Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

OR tag

I removed the tag. I already provided you with the name of a book Der 'Volksdeutsche Selbstschutz' in Polen 1939/40 von Christian Jansen, Arno Weckbecker.. As both are German authors and university teachers, I would hesitate to claim that Molobo is doing some original research about Selbstschutz here. Your main objection (Sciurinae) was that no internet sources mentions Selbstschutz as important to the prewar nationality struggle background. I would say, that if there are historians who write books of this topic, we shouldn't consider it irrelevant. ackoz 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The book has been reviewed http://www.ikgn.de/zeitschrift_nordost-archiv.ausgabe.1997.02.htm#rezensionen

Xx236 08:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Expelled by

"Expelled by" column ignores that:

• many Germans were evacuated by German authorities (East Prussia, Silesia, Poland) and died during that evacuation,
• the basis of the expulsion was Potsdam treaty signed by the USA, UK and SU, not by Poland or Romania.
• The Soviets expelled, deported to the SU or killed many Germans in any "liberated" by them area. In your table German POWs from e.g. Silesia were allegedly expelled by "Poland". They were transported to Siberia, many died there, later the survivors were tranferred to Western Germany. The only Poles they met were eventually Polish prisoners in Siberia.
• Poland was directly controlled by Soviet authorities in 1945 (till at least 1947) - Red Army, NKVD, Soviet Embassy. The same for former Nazi allies - Hungary, Romania. I don't know if and how much Czechoslovakia was independend 1945-1948.

Xx236 10:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)]

OK, I put most of the above text into the article below the z-g-d table. However, it occurs to me that another approach is to simply delete the column altogether. I'd like to hear what other people think about this issue.

--Richard 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Table in "Summary of German Expellees"

I finally focused on what this table is and how it was constructed.

I now believe this table is based on unacceptable original research. Here's my argument:

Immediately above the table, the text says

According to Federal Statistics Bureau of Germany in 1958 more than 2.1 million had lost their lives during this process. The monumental statistical work of the Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, Bd. 1-3, München 1965, confirms this figure. The standard study by Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation to slave labour in the Soviet Union. The Centre against Expulsions estimates that just under 2 million German civilians died.

One German researcher, Rüdiger Overmans, has claimed that only 1,100,000 people lost their lives. These lower figures and the methodology for obtaining them are disputed by some scholars including Dr. Fritz Peter Habel and Alfred de Zayas, who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was well over two million.

Four of the above sources are mentioned as sources for the table (Reichling, Overmans, Habel and de Zayas). However, these sources differ in their estimates of lives lost. Specifically, Overmans believes it was 1,100,000 whereas the others believe it was over 2 million.

The notes for the table indicate that Overmans estimate was used to adjust the numbers in the table downward. As a result, you have a set of numbers that none of the sources would agree to. This is most easily understood by looking at the "Civilian losses" row. The total is 1.3 million which is not a number that any of the four sources would agree to.

I believe this is a good example of how easy it is to slip into original research. One or more of the Wikipedia editors built this table as a composite of the research done by the four sources. This would have been marginally OR if every number in the table could be sourced to a specific source. (An example would be numbers for Poland from one source, numbers for Czechoslovakia from another source.)

However, when you start modifying numbers by using one source to revise the numbers of another source, you are definitely in the realm of OR.

The problem is that you have no guarantee that any source would agree that the methodology used to apply Overmans estimate to come up with 1.3 million would be accepted by any reliable source. Three of the sources would say "Nein. 2 million +". Overmans would say "Nein. 1.1 million". So, who can you cite that would support "1.3 million"? Nobody. That makes it OR.

A better way to present this information is to find a set of numbers that one source (Reichling, Habel or de Zayas) presents and then present Overmans adjustments as a separate idea in a follow-on paragraph. It may be reasonable to blend Reichling, Habel and de Zayas in one table IF the numbers are close. The text of the article say the Habel and de Zayas estimate "well over 2 million". I don't know what "well over" means. Are we saying 2.1 million or 2.3 million? If it's 2.1 million, their numbers could be blended with Reichling's numbers. If it's 2.3 million, then it's debatable whether their numbers are effectively the same as Reichling's or are substantially different.

However, it's not obvious why we would need to blend the three sources. If they are in substantial agreement, it should be sufficient to pick one and say that the other two are in substantial agreement.

If there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that my analysis above is correct, then we will need someone to fix the table according to the points made above.

--Richard 12:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more data about numbers expelled and number of deaths

This is from the Axis History Forum. Thanks to User:Szopen for providing the link to the forum. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1698&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The Statistisches Bundesamt of West Germany prepared a detailed account of these horrors in 1958, the key data of which can be found in Gunnar Heinsohn's Lexikon der Völkermorde, published in 1998 by the Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag in Reinbek by Hamburg. They are reproduced hereafter:

Baltic Countries and Memel Territory
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 256,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 256,000
Thereof killed during flight
or expulsion: 66,000

Yugoslavia
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 550,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 523,000
Thereof killed during flight
or expulsion: 135,000

German Eastern territories (East Prussia, East Pomerania, East Brandenburg, Silesia, Danzig)
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 10,000,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 7,400,000
Thereof killed during flight or expulsion: 1,225,000

Poland
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 1,400,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 675,000
Thereof killed during flight or expulsion: 263,000

Romania
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 785,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 347,000
Thereof killed during flight or expulsion: 101,000

Checoslovaquia
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 3,274,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 2,921,000
Thereof killed during flight or expulsion: 238,000

Hungary
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 597,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 259,000
Thereof killed during flight or expulsion: 53,000

Total German Eastern territories and Eastern Europe
Ethnic German population 1944/45: 16,862,000
Thereof fled or expelled: 12,381,000
Thereof killed during flight or expulsion: 2,081,000

These figures refer to the postwar period 1945-1950. During the war itself, according to Heinsohn's "Lexikon", ca. 1.1 million ethnic Germans from the above mentioned territories lost their lives, as members of the German armed forces, through the outrages of and on the flight from the conquering Red Army or through allied bombing. According a statement by the Bundesminister für Vertriebene in 1962, quoted by Heinsohn, there were 128,000 refugees from the Eastern territories among those killed by allied bombing in Germany.

--Richard 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Question to Molobo. You claimed that the numbers from the Centre Against Expulsions were unacceptable because the Centre was founded by a Nazi. Do you also dispute the Statistisches Bundesamt of West Germany as an acceptable source? Not the truth of the numbers but the acceptability of the source. We have Ruediger Overmans as a source for a much lower number and we are working on text that argues that the 2 million number is considered too high by some historians. So I'm not asking you to accept 2 million deaths. I am asking you to accept that there are reliable sources that put the number at 2 million.

For example, I think we could re-construct the Center's table with the numbers from the Statistisches Bundesamt and get the same numbers. If we sourced the new table to the Statistisches Bundesamt, would this be acceptable to you?

P.S. I still believe in principle that the Center is a reliable source and that the claim that was founded by a Nazi doesn't affect this. However, since it seems evident that the Center is a secondary source and we now have a primary source available, it seems that the we should use the primary source instead.

--Richard 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Question to Molobo. You claimed that the numbers from the Centre Against Expulsions were unacceptable because the Centre was founded by a Nazi. No, BdV which created the center was led by Nazi as its first president. Do you also dispute the Statistisches Bundesamt of West Germany as an acceptable source? It is an acceptable source if one does mention that the numbers are of those Germans that were unnacounted for, and automatically were registered as "dead". --Molobo 12:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is also from the Axis History Forum.

Numbers quoted from Richard Overy "Historical Atlas of the Third Reich"

a-Pre-war population b-German war losses (includes losses during expulsion) c-german population by 1950 still in the territory d-Settled in FRG e-Settled in GDR f-Settled in Austria

Baltic States: a-249500 b-65600 c-15000 d-109900 e-56900

Dantzig: a-380000 b-111900 c-4000 d-230200 e-60600

Poland(pre-1939 frontiers): a-1371000 b-293000 c-431000 d-419600 e-268400

Czechoslovakia: a-3477000 b-446600 c-250000 d-1917800 e-1082000

Hungary: a-623000 b-89000 c-270000 d-149500 f-103500

Romania: a-786000 b-136000 c-400000 d-178200 f-34800

Yugoslavia: a-536800 b-175800 c-82000 d-148000 f-149500

Eastern Germany:

Silesia: a-4576500 b-727100 c-870000 d-2090000 e-1138600

East Brandenburg: a-642000 b-214000 c-16000 d-152900 e-277100

East Pomerania: a-1883700 b-461900 c-55000 d-922800 e-541800

East Prussia: a-2473000 b-489400 c-160000 d-1375500 e-608900

As it can be seen these numbers are still incomplete. For instance it is well known that some people from Czechoslovakia took refuge in Austria. How many?

Some others (from all the territories) were settled in the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia,.... Again Mr Overy doesn't tell us.

It is difficult to understand from Mr. Overy if Memel is included in East Prussia or in the Baltic States.

Some germans from the western territories of the USSR might have avoided the transfer to Siberia and Central Asia in 1941. How many of them took refuge in post-war Germany, Austria or the Americas? ( There were for instance 400000 germans in the Ukraine SSR prior to 1939)

A lot of POW settled in the countries where they had been retained. How many and in which countries he doesn't tell us.

Finally some germans civilians from Romania, Hungary and other territories were taken by the soviets during the period 1944/1950 to the USSR. It seems that Mr. Overy didn't took notice of this either.

--Richard 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK .. Richard ..plus the numbers don't reflect the fact that some ethnic Germans were allowed to stay in 1945 (around 200 000), but chose to leave later (typically after 1948). That simple math 3200 000 - 2000000 = 200 000 deaths doesn't work here. ackoz

Restored "Deaths" column to the Center Against Expulsions table

It seems their numbers are not more biased than the general bias of German numbers for most of the postwar period. I think it is adequate to call all the numbers into question by saying that some German historians (along with the Poles and the Czechs) believe the numbers are much lower.

We are now faced with the fact that these tables are huge and take up way too much space in the article.

I'm wondering if this level of detail is useful in the article. Somebody (I think it was Wikimol it was Szopen) suggested moving the debate over the numbers to an article about the historiography of the expulsions.

I didn't like the idea at the time but we may have to do something in order to manage the surfeit of numbers. At this point, having all these tables of numbers will more likely serve to confuse than to enlighten the reader.

It seems that, at the very least, we should choose between the Statistisches Bundesamt table and the Center Against Expulsions table. In truth, I like the Center Against Expulsions table better because it's more informative (modulo the issues about things like who was actually responsible for the expulsions which are noted below the table). On the other hand, there are people who would make charges of bias against the Center Against Expulsions. Similar charges can be made against the Statistisches Bundesamt but at least the underlying bias of their numbers is less politically suspect.

Where I want to go with this is to say that the preponderance of German historians believed the 2 million number for decades but recently there has been evidence from German, Polish and Czech historians suggesting the real number might be much lower. At this time, there is no clear consensus whether the real number is closer to 1.3 million or closer to 2 million.

Comments?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

I must say two things . 1. German historiens tend to to just the opposit of what you expect under permanent pressure of the past they actualy calculate the numbers down. A good example is the number of death true the bombraids on Dresden witch by prowestern politicians are calculates down to 25.000 while 90.000 ist surly the lowest figure.

simulare with the death Chechoslovakia calculated down to 25.000 while 10 times more is sure the lowest figure.

I myselve know a lot of the survivers of the German minority in Jugoslavia they published books name by name by village the only such existing calculation by a german minority and came to 180.000. You have here 135.000 casulties so you see the numbers can be higher too. Johann

The table is OK. The over-inflated explanatory text is not. German and Czech (or German and joint German-Czech) results are different because the "German" numbers also include people killed fleeing from areas that were coming under the control of the Red Army. We should try to find sources for this (differences between what is seen under "Expulsion") and put this into the article, not discuss if Poland or Hungary were under Soviet control, therefore excusing the actual perpetrators of the crimes. ackoz 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object against statement "expelled by Poland".

• The decision was made in Yalta and Potsdam, eventually in Moscow. The Polish nation didn't decide about its fate, borders, economical and political system. Eventually - expelled by the USA, UK, SU and Poland.
• The Red Army committed many crimes against the Germans in Poland both before any Polish administration was organized or later.
• Poland was under Soviet occupation in 1945, when the worst crimes were committed. The Polish administration (of the London government) was destroyed, frequently imprisoned, and replaced by the Communist one, organized by Soviet citizens or Polish (?) Communists educated by the NKVD. The administration was frequently based on criminals. The pre-war Polish police was totally destroyed during the war, physically by the Soviets Katyń, morally and politically by the Germans and Soviets. The pro-Soviet government called the state "People's Poland", not Poland. "Poland" meant the London government, its symphatyzers in the country and hundreds of thousands of emigrants.

I don't think that the basic facts, ignored by the majority of the readers, are excusing anyone. The responsible should be named literally rather than German steretypes about the expulsions reprinted. The Center agaisnt expulsions isn't an academic institution. Why do you copy false data? Because it's simple?Xx236 14:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent, because it's easy. I got the z-g-v tgable from their website. Wikimol pointed me to the Statistiches Bundesamt info on the Axis History Forum. Putting these numbers into Wiki format is time-consuming but I did it.

You got better data? Cough it up.

You don't like the data presented? Explain why.

I don't think we should change the headings of the table because then you confuse the reader into believing that the z-g-v's table represents your POV. It doesn't and you wouldn't want the reader to think it does. SO, it's better to let the z-g-v table stand as it is and then criticize it separately.

