationalistic texts as the highest truth. BTW - this paragraph starts with a list of - mostly academic - sources, some of them not supporting my thesis. Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, you imply that "lots of Germans" did lots of bad stuff in Poland in 1939-45, and therefore are aware of such things from personal experience. Truth be known, Poland was a back-water area of the war, and the Germans assigned there were mostly members of Nazi organizations (SS, etc.) . . . there simply were not millions of Germans walking around taking satisfaction with the brutalizations of the Poles. There were semi-reluctant German "colonists" settled there, but their origins weren't Germany proper. (The 2 main "to-be-Germanized" areas of Poland expelled many Poles into the third area, the General-Gouvernement - again this was mostly carried out by Nazi and SS organizations, not hundreds of thousands of Wehrmacht Heer troops) The millions of Germans were, for the most part and over the longest period of time, fighting deep into the Soviet Union and in Western Europe/Italy; Poland was a transition point for the War on the Eastern Front until of course the German Army was pushed back through Poland at the end of the war. Following the conclusion of WW2 the Communist government of Poland was highly anti-German, with a mission of pointing out how many Nazis were hidden away in the West German bureaucracy (some of the stories were true, some were Communist propaganda). Relations were not always cordial between Communist Poland and even its Warsaw Pact brother, the DDR (and of course the whole world knows that the DDR was much more effective at "mind-cleaning" former Nazis than were the West Germans, so former Nazis in the DDR hierarchy were all loyal Party hacks.). The East Germans were so loyal to Mother Soviet Union I am surprised they didn't push to have the West Border of Poland extended into Berlin since the Slavs built a camp fire there on 21 March 901. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Any human being can verify his/her individual experiences using sources. We demand such activity from people who had bad experience with a Jew, we call them frequently anti-Semites. A person who was a child in 1945, like Erika Steinach or Peter Glotz, should be careful, when describing their "experiences". Editors of such texts can add historical notes, do they?. Western Germany invested big money in supporting the Union of Expelled, documenting crimes toward Germans. Germany did almost nothing to explain to Germans what Germans did in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, are you saying that there are no books in modern day Germany which detail the Nazi plans for West Preussen and the Wartheland i.e., the German genocide plans against the Poles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Xx236, are you saying that there are no books in modern day Germany which detail the Nazi plans for West Preussen and the Wartheland i.e., the German genocide plans against the Poles?"ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, this is Off-Topic, but why doesn't the Polish Government build a huge, detailed museum in Warsaw, detailing all the Nazi brutality in Poland in WW2? (e.g., the Nazi Plans for Poland, the deportations, etc.) Please spare me about how such a museum would just prompt neo-nazis to cause a fuss. The Poles lost 6 million civilians to the Germans in WW2, half of them Jewish; why don't they have a museum to "tell the world"?? There could be huge visual aids showing Nazi plans for "West Preussen" & "Wartheland"; the number of non-Jewish Poles expelled and killed from both places, etc. The General Gouvernement was used as a "Dumping Ground". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish politicians believed around 1990 that the WWII was finally over. It's why some of them, eg. Władysław Bartoszewski, still have problems with Erika Steinbach, who uses human rights language toward victims of Germans. Germany decided if Poland was allowed to join NATO and EU. Germany finances many Polish historians. Poles are tired of history.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Poles would contort their history because Germans are financing some of the research. I also reject what you are apparently trying to say, namely that because Germany sponsored Poland (to some extent) in gaining membership in the EU & in NATO, that somehow the Polish intelligensia have become "Politically Correct" in avoiding criticizing the Germans. That's a real stretch of credibility to make such an implied claim. BTW, the theory in free societies is that everyone can criticize whomever they see fit: so, Germans criticize Germans, Poles criticize Poles, Germans criticize Poles & Poles criticize Germans . . . all this can be done in a civilized manner, without having to refight World War 2, although some (others) simply don't understand that it can be that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know why some Polish historians write that Poland was independent after WWII. No rational person can believe something like this.
• People in free societies can tall anything, but there are academic ways to check their reliability. And the majority of German claims cannot be supported, eg. that Poles were more important as Soviets when designing and implementing the "expulsions".
• German ideology says the right to homeland is basic. Obviously the right to live is more elementary. The right to freedom was for many people more important than the right to homeland, because millions of Germans run away from their homelands to West Germany. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just "German ideology" which states that the right to a homeland is basic. The 1975 Helsinki Accords says that. In fact, the 1975 Helsinki Accords can be viewed as a retroactive judgement on the illegality of what the 4 "Allies" effected in their wartime agreements (& also the Post-European War Potsdam Agreement), namely the violation of established international borders (namely the 1937 borders) in both Germany and Poland.ANNRC~~

