Jump to content

Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Lift the protection 2

In survey to lift:

  1. Suppport ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support See "Discussion" section below for explanation --Richard 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In opposition to lift:


Discussion

After two months of protection, I think it is time to lift the protection and try again even though we have not managed to reach consensus on any of the issues that led to the protection.

I ask everybody to observe WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. Actually, WP:1RR is probably a better rule to follow. If you make an edit and someone reverts you, do NOT revert the revert! Take it to the talk page for discussion instead and seek consensus.

If edit warring reoccurs after protection is lifted, I think it will be time to bring this to ARBCOM for resolution. It is time we stopped allowing this page to be held hostage by editors who will not observe the basic rules of the Wikipedia community.

If you agree with the above, please add your support above.

--Richard 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Page is now semi-protected

Well, it's not what I asked for but it is a way forward. Here's the exchange between me and User:FayssalF that led to the semi-protection.

Seek your advice on a page that has been protected for over two months

I was going to leave a message on the talk page of User:Robdurbar, the admin who protected the page, but he has decided to stop editing Wikipedia.

Here's the problem. The page in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, was protected by Robdurbar on January 18 due to editwarring (of which I was not a participant). (To be precise, I have tried to seek an NPOV stance and I have made edits towards this but I have generally not been involved in the edit warring that led to page protection).

I have been trying to form a consensus so that we could request lifting of the protection but, frankly, I have failed as the editors in question preferred to fight on the Talk Page with incivility including personal attacks. Even my suggestions that we seek mediation have been ignored.

In the last two weeks, the volume of debate has gone done but there has been little sign of increased civility and collegiality amongst the disputants. Mostly, I would say that the worst offenders have quieted down and one or two editors have shown some interest in lifting the protection but without a willingness to agree to a consensus or even to abide by the principles of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA).

I have deliberately been waiting to see if things would change but, at this point, I think two months of page protection is excessive and it is time to return to editing.

If edit warring resumes after page protection is lifted, the only recourse that I see is to go to ARBCOM which I would prefer not to do but I can't see what else could be done.

Do you agree with my approach to this issue in the past and my proposed way forward?

--Richard 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I did during my summer vacation...

When I was in elementary school in the United States 40 years ago, it was typical to have as the first assignment of a new school year the writing of an essay "What I did during my summer vacation". So here's a report on some of my Wikipedia activities during the compulsory two months vacation away from this article.

I created two new articles: Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II. These are NOT meant to be POV forks of this article but rather main articles that will allow us to put more detail about the expulsions in each country without making this article longer. This article is already too long and would benefit from being trimmed. I have trimmed the sections on Czechoslovakia and Poland somewhat but they need to be summarized further. I hope someone will help me with this task.

I also worked on the title change of the article Historical eastern Germany to Former eastern territories of Germany. I expanded that article somewhat.

I created a new article title History of German settlement in Eastern Europe which provides background to this article.

I created an article titled Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) which also provides background to this article.

I created an article titled Deutsche Volksliste. I learned A LOT from writing this article and I will share some of that new perspective in later postings.

I look forward to working with you to improve this article. I think we can address some of the concerns that have been raised over the past few months but we must be civil and seek consensus instead of conflict.

--Richard 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For the next summer I recommend you the subject "Jewish emigration to East" (Jüdische Auswanderung nach Osten), and in particular: "Central office for the solution of Jewish question" in Germany, Austria and Bohemia+Moravia (Zentralamt für die Regelung der Judenfrage) and Emigration Fund (Auswanderungsfond). Also the "German plans with the Czech nation" as resulting from speeches of A.Hitler, R.Heydrich, K.H.Frank etc. you may find interesting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Honzula (talk • contribs)
I may get around to looking at "Jewish emigration to East". It is within my scope of interest but I would assume that there are plenty of Jews who would work on that article.
Actually, I was curious about this last topic ( "German plans with the Czech nation" ). It appears that Generalplan Ost dealt mostly about Poland and Eastern Europe. Does anybody know if it also dealt with Czechoslovakia? I think it's one thing to look at speeches but it would be even better if we could discuss the "reconstructed" Generalplan Ost as it pertains to Czechoslovakia. --Richard 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Germanization of Poles and the Deutsche Volksliste

The following is an exchange that occurred on this Talk Page but has since been archived in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 10

The German Autorities tried to germanice the Polish. My father was fighting with several Polish soldiers on the German side, so the German did not expell the Polish they wanted more to make germans out of them while the Polish together with the Russian planned in follow up of the Polish goverment between the war to expell the Germans to a border they believed was the Polish boder of the middle age. That is like the Mexican would expell all American from the east of the Missouri Missisibi only because it was some years part of spain.

Johann

Don't be ridiculous. Literally hundreds of thousands of Poles _were_ expelled. A total number is something like a million. Poles expelled from Poznan area, Silesia, Pomerania, from military poligons, from Zamojszczyzna... Somehow, none in Germany talks much about that. Szopen 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're both right. Read the Generalplan Ost and Deutsche Volksliste articles and you will understand that the Germans tried to "Germanise" some Poles and deported others.

Using Johann's analogy, it would be as if the Mexicans conquered the U.S. and annexed California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Then, they would deport all the Anglos out of those states to the "Northern U.S." while encouraging Hispanics in the "Northern U.S." to move into the annexed states. At the same time, Hispanics in the four annexed states would be categorized into groups based on their Mexican ancestry. Hispanics of Mexican ancestry who helped Mexico in its invasion of the U.S. would be at the top of the list and be given the possessions of the Anglos who were deported to the "Northern U.S." Those who were descended from Mexicans but had been "Americanized" or were Americans married to those of Mexican descent might be sent to Mexico to work as labourers and thus be "re-educated" to be good Mexicans.

Hey, you know, now that I think about it, this sounds like a great idea. Probably will never happen, though.  ;^)

--Richard 08:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing status in international law

Name ONE article in this Wiki which has such a long legal subparagraph. WWI doesn't, WWII doesn't, the same Occupation of Poland (1939-1945). So certain crimes are more important than other ones.Xx236 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am very bad at summarizing. I copied that text wholesale from the Population transfer article. If you want to have a go at summarizing it, be my guest. Probably, much of it could be removed or put in a footnote. As long as the core message is kept, I don't care how much it is trimmed. The core message, in my view, is "From the standpoint of international law, it wasn't illegal when it was done but over the ensuing decades, our perspective has changed to the point where such a transfer would be considered a violation of human rights today." Hmmmm, well, OK, maybe that's the summary, eh? I'll try putting that in and see how it works. --Richard 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
for some reason when I posted my reply it went all fritzy and it was reverted so I gotta add it again. The paragraphs in question don't say it wasn't illegal, it just says that it was a more acceptable way to solve problems back then than it is today.
--Jadger 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm nervous about crossing over