--Richard 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Xx236, the table of z-g-v is the best thing we have now. There will always be differences in numbers, but this article is not a place to find the real truth. I you can find some lower estimates, with reliable sources, add them to the article as a range, (ie number 1 - number 2) and provide the sources.

ackoz 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't me.. --Wikimol 12:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it was Szopen that pointed me at the Statistisches Bundesamt figures in AxisHistory Forum.

--Richard 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"It is argued by some"

It is argued by some that the "Expelled By" column in the above table does not take into account the following facts:

Who has argued this? Someone on Wikipedia? In that case, this is original research, is it not? I mean, really, does this mean I can wander over to this article, decide that 7,200,000 German-Albanians were expelled from Belgium by Fidel Castro in 1944 and insert a chunk of text beginning with "It is argued by some..."? Colonel Mustard 10:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right :-) Its funny. ackoz 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see how it is wrong, but also ackoz's edit is also contentious, as it says expelled from while at the time the borders were under dispute and reorganization, so e.g. expelled from Poland could mean Silesia or like areas which were in fact German, but became Polish once the German majority had been expelled at the end of WWII. your edit also does not make sense as the next column says Expelled, Deported, Fled from which would cover whatever you had just put in the previous column, yet it was different.

perhaps what could be stated is something like "government/authority responsible for expellation"

Also, using the Treaty of Potsdam or the Yalta conference as an excuse or reasoning is nonsense, the ideas for the expellation had to come from somewhere, it did not magically appear on a piece of paper and the conquering powers all obeyed. Its basis did not come from some paper, it came from political ideas such as those of Hitler's Lebensraum, only in reverse.

--Jadger 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment #1 - Jadger's last point is worth expanding on. Are there any sources that explain the reasoning behind the re-organization of national boundaries in Eastern Europe? A full treatment is outside the scope of this article but it would be worth summarizing that in a paragraph before the discussion of Yalta and Potsdam.

Comment #2 - Aside from ackoz's edit being contentious, I object to it on two technical grounds.

1) It is my intent that the table stand exactly as it is provided on the z-g-v's website. To change it is to indulge in OR.

2) The specific change that ackoz made to the column heading makes a mess of the table. What is the difference now between that column and the one immediately to the right of it? Both seem to say "Expelled from" and thus the reader would be justified in saying, "Huh? What's the difference between these two columns."

A better solution would be to remove the "Expelled by" column altogether. That is still bordering on OR but it could be explained in a note that says "The table on the z-g-v's website provides a column that indicates which government authorized the expulsion. However, because there are debates about where the true responsibility lies, this column has been omitted from this article."

I don't like this solution. My preference would be to keep the "Expelled by" column with the "Expelled by" column heading and then provide a note explaining the controversy.

Comments?

--Richard 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't possess any language complex enough to describe the nationalist conflict you are bringing here. You say "were in fact German, but became Polish once the German majority had been expelled". Shitty argument Jadger, again, how do you decide what was German and what Polish? Is the nationality of inhabitants the key fact? Are large areas in Britain, Netherlands or Canada Indian, Paki or Turkish because they form a majority there? ackoz 08:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, I think you missed Jadger's point. He's saying that Germans were expelled from territories that were still legally part of Germany at the time of the expulsions. These territories had not yet legally become Polish territory. These territories did not become legally Polish until after the Germans had been expelled. Note: It is possible to read a causality into the previous sentence but I don't think Jadger meant there to be a causality. The territories did not become Polish BECAUSE Germans had been expelled. In fact, if anything, Germans were expelled BECAUSE the territory was about to be made Polish. That decision didn't have anything to do with whether the territory was majority German or majority Polish. The decision was based on geopolitics and the decision to move the Germans out was just part of the implementation of the higher-level decision to make the territory part of Poland.

All Jadger is saying is that, technically, those Germans were not expelled from Poland because the territory wasn't technically Polish yet.

P.S. I hope that I have interpreted Jadger's comments correctly. I don't know anything about this and, even if I have interpreted Jadger's comments correctly, I am not saying he is correct. I just think that Ackoz has misunderstood Jadger's argument.

--Richard 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You have indeed interpreted it correctly Richard, sorry I forgot all about this discussion and just noticed it again. I think this discussion kind of got tangled up in my wording, and I am sorry for that.

as I said above: Also, using the Treaty of Potsdam or the Yalta conference as an excuse or reasoning is nonsense, the ideas for the expellation had to come from somewhere, it did not magically appear on a piece of paper and the conquering powers all obeyed. Its basis did not come from some paper, it came from political ideas such as those of Hitler's Lebensraum, only in reverse.

perhaps we could focus on that idea now, where did the excuse for expelling these Germans come from, someone at the Yalta conference did not just all of a sudden go "hey, I got a crazy idea guys, lets kick Germans off their land and give it to others"

--Jadger 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Molobo's recent "correction of an inaccuracy", marked as "minor"

Molobo recently made the following change...

Replaced

Likewise in the Opole/Oppeln region in Upper Silesia, natives which were considered "autochtones" (members of Polish minority in Germany) were allowed to stay, though the German language remained forbidden for the next forty years. Secretly German traditions and dialect survived however, to be slowly recognized since the late 1990s.

with

Likewise in the Opole/Oppeln region in Upper Silesia, natives which were considered "autochtones" (members of Polish minority in Germany) were allowed to stay, and their status as national minority was accepted in 1955, alongside with state's help in regards to economical assistance, and education .

While I'm concerned about the obvious POV switch here, I do not have the time this morning to try and find the NPOV position between these two POV stances.

However, what I do want to draw immediate attention to is the fact that Molobo marked this as a "minor" edit. "Minor edits" are intended to indicate corrections of a typographical nature such as spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Grammatical corrections are also considered minor.

Changes in diction (i.e. improving the way something is said without changing the meaning) are arguably not "minor". I probably violate this last rule from time to time.

Anything that changes meaning is not "minor". Wikipedia guidelines say "even changing just a single word" might push something out of the category of being considered a "minor" change.

Molobo's edit is a blatant misuse of the "minor edit" flag.

Please do not do this again.

--Richard 14:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, could you please provide a source that would show that the German traditions did not have to be kept secret for 40 years? ackoz 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, that's a really difficult request to fulfill (essentially, asking someone to prove a negative). It would be better for you to provide a source showing that German traditions did have to be kept secret for 40 years. Examples could be first person, biographical narratives of Germans living in Poland. Another could be a source describing the re-emergence of German traditions in the Poland of the 1990s.

My initial sense (based on instinct not knowledge) is that both points of view are correct and that the NPOV position is to mention both. The two sets of statements can be reconciled in a way such that they are both true and yet keep the essential meaning of what they are trying to say.

As an analogy (although probably not perfect), my parents are Taiwanese. While living under Japanese occupation, they went to Japanese schools and had to pay a fine whenever they accidentally spoke Taiwanese in school. After the end of WWII, the mainland Chinese took over and the national language became Mandarin Chinese. Kids then had to pay a fine if they accidentally spoke Taiwanese in school.

Taiwanese was not forbidden at home (it would have been an effectively unenforceable ban).

However, as a result of the above rules in school, I have Taiwanese cousins who grew up with Mandarin Chinese as their primary language and Taiwanese as a poor second language. At times, I (as an American) have asked them, "How do you say X in Taiwanese?" and they look at me and say "You know, I have no idea."

The ironic thing is that the Taiwanese are the majority people in Taiwan but they have only been able to assert their national identity in the last decade.

OK, thanks for putting up with this digression.

My point is, you can be legally recognized as a minority and have certain rights including assistance in education and still have to suppress your language and cultural identity.

I would ask everyone to avoid an edit war over this section and try to find an accurate NPOV way to capture the real situation, both the reality and the perception. By this last phrase, I mean that the ethnic German minority may have felt a need to assimilate and act Polish in order to gain equal treatment. It may be that there were legal rights but social prejudice that kept Germans from being treated as "good Polish citizens". Thus, if you could learn Polish and adopt a Polish name, then perhaps you would blend in better and not be discriminated against. All this despite being "legally recognized as a minority" and having certain protected rights.

The above is all conjecture based on my understanding of the difficulties of being a minority.

What we need is someone who can write an accurate, sourceable description of the status of Germans in Poland in the postwar period. Without the acrimonious debate of "Poles mistreated Germans", "Did not!", "Did too!"

--Richard 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I don't think that we can find someone like that. The unbiased sources are sparse, and if you use one, someone will argument that it's not reliable at all. Then you use another and someone else will object. Maybe - does anybody know about an non-German non-Czech/Polish author who wrote something about this? ackoz 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Ackoz. I'm not looking for an "unbiased source". "Reliable source" does NOT mean "unbiased source". It means that it's not the wacky thoughts one one or two people on Wikipedia.

I'm looking to present both sides of the story. I would hope that 15 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, somebody has written a book explaining what it was like to be an ethnic German living in postwar Poland. A book written in German perhaps and with its inherent biases, of course, but, at least, there would be some evidence that "German traditions had to be kept secret". I don't know what this phrase means. It might mean something banal like they had quiet Oktoberfests instead of big boisterous ones. Or that they were secretly Lutheran in a Catholic country. Certainly, I expect that kids who grew up speaking German at home learned to shut up and speak Polish if they wanted to go to university. I have no idea of the details. But, I believe the basic assertion and I wish someone could put some "meat on the bones" and replace my conjecture with facts.

--Richard 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I provided the reference. I also have documents regarding the building of German language schools in 50s, but that has to wait. --Molobo 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

85.1.136.157

Do not dare to enhance the article with facts and sources (as you tried it June 12, 10.01 am) because the camarilla which controls this side is not interested in an academic and objective approach to the topic. (213.70.74.164 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Stop that, please. I am thinking about restoring some parts of his edit. Would Szopen please explain why he reverted? ackoz 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, even if we left Szopen's edits in place, I think he got the parenthetical phrase backwards. He wrote "members of Polish minority in Germany". Didn't he mean to say "members of German minority in Poland? I've heard of rewriting history but this is ridiculous!  :^)

--Richard 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonono. Those who were agreed to stay in Opole region were believed to be members of Polish pre-war minority in Germany (so called autochtones). They have to pass special exams and were then recognised as Poles. Most of them probably had dudal identity and some of them then returned to Germanness.

As for rest of the revert: "the Centre Against Expulsions are not supported by the evidence. However, the joint Czech-German commission, _which is considered highly political_, and whose results have been rejected by a considerable number of experts on the field of the expulsion, did not carry out any in depth demographic study. Its conclusions _are more in the nature of a whitewash_." <- I consider this as POV statements

"The bulk of the German settlers, however, came to the Baltic on invitation of the Polish Kind Konrad von Masovia, to Bohemia and Moravia on invitation of King Ottokar, to Hungary on invitation of King Bela IV and to Russia on invitation of Catherine the Great. The idea of a "drang nach osten" is therefore more akin to a movement of migrant workers than to a settlement following military conquest." <- hmmmm

"Whereas the minority protection treaties provided for respect of minority languages, minority schools, non-discrimination in employment, etc., the Polish government disregarded the treaties, as attested in the judgments of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which repeatedly condemned Poland for violations of the Treaty. Moreover, the League of Nations system of minority protection provided for the possibility of minorities to send petitions to the League. Thousands of petitions from ethnic Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia are available for consultation by researchers at the archives of the League of Nations in Geneva. Since Poland had no intention to abide by the treates, it unilaterally withdrew from the League's minority protection system in 1934, without diplomatic consequences. Systematic discrimination by the Germans of Czechoslovakia was confirmed by independent observers, including Professor Arnold Toynbee and Lord Runciman." <- IMO both POV statements and inaccuracies.

"However, the administration of the occupied territories was in the hands of Berlin, not of the ethnic Germans. More serious was the fate of the German ethnic minority of Bromberg, Posen and other areas in the former Prussian province of West Prussia. Reliable sources put the deathrate of members of the German minority in Poland at 5,800, mostly victims of the death marches to the east, and of the massacres on "Bloody Sunday", 3 September 1939. Goebbels Propaganda, however, multiplied the figure by ten and announced to the world that 58,000 ethnic Germans had been murdered." <- death marches ?! Also, IMO a lot of of deaths of German minority in 1939 must be attributed to general war conditions.

"This is an intellectually dishonest political debate, since the German expellees were victims, not perpetrators, and they have the same right to their human dignity and to human rights as everyone else, as the first United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Dr. Jose Ayala Lasso stated on 28 May 1995 and again on 6 August 2005. Even George W. Bush condemned the expulsion of the Germans in a statement sent to the international conference held at Duquesne University in November 2000 on the issue of Ethnic Cleansing. Bush said: "Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, regardless of who does it to whom. I support the work of the Institute of German American Relations as they continue to educate the public on the tragedy that displaced fifteen million innocent German women and children, those most innocent souls who became victims of the worst period of ethnic cleansing in the history of the world", quoted in Seven Vardy and Hunt Tooley (eds.): Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe, Columbia University Press, New York, 2003, p. ii." -<- oh, come on. Szopen 08:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The results

After all the effort I have to say I'm a bit unsatisfied with the numbers section.