Oh really? What about "retroactive judgement" of the illegality of the enslaving Poland after the war?Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The repression of all of eastern Europe was enforced by the Soviet Army. Since the Brits were the Great Protectors (via Treaty) of the Poles in September 1939, ask them why they didn't uphold their commitment to the non-Communist Poles and invade Poland to defeat the Red Army (I'm thinking the Brits would have had some problems in their D-Day invasion of the North Polish Coast).ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would ask them, why they pretended that Katyn was a mistery for them years after the war.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Allies' Nuremburg Trials did not hold the German people collectively responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis

Maybe the vote was 3 to 1, with the Soviets in the minority. (It's too bad the Polish Communists didn't get to vote, then it would have been 3 to 2) . . . maybe there was even another group of Poles who might have wanted to vote~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the West the British were the least inclined toward acting out any "collective guilt" retribution. The US General Eisenhower got into some political analysis, and was of the opinion that the "Germans" "should suffer" for a bit, although he was hazy on a time frame, and probably thought the Soviets would be a good model for length & severity of punishment. Eisenhower took a long while to "wake up" to the Soviet level of intended retribution, which went way beyond what might be called "Western standards". Eisenhower then acted like the Soviets were a trusted friend at the golf club who was found out to have had a severe moral defect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See Nuremberg Trials#Origin --PBS (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If Germans weren't collectively guilty, the same Poles weren't collectively guilty of the crimes toward Germans. Germans frequently show a Polish mob without a word that the mob was "educated" under German rules 1939-1945, that the majority of death victims were result of German defence (Festung Breslau) and Soviet offensive supported by the Allies.Xx236 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If Germans weren't collectively guilty, the same Poles weren't collectively guilty of the crimes toward Germans. Exactly. And who makes such a claim? Just because you only think in tribal terms doesn't mean everyone else does.

Germans frequently show a Polish mob What the f*ck are you talking about? Anorak2 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read and return. Please don't use 4-letter words here. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Swinemünde bombing

54 years ago USAF bombed German expelled killing probabaly 23 000. Now the numbers are frequently assigned to "Poland".Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify: where does who assign the number to what figure? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify who doesn't. BdV does http://www.z-g-v.de Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Someone quotes the German propaganda in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe. I'll check who does the mole work.Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your link does not provide any answer, I just want to know what exactly you are talking about. I know Swinemünde was bombed, but what exactly do you mean by "the numbers are frequently assigned to "Poland"" ? To what "Poland"? By whom? Skäpperöd (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have only realized that such POV is reproduced here without serious critic. This isn't a cold-war German project. By you here, because you have edited the propaganda table. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What POV? What propaganda table? When did I edit such a table? Instead of clarifying anything, you just make it even more cryptic. I have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, neither what you mean by "Swinemünde numbers assigned to Poland" nor by "German cold war project" nor by "propaganda table". Would you please state what you actually want to discuss? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You have removed my POV template from the article about demography. If you don't know, why do you act?

