Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion/Archive 1

Merger

• • I disagree. The second is dealing with the expulsion based on Potdsam agreement, while the latter is about the WW2 evacuation of civilian populations. Opposite is true: we should truly divide subject between those 2 articles, and add main article, that deals with the whole process (but I have no idea, what should be the name of main article) Cautious 14:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These are definitely two different topics and they must be separated and compartmentalized. There is also a thrid topic - that of the refugees, as opposed to evacuees and people expelled against their will.

The exuplsions were a form of punishment, possibly extrajudicial punishment, and directed primarily against the Germans, who had culpability for the War (along with Moscow), the other designer and author of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. The Russians came out of the war as winners, the Germans as losers.

I think it was perfectly normal in the case of France, for example, to expect all Germans and Nazis who had come during the War, to leave.

The "evacuations" in some cases had to to do with totally innocent groups such as Estonian and Latvian civilians, who were victims of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and were in fact not evacuated but were fleeing the persecution to come, which is a different story. They were not being evacuated to their ancient German homeland but they were fleeing - in tears - their homelands, because they had already been through a couple of years of Soviet traumatization at the beginning of the war, and now the Red Army and the alien secret police were coming back. They found themselves aboard German ships - the ships of their occupiers - headed for a war-torn Germany that was being bombed to pieces - hardly a tantalizing prospect. Tens of thousands of Estonians undertook an ardous trip on small overcrowded boats to Sweden that had nothing to do with evacuation or expulsion. They were refugees, fleeing a totalitarian regime. Hundreds, perhaps thousands perished on a stormy fall sea.

Disputes

In current version advance of Red Army is portrayed as invasion of barbars into civilized Europe under good German rule. That is not ballanced picture.

How does one portray Abu Ghraib without refering to the torture and mistreatment? It is impossible. No normal person suggests that Hitler's Germany was good, that it was not so has been explicitly stated billions of times since WW II. If descriptions of the brutal behavior of much of the Red Army, which was not in compliance with the Law of Land Warfare and which was not in compliance with the norms of human rights either is not pleasant for the commentator to read, the commentator should draw different conclusions. The past cannot be changed, consequently the commentator should refrain from urging us to not paint a picture based on established fact (try Bevor's books, for example). Instead he (she) should look inside and reach the conclusion that all parties who go to war must refrain from commiting crimes against civilians, or he (she) should keep his peace. "Methinks thoud doth protest too much".

Wiklpedians should not be the court of last judgement, asking "who to blame for crimes that happend at the end of WWII" (Germans? Nazis? Poles?) and finaly deciding "Stalin's Red Army was the worst and others were victims".

I also dont like emotional pictures like: "great columns through the snow at -25°C, while Soviet aircraft performed shellfire raids on them. Many were killed and sick had to be left dying on the road, while the survivors attempted to rescue what they could, carrying their possessions with them. Many women had to give birth in the open, leaving their newborns to die".

I suppose the commentator would propose that in the case of documentary films of Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, we should black out those sections that show emaciated people and ovens. How can such pictures not be emotional? The Soviets strafed transport ships with Red Cross markings in the Baltic Sea and sent many civilians to their deaths with torpedos released from warplanes (e.g. the Moero - a hospital ship - on September 22, 1944 - hundreds or even thousands dead). How precisely does one avoid referring to this being a tragedy that shouldn't have taken place? Surely the commentator would not suggest describing the deaths of all of those Leningraders during the 1000 days the city was encircled?

Compare it with some article about extermination camp, e.g. Belzec.

Numbers should be mentioned with sources.

In this type of material, we'll have to settle for ranges, estimated by the various experts. But certainly include sources, though every source will be discounted by someone.

"Potsdam conference that called for further ethnic cleansing of Germans remaining outside the borders of Germany."

Potsdam conference did not called for ethnic cleansing.

Evacuation and expulsion shuld IMO be described in one article.

81.27.192.19 16:41, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article only about movement of Germans? There were plenty of other evacuations and explusions during WWII. DJ Clayworth 16:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality, language, and merging

I do not like this article for various reasons.