• mostly drawing ideas from this source I recently discovered: http://www.ce-review.org/01/16/odsun16_2.html (I highly recomment reading)

According to Federal Statistics Bureau of Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt) in 1958 more than 2.1 million lost their lives during the expulsions. Statistisches Bundesamt, Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, Wiesbaden, Kohlhammer Verlag,

EH: Similarly, the more detailed census in the Federal Republic in 1950 has not—and hardly could have—offered satisfactory information about how many Sudeten Germans had lost their lives in post-war Czechoslovakia. In fact, these results merely said that there should be around 238,000 persons about whom there was no information.[24=Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, Bevölkerungsbilanz für die deutschen Vertreibungsgebiete 1939-50, Wiesbaden 1958, p. 355.]

One is general number, other relates to Czechoslovakia, but the question stays - what does the source actualy say? "2.1 million lost their lives", or "according to statistical ballance, there are 2.1 milion persons about whom there was no information". The later claim is also supported by quote from Overmans

The standard study by Dr. Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation to slave labour in the Soviet Union. Gerhard Reichning, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Teil 1, Bonn 1995, Tabelle 7, page 36 (2.020.000). A more recent statistical table which takes into account the newest demographic studies suggests a higher figure 2,225.000. Alfred de Zayas, Die Nemesis von Potsdam, 14th revised edition, Herbig, Munich, 2005, pp. 33-34.

+

However, these estimates are challenged by some as inflated because they include deaths resulting from diseases, malnutrition (post-war humanitarian catastrophe), suicides etc. For example, it is difficult to determine how many Germans... + several ways, by which they could have been kmurdered

...but few paragraphs later, in the Downward revision of the numbers, its exaplained the numbers are challenged on other basis - the numbers dont come from counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons

So, the challenge isnt "the people died, but because of eg desease" but "the people in fact did not died, or even did not existed at all, as the number of deaths is just product of some statistical calculation"

Moreover, the quote from Overmans contradicts the beginning of the article stating Estimates of the number of deaths of ethnic Germans during the expulsions range from 1.1 million to 3 million.

I'm not sure what is the "standard study" is. (measured among scholars, not by circulation, in witch de Zayas excels) It is quite possible the standard is Overmans (and other "downward revisionists"?) and Alfred de Zayas is considered fringe research. Via Google search on expulsion losses I come to this Let me begin with the facts. Since the book focuses on German suffering, it is imperative to be precise about the extent of that suffering. Yet Barnouw's numbers are consistently inaccurate or simply wrong. The figure of "more than 16 million Germans" (p. 53) who fled or were expelled from Eastern Europe and the alleged death tolls of 2.5 million (p. 143) are wildly exaggerated. Current estimates amount to 14 million refugees and expellees and death tolls of as low as 500,000 (ref. to Overmans) Frank Biess, Department of History, University of California-San Diego, in book review

Czech and Polish sources give a much lower estimate (Czech historians arguing that most of the estimated population drop is because of the soldiers that were killed at the front).

...???, obviously unreferenceable. What are the "Czech sources", who are "Czech historians"? I've seen several serious works by Czech historians (eg. widly known book by Tomáš Staněk) and from what I remember, the usual way is to cite several estimates and statistics, elaborate on thir problems and advantages, lenghty explanations which number means what. Probably the same range of estimates can be found in Czech works as in non-Czech works.

The whole Results section can be easily attacked as highly POVed by selection of the facts. Imagine there would be several tables mainly from Czech and Polish historians from communist times, one big table from "League against Prussian nationalism", several comments from "uninvolved" soviet politicians, some work from 1990s by Russian historian widly acclaimed among Slavic nationalists, and one quote of a Czech claiming the numbers are higher. And in the end, there would be this sentence:

German and Austrian sources give a much higher estimate (German historians arguing that most of the difference in population estimates is because the unaccounted people were murdered ).

The solution towards NPOV obviously wouldn't be to delete something, but to include more tables and estimates, and link various estimatiates to various POVs / sides of the dispute.

So, I propose

1. lets remove the whole number mess to separate article, eg. Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII
2. here include very brief summary with ranges
3. in the separate article
   • try to separate estimates from different times and add descriptions of what political bias was asserted to various estimates
   • get rid of statements of obvious disputes, such as These lower figures and the methodology for obtaining them are disputed by some scholars including Dr. Fritz Peter Habel and Alfred de Zayas, who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was well over two million in part about Overmans, and its possible counterpart 'These high figures and the methodology for obtaining are contradicted by scholars including Richard Overmans + ..., who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was under half a million which can be readily inserted under paragraph about Reichling....

--Wikimol 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly support this.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ackoz (talk • contribs)

• I am uncomfortable with this proposal as I think it's sort of a weird article name but I can't see any other solution. I have been bold and copied the "results" section over to the article title suggested by Wikimol. Now, we need someone to replace the text in this article with a summary. Volunteers, anyone?

The discussion of the numbers has overwhelmed the article and made that portion of it unreadable. I'm not sure what Wikimol means by "get rid of statements of obvious disputes". I think we want to document the disputes as clearly as we can. These are the areas where the reader needs to decide for himself or herself what the "truth" is.

--Richard 00:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant, where the contradiction is obvious, it donesn't help the reader to add rebuttals. Like "Researcher A states numberA. However, that number is questioned by researchers such as B, who in newest editon of his study concludes the number is in fact numberB. However, that figure numberB and the methodology for obtaining it refuted by A..." and vice versa "Researcher B states numberB. However, that number is questioned by researchers such as A,..." If de Zayas states >2mil and Overmans said <500.000, I think the disagreemnt is obvious, and the rbutals add little information. But if you feel adding a note about disagreemnet under both estimates is uself, do it. --Wikimol 10:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mixing 2 things

In the beginning of the article, the Expulsion was defined as "The expulsion of Germans after World War II was the mass deportation of people considered Germans (both Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche) from Soviet-occupied areas". What we are really talking about here (and from what we are using the numbers) is the whole process, that started in 1944 as the Red Army entered Germany and Germans started escaping, and ended around 1950 when the most of the Germans had been relocated to Germany. What we are doing here, is that we are talking more about the post-Postdam process, yet using numbers that reflect the whole 1944-1950 period.

There is a German Wikipedia article Vertreibung (i.e. expulsion), which describes these events as Die Flucht und Vertreibung der Deutschen (1944 bis 1948) = Escape and Expulsion of Germans (1944 - 1948). Maybe we should consider renaming this article to something similar. ackoz 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this is a good idea. --Molobo 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we had something like this earlier... I think it wa sintended as series of articles dealing with the escapes, expellings, and later fate of German minority, but it seems project was abandoned (and labelled as POV by some, IIRC) Szopen 10:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

found it: German exodus from Eastern Europe Szopen 10:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that before. The trouble is, we cant actually distinguish what exactly is the escape and what the expulsion. Moreover, as the whole thing is covered as "Vertreibung" in German sources, we already have a lot of the escape mixed in this article already. We sould merge the two articles into a new one. --ackoz 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to think of this as a Wikipedia project. Is it reasonable to design a series of articles that would be interlinked and thereby avoid any single article becoming a monster article? For example, there could be a master article "German exodus from Eastern Europe" and daughter articles describing the experiences of individual countries such as "German exodus from Poland". NB: This is just an example of a possible structure. I'm open to other organizing schemes.

--Richard 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Richard, is that the most of the historians treat these events as one process. And why - it's hard to distinguish what was escape and what was expulsion. The numbers we have (2 mio dead, 14 mio resettled) are probably true, but for the whole thing. We use them in an article that is intended to only describe one part of the process - that's wrong. ackoz 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree with your point. Nonetheless, while it is difficult to separate flight and expulsion, it is comparatively easier to document what happened in different regions and countries (e.g. East Prussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) Despite protestations that the Polish government was not involved, I'm not convinced that the expulsions were entirely the work of the Soviet Army and their Communist cadres. This is conjecture but I would bet that there were Poles, Czechs and other Eastern Europeans involved, too.

This is more uninformed conjecture but I would guess that maybe the expulsions were nastier in Poland than in Czechoslovakia. Can anybody confirm or disprove this?

Is it worth discussing how things were done in Poland as opposed to Czechoslovakia? The article begins to discuss this but there isn't enough space in an article of such wide scope to focus on specific incidents in each country. In an article titled "Exodus of Germans from Poland after World War II", however, there would be more space available. Similarly, there would be more space available to discuss post-Cold War relations between Germany and Poland. And so on for Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Baltic states.

However, you would need a Wikiproject to ride herd over all the articles to keep consistency and quality.

--Richard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge the German Exodus article into this one and then rename the whole thing

Please vote here. Also please try to propose the name for the article.

• Support. ackoz 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Molobo 12:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Richard 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sciurinæ 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Jadger 23:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I oppose the proposed merger because I think it's still reasonable to have one general article on the exodus and a separate one on expulsions even if it is hard to quantify exactly how many were evacuated, how many fled and how many were expelled. You may not be able to put hard numbers to the number expelled and the number killed but you can describe what happened. Expulsion is qualitatively different from evacuation, though it is arguable that expulsion and flight are difficult to differentiate from each other.

I have been bold and moved the "Background" section from this article to the German exodus from Eastern Europe article. Perhaps this latter article should be renamed German exodus from Eastern Europe after World War II.

The good news is that this article is now only 43kb long which while, long by the official Wikipedia guideline, is well within the recommended 30-50kb range.

Please take a look at both articles and comment on whether you like this approach.

--Richard 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation from the German Wikipedia

At first, I was thinking "Geez, whoever wrote this stuff has really poor English." Then, I saw Ackoz's edit summary that said he was translating from the German Wikipedia and was tired, to boot.

That explains a lot. It is really hard to write well while translating because the syntax of the original text leaves a strong impression in the mind that is hard to overcome. I have tried to clean up the text but more remains to be done.

In particular, I am puzzling over this text. My lack of knowledge about Germany and German demographics is tripping me up.

The article says:

Other areas, like Bavaria, which had been strongly uniform confessionally and in their traditions had to deal with new inhabitants of different confessions and traditions.

I think what this is trying to say is that Bavaria used to be uniformly Catholic but now had to deal with an influx of non-Catholic and non-Bavarian Germans. Did I get that right?

--Richard 06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. And thanks for correcting my English. ackoz 06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz übersetzt Texte der deutschen Wikipedia - großartig, ein Deutschenhasser erster Klasse implementiert hier selbstzübersetzte Informationen aus der deutschen Wiki, da wurde wohl der Bock zum Gärtner gemacht! Wieso sprichst er überhaupt deutsch, wenn er Deutschland und die Deutschen so schrecklich findet? (213.70.74.165 08:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Attempt at rough translation:

Ackoz translated text from the German Wikipedia - wonderful, a first-class German-hater implements here a self-translation of information from the German Wiki, that would "der Bock zum Gärtner gemacht!" (literal translation "makes the goat into a gardener"). Why does he speak such splendid German if he thinks so poorly of Germany and Germans?

I can't quite translate "der Bock zum Gärtner gemacht!" into colloquial English. The closest I can think of is "having the fox watch the henhouse" but that's not quite the meaning of the German phrase. Can someone help me?

--Richard 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You got it right, Richard. --ackoz 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I did not say "splendid" (but I have to admit that his German is fairly good) the translation is perfect (including "Bock zum Gärtner" = "fox watching the henhouse" because the goat would eat all flowers and vegetables). (213.70.74.165 10:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

OK, was meinst "Wieso sprichst er überhaupt deutsch" auf englisch? Specifically, how do you translate "überhaupt" in this context?

I studied German for 3 months 30 years ago and so my German is quite poor.

--Richard 16:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

English here, please. I am no "Deutschenhasser"=i.e. someone who hates Germans. I don't find Germany or Germans bad, I lived in Germany and also have German friends. I think that the German article has good quality (perhaps because you don't edit it). If you find the translation incorrect, you can correct it, but I tried my best. Please stop these personal attacks here, and use English if you can. ackoz 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessing blame

Who wrote this section? Any source? Any scholar ever wrote "It would be a mistake to place all the blame for the deaths and suffering of the expelled Germans on the shoulders of the nations who expelled the Germans."? To me, it looks like a blatant OR.

ackoz 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I confess... I wrote it and it is OR. You can delete it if you wish but please consider that it was put there to mollify some editors who were objecting (and still are objecting) to text and tables that seem to put the blame on the Polish and Czech governments rather than on the Allied governments, particularly the Soviet Union.

I would prefer you put a {{fact}} tag on the various assertions and help me look for a way to source this POV. Taking it out completely is likely to start up an edit war.

Surely there is some politician or historian from Poland or the Czech Republic who has made this sort of assertion. Or is it just hot air from Molobo and others like him?

Come on, guys. Time to cough up a source for this stuff or it will get deleted.

--Richard 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I re-read that text several weeks after I wrote it, I think the text is essentially true. It is only OR because I can't cite a book or other publication where a reliable source says it.

We know that it is true that "many deaths" were caused by Soviet concentration camps. The argument in the "Assessing blame" section is really discussing one of the points made in the Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII controversy.

Maybe we should just move the "Assessing Blame" text into the "Results" section and reference the Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII article.

Comments?

--Richard 07:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with springerlink access here? Or perhaps you could find this [1] in some library?

Looks like it could be a great article. Ordering an online copy as an individual costs US$30.00. Ouch!

--Richard 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reefugees and displaced persons

As for the discussion who had been expelled and who flet before he could have been expelled, there is actually no scence to distinguish between those two groups. Both are ultimately to be handled as expelled because the one who flet before was not allowed to come back neither and hence became expelled from his home too. (213.70.74.164 16:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Could you find a source for this? If sourced, we could use this in the intro.