The table there is a propaganda text published by the controversial Center against Expulsions. You seem to believe the propaganda. It's your problem.Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx, how is this relevant to THIS article? Does the article talk about the bombing and attribute it to Poland? The discussion has strayed way off topic numerous times now. It's important to keep in mind that these talk pages are here for discussing material that's relevant to the article in question.radek (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

it's revelant whose army and air force killed hundreds of thousands and whose mob killed thousands. Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FOR WHAT ITS WORTH (& continuing the Off-Topic vein): Xx236 apparently means that US bombs killed 23,000 German eastern refugees in the raid on Swinemünde in 1945, and somehow those perished Germans were added to the loss of life to German expellees caused by their expulsion by Polish authorities (which in 1945 defines as Polish Communist authorities). Since the argument could be made that those 23,000 victims had "run away" from eastern German territories before the end of the war there was no so-called "expulsion" involved, yet the numbers somehow found their way onto expellee casualty lists/numbers. My comment: picking out exceptions here & there does nothing to reduce the overall effect of what actually happened -- implying that numbers were deliberately "loaded" simply doesn't make the case against hundreds of thousands of deaths. The false argument is based upon an appeal due to exceptions, the implication being that with enough exceptions the whole problem goes away. That type of (false) argument simply won't wash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Exceptions"? The exceptions (Soviet and Western killings) are bigger than the alleged main subject - Polish made killings.
• Would you please register and contribute?
• Please sign using fout "~".Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, I don't see anywhere that the point of contention is who killed how many German civilians. There are enough subject groups to give every body the credit they deserve: Soviet Communists, Polish Communists, Revengeful Jews, Revengeful Polish non-Communists . . . the bottom line is that the Soviet Communists controlled everything that happened to the German civilians in Eastern Europe (in many cases they controlled simply by "letting it happen", because everyone knows that the Soviets could have stopped any action at any time going on, for example, East of the Oder-Neisse Line). The Soviets got a blank check from the Potsdam Agreement, namely they could expell 100% of whomever "they" decided were "ethnic Germans" between the Oder-Neisse Line and the City Limits of Moscow. The Polish Communists were simply orderlies of the Soviet Communists. It was meaningless to claim that "expell" didn't mean "kill" - Which German civilians were killed & which weren't was simply up to the whim of the local Soviet Kommisar, who had abslute authority, including absolute authority over Polish Communists, regardless of window dressing pretending that Polish Communists had independence of action.ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

USAAF killed more "expellees" than the "Revengeful Polish non-Communists".Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there Academic sources for such a claim? (Also, I thought the refugee population in Swinemünde was called the "run away" German population from "East of the Oder-Neisse" due to the oncoming Soviet Army)ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish (formerly working in Germany) historian estimates the number of Germans killed by Poles to be below 20 000 [15]. Swinemünde was one of several bombings of the "expellees", see also Dresden.Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You suggesting that Germans were expelled by people behind the Soviet frontlines, and allowed to pass through the Soviet and German frontlines during the very heavy fighting that took place in 1945. Is there any evidence that any sizable percentage of the refugees in either Swinemunde or Dresden had arrived in those cities from behind Soviet frontlines? The question of how many refugees were killed in Dresden has been a source of contention for many years, and in the 21st century it is now agreed by most historians that the numbers killed was far smaller than was originally thought. What is the source for 20,000 killed in Swinemünde (because the USAAF were not very good at area bombardment -- that was the RAF's speciality)? --PBS (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Eg Werner Buchholz, Pommern, but I am sure there are lots of other sources. Swinemünde is not that large an area to bomb, way too many refugees crowded that much too small town in the chaos of the last war days, awaiting evacuation by sea from one of Pomerania's last functional ports, that's how the high death toll came about. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of this thread leads to Świnoujście, where the number of victims is discussed. If you have serious sources, edit Świnoujście or Bombing of Dresden in World War II.