• It cites dubious numbers without source and even contradicts itself (e.g. "Some sources put the number of victims on 2 milions." vs. "limiting the loss to 'only' three million")
• there are numerous language mistakes (even a new verb was created: "expulsed"), indicating none of the people this encyclopedia is written for (english speakers) cares for it enough to improve on the language.
• The article exaggerates. My grandmother left Silesia after the war, and she never had anything close to -25°C.
• There is a message at the top that this "article should be merged with World War II evacuation and expulsion" but both badly written articles still exist. Get-back-world-respect 23:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So?

I see this not as a finished article, but a place for perceptions to gather, for "truth" to be forged after a long, contentious struggle. Because that is the nature of the subject. Different peoples have different perceptions of the events, so let's get them out on the table and see which ones can survive. It's only fitting that an article on a topic this ugly should start ugly. It may get merged, or gutted and redistributed in the end, but for now "Let 'er rip!" There are lots of editors who will clean it up someday. Bwood 02:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Expanding the article

Moved deportation of Jews and Poles "as is" from World War II atrocities in Poland article. These 2 subsections need to be merged into one: same place, same event, same perpetrators. Also, article should contained info about all: voluntary and involuntary (noting the distinction) acts of relocation of the large numbers of people during the WWII. Thus article's title will need to be changed to better reflect its content e.g. World War II deportation and expulsion. --Ttyre 14:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, including evacuations in the title without listing all evacuations during the time (just a eurocentric stub at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_evacuations ) is misleading. There'd be problems with listing the various movements together. Good idea for an entry though. PhilipPage 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Subject balance

This user is banned from editing Wikipedia as sock of master Sussexman due to extreme level of abuse, including canvassing, sock-farming, and legal threats.

I think it is impossible to dispute the fact that, for whatever reasons, the Poles are the most overtly nationalistic people in central Europe. Their history books are, frankly hilarious. (I write as someone who has a 1st Class Honours Degree in Modern History). For this reason I think you have a serious problem with a whole range of issues such as the explusions and the lands around the Baltic to which modern-day Poland lays claim on the flimsiest of pretexts.

The most important point to make about the expulsions of the German populations from their homelands (pre-1919) following the Second World War is that it was inhumane, murderous, and unacceptable. It is pointless for posters to make comments about Nazis etc., because the 'liberators' of Europe were supposed to represent civilisation and decency and to be freeing the German people from Nazis. Instead, in the East, in 1945, the Soviet armies and the Polish militias displayed a brutality against non-combatants unequalled in modern history, even by the Nazis. For this to be disputed is simply fatuous.

We here in Britain have always accepted the sanctity of private property and the fundamental rights of people to remain safely in their homes come hell or high water. These fundamentals are enshrined in the Treaty of Rome.

If the Nazis had been brutal to civilians then that should have been properly addressed. But the rapes, murders and expulsions from what became the Eastern Bloc were not a civilised response by any standards and cannot be justified.

Christchurch 15:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC) This user is banned from editing Wikipedia as sock of master Sussexman due to extreme level of abuse, including canvassing, sock-farming, and legal threats.

From what you wrote I assume that you read at least one Polish history book (which one? authors?). However, claiming that the entire nation is composed of nationalist just because one book was written by a nationalist is hilarious. Also, in Poland one can hardly pass his final school exams (not to mention degree from history) if one does not know how to provide sources and conduct disputes.

Now on to Polish handbooks: most of them (I read only a couple of them while there are thousands of such books) mention the fact that the Germans were expulsed. However, contrary to many western handbooks they also mention the other part of the story. Is it bad? Halibutt 17:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't try to be clever with me. There are umpteen books churned out by the Polish authorities and private individuals both before, and especially after, the last war which demonstrate clearly my point. Possibly (as you are so young) you have the time to trawl through your library digging them all out but I do not. There are also the various International Red Cross Reports and survivor's testimonies after the war which make grim reading. As I am British I am free from the German/Polish side of matters and I am able to look openly at these subjects. The entire problem is that the Poles look back to a period in the Middle Ages and then claim a vast swathe of territory based on the fact that they (or the Lithuanians) at one time occupied it. You may well imagine the situation if we British decided that that was the sort of generation after generation policy that we as a nation should adopt.