--ackoz 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not really a classical source but the definition of a displaced person ("Vertriebenen") under sec. 1 of the German Federal Displaced Person Law (§ 1 Bundesvertriebenengesetz) i.e. everyone who fulfilled the following criterias "enjoyed" the status of a displaced person:

Pursuant to sec. 1 a displaced person is a person who

1) as German citizen or a person of German ethnicity

2) had his domicile in the former German eastern territories standing under foreign administration or in the territories beyond the borders of the German Reich as of 31 December 1937, and

3) has lost such domicile in connection with the incidents of WWII due to expulsion in particular by eviction or FLIGHT.

("Vertriebener ist, wer als deutscher Staatsangehöriger oder deutscher Volkszugehöriger seinen Wohnsitz in den ehemals unter fremder Verwaltung stehenden deutschen Ostgebieten oder in den Gebieten außerhalb der Grenzen des Deutschen Reiches nach dem Gebietsstande vom 31. Dezember 1937 hatte und diesen im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen des Zweiten Weltkrieges infolge Vertreibung, insbesondere durch Ausweisung oder Flucht, verloren hat.")

As for 2), please note that at the time the Law was issued (presumably early 1950ies) the (West) German government considered the borders of 1937 to be the official borders of Germany. However, in the course of the 2+4 dialogues ("2+4 Gespräche") the German Reich was eventually disolved and the present borders of the Federal Republic of Germany were approved to be the official ones. Hence, the Law is nowadays to be read as follows "...had his domicile beyond the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany as of 1990...". (213.70.74.165 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

In my opinion, this is a good source. Could you formulate the section that we could put into the intro? ackoz 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

from Soviet-occupied areas

Was Yougoslavia "Soviet-occupied" when the Germans were expelled?

"parts of Germany" - Romania, Yougoslavia, Poland (1939 borders) weren't parts of Germany.Xx236 12:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I did not get your point, but according to the definition of sec. 1, the Germans having their domicile in Romania, Yugoslavia, etc. were at least Germans who lived beyond the border of the German Reich as of 31 December 1937 and, hence, would be treated as displaced persons as well. However I rather tried to demonstrate that people who left before being expelled could be considered to be displaced person too. (213.70.74.164 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I mean the beginning of the second paragraph of the article. Either the article is about the lands occupied by the Soviet Army or any lands. It has to be defined there. Xx236 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

current German historical view

False, the majority of Polish and German historians cooperate. The problems are:

1. some expellees demand compensation from several governments (Polish, Czech...). Such compensations would destroy economy of Poland. Polish expelees have never obtained any recompensation from Ukraine, Byelarus or Lithuania.
2. the leaders of expelees haven't been expelled - Erika Steinbach was a daughter of a Luftwaffe N.C.O., who had to left Poland with his unit, Peter Glotz's family could have legally stayed in Czechoslovakia because his mother was Czech, it was their decision to run away.
3. The number of the expellees grows according to the German law. It's possible that all Germans will be expellees in the future.
4. Erika Steinbach has called concentration camps in Communist Poland "death camps" (this name is used for 5 Nazi camps with gas chamber).
5. Germany has organised Silesian Museum on the border of Poland, which may be understood as revisionistic.
6. German authorities refuse to study Soviet crimes against Germans in today Poland and the expellees don't accuse the Soviet Union, moving the whole responsibility to Poland and Czech Republic.

Xx236 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but i find it is a very strange dicussion because in Polen and the Chech republic too the people witch expelled the germans where never prosecuted . I mean in away this is the biggest not ever prosecuted crime of humanity .The most of the polish and chec killers became national heros —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk • contribs)

This is a worthwhile point that should be made somewhere in the article. I'm not sure that I would want to characterize it as "the biggest unprosecuted crime of humanity" but I would definitely point out that none of the perpetrators was ever prosecuted and, perhaps more importantly, there is no current effort to locate and prosecute any of them. Compare this with the efforts to locate ex-Nazis and former members of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States.

--Richard 18:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion

1. "expulsion of Germans after World War II was the escape and mass deportation".
2. "Due to the postwar atmosphere..."
3. "German civilian casualties during the expulsion were very high".

So again the victims of the war escape and Soviet army are moved into the postwar time and assigned to Poles. Xx236 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, but your comments are sometimes confusing me. What is the point, what are your trying to say with the quotes? (213.70.74.165 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I try to get the basic information - is the escape (die Flucht) a part of the Expulsion or not? If yes - it took part mostly during the war, so the title is wrong. If not - where is the article about the escape? Xx236 13:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, that might indeed lead to contradictions/confusions. Maybe one could argue that the Law was implemented after most Germans had left the territories beyond the border of 1937 and therefore it is a kind of ex post contemplation. Anyway, in case we should agree to tread the people who left before 1945 as expelled too, it would be more consistent to amend the article`s heading. (213.70.74.165 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

If "Silesian Inferno, War Crimes of the Red Army on its March into Silesia in 1945" is a source - we are talking about the war, too. So the title of the article is wrong. However I would like to see a prove, that the Red Army mistreated the Germans differently western and eastern to the Oder-Neisse line. I doubt that such proves exist, so the crimes weren't a part of the expulsion. It's elementary logic. Xx236 14:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

resettlements and expulsions of millions of (...) Jews.

After the war? Xx236 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

German ethnicity

It's not obvious what meant "German" in 1945. Germany defines all former German citizens as Germans, including Polish nationalists who wanted to stay in Poland in 1945 and were expelled or emigrated later because of political or economical reasons. Polish Communist administration and/or criminals persecuted local people on the basis of their dialect or because they had good farms or houses needed by someone. There were also Czech people in Silesia, who stayed or emigrated to Germany or Czechoslovakia. Xx236 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Germans in the meaning of the Displaced Person Law were German citizens or people with German ethnicity. However, the question here is rather who is to be treated as a diplaced person. And under the examples you made nobody would be treated as such under the definition of sec. 1 of the Displaced Person Law (please see above). The Polish nationalists were not expelled "in connection with WWII" or were not evicted but emigrated. Czech people from Silesia were neither German citizens nor of German ethnicity. (213.70.74.165 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Some Polish nationalists were expelled because of criminal reasons (someone wanted their farms) or because of cultural and language differences among them and newcomers, who defined who was Polish. The ethnic Czechs from German Silesia had German citizenship. Xx236 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But we have to define it somehow, don`t we. And in case the Czech people / Polish nationalists had German citizenship they had the right to be treated as displayed persons. By the way, please ask yourself how many people of the total number of Germans expelled were Polish nationalist and/or people with Czech ethnicity - maybe 0.01 %, 0.1 % or even 1.0 %. Sure there are always some inaccuricies but I think the definition of sec. 1 is basically quite comprehensive. (213.70.74.165 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

What about the growing number of refugees and black or Turc "refugees"? Xx236 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what about them? I can`t see the connex, what have black or Turkish people to do with the topic? Sorry, but it is really difficult to discuss with you when you jump from one issue to another (213.70.74.164 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

The German law is absurd. In the future all Germans will be "expelled", including Black and any other color ones, who had one expelled ancestor. Xx236 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Xx236, but your reasoning is absurd! First of all, I am pretty sure that black or Turkish people - even if they posses the German citizenship - do not have German ancestors as they are not of German ethnicity but Turkish or African. Secondly, the Law comprises merely those who have lost their domiciles in connection with the incidents of WWII due to expulsion in particular by eviction or FLIGHT and not their children or grandchildren. (213.70.74.165 14:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

OK. maybe I'm wrong. But the "rights" to farms in Poland are in some way herited. Children of expelled people can be members of the BdV, so yes, a Black woman who had one German grandfather can be a member of the BdV and claim she is the victim of the Poles. Xx236 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to have said this once: For me, any claims by displaced persons or their ancestors deriving from the expulsion vis-a-vis Poland, Czech Republic or other states are absurd, backwarded and legally as well as politically unenforceable. They are always people living in the past and beyond today`s reality (e.g. some time ago a famous Polish politician claimed Germany should pay some EUR 20 billion as reparation for the destruction of Warsaw). Nevertheless, we should be glad that we are nowadays free to talk about this era and the things that happened. (213.70.74.165 15:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

If one were to echo those same sentiments about the holocaust there would never be an end to the hysterical shrieking. Why is there such a double standard whenever we talk about the German victims of the conflict, as if their suffering is somehow less important. I dont quite get it. --Nazrac 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Note

The most Germans where in Poland not expelled from Poland they where expelled from German territory because this territory belongs to Poland since 1990. From 1945 to 1990 it was occupied territory that means the position of the polish settling their was similar as the Settlers in the Westbank now J

Soviet isn't Russian

I have removed twice the word "Russian". The state and the army were Soviet and about 50% of soldiers were non-Russian. Xx236 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Claims Inc.

It's the name of the Treuhand. I don't know if the claims are made by "members" or shareholders or by the Inc., so I have removed the word members. Xx236 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gollancz

Has any British or US citizen asked for human treatment of Poles deported from the Soviet Union in 1945? Has any British or US citizen protested against mass crimes committed by the Communists in Poland in 1945? Xx236 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

the German minority in Hungary have minority rights

have or has? Xx236 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

During the Cold War era, there was little public knowledge of the expulsions

True only utside of Western Germany. In Western Germany the knowledge was popular - memorial tables, memorial rooms, documentation of the expulsion, movies (e.g. about 'Wilhelm Gustloff'.) Xx236 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the only ones who were always interested in the topic were the displaced persons themself (and they have created the memorial tables, etc.). In other respects, the debate started even in Germany only recently i.e. with the end of the cold war period. Before that time the topic was not or almost not subject to public discussions or historical education. (213.70.74.165 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

So according to you it's not true: "In 1955, a German film called "Nacht fiel über Gotenhafen" was released that portrayed the final voyage of the Gustloff, a film that is both very accurate and a very touching tribute to those lost at sea.". See de:Nacht fiel über Gotenhafen. Xx236 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"or almost not subject to public discussions or historical education". Ok, one film about a single event during the expulsion (or was it even before WWII ended?) was released in 60 years. How many films have been released in cinemas and on TV in Germany since 1945 - maybe 100,000? Please be fair! (213.70.74.164 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

TV wasn't popular in 1955 and the number of movies in Germany was certainly under 100 in 1955 and much less than 50 yearly 1945 -1950. Certainly not 100 000. Xx236 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the Cold War era (1945 - 1990), do we not? I consider film as audio-visual media comprising TV-films. But even if we took just your period 1945 - 1955 (6x50 + 5x100) and cinema films into account one film out of 800 would be 0.125%...(213.70.74.164 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Let's go to books:

• Jürgen Thorwald:

1. Es begann an der Weichsel, 1948
2. Das Ende an der Elbe, 1950

• "The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse Line" (1959). vol.2/3:"The Expulsion of the German Population from Hungary and Rumania" (1961). vol. 4: "The Expulsion of the German Population from Czechoslovakia" (1960) (Dates may indicate the year of the English translations rather than the original publication).

Xx236 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Verband der Volksdeutschen Landsmannschaften Österreichs

There exists a union of expelled in Austria. Xx236 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

German Party

There existed German party of the expelled. If they got 5% (?) of votes, at least 10% knew they existed. Xx236 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

213

You are using German ethnicity as an argument here - as you could know, the concept of ethnicity can be quite dubious in Central Europe. Was Peter Glotz German because of his ethnicity? No - his mother was Czech. If he ever chose so, he could also be Czech. I have a friend whose grandfather was "German", allowed to stay here after WWII. His children are Czech. Another example Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia after 1918. He was a Czech - Czech / German speaking, he felt Czech. However, his father was from Slovakia, and his mother was from a German-speaking family in Moravia. As for the "German-speaking", that doesn't neccessarily mean that she was German (see this article http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/books-literature/czech-language/ by a Finnish linguist). Konrad Henlein's mother's last name was Dvořáček originally (then changed to Dworzatschek to sound more german, but still - however written, it's a czech name), and although there are some disputes about her "ethnicity", I don't think that a true German would have a Czech name, right? :)

What I am trying to say, ethnicity is a terribly weak argument. ackoz 21:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it is not me who is using "German ethnicity" but the German Displaced Person Law. Under the heading "German ethnicity" (which was not made by me) we (Xx236 and me) generally discussed about the Law`s scope i. e. who is to be considered as displaced person under the Law which I had tried to translate some paragraphs before. In the course of the discussion the question was concerned who is German under the Law and in this context we refered to "German ethnicity" a term which I chose as translation for "deutscher Volkszugehöriger" under the Law. Please note therefore that "German ethnicity" as used by Xx236 and me is to be understood as a mere translation of a definitional element of the Displaced Person Law. Furthermore, the term "ethnicity" does not exist in the German language and, hence, it may be somehow missleading to use it for "Volkszugehörigkeit". If you have any better word please feel free to exchange it.

However I absolutely agree with you that the term of ethnicity is an obscure one and should be used - if at all - very carefully and only in compliance with the information/definition given under http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnisch or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group. (213.70.74.164 09:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

ps: it appears very obscure as well to me that the Czech team won 3:0 against USA just to lose 0:2 against Gana... (213.70.74.164 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

two of the best czech forwards were out. bad luck too. ackoz 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zayas email

I recently posted a note in the guestbook of Alfred de Zayas, asking him about sources for numbers of expulsions, you can see my question there http://www.alfreddezayas.com/guest.shtml under name "Amir", email azmoc@seznam.cz

This is the reply I received (if anyone is interested, contact me on azmoc@seznam.cz, I will forward the e-mail to you):

I assume that you are familiar with my books

Die Nemesis at Potsdam, 14th edition, Herbig, Munich 2005 with tables on pp. 32/34

A Terrible Revenge, Palgrave, Macmillan, New York 2006

It all depends how you count the losses

There are probably between 2.0 and 2.3 million losses

this based on the monumeltal work of the Gesamterhebung in the 1960s

also the Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden in 1958

and the more recent work by the late Gerhard Reichling.