German statistics of "expellees" include all refugees, not only the people literally expelled. I have given examples of several big groups which never met any Pole or Czech but are called "expelleees", eg. people evacuated, many German POWs.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As we are talking about Expulsion of Germans after World War II the statistics of all those who migrated to the West are not relevant (expelled is not the same as fled). Also as far as I know the USAAF did not bomb a German town after May 8 1945, so given the context of this article I don't see the comment "USAAF killed more "expellees" than the "Revengeful Polish non-Communists"." as true. --PBS (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no statististics of "after the war" victims. German state uses the name "Vertreibung" to describe all migrations and all victims "in the East". The subject has been discussed here and there at least ten times. Now you come and you claim that the subject is "after the war" expulsions. What are your sources then? Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How many colonists in the numbers

How many colonists are in the number of expelled ? The number includes children born due to occupation(Steinbach)-how many of them too ? Question is-are those numbers researched, is there study on how many colonists and non-colonists in the number. --Gwinndeith (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) The number of colonists is around 2 milion. Looking at Germa law it is a sure bet they are included as "expelled". --Molobo (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Germans rejecting expellee status

Horst Köhler turned down the status of expellee status because he was born as child of German colonists. How many Germans like him are there ? Are they still counted in the number of expelled or not ?--Gwinndeith (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fritz Ries

Since previously no answer was given and anons diverted the section in other direction, would people kindly stop personal debates and focusing on the subject gave me a insight on the following subject ?:

From German wiki [16] Fritz Ries-a German industrialists, born in Saarbrücken; lived n Germany till 1939. Sent to Poland to oversee slave labour and production. Has expellee status. So was he driven from his country or the place he lived for centuries ? Why does Germany have law that allows people like him to gain expellee status(it comes with many benefits from the state btw) and why don't they change it ? How many people like Fritz do exist beside him with the status of expellee.

--Molobo (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I am sure you are a righteous researcher in matters of 1945 Central and Eastern Europe. Your research may ultimately reveal that 2 million of the 12 to 16 million Germans expelled were in fact "colonists". However, not all ethnic German colonists in West Preussen and the Wartheland were from the 1937 Borders of Nazi Germany. The Academic rigor with which you approach topics will likely lead to your determination of other, non-related facts and figures. For example, ca. 3 million ethnic Poles were "expelled" (polite fiction would use the word "transferred") from the eastern part of 1937 boundary area of Poland, which the Soviet Union "reacquired" in September 1939, and decided to retain following the end of WW2. Those 3 million Poles were intended to "replace" the 6 or 7 million Germans expelled from all former German areas (i.e., within 1937 boundary area of Germany) EAST of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the exception of Northern East Prussia, which was to be repopulated with Soviet citizens as all the Germans were expelled from there. Maybe you will learn of the number of Ukrainians who were included in the figure of 3 million Poles expelled to the "Western Territories"/"Recovered Territories".ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it seems that consensus is possible. I agree that Poles were transfered not expelled by Soviet government-as it was done with agreement by internationally reckognised authorities within Poland. Similarily Germans were not expelled but also subject to population transfer as Germany gave its sovereignty to Allies. This is not similiar to 1939-1945 expulsions done upon population of countries who did not surrender to Germany(of course the fact that Soviets didn't see Poles or Germans as untermenschent to be exterminated as German state did is also a important different we need to remember). I see that you agree that milions of transfered Germans were colonists(why "colonists" and not colonists ?), I must say that also there were about 400.000 administration personel removed that was sent post-1939. As to Ukrainians my sources say the number is 140.000 --Molobo (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No particular significance in my putting "colonists" in quote marks -- it was just a way of highlighting the subject matter. ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 07:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Revenge

"The policy was part of the geopolitical and ethnical reconfiguration of postwar Europe and revenge for the Nazi initiation of the war and subsequent brutal occupations and attrocities." (my highlighting)