You ask about the expulsions, which is the subject of this page. The problem is that you attempt to justify those expulsions (10 million people) plus the rapings of girls as young as 8 and women as old as 80, the crucifixions of children, the bashing in of the heads of babies, by comparing them to the treatment of civilians in lands occupied by the Germans during the last war. That is your mistake. All events should be treated separately and according to their merits and demerits. You have failed to take on board my comment above that we were all supposed to be fighting against barbaric treatment of civilians, not attempting to equal it.

Christchurch 20:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, if you blame modern Poles for books published by the communist authorities, then there is something wrong with your reasoning. I doubt you would find any historians nowadays to believe (not to mention to repeat) such rubbish. The same goes for any other lie publicised by the commies during their post-war rule in Poland, from Katyn to Commie WWII resistance and from western imperialism to michurinism. Also, you fail to see the difference between Stalin (and his agents here in Poland) and the Polish people, which again is not what I would expect of a historian.

As to the main topic of this discussion, mentioning the German treatment of Poles during WWII is not trying to diminish the suffering of Germans but simply trying to put things in correct perspective. The way the Germans were expelled (mostly by the Red Army, NKVD and commies, BTW) was not unpreceded and this fact should be taken into consideration, just like the political situation in Poland at the end of WWII. Without it, one would be prone to black and white vision, such as yours. Halibutt 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

On a second thought, if you're so well into the Polish books on the topic, then please be so kind as to provide a name of a single pre-war author that would support the Polish claims to Oder-Neisse line (which was invented by Stalin in 1945, BTW). Or any privately published book on the topic issued after the war... You might have a problem with that as in Poland the only press and book publishers that were not controlled by the commies were those who generally tried to explain the commie lies - in the underground. All other publishers were entirely controlled by the censorship and the Party... Halibutt 21:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• You are young, and all young people think they are clever and know everything. I accept what you say about the communist authorities in Poland, but at the same time they encouraged Polish nationalism. The generation born since 1940 are naturally completely affected by what has been published since then.

You say that it was only Stalin who envisaged claims westward but in fact if you look at the histories of the Versailles etc., treaties, the same old nationalistic-pseudo-historic claims appear again, and the murderous activities in Silesia by people such as Korfanty and his thugs, plus the fact the the newly established Polish government encouraged them, shows that before the last war and before communism arrived activities and attitudes were similar to those just after the war. I don't think it can be wholly laid at the door of the communists.

I travelled regularly to the Soviet bloc for twenty five years. (I am 54). I was in Poland countless times in the latter half of the 1970s and also throughout the 1980s. I have many friends there and I would say most were fairly well-educated and definitely not communists. However, when it came to history, everything imploded. So it seems to me that the post-war communists were, in the case of territorial claims against neighbours, simply pursuing the same old line. This in turn meant, propaganda-wise, that some waverers would be able to say that Polish communism was not all bad. When I was there in 1980 I recall going to the cinema and being presented with newsreels which looked like they were straight out of the 1940s and which banged on about Pomerania, Danzig etc., as though the war had ended the previous week.

When I was at college we were given umpteen books on the territorial arguments etc. Frankly the Polish ones were ridiculous, as they were entirely selective and out of context in their quotes from (very few) Western sources, and all the other 'sources' were, er, Polish. Two examples which come to mind were "The Polish-German Frontier from The Standpoint of International Law" by two so-called professors of law in Poland, B.Wiewiora & A.Klafkowski (1957), and "The Polish-German Frontier" by M.Lachs, published in 1964 by what is laughingly called the 'Polish Scientific Publishers'. This latter publication is a classic essay of the Polish ultra-nationalist case. Can all these authors and 'professors' simply be communists? If so, what does that tell us about standards of academia in Poland?