Back in 1974 the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz did a study on the expulsions as estimated that of the 2.1 million dead, approximately 600.000 died as a direct result of violence

the rest died of exposure, disease, malnutrition, etc.

There is little doubt as to the number of missing Germans

but, of course, there is no exact bodycount.

The Heimatsortskarteien were able to reconstruct the losses for many towns and villages in East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Bohemia and Moravia

but the records were not available for every town or for every district

If you take the average loss for those towns and villages for which there are exact records, then you end up with a loss of some 12 to 15 percent of the population in connection with the flight and expulsion.

You may remember the saying by the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Of course, we will never know the exact numbers

but we should be able to differentiate among the victims

There were tens of thousands killed by the Red Army upon entering East Prussia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg and Silesia

this was classical ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia

then there were tens of thousands who died on the roads in January-May 1945 while fleeing

These go on the account of the Soviets, because no one leaves his home in the middle of winter unless he fears for his life

the same kind of terror as in Yugoslavia.

Then there were tens of thousands who died in Berlin, in Leipzig, in Chemnitz, because there was no food and no housing when they arrived.

Another huge complex is the deaths in internment, since tens of thousands of Germans were interned in Poland and Czechoslowakia awaiting their expulsion.

and the worse chapter of all // the deportations to slave labour of 1.7 million Germans, some 400.000 of whom never came back

either they died on the way to the labour camps, or they died in the labour camps, or they died when they came back.

this is a huge chapter that is only now being examined.

As you probably know, I am an American of French-Spanish descent, and worked 22 years in the United Nations human rights office, particularly as Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee.

More later

Alfred de Zayas www.alfreddezayas.com

So many victims died because of war and post-war Communist criminal policy, not because expulsion.German POWs were mistreated not as Silesians or Prussians but as former Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht soldiers - but their deaths are accounted in a different way. Xx236 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody objects if we use the information contained in the email in the article? It could come into the "results" part. We will have to reformulate it so that it doesn't contain the "worse of all" etc, but I think we can use it with the reference to the books from A. de Zayas, as I don't believe he would write something else in the email than in the books. ackoz 09:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good - I agree to use the information! Ackoz, would you try to re-formulate the text? (213.70.74.164 14:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

I will, just gimme some time. ackoz 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry to object but I don't think we can use the information. (I'm not 100% confident of the following argument but I'm guessing that we can't use the information based on the e-mail from deZayas.) Here's the problem... if you look at the principles embodied by WP:V, an e-mail is probably not a reliable source. I'm willing to debate it but my instinct says it's not a reliable source because it can be faked.

My proposal would be put the information in the article but be aware that, if someone wanted to challenge it, you probably wouldn't be able to defend it using the e-mail as the source.

In this area, Wikipedia's standards are probably higher than those of academic publishing. It is acceptable in journal articles to cite "personal communications". I don't think it is acceptable based on the principles of WP:V.

The way to look at it is this... If ackoz leaves Wikipedia and someone else comes along and challenges the text wanting to delete it, what can the rest of us say? "Well, um, ackoz CLAIMED that he had received an e-mail supporting the text but we can't prove it because there is no publicly accessible place where that e-mail can be found."

NB: I haven't actually read the de Zayas info. The above commentary is based on general principles, not on the specific content.

--Richard 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would object. de Zayas mail consists of

• Citations of the population ballance studies from 1950s and 1960s and Reichling. Better to quote directly
• If you take the average loss for those towns and villages for which there are exact records, then you end up with a loss of some 12 to 15 percent of the population in connection with the flight and expulsion. - I dont know what's the source here, but again, direct reference would be better. In this form its something between damn lies and statistics - how is the sample selectited, what's averaged, how you can end up with average in a form of range?
• His opinions, like this was classical ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia - AFAIK what he expressed in emails is good representation of what he says in books. Can be used in the atttributed form, like according to AdZ, this was classical ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia. Question is, how much of such opinions include.
• The info about the deportations to slave labour is interesting, but better source than email would be nice. --Wikimol 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of slave labour is meant? Soviet mines and Siberian camps or any?

The Soviets murdered and raped everywhere. They were taking part in "Ethnic cleansing" East to the Oder-Nisse line and weren't West to the line. Don't you see the absurdity of such reasoning?

I doubt very much in "monumental" works published before the unification of Germany, because only later GDR and Polish documents were available. Some Soviet documents are still unavailable. Xx236 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Has de Zayas allowed to publish his letter? Xx236 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, and I didn't ask him. 213, you might have access to some public library there. Could you borrow the book and look through the numbers if they are right? I don't want to use the whole e-mail, just some of it, as I suppose that the same information can be found in the book. Is somebody here able to confirm that? ackoz 15:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Areas with predominantly German speaking populations in 1910.

Let's add "Predominantly Ukrainian speaking" and we get the truth -the Poles don't exist, they were invented in Versailles. Xx236 09:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The caption is false. The original map is dated 1910. Xx236 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

the treatment of the current German minority in Poland

What is wrong with the treatment? I'll remove the statement. Xx236 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"seat" vs. "headquarters"

OK, now I understand that "according to German company law, a company or foundation is seated in a city". However, this phrasing sounds really strange to an American ear (and possibly a British ear as well).

In the U.S., there are "county seats" (a county being an administrative unit larger than a city but smaller than a state). However, corporations and foundations do not have "seats" and thus the current phrasing is confusing to an American. As far as I know, it is probably confusing to most English speakers. If this is so, then the phrasing should be changed.

If it is important to include the Anglicized translation of the German "seat" then it should be done in parentheses. I will do this.

--Richard 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you are right anyway;

I looked it up in a German-English Law dictionary: As the Bund of Vertriebene is a non-profit making association and not a (commercially operating) company, one may rather use "headquater" or "head office" than "seat"; alternatively: ... has its "registered office" at... i.e. the place where the association is registered in the register of associations "Vereinsregister" (213.70.74.164 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Oops, just realized the Oskar:Krejčí was deleted by the same anon who put it in

I thought it was POV-pushing that drove the deletion but since it was the same anonymous IP editor that put it in and took it out, the rationale is probably something different. Please explain your rationale for deleting it. Thanks.

--Richard 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Czech-German relations - Beneš decrees

The current article text has this sentence "The Beneš decrees remain in force in Czechoslovakia."

Well, it used to say "The Beneš decrees continued to remain in force in Czechoslovakia."

I changed it because I thought that "continued to remain in force" was redundant. However, on reflection, I realize that "continued to remain in force" makes sense because Czechoslovakia no longer exists as a country.

My problem now is that I need to understandwhat happened to the Beneš decrees after Czechoslovakia broke up. Did they remain in force in both Slovakia and the Czech Republic?

--Richard 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, You are right. The Beneš decrees continued to remain in force in both the countries thereafter.

(I only would like to point out, that whereas it is still part of the legal system of the Czech Republic, it is effectively closed as described in the article, and that Beneš decrees refers to a series of laws enacted by the Czechoslovak government of exile during World War II in absence of Czechoslovak parliament. Today, the term is most frequently used for the part of them dealing with status of Germans and Hungarians in post-war Czechoslovakia and has become a symbol for the whole issue of the Czech ethnic cleansing and extermination of Germans and Hungarians.... as described in the article Beneš decrees. And that means, that Beneš decrees are quite complete and as whole they can not be rejected, they would have to be replaced by different law.) Regards Reo ^ON | +++ 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of User:Daborhe's contribution

I removed the following text contributed by User:Daborhe

It came as a reaction to what the germans did. The Germans attacked the poles in 1939 thereby starting world war 2. The germans then enslaved the poles and were able to extreminate 6 million poles. Hitler watned to kill them all but the war ended before he could do that.

In 1941 the germans invaded the Soviet Union and the plan was to claim and settle all areas towards the Ural mountains. The german people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class. But the germans failed, the Soviets unlike the Poles fought back and crushed the nazies. And unlike the germans the victories Soviets allowed the germans to live to exsist they did not plan a full extremination unlike what the germans had in mind for the Soviets. And when the germans lost they war they, the germans, were forced only to give up land and not its whole population. During the war of 1941-1945 the nazies killed atleast 20 million soviet civilians and inslaved huge amounts of its population. The germans also inslaved Poland and were able to exterminate 20% of polands pre-war population.

Aside from numerous typographical, orthographical and grammatical issues, there is also the problem that the text is a polemic against the Nazis and therefore the tone is unencyclopedic. The underlying point is made later in the article although with an NPOV stance that indicates that this may have been a motivation without passing judgment on whether this motivation was a reasonable, justifiable or moral stance.

I also re-introduced the {{fact}} tags that User:Daborhe removed because it is not adequate to say that assertions are documented in another Wikipedia article. The assertions should be supported with citations here in this article.

--Richard 08:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for fact tags since all numbers can be seen on the world war 2 casulties page. And no where is it said that the germans started the war there is no mention about the extermination campaign, the quest for lebensraum and that the germans invaded poland and then invaded the soviet union and that the germans lost the war. Things need to be put in perspective the germans were not innocent they had tried to extreminate every last man woman and child of eastern descent and faild and no where in the article does it say that. Daborhe 12:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Second reversion of Daborhe's contribution

User:Daborhe has reintroduced text into the introduction which falls far short of the requisite quality of writing. Among other things, in English, proper nouns are capitalized. This means "Germans" and "Poles", not "germans" and "poles". Also, much more importantly, the tone of the text is polemic in nature. This means that the text is basically beating on the Germans for their sins and arguing that the expulsions are justified retribution for those sins. This is the sort of POV pushing which has given rise to counter-productive edit-warring in the past. The edit-warring grew so bad that an Request for Comment was created and that's how I learned of this article.

To understand this, you need to read the archives of this Talk Page from earlier in the year.

The "Purported Reasons" section discusses the possible reasons why the expulsions were ordered. It is unacceptably POV to say that the sins of the Nazis were the only reason why the expulsions were ordered and to imply that the expulsions are justified by retribution for those sins. There is a much more complex set of reasons and motivations which are discussed at some length in the "Purported Reasons" section. If you feel that this section does not adequately cover the topic, then add to it. If you feel that the "Purported Reasons" section should be summarized in the intro, then do it. But please don't insist on a narrow anti-German explanation of why the expulsions were ordered. This constitutes unacceptable POV-pushing. Please maintain an NPOV tone in the article. Thank you.

--Richard 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is there is no "discussed at some length in the" there is no mention what so ever about how many the nazies killed what they had in plan and that the nazies started the war. There is aboslut ZERO discussion about this and why do you keep on removeing the sourced facts that have been sourced and the add a fact tag? And nothing of what i have written in any way is wrong I am only telling facts real facts and by removeing such real facts you are white washing what the nazies did. Without these facts the article can be read as that the poor germans were attack by the evil allies and that the evil allies for no reason what so ever forced the poor germans to give up land and to move. Daborhe 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Need help with citation for Erika Steinbach article

There has been some debate over whether the following text should remain in the Erika Steinbach article because it is an article about a living person.

Steinbach's public pronouncements have been criticized for causing a deterioration in German-Polish relations due to stirring up controversy regarding the rights of Germans who were expelled from Poland after World War II. This controversy has led to Steinbach earning a strong negative reputation in Poland which associates her and the Centre against Expulsions with fascism and a German return to Nazism. One example of this was a 2003 cover montage of Polish newsmagazine Wprost that depicted her riding Chancellor Gerhard Schröder while wearing an SS uniform.

Please note the {{citation needed}} tag. It seems obvious that the statement is true but since there is debate over whether it should be in the article, a citation would help quite a bit.

Seems to me that it would be pretty easy for a Polish editor to dig up a citation for this sentence. If someone would do that and insert it in the appropriate place in the Erika Steinbach article, I would appreciate it very much.

--Richard 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Third reversion of Daborhe's contribution + justification for the insertion of {{Fact}} tags

Reverted the text again but this time tried to insert text into the introduction that characterizes the position that User:Daborhe seems to be trying to make. (in a balanced NPOV way, of course).

In Wikipedia, A may be an undisputable fact (e.g. Germans were expelled) and B may be an undisputable fact (e.g. Nazis committed aggression and atrocities). However, asserting that B caused A is not necessarily an undisputable fact. A and B should probably be supported by citation of a reliable source. However, asserting that B caused A absolutely requires citation of a reliable source or else it is open to the charge of being original research. If this is a common belief, then it should be easy to find a reliable source that says it. Of course, the counter assertion that B did not cause A also requires a citation.

What is totally unacceptable in this context is to argue that B caused A and that this causality is indisputable fact and that there is no other interpretation of the motivation for the expulsion.

This is not just my opinion. It is the result of many months (indeed a couple of years) of discussion on this Talk Page, most of which preceded my involvement with this article.

--Richard 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The real question is why dont you answer any of my questions and why do you make new paragraphs all the time perhaps answering a question or 2 would be better. Daborhe 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Request opinions from other editors regarding difference of opinion between User:Daborhe and myself

I'm getting ready to prepare a Request for Comment to help resolve this dispute. I would appreciate comments from other editors of this article first. Thank you.