The motive for "geopolitical and ethnical reconfiguration" is clearly stated by Churchill. Who stated it was also for revenge? It should state in the text who was in favor of the expulsions for ethnical reconfiguration and who was in favour of revenge. For example is there any statement by any Western Allied leader that they were motivated to accept Germans from the east out of revenge?--PBS (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My fault. "Geopolitical and ethnical reconfiguration" were the aims of Churchhill and Stalin, while "ethnical reconfiguration" and "revenge" were the motives of the expelling local authorities, and "revenge" was the motive of Soviet and local military and expelling other locals. This should be clear from the respective section, the aim of the sentence you cite was to summarize the respective section for the lead. How about striking out "policy", a remains from an earlier version of the sentence, and have the attribution in the "Reasons..." section to not make the lead (1) messy and (2) vulnerable to ninjas? I'm afraid proper attribution in the lead takes more than a few words, improper attribution is bad, and there is a need to have the motives outlined in the lead. So I went for "no attribution" (...only in the lead, in the resp section it is of course attributed). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Second look: In the resp sections it is attributed to sources by citenotes, but it is not that clearly attributed to persons etc as I thought. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is your source regarding the motivation of "local authorities"? In several countries, some of them independent (Czechoslovakia), other controlled by Soviets both anti-German (Poland) and former German allies (Hungary), finally Soviet Union, situation was different. Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I kept it vague. One source you find in the former RfC section above (btw, who restored the RfC-template?) Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The revenge motivation would seem to me to be subservient to the "geopolitical and ethnical reconfiguration", by that I mean there would have been few or no expulsions if there had not been a geopolitical policy to carry them out and to mix the two in the same sentence gives the latter too much weight. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet "Policies"

Regardless of potential charges of "speculation", most reasonable people would agree that the Soviet Union was going to keep the 1939 acquired Eastern Poland after the end of WW2. They were also going to push the Poles to the West, even if there had been no agreement for such an action. They were going to push the German civilians out of as much of the Eastern part of 1937 boundary Germany as they could get away with, even if there had been no agreements to use as a shield. There was no leverage that the Western Allies could use against the Soviet Union to temper any of those actions (The Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany was already set as far as its Western Boundaries were concerned -- the only "negotiation" concerned its Eastern Boundaries). The US, Britain & France dramatically reduced their occupation armies in Germany; the Soviets maintained their army in Germany (to include former 1937 areas of Eastern parts of Germany) at a high level.

There was no German Red Cross to document the plight of the German civilians anywhere in Germany: the 4 victorious Powers agreed to disband the German Red Cross as essentially a Nazi Organization . . . it would be years before a German sponsored Red Cross would exist in any part of Germany. ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 11:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Big documentation was published 1954-1961, read German opinion about the authors and the books http://www.freitag.de/2005/18/05180601.php . To compare - first books about Katyń crime were published in Poland after 1989. Many documents of the crime are still kept secret in Russia. Xx236 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC) most reasonable people would agree that the Soviet Union was going to keep the 1939 acquired Eastern Poland after the end of WW2. Please read on history before discussing such subjects. A large part of Second Polish Republic occupied in 1939 by Soviet Union was restored to Poland after 1945.--Molobo (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The following is from Wikipedia, "Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union"; sub-title: "Soviet Annexation 1945":

"At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union kept most of the territories it had annexed in 1939, although territories with an area of 21,275 square kilometers with 1.5 million inhabitants were returned to Poland, notably the areas near Białystok and Przemyśl.[10] "On August 16, 1945 the communist dominated Polish government signed a treaty with the USSR to formally cede these territories. The total population of the territories annexed by the USSR, not including the portion returned to Poland in 1945, had a population of 10,653,000 according to the 1931 Polish census. In 1939 this had increased to about 11.6 million. The composition by language group was Ukrainian 37.1%, Belarusian 15.1%, Polish 36.5%, Yiddish 8.3%, Other 3%. Religious affiliation: Russian Orthodox 31.6%,Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 26.7% Roman Catholic 30.1%, Jewish 9.9%, Other 1.7%.[11]"ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Start of evacuation

Black Sea Germans were evacuated in 1943, so 1944 is doubtful as the start.Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More recent estimates and npov wording

I added more NPOV wording in the lead, besides Axis camp nobody would consider Poznań for example to be part of Germany, also the recent death estimates are around 473,000. I couldn't find estimates on breakdown among them in regards to percentage of normal civilians, Nazis, former Selbstschutz, colonists within that number and so on and if they are I would be greatefull for the information.--Molobo (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid your changes. You replaced

"German nationals from the former eastern territories of Germany and ethnic Germans from areas across Europe"

with

"German nationals from the eastern territories of Nazi Reich, former Nazi occupied Poland and ethnic Germans from areas across Europe"