From what I can establish over the years, all the arguments in these, and other books, remain 'in situ' in the Polish national psyche and I cannot see that now communism is abandoned there will be some sort of revisionism. Let us not forget also, that the present Polish goverment has not overturned most of the communist legislation and reverted to a pre-war constitution. After WWII there were several decrees confiscating private property over a few acres. A great many people, notably the aristocracy, lost their properties, homes etc., and the new government shows no indication whatsoever of returning these properties to their rightful owners. Communism was suppressed in Poland prior to 1945 but there was a huge contingent of Polish communists, some of whom simply went into exile next door in the Soviet Union, and others who just kept quiet.

I am not convinced that the attititudes to real history are in any significant way affected by the communists.

Christchurch 09:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Christchurch, it seems to me that you apparently never even heard of censorship in communist-led countries... You didn't have to be a commie yourself, but every single book you wrote would represent their point of view after passing through the censors' office. Or would not be published at all. Ever wondered why people boycotted the official media in Poland in 1980's? Why did so many authors escape to the West? Why so many underground publishers appeared in late 1970's and 1980's? Why so many historical books were published for the first time after 1989, eventhough many of them were written as early as 1940's? Basing your knowledge of Poles and Polish national conscience on communist propaganda from 1960's (Gomułka's times!) and 1970's is a huge mistake.

As to the only remnant of the communist Oder-Nysa propaganda that is still in minds of the Polish people is that we could've get the German lands in exchange for what we lost in the East or get nothing. If that is nationalism, then I guess you should re-read the article on nationalism.

As to the Polish government - nobody is planning to "return the lands to their rightful owners" mostly because the former rightful owners' country accepted the status quo. Also, nobody is planning to ask Ukraine or Belarus or Lithuania to act accordingly. At the same time nobody in Germany wants to force Russia or USA or France to return war indemnities taken after 1945. Halibutt 10:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem unable to comprehend what I have written. That is sad, but to be expected. I explained the continuing thread of Polish nationalism which had continued from before the war and you seem to have ignored that. Moreover, I did not mention restoring private property to Germans (even if they were not Nazis/not in the war, and lived in pre-1939 Germany) although a civilised nation would always consider that wherever possible. What I talked about, which I am sure that if you are intelligent you must have grasped, was the situation WITHIN POLAND proper where your communist legislation on stolen property remains in situ.

I did not mention any of the other stupid comparisons you have made in your final paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that if the neighbour on your right beats you up that you somehow then have a right to beat up the neighbour on the left. Where would such a cycle lead? It is unfortunate (Byrnes commented on this) that in central and Eastern Europe, and the Balkans, there is no balance and everyone is obsessed with settling old scores (even when they go back centuries) even if it means re-writing history and affecting millions of people.

Christchurch 18:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC) This user is banned from editing Wikipedia as sock of master Sussexman due to extreme level of abuse, including canvassing, sock-farming, and legal threats.

Your will to resort yourself to personal remarks, as well as your patronising tone, make me think that continuation of this discussion is pointless. Come back when you're older. Bye. Halibutt 10:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Christchurch, but labelling people like your "the Poles are the most overtly nationalistic people" tells us much about who you are and what is your perception of other countries and peoples. Better think twice before accusing anyone else of being narrow-minded. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

millions of people arrested by the Germans and sent to German concentration camps

Hundreds thousands rather. Xx236 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Systematic of the article

It is not hard to imagine by which group of people the article had been written as the fact that 13 million Germans (plus another 3,5 million who took refuge before the expulsion) had been expelled is mentioned in a side sentence within a paragraph concerning "German and others". Although the expulsion of Germans amounts to a two-digit million number it seems not worth to be mentioned accordingly. That is miserable for an article called "World War II evacuation and expulsion". (213.70.74.165 09:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

It's not hard to find a number of articles presenting radical German point of view. Is it so bad that this one isn't radically German? Xx236 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

According to the prior discussion, the rewrite and cleanup templates and the undeniably bad shape of the article, I added the WWII related ethnic cleansings from the Ethnic Cleansing article. The old stuff is kept invisible at the bottom. If anyone has a use for this, feel free to merge that somewhere. It would again unbalance the article if only Poland-related events would be described in more detail, which was done in the old article in a very unbalanced way already. It would also not make sense to have this article expanded by copying the respective lead sections of the main articles into this list replacing the short summaries that mainly links these main articles. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion of Poles in Soviet Union 1939-1941