--Richard 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this last version that you did. And perhaps there wouldnt be a need for a dispure resolution if you would actually answer the questions asked under each and everyone of your paragraphs here on the discussion page. Daborhe 09:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Richard, but this Daborhe guy/girl is obviously a fanatic who is not capable to think and work academically. Maybe we should put also WW I, the Treaty of Versailles and the economic crisis of 1929 into the article because these events caused the expulsion as well. However, what I want to say is that the article`s topic is neither the Invasion of Poland nor the Holocaust but the expulsion of Germans. There are, furthermore, sufficient comments and links in the article which connect the expulsion with the occupation of Eastern European countries by the Wehrmacht (213.70.74.165 09:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)) ps: This radical comments and the poor English reminds me of Molobo, who has been recently banned from Wikipedia and has announced on his talk-page not to abstain from vandalising => somebody should check this (213.70.74.164 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

The lead is for the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, so the focus should be on that subject (compare that to other leads, eg that of World War II). I'm not saying the killings were not motivated by the trail of civilian bloodshed the Wehrmacht and SS left behind after walking into the Soviet Union and possibly something very concise should be put back into the lead section, at any rate not in the form envisioned by Daborhe. I'm not an expert on that myself. I've put back a paragraph lost in the maelstrom or was there good reason to delete it?

213, I think it's highly unlikely that Daborhe is Molobo, really. Sciurinæ 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, sorry for the false accusation! (213.70.74.164 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

Request opinion on this expanded introduction

I think, by now, User:Daborhe has figured out that I am not the only one who objects to his/her text. Daborhe is a new Wikipedian and is perhaps not used to the standards and processes in place here at Wikipedia. Daborhe's talk page shows indications of similar problems at other articles. It is my hope that Daborhe will learn the ways of Wikipedia and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia.

However, since I went to the trouble to compose an addition to the intro that covers Daborhe's POV, I re-present it here for your consideration. I am not strongly attached to this text (the current version of the article is OK with me).

However, I'm interested in finding if anybody other than User:Daborhe likes this version of the intro better than the current one.

The expulsion of Germans after World War II describes the escape and mass deportation of people considered Germans (both Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche) from Soviet-occupied areas outside the Soviet occupation zone of Germany, and is a major part of the German exodus from Eastern Europe during the end of and after World War II.

These expulsions and migrations affected German citizens remaining after the war, some of whom had become German citizens during the war, and people considered ethnic Germans. These people were expelled from historically Eastern German areas in present-day Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia (mostly from Vojvodina region), the German province of East Prussia, the later Kaliningrad Oblast (formerly Königsberg area) of Russia, Lithuania, and other East European countries. Some were persecuted because of their activities during the war; most were persecuted solely because of their German ethnicity.

There is a continuing controversy regarding the justification for the expulsions. One point of view argues that the expulsions were a justified action targeted at the German population of Eastern Europe and Russia in retribution for the aggression of Nazi Germany, the death and destruction and the atrocities carried out by the German military, the SS and others who collaborated with the Nazis. This point of view tends to assign culpability and complicity for these war crimes to the German populations of Eastern Europe as Nazi sympathizers and collaborators.

An opposing point of view argues that the expulsions were motivated by the pragmatic need of the Allies, specifically the Soviet Union and Poland, to realign borders and populations in postwar Eastern Europe. This point of view tends to consider the German populations of Eastern Europe and Russia as innocent victims who unjustly bore the brunt of anger and desire for retribution on the part of the populations and governments of Eastern Europe and Russia.

More than half a century after these events took place, the relations of Germany and its East European neighbors remain somewhat difficult due to heated and emotional controversy about the morality of the expulsions and the rights of expellees (Heimatvertriebene). Much of the controversy revolves around unresolved issues of demands for official apologies, compensation for lost properties and proper attribution of the reasons for the expulsions.

--Richard 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed edits made by User:85.105.124.6 to "Background" section

User:85.105.124.6 added the following text to the "Background" section. I reverted it because the quality of the writing was not up to the standard of the rest of the article. I am inserting the deleted text here for us to review and consider if any of it should be inserted into the "Background" section.

German population settled between the 10 and the 15 The century throughout Eastern Europe and in the Russian empire. For a long time German was the principal language of business and culture in Eastern Europe still see able in the tausend of German words in all eastern languages. With the upcoming of the 19 Th century nationalism and the panslavistic views the German culture and language was in a defensive position. In Riga it lost its official role in 1867 in Hungary German became a suppressed minority language even Hungary was in a Union with the German speaking Austrians.

A lot of radical nationalists started in the end of the 19 Th centuries to formulate their aims against the historical borders of the German language. before and after the first world war.

This led to the first homicides against Germans because they where Germans.

The expulsure started actually with 1918 In Poland the "Piasten" party witch already wanted the borders of their Nation on the Oder and stated the "lawful" expulse of the Germans living in western Prussia

And the attack on the Germans in Upper Silesia witch was stopped by the international controlled vote.

In the Czechoslovakia the Nationalsozialists Czech party of Benes

In Russia the cover of the Communist Revolution was used to try the first destruction of the German Baltic minority witch failed

And one must say France developed a brutal nationalisation program against the German language in Elsaß and lothringen witch was successful

The Italian ambitions too dating back before the first world war where solved thru the Südtirol agreement and the following agreements

The Memel land witch was just taken by Lithuania 1923 became an autonomy area and Danzig a Free State under polish observation witch was part of the direct casus belli 1939

So this shows that it is a very complex issue with a lot of opposing interests difficult to discuss and to show to the public

--Richard 19:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What autor mean with words panslavistic views ?

in 1867 in Hungary German became a suppressed minority language even Hungary was in a Union with the German speaking Austrians. - and this is suprising for him ? Germans was allways minority in Hungary , this simply put Hungary langue to equality with Germany langue. And some langues - e.q. Czechs and Yugoslavs have never ben official langue in AH. And need to say Czech population (excluding Slovaks and other minorities in later CSR) in AH empire was larger (cca 6,8 mio) as Autria population (cca 6,5) (with counting Germans speaking and Czechs speaking population was cca 10 mio German speaking vs cca 6,8 mio Czech speaking (with cca 2 mio Slovaks speaking totally 8,8 mio of "Czechoslovakian" langue).

aims against the historical borders of the German language. Hmmmm, Historicals borders of LANGUAGUE ? I known historical borders of nations and borders of language, but term historical borders language is new to me. And before starting of colonizing of lands by Germans colonist was nothing ? Human free lands ?

This led to the first homicides against Germans because they where Germans. Is autor abslolutely sure ? "Murdered Germans" was innoncent and murders was based only belonging to the German ethnicum, and Germans was not peoples who armed resists to will of victors of WWI ?

In the Czechoslovakia the Nationalsozialists Czech party of Benes - Hmmmm, totaly wrong name of party and Benes was never be leader of any politics party (but if you count Maffia (with three head leaders Masaryk, Stefanik, Benes) - illegal organization with target independce of Czechs from AH - then one).

And the attack on the Germans in Upper Silesia witch was stopped by the international controlled vote. On which event autor reffering ?

In Russia the cover of the Communist Revolution was used to try the first destruction of the German Baltic minority witch failed ?????? If will soviets planed to "erase" Germans from SU, then certainly have succes (for reference can look at erasing of others minorities in SU).

And one must say France developed a brutal nationalisation program against the German language in Elsaß and lothringen witch was successful - previously takem from France by Germany in 1871 France-Prussian war :-)))and followed by massive Germanization and only returning to France in 1918 preventing sucessfull germanization.

I thing this is tu much POV and bring me back ideas of German master race. Czert aka 194.108.217.125 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jadger's insertion of the {{weasel}} tag into the "Centre Against Expulsions" tag

Jadger,

Can you explain why you inserted the weasel tag? Which words do you believe are weasel words? --Richard 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the last sentence: "'Many' believe that the movement to build a centre and monument against forced migration is an attempt to present Germans as victims of the war and thereby downplay the German responsibility for Holocaust, atrocities and the outbreak of the war."

my problem is of course the word "Many" see 12th example here. not to mention the wording "present Germans as victims of the war". EVERYONE WERE VICTIMS OF THE WAR, GERMANS INCLUDED, to me that implies the uneducated stereotype that all Germans were aggressive warmongerers and deserved what they got in the end. Not to mention that Germans were not solely responsible for starting the war, WWII can be traced back to the treaty of Versailles's unfairly heavy handed outcome after WWI, and WWI can be traced back to French Revanchism after the Franco-Prussian War.

perhaps it can be reworded in another way?

--Jadger 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand and agree. However, there are two problems here. First, is the alleged use of the weasel word "many". At the end of the day, the only way to stop weaseling is to cite a specific source. We need to get specific and say "XYZ, a Polish historian" or "members of the X party in Poland" or "in Y, a Polish newspaper", etc. Without a reliable source, we have to weasel. This is a challenge to those who want to criticize the Federation and the Centre: Back up your criticisms with citations to reliable sources!

Now, the second problem is with Jadger's explanation of his objection. He's not just objecting to the use of the weasel word "many". He's also objecting to the criticism itself. I'm sorry. I don't think I wrote that sentence but the fact remains that there are people who believe that. It's not reasonable to argue whether or not they are right. We're not saying that they are right, simply that they believe this.

If you want to expand the discussion of the controversy with a discussion of the historical roots of Franco-German-Polish-Russian conflict, find a place to do that. This article is probably not the right place to do it.

I personally disagree that the expelled Germans deserved to be expelled in the way that they were expelled. I think it was wrong and inhumane. I also think that we have to judge the expulsions in the context of a chaotic postwar Europe where disease, starvation and violence were rampant.

However, our goal is not to champion truth, justice and right-thinking. Our goal is to describe what happened, how people felt about it then and how people feel about it now. If some people are wrong in their thoughts and feelings about the expulsions, so be it. This is an encyclopedia. It is our job to document the feelings and sentiments of all people EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG. (And also to be a little bit humble and to admit that they might be partly right and we might be partly wrong.) This is the essence of maintaining an NPOV stance.

--Richard 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

well, the paragraph under question says that the CDU has come under Flak in parliament for supporting it, there of course will be minutes from such a discussion if it happened. right now, without any authorities or named critics, it seems to be just another stupid conspiracy theory.

I think the criticism is misworded, as it sounds conspiracy theoryish, perhaps reworded to "critics say the centre is meant to deflect attention from the atrocities committed by the Nazis during WWII." of course replacing critics with an actual source once we find one, I will try finding one tonite but dont have time rite now.

--Jadger 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II: Lithuania

What I think should be mentioned about the expulsion of Germans in Lithuania is the fact that Memel or Klaipėda was a Samogitian city before Germans conquered it during the crusades; therefore it should not be called a part of Germany. It was taken over my Germans temporarily but most of the inhabitants of the city and surrounding areas were Samogitians and they still are to this day. --Ioda

The city had been German since the Northern Crusades, there has been a plethora of migrations of people in Europe, by the reasoning above we must always note the previous inhabitants of a city. While some Samogitians did remain, they were not in the majority. and define "temporary" as things are always changing, I would not call a couple hundred years "temporary", but rather an era in its history when it was German. see for instance Danzig/Gdansk, where, when it was German it was called Danzig, then when the Poles dominated it was Gdansk.

This is exactly the kind of discussion the forced expellations tried to answer, but as long as 1 person of a different ethnicity exists in that city, there will be different claims about its history. For instance, you claim it was Samogitian ruled by Germans, do you have any census statistics to back this up? from pre-WWI before the territory started being tossed between the two nations

--Jadger 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite right about Danzig/Gdansk. It was always Danzig in German and Gdansk in Polish. I see that you still prefer to link to Danzig (see above) even if it's Polish now, wonder why is that ? As for Memel/Klaipeda, the fact that it was German for many years is only the result of German (then Teutonic) expansionism towards east, nothing more. Similarly the later expulsions of Germans were the result of Russian (then Soviet) expansionism towards west. --Lysy^talk 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I referred to it as Danzig for multiple reasons: a)I dont have a keyboard with Polish accents, b)Danzig is a good band that I like c)my ancestry is German, not Polish. It does not matter which name I use on talk pages, as long as I use the one agreed to by consensus on article pages.

Expansionism is a more modern term for colonization of conquered territories which is a form of migration. for instance, The German tribes migrating across the Ancient Roman Empire, conquering it and supplanting their own culture as they went, the same with Huns, etc. etc. or for instance, the American (and Canadian) settlers migrating west, conquering Indian lands, I fail to see a difference.

let's get back to the original discussion instead of starting an argument, why must it be noted that previous to German rule, it was ruled by someone else? that is standard for any land.

--Jadger 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A different approach

I've been reluctant during my two years of activity on Wikipedia to get involved in this topic, even though I may claim some expertise, however amateur: In the late 1980s I wrote an extensive academic paper about it, and I've been reading more about it, in English and German, ever since. I'm reluctant because I don't wish to be subjected to attacks by extremists from either side of the issue, with whom I have some experience from my sustained effort to defend the inclusion of German place-names in articles about former German territories, where such inclusion is historically appropriate or relevant. (The prime case in point is Danzig/Gdańsk.)

The present article strikes me as excessively polemical, confusing to the uninitiated and highly unsatisfactory in terms of information. As it stands, the article seems to be primarily a discussion of motives, feelings and arguments, not the events themselves, and while it attempts to present opposing views, in places its tone is not NPOV.