"Eastern territories of the Nazi Reich" includes the annexed territories, former eastern territories of Germany refers to the 1937 boundaries. Ethnic Germans from areas across Europe then includes the territories annexed after 1937, including the Polish and Sudeten areas. So the addition is redundant and of undue weight. Second, if you add new numbers, don't delete the ones already there. The Ingo Haar estimates are not "new", and the source abbreviated germangov, stating the current stance of the German government, states how the Haar figure are not contradicting the two million figure. They are a part of it, and it is already mentioned which part of the overall figure these numbers constitute. You can add your sources as additional refs to the Haar figure if you want, but do not delete the other figures. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected source

Currently the sources were misquoted. They spoke of actions by German minority and its organisation not Nazi formations or state. I corrected this --Molobo (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence read

"...was an expressed fear of disloyalty of Germans in Eastern Upper Silesia and Pomerelia, based on the wartime Nazi activities."

which you changed to

"...was an expressed fear of disloyalty of Germans who kept fighting Poles."

So you (a) removed the regions the sentence is about and (b) attributed Nazi Selbstschutz actions to all Germans, which of course is not true. I reinstated the first version and took the quote out of the footnote, so there now is an additional sentence resembling the quote from the source: "Created on order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, the organization called Selbstschutz carried out executions during "Intelligenzaktion" alongside operational groups of German military and police, in addition to such activities as identifying Poles for execution and illegally detaining them the Poles.". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbers, numbers and more numbers

So it seems that the term expelled is an umbrella description that covers also people fleeing, administration officials and colonists. Here is what I gathered.

• Around 2 million of 'expelled' are colonists from Poland alone sent by Germany after 1939.
• Circa 400.000 'expelled' are members of administration sent to oversee occupation of Poland after 1939.

This is in regards to Poland alone, there were also other administrative areas of course.

Also the number of Czechoslovakian German anti-Nazis would be welcomed. IIRC it was around 6,000 but I will need to look for the source in this case.--Molobo (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "Poland alone", which of course means (1) West Preussen and (2) the Wartheland and (3) all the former German 1937 territory east of the Oder-Neisse line, with the exception of the northern part of East Prussia: What are your numbers of the total Germans (A) subject to the Unorderly and Inhumane Population Transfers PLUS (REPEAT: PLUS) (B) all the Germans from the above 3 identified areas who "ran away" before the Red Army arrived?ANNRC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Has the move been discussed?

Is it allowed to move an article without a former discussion?Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking just that. I am not sure that the move is the right one (although perhaps I could be convinced). Given the contentious nature of this article, I don't think being WP:BOLD was necessarily the right approach in moving the article without discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the moves, and I will ask the editor who moved the article to set out his justification for the move here on the talk page. His edit summary did briefly explain: "Article also covers flight. "WWII" qualification not needed as this was the only major flight and expulsion of Germans.)" The first part may make some sense, but it strikes me that the reference to WWII in the title is helpful despite the second part. The editor who moved the article may be able to convince us otherwise. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The mover accused me that I broke the rules. Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

??? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For moving the article? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Has the renaming discussion over at WT:WPPL (noted above) wound up? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII is useful. Otherwise we could be talking about the Expulsion of Germans from France, March 15, 1871, during the Paris Commune or the expulsion of Germans from East Africa during WWI, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not expected a controversity, I merely wanted to bring the title in line with the context. See RM section below. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

das Organ der polnischen Geheimarmee

I'm asking for the second time - what is the mysterious "das Organ" of the mysterious "der polnischen Geheimarmee"? If you don't know, I demand the removal of it.Xx236 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that using words like "demand" is the correct way to approach this.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed the text myself, to be cooperative. How can I express my deep believe that this phrase should be removed, because it is imprecise and ununderstandable?Xx236 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a prank. The translation of 'das Organ der polnischen Geheimarmee' is 'The Organ of the Polish Secret Army'. Probably what the author thinks of this entire page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.5.130 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)