Not mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Have added information Jniech (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

deported more than 1,500,000 Polish citizens - Soviet documents prove less than 500 000. Plus POW, people who migrated themselves, drafted, prisoners - still less than 1,500,000 . Xx236 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will hopefully rework it tonight (UK time) to include both sets of views. Can you provide further details of your source(s) (e.g. is it available in English? Is there a version on the web? Is it available in print?) as ideally I would like to include material from it. Thanks in advance for any help. Jniech (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done a rework to include some of the new figures. Let me know your views and/or include your sources. I plan to add more references (as a couple are a little weak) but I won’t be able to do this until next week. Hope you feel it is an improvement. Jniech (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done my best to fit into just 4 lines the various views on the figures. I put two books I not read yet to see what they have to say but basically I happy with this version. If you let me know your sources and/or care to add them I can reconsider. Hopefully you think the changes are an improvement. Jniech (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of Deportations

Can I suggest we reorder the deportations? By moving a few of them, we could get them into approximate date order? Alternatively we could group them by country. What do other editors think? Jniech (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear All: As you can see I have reworked the deportations into year order. I hope you agree that having some logical order is best. I have tried to be accurate with the years but mistakes may have happen hence please corrected any you spot. I made a few minor changes but hopefully not change the facts merely altered slightly the wording to match new format Jniech (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Russian citizens of Petrozavodsk to concentration camp

I know nothing about this but a quick Google provides some material supporting the idea e.g.A memorial plaque dedicated to prisoners of Finnish concentration camps during World War II has been unveiled on the territory of the former camp No. 6 in the Perevalka district of Petrozavodsk [1]

Can I suggest it is put back with a citation required and we can raise the question on the List of concentration and internment camps article which appears to have one reference supporting it? Jniech (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the problem should be solved in Petrozavodsk first. Xx236 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources are former copies of Petrozavodsk. [2] seems to be serious. Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it up to you as I do not know anything about the camp. Prior to you removing it here there were three articles on Wikipedia, Ethnic cleansing and List of concentration and internment camps being the others I am aware of, I simply feel for consistency it should be left here until there was a decision to remove them all or keep them all. Jniech (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

Numbers regarding the "expulsion" of Germans are overestimated.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How, in general, should we edit the mention of the expulsions of Gemrmans in order to remove the POV tag above it? I think the fact that these transfers took place is undisputed. The question is whether they were morally acceptable. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very encyclopedic question. The question should be, rather, what are the commonly acceptable and reliable numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article should not issue the question of morality, only of the numbers. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Better name: population transfers