If we are engaged in writing an 'encyclopedia' that is first and foremost informative, an entirely different approach should be taken. Allusions can be made where appropriate to the various arguments and counter-arguments about what was done, but they should be brief and in summary form rather than in lengthy and disjointed detail; they should be incidental or supplementary to the historical narrative. Keep in mind that this article supposedly is being written for English speakers, not for Germans, Poles or Russians. And in the English-speaking world, particularly the U.S., the expulsion of the Germans is practically unknown in popular history. It is not an episode that 'everyone knows about,' as may be the case in Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic.

I made a start on rewriting the article myself. Here's my initial effort:

The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the expropriation and mass deportation of ethnic Germans from Soviet-occupied areas of eastern Germany and other countries in Eastern Europe during the closing months of World War II and the immediate postwar period. During the Soviet conquest and expulsions, which continued into 1949, an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million German civilians lost their lives, while millions more were uprooted and forced to flee, typically under very harsh conditions.

The process was instigated by Stalin, who at Yalta demanded that the German-Polish border be shifted westward to the Oder and Western Neisse rivers, with a digression west of the Oder around the Baltic port of Stettin. The Western Allies gradually acquiesced in this demand for 44,000 square miles of prewar (and pre-Nazi) German territory, terming it "compensation" for the large section of eastern Poland annexed by the Soviet Union under terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.

Consequently, the bulk of Pomerania, Silesia, Danzig and southern East Prussia were acquired by Poland, while northern East Prussia, including the historic German city of Königsberg, became part of the Soviet Union. Before the war, these territories had a population of about 10 million Germans. Another 6 million or more Germans in prewar Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Romania also were subjected to expulsion.

Article XIII of the Potsdam Accords, signed by representatives of the United States, Britain and the U.S.S.R. in August 1945, said the expulsion of the German population of these areas "should be effected in an orderly and humane manner."

Debate about the justice or injustice of the annexations and expulsion of the Germans has centered around two general views. On one hand, some people in the West, and many in the former Soviet Bloc states (especially Poland), argue that the Germans "had it coming" because of the unprecedented atrocities and genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany during the war against, not only the Jews, but also against Poles, Russians and others the Nazis castigated as Untermenschen. This was essentially an argument for 'righteous' revenge.

On the other hand, some in the West and probably most Germans argue that the expropriation and expulsion of millions of human beings because they were German was an act of what later became known as ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and that in any event this vengeance fell largely on common people who in most cases had little or no direct involvement in Nazi atrocities. This argument condemns the expulsions as a massive violation of human rights, based on ethnicity.

Okay, that's as far as I got. You can see what I have in mind in terms of summarizing arguments. Comments?

If anyone would like to read my paper, titled "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans," I will be happy to email the text if you email me a request. My email address is on my user page.

Sca 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well put, in my opinion. Of course I would dispute some parts that I consider incorrect or over-simplified, but it's a very good start. Two things, I think we should keep in mind, however:

1. it's impossible to reasonably describe the expulsions separately from the German evacuation that preceded it. Often there was no clear distinction between the two. Most of the Germans wanted to flee for one reason or another and also did not resist the later expulsions. Of course this differed case by case but it's not correct to imagine that they were all forced out.
2. a common mistake in my opinion is an attempt to describe the events from the modern human rights perspective, without relation to the context of the times. The standards in 1940s were different and both Hitler and Stalin would kill millions of civilians without hesitation. It's not only Germans but also other nations that were moved around the map. Using "ethnic cleansing" terminology is an obvious anachronism, as the notion did not even exist then.

--Lysy^talk 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like SCA's intro. I think that we do need to discuss the arguments and counter-arguments somewhere but not in the intro and, if necessary, not in this article (i.e. push them out to a separate article if necessary). Not to create a POV fork but to be able to tell the historical narrative as SCA suggests and then add the discussion of the polemic later. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to keep people from adding polemic in "as if it were the gospel truth".

--Richard 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another issue would the that a fact-limited text should be very thoroughly referenced with reliable sources (preferably historical research). Hopefully, Sca will be able to help with this, having done much research before. --Lysy^talk 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but I think your second point is invalid Lysy, the movement of the other nations can be talked about on the articles about that, not on an article about the Germans that were expelled, it would make this article rather long, not to mention it is a logical fallacy, just because it is done to one group of people does not mean it should be done to others as well. As for "ethnic cleansing" being an anachronism, it is stated as such in his final paragraph, and helps the reader understand, the reader is not looking for an article from 1945, but a modern one. Where the millions of bad Nazis disappeared to should be discussed in such an article, not on an article about the mass expellation of a whole people.

other than that, I like Sca's writing also, although in a few places a {{weasel}} tag may be needed if that were to become the new article.

P.S. to your first point Lysy, why do you think those people where fleeing before the actual program of expulsion took place? because they understood what was most likely to come. But i don't want to start an argument here, just thought one person should add counterpoints to yours, now it's done.

--Jadger 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger wrote "The fact that it (expulsion) is done to one group of people does not mean that it should be done to others as well." This is true but it helps to put the expulsions of the Germans in context.

As an analogy, consider the case of slavery in the United States. The fact that other nations had slaves does not mean that slavery in the United States was justified but it does explain how slavery became an institution in the United States. The U.S. didn't invent slavery. It just held on to it longer than other nations and gave it up more reluctantly than other nations.

--Richard 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. The historic context is important for understanding what, how and why happened. It should not serve an apology for the expulsions. Jadger, I did not say that we should describe in detail the movements of other nations, but it should be mentioned. Actually, the same trains that were used to transport Germans served to move Poles out of what become now Soviet Union. What I meant was that we should keep this in mind when creating the article. Many people were hungry and oppressed in this part of Europe at that time, not only Germans. Of course after what happened during WW2 in Poland it was all too easy (or rather no necessary) to provoke anti-German behaviour, but this is also understandable. As for the reasons for Germans fleeing, probably the most common answer would be the fear, and this was justified as well. Neither Russians nor Poles nor the surviving Jews should have been expected to behave particularly friendly towards Germans, regardless of whether SS, civilians, Nazi party members or not. --Lysy^talk 07:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Lysy, I am just concerned that stating this in the article could be misconstrued as an excuse or a reason, we have to word it carefully. for instance, Germans fleeing for fear could be misunderstood as "they knew about the holocaust and knew there would be vengeance" which in fact most people knew nothing or little of it, and fleed in fear because of Nazi propoganda, just like in 1940 civilians in Belguim and France fleed towards the coast, there nation had not done anything like the holocaust that they should be afraid of retribution for.

just a side point Richard, but slavery in the USA was very different from, dare I say "traditional" slavery in other nations. i.e. in Ancient Rome men would sell themselves into slavery at the Circus Maximus to bet on horses, obviously it was not the same kind of slavery. slavery in the USA was an unique institution, and the south needed the slaves because it was not a growing industrializing land such as the north or Europe (not to mention that the main reason northerners wanted to free slaves was so they could have cheap labour to work their factories)

--Jadger 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Denazification

As a sidenote to the "revenge" motive, I wonder, how is it that all the Germans suddenly became the good guys with the end of the WW2. Where did the millions of the bad Nazis instantly disappear ? I'm sure you know that the support for Nazism in East Prussia territories was much stronger than in Germany proper. --Lysy^talk 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on Lysy's side note about the Nazis "instantly" dissapering. It was in fact a process that took years. It may seem as indstantly to us now, but that's because no-one really bothers with the transition time period. All we se is focus on the end of the war, and then suddenly next chapter in the book Germany is back as good as new. There is usually a chapter missing in the book.

Some information from early 1947.

90,000 Nazis were in concentration camps, another 1,900,000 were forbidden to work as anything but manual labourers. Large numbers of POWs were almost 2 years after the war ended still used for forced labor in work camps in various parts of Europe. 3,000,000 in Russia, 750,000 in France, 400,000 in Britain and 10,000 in Belgium. [2] As an example, in Norway 275 German POW's were killed and 392 injured when they in 1945/46 were forced to clear minefields and afterwards walk over them to make sure there were no mines left.

'...there have been general policies of destruction or limitation of possible peaceful productivity under the headings of "pastoral state" and "war potential." The original of these policies apparently expressed on September 15, 1944, at Quebec, aimed at:

"converting Germany into a country principally agricultural and pastoral,"

and included,

"the industries of the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be put out of action, closed down...."' [3]

'There are several illusions in all this "war potential" attitude.

a. There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a "pastoral state". It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it. This would approximately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France.

...' [4]

The Germans should be glad the communists took over in Eastern Europe, that was probably what caused the "sudden" change and spooked the west to make friends and into enlisting them as allies. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is the article that is relevant. I'm surprised that it is so short. It seems like it could be expanded.

--Richard 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my rather off-topic question with the interesting information. I've read History of Germany since 1945, denazification and National Socialist German Workers Party articles, but they are very brief on what really happened with the Nazis (I know that "the Nazis" term is a generalization again, and assuming that they were the 8.5 million of the Nazi party would be oversimplification). Particularly the articles do not really discuss the obviously important social aspects of "denazification". Hopefully wikipedia is a good place to expand on this and fill the missing chapter (and apologies for being off-topic here). --Lysy^talk 06:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The "revenge" perspective.

An interesting comment to the revenge thread could be a citation from Marek Edelman, one of the surviving leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising:

They say there were evil and good Germans. But why didn't I have the luck during this whole time of finding a good one? I didn't meet a single good German, only those who hit me in the face. Yes I am sorry for the girl that died during expulsions. But I have no pity for the Germans as a nation. They put Hitler in power. German society lived for five years from occupied Europe; lived from me, and my friends. To me they gave two slices of bread, while Germans ate as much as they wanted. That is why it is important that they continue penance. Let them cry for long, long time - maybe then they will finally realise that to Europe they were the executioner [...] They don't deserve mercy, they deserve penance. And that for many generations, because otherwise their arrogance and haughtiness shall return

I'm not mentioning it in order to aggravate the discussion, but to illustrate how the Jews and Poles could have felt about the expulsions and that the perspective on the events may differ. --Lysy^talk 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And one more addition to this line of reasoning: it may be worth remembered, that unlike Soviet Union or the US, Poland never received any war reparations from Germany. Again, this does not justify the expulsions, but adds perspective to some German claims about German "lost property" in these territories. Also most of any valuable goods that remained in the territories annexed to Poland, particularly most of the industry, the machinery etc. was promptly transported to Russia after WW2. --Lysy^talk 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the Soviets took the valuable goods from everywhere they conquered, including Manchuria which they occupied for only a very short time in their 1945 invasion. they of course claimed this was war reparations to them because the Soviet Union was heavily damaged by the war also. I think the idea of a quote from the opposite side is a good idea, but I do not like this one, as it is full of conjecture and very hateful. for instance: German society lived for five years from occupied Europe; the average German civilian did not of course actively go out and try to get everything valuable from the conquered lands, but rather took what they were given, they couldn't go and give the wine back to the Frenchman it was taken from, he lived thousands of miles away, surely if they knew that the rest of Europe was being totally exploited as it was they would not of been so eager to accept it, which is to assume that they were in the first place. Perhaps a quote from Hitler or another high Nazi would work just as well to show what had been done by them, such as I know the Nazis were famous for saying stuff such as "the slavs are sub humans that are only good for plowing the fields" (I paraphrase of course). this way we avoid portraying all Germans as active exploiters, but still show what was being done by the Nazis.

--Jadger 02:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

war aftermath in prague

Copied from Talk:Prague#war_aftermath_in_prague.

this part of the history section is in my view untrue – the added sentences of User:Smith2006 especially that: "German schools were attacked and even ethnic German children were hanged and burned alive in the squares of Prague in acts of revenge.[5]" are 1) out of my knowledge (and obviously google's knowledge also - i have found just some expelled german's statement on this subject, no historical article on that) about what was happening in this period (schools were running during the uprise???) 2) not at all mentioned in the cited reference (as far as my german skills and limited time allow me to judge) 3) from talk page of smith2006 i have an impression that this user's contributions about german history are somewhat problematic.
also the statement about "massacres" (Meanwhile, massacres against the German minority occurred in revenge of German cruelties. [6])seems to me strange, since under this term i understand some organized killing of several (bigger number) people in one act - in prague of that time, number of innocent people were killed (and many people feel about that today very uneasy and ashamed) among those who were cooperating with SS and actively helped in their cruelities, but not some large-scale accident as in few other places in czechoslovakia. --PowerCS 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just revert much of User:Smith2006 edits ([7], [8] and [9]). We need more sources to verify "revenge against the German population, especially against the elderly, against women and children". --mj41 08:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Another User:Smith2006 contributions:

• Jablonec nad Nisou - [10], [11] - ... as it had an absolute majority of German inhabitants. After 1945 the Germans were expelled or murdered and Czechs were resettled in the city.

• Hlučín Area - [12] - were expelled or murdered and Czechs were resettled in the city

• Gdańsk - [13] - or killed in Soviet-Polish acts of revenge - [14] - Many ethnic German citizens of Danzig were killed by post-1945 Soviet and Polish acts of revenge directed against them.

• Gliwice - [15] - ... Many ethnic Germans were killed in the process of deportation. ...

• History_of_Prague - [16] - After this fierce acts of revenge against the German minority of the city were perpetrated and many German civilians were killed until the government slowly put an end to these acts of revenge.

--mj41 10:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing tight

In U.S. journalism schools, students were admonished to "write tight" (yes, I know, tightly). When as a journalist one is confronted with a mass of detail, the most difficult task is to select the most salient information and convert it into a coherent narrative. This is the difficulty here.