Wouldn't World War II population transfers be a more neutral name? We should also standardize all subarticles, we have Population transfer in the Soviet Union, Polish population transfers (1944–1946), Repatriation of Poles (1955–1959), Repatriation of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Evacuation of Finnish Karelia... I suggest renaming them all to "Population name (German, Polish, etc.) population transfers (period)". Rationale is simple: population transfer covers all other names - expulsion, emigration, evacuation, deportation, repatriation, ethnic cleansing, and is neutral. Comments? PS. Please add other articles that should be renamed here. PPS. I am not sure if Berihah should be renamed - probably not...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is the best name for these events but i strongly support a standarization. It's totally absurd that very similar events are named so differently. Loosmark (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong to include all such articles in the same general Category:Forced population transfers, but I would oppose renaming all such articles by default. The reason: repatriation, evacuation, deportation and involuntarily settlement are obviously very different events and must be named as such. However, an "umbrella article" that describes different types of the forced population transfer (repatriations, evacuations, deportations, and so on), like this one, can indeed be renamed as Piotrus suggested.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The definitions are different, but in real life we have no ideal types. Hence the population transfer of Poles was not only a repatriation, but had elements of deportation, expulsion and so on. Same goes for the expulsion of Germans - it was also part deportation, part repatriation, and so on. If there are good arguments not to rename some individual articles listed above to population transfer, do say so - but my analysis of them suggests that they are all badly named, as they use the repatriation/expulsion/etc. name, which in fact covers only one of several aspects of population transfer discussed in those articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The naming should be decided individually for each article. Some of them, like Operation Lentil (Caucasus) were very much an ideal type of an ethnic cleansing operation. Some others (like the Betrayal of the Cossacks which actually involved a million of emigrants) had no any ethnic component but need a special discussion. I am not quite sure what it was (a collective punishment, a war crime, mass arrests, etc.), but not merely a "population transfer".Biophys (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are population transfers which were forced, but by the events, not by authorities. The Evacuation of Finnish Karelia was a forced population transfer, as the population did not wish to leave their homes per sé. Yet, only the immediate war zone was evacuated forcefully. The areas that were given up after the peace was made were evacuated on a voluntary basis. All inhabitants were given, by the Finnish authorities, the option of remaining in the areas to be ceded to Soviet Union. Not more than a few dozen, at the most, used that option. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - most of those events had elements of all other, more specific terms. When I was doing research on Polish population transfers, I found examples of nearly all subterms. Some people were forced to leave by USSR authorities. Yet others could have chosen to stay but decided to leave because they were afraid of USSR. Others because of better job prospects and incentives offered by the Polish government. And yet some were prevented from leaving, or escaped illegally. And many were displaced during the war (forced laborers, soldier constricts) and never went back home in the first place (some couldn't, some were afriad, some didn't bother to...). It was virtually the same for the Germans (as long as we speak in such generalizations). Unless there is convincing evidence than an event should be named expulsion/deportation/repatriation, I still think "population transfer" is the best. Sure, it is unemotional - but we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a book of grievances. There is plenty of room in the articles to describe (categorize, etc.) all the terror and human misery that happened. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the examples Piotr provided, I think it should be Forced population transfer(s). Even the population transfer between Greece and Turkey in 1923, which is nowhere near in coercion and brutality to what happened after WWII, is often adjectivized with "forced". It is a fact that Poles were expulsed from Kresy, as well as Germans were expulsed from lands east of the Oder-Neisse line. I am not talking about the initial refugees, of which were also hundreds of thousands, I mean that eventually everyone was forced to leave based on ethnic group. I am not saying that those territories were inhabited only by Poles, resp. Germans. In fact, in some situations, these were in minority. And it is clear that not the locals of other ethnic groups were the planners of these forced movements. We all know the perpetrators: Soviets and Soviet puppets. And I am not passing any judgement on the historical ethnic composition of those territories in middle ages, etc, etc. But still, expulsion is expulsion. Personally, I think "population transfer" is incorrect. At least, the word "forced" has to be added.

I support Biophys' suggestion 1) to create Category:Forced population transfers as subcategory of Category:Forced migration (or alternatively, to organize better the latter), and 2) to deal with each article individually. A good number of them (half?) I expect to "land" with "forced population transfer" title. But words such as repatriation, evacuation, deportation, involuntarily settlement, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment for betrayal, should be allowed, where (and there are many such cases) mainstream scholarly sources use mainly those terms. The talk page of this category would be an ideal place to discuss individual cases if someone believes his/her "transfer" is lessened in importance, while other "transfers" seem more "advertised". With good common sense it is possible to achieve a degree of fairness and uniformity. Sometimes, a simple look into the contents of a category is enough to induce people who push for something to say "ahahaha, i see..." Let's use the advantages that categories offer.

BTW, here is a suggestion: Category:Post-World War II forced migration/population transfers as subcat of Category:Forced migration, just as Category:Forced migration in the Soviet Union and Category:Forced migrations in the United States. Dc76\^talk 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• After looking at examples below and the list of academic publications kindly provided by Radek, I think that titles of most articles are currently appropriate. Each article should be discussed separately, on the case to case basis. The title should reflect the name most commonly used in sources, and this is indeed "expulsion", "deportation", etc.Biophys (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)