While I generally agree with Lysy's comments about the context of the expulsions, you can't start with context in an encyclopedia entry. The subsequent discussion shows how Wikipedians tend to veer off into digressions and disputes about details and unverifiable assertions. That's why I'm still reluctant to get involved in trying to rewrite this entry. Nevertheless, in the U.S. at least, this remains largely an untold story, and begs for telling.

BTW, the theme of revenge is central to WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler's psycopathic conviction was that 'the Jews' were somehow to blame for what he perceived as Germany's ills following WWI. He said repeatedly that it was his "unshakeable will" to take revenge by eliminating them from Europe. His attack on Poland – which as Shirer and others reported was not initially popular among the German people, who dreaded war – was in his twisted mind an act of revenge for Polish acquisition of pre-WWI German territories and supposed mistreatment of Germans. And while it certainly did not justify Hitler's war, there apparently was some ill-treatment of ethnic Germans in Poland during the interwar years. (Please, Polish friends, don't demand that I document this. It was indeed hugely exaggerated by the Nazi press. But perhaps half a million ethnic Germans did leave Poland in 1919-39.)

Hitler's acts of revenge against Germany's supposed enemies ultimately produced fierce retributive counter-revenge against Germans. In human terms, it was understandable that many Poles and Russians would feel motivated to take revenge. But from the standpoint of Western ideals, that meant the avengers were lowering themselves to the methods of their erstwhile Nazi oppressors. It was a savage war on both sides (reminiscent of the 30 Years War), and as is usual in such situations it was often the innocent who suffered. (Personally, I endorse the aphorism attributed to Gandhi: "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind.")

Okay, you see? Now I'm going off on a tangent. It's a very difficult topic.

Anyhow, so far two people have asked for my paper, and I'll get it off to them pronto.

Thanks for listening.

Sca 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sca, You haven't mentioned how many Poles left Germany 1919-1939. It was partially two-way exchange, e.g. German state officials (including German language teachers, army and police officers) left Poland, because it was Poland, not Germany.

• The idealistic West:
  • did nothing to stop the German-Soviet invasion 1939;
  • bombed German cities (see German comments - Holocaust);
  • accepted occupation of Poland by the Soviet Union after the war (almost the same with Czechoslovakia);
  • accepted Stalin's borders, i.e. mass expulsions;
  • tolerated Soviet genocides - great famine, mass executions (Katyń).

I don't believe that people of the West have any right to criticize us because of the expulsions, because:

• the Communist government was imposed to Poles by the SU, USA and UK. The government was responsible for Soviet type camps in Poland, organized mostly for Poles, used for Germans mostly during several months of 1945. Polish Copmmunists didn't exterminate Germans the way, they did Poles Augustów chase 1945.
• international organizations did nothing for expelled Poles in 1945. Even today the expulsion of Germans is described and condemned, the expulsion of Poles isn't. The same allegedly terrible cattle cars transported expelled Germans and Poles returning from Germany.
• the only way to get any kind of help in deserted Poland was to rob Germans. The Germans had food, cloths, luxurious goods like sewing machines. Millions of Poles had nothing because of German war. The today alternative would be to deploy UNO troops and send goods, meds, doctors. Only limited help arrived in 1945.

John Sack (the article exaggerates) has published a book about Jewish participation in the expulsion. It wasn't exactly Polish nationalism.

Yes, Germans weren't beloved in Poland before the war, but partially because of German policy of economic and political aggresion. Germans were also frequently capitalists opposing Polish workers. Statistically Germans were richer than Poles. Did the West protest when all rich people in Communist states were robbed by the Communists after the WWII? Xx236 12:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't respond directly to comments from people who aren't registered Wikipedia Users. But in general let me say that I'm well aware of the long history of German-Polish enmity and the various reasons – however ill-founded some may have been – for it. My hope is that both sides will transcend that history and leave it behind.

My experience on Wikipedia is that there seem to be a few Poles who feel it is their daily mission in life to keep hate for the Germans alive, regardless of the actual conduct of present-day Germans. (This is seen also in the political arena.) I have to say I've seen only one or two fleeting examples of a similar attitude from the German side, where I believe such spiteful views are confined to the lunatic fringe.

I certainly don't know everything about the issue, and don't need to. Wherever such views come from, they are despicable and beneath the dignity of decent human beings. I have the same view of those elsewhere in the world who make hate for certain ethnic, racial, religious or political groups their raison d'être.

Sca 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sca, would you please prove that my "daily mission in life" is "to keep hate for the Germans alive, regardless of the actual conduct of present-day Germans"? I have criticized the USA and UK. I have even presented the German opinion about the bombings, even if I don't share it. I find your statement close to hateful. I hope I'm wrong. Xx236 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. Sca 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry for asking, but since you mentioned it, how many of these "Poles who feel it is their daily mission in life to keep hate for the Germans alive" have you met on Wikipedia ? --Lysy^talk 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, three, I guess. I said "a few," which in English generally means three or four. BTW, what I meant about keeping alive hate for the Germans was not that the many Germans who participated in the horrendous Nazi crimes in Poland didn't deserve to be hated, but that these few people seem to want to keep hate alive for the Germans in general, including today's Germans, because of what those Germans (and others before them) did.

Reconcilation is predicated on mutual acknowledgement of wrongs committed and mutual willingness to adopt a positive, hopeful attitude toward the other party. This doesn't mean forgetting about the crimes, but it does mean a) trying to understand how human beings like you and me can be movtivated to do such things, and b) moving on today in a spirit of friendship.

Sca 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of categories of thinking about the expulsions. Among them are:

1. The Germans deserved expulsion because they supported the Nazis
2. The Germans deserved expulsion because nobody wanted a repeat of World War II (a variant of #1)
3. The Germans didn't deserve expulsion but the Polish people are innocent because U.S. and Soviet Union are the primary culprits for setting up the agreements of the Potsdam conference
4. The Germans didn't deserve expulsion but everybody was getting expelled back then
5. The Germans didn't deserve expulsion but the Polish people are innocent because the Soviet Union made them do it for territorial reasons
6. The Germans didn't deserve it, the U.S. and Soviet Union set the stage for the expulsions but the national Polish government of the time and a number of local officials and individuals share in the blame for worsening an already terrible situation

I believe that ALL of the above are true to some extent although I don't put much weight on #1 and #2. (That is, I believe that many people felt that way but I don't agree that this justified the expulsions)

I especially believe #6. I think ALL of the above points should be made in this article in an NPOV way. I think most of the above points ARE made in the article although it is very difficult to maintain an NPOV stance. I also think there are plenty of pro-German and pro-Polish editors who make it very difficult to keep a strictly NPOV stance.

--Richard 23:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --Lysy^talk 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to argue but...

please define "Polish people" in number 3. I think 3 is wrong because you said primary culprits, meaning not the only one, there were many acts of retribution by local populace, just like in France with the collaborators getting their heads shaved, that's not to say all Polish people were guilty, but to say they were innocent as a group is wrong. As you said, you don't believe in all of them, but they are ways people have looked at it, and number 3 looks to be a "blame the big guy behind me" idea.

I totally agree with number 6, although the way you state it goes kind of against your number 3, "...a number of local officials and individuals share in the blame..." but you said that the Polish people where innocent, Polish officials and individuals are people aren't they?

number 1, not all Germans supported the Nazis, they never received a majority in elections, most went along with it, just like, dare I say it: right now in the good ol' US of A, most people do not agree with the war in Iraq, but go along with it because they feel they should support the pres. in a time of war.

--Jadger 02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into an argument about which of the above 6 POVs is right. I'm just saying that because these 6 POVs (and probably a few more variations) exist, there is a lot of controversy especially when some editor tries to come in and insist that only one of these POVs represents the truth. I have been editing this article for at least 3 months now and this is the single biggest problem that impacts this article.

The "consensus" approach is to document ALL POVs while trying not to say that one is right and another wrong. One phenomenon that makes this article hard to read is that we will list the various POVs and then somebody will insist on adding text underneath one of the POVs trying to argue that it is wrong. Then someone will add text underneath that arguing that it is right. Before long, the article is no longer encyclopedic and resembles a blog instead. This tendency must be discouraged on a continual basis.

I do have my belief about which of the 6 POVs is more right and which is more wrong but I try not to impose my belief on the article. I try to get other editors to do the same.

--Richard 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My view, for what it's worth, is that No. 5 and No. 6 together best characterize what happened, as some Poles of the period bear some complicity in the violations of human rights that occurred. Although I can understand feelings behind Nos. 1 and 2, and behind a general hatred for the Germans at the time, I don't think it was right to 'correct' one huge mass of wrongs with another. As I said before, that's adopting the methods of the oppressor.

Sca 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

OK, let's please avoid an edit war over calling the expulsions an "ethnic cleansing".

I don't see the problem with using the term anachronistically. Would you not characterize the Turkish massacre of Armenians as "ethnic cleansing"? How about the concentration camps during the Boer War?

If anachronistic use of "ethnic cleansing" is the only objection, then we can rephrase it so that we state that "ethnic cleansing" was not a phrase in common parlance at the time.

However, I suspect that there is a deeper objection that some people might wish to argue that the expulsions were somehow different from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc.

If so, I'd like to hear arguments in support of this objection.

--Richard 06:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is a term that appeared in English in 1990s along with mass murders in Yugoslavia. It has strong connotations with mass murdering of civilians. Retro-usage in the context of the expulsion of Germans is both incorrect and misleading. I wonder what is the purpose of those editors insisting on using the term. I have rephrased the sentence in the lead. --Lysy^talk 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to explain the events to the reader and the usage of current, well-known terms are useful in this. The aim of the expulsions was to create ethnically homogenous territories (which supposedly would end conflicts), which is exactly what "ethnic cleansing" is about. That the events in Yugoslavia were more brutal is true but the events of 1945/46 was no picknick either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we use a more descriptive form instead of the misleading term, then ? --Lysy^talk 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, propose a better term to describe the expulsions, then. --Richard 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I consider a balanced description from the Expulsion article: Expulsion is one of the words used to describe the movement of mostly German and Polish populations from Soviet-occupied areas following World War II. The term indicates condemnation of the events. An alternative term with a more neutral or even apologetic stance is population transfer; a stronger term is the modern ethnic cleansing. What do you think ? --Lysy^talk 09:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Text below hit an edit conflict with User:Lysy's edit above.

I agree with User:Str1977.

Let's look at some definitions

From the Britannica Online

the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

From the American Heritage Dictionary

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

From Wikipedia

Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory. Narrower definitions equate ethnic cleansing with forcible population transfer accompanied by gross human-rights violations and other factors. In broader definitions it is effectively a synonym of population transfer.

I understand the argument that "ethnic cleansing" has strong connotations of "mass murder of civilians". There are two parts to the definition of "ethnic cleansing", (1) the basic premise of "cleaning out undesirable ethnic minorities from an area" and (2) the use of violence and terror (including mass murder) to achieve those ends. However, mass murder is often a terror tactic used to encourage undesirables to flee instead of being murdered. Well, except in Rwanda, where mass murder seems to have been an end unto itself.

The first part of the definition clearly applies to the expulsions. Does the second part also apply? Was violence and terror used to achieve the objective of ethnic cleansing? If so, then the term is appropriate even if anachronistic. If not, then how did 1 - 2 million Germans die in the process? Did they all die from malnutrition and disease? Did they just leave because someone asked them nicely or were they threatened with violence?

Now, describing a series of actions as "ethnic cleansing" is very POV. The "good guys" never commit "ethnic cleansing". Only "bad guys" do that. Perhaps the Poles and Czechs want to argue that the people doing the expulsions were "good guys" and that there was no intent to engage in "ethnic cleansing".

If this is the intended line of argument, I'd like to hear it.

--Richard 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel you're putting somebody else's words into my mouth. I don't think that those responsible for the expulsions were "good guys". What I'm contending is that despite the nice definitions that you've quoted, the first thing that's brought to one's mind upon hearing the term are people with cut throats or mass graves of executed victims. Don't you agree ? The purpose of the expulsion was the same as if it was ethnic cleansing but the means were different. I like the question about how and when did the 2 million Germans die in the process. Do you know the answer ? --Lysy^talk 09:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That might be the case, but we cannot simply silence something because it evokes bad feelings - the expulsions were messy, and violent, and - dare we say it - evil. That the latest example of "ethnic cleansing" were more murderous is another matter - we could also say that we shouldn't call Gulf War 1990/91 a war because it were not right to place it alongside the more bloody conflict in Zaire or Cechnya. But nonetheless, it is still a war according to common definition - and the expulsions were ethnic cleansing according to common definition. No one here says they were genocide. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No doubt the expulsion was evil, but whether it was violent remains to be shown. The excerpt from Expulsion article I cited above explains that the other terms for expulsion would be population transfers (more apologetic) or ethnic cleansing (stronger). Why do you insist on using the stronger term and not simply population transfers ? What it the difference between transfers of Germans from Czechoslovakia or Poland and e.g. the transfers for Poles from Lithuania, Ukraine or Belarus ? Should we call them "ethnic cleansing" as well ? What is the purpose of using stronger words than necessary ? --Lysy^talk 10:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was violent. There's no doubting it. Not as violent as Srebrenica but violent nonetheless. And yes, there is no fundamental difference between this expulsion and other expulsions. A difference might arise in cases of a mutually agreed exchange (as the Greek-Turkish population exchange), though that doesn't make them good. Whether there was a formal agreement between Poland and the Soviet Union I do not know, but it doesn't matter much, as an agreement between the Soviets and one of their sattelites was no real agreement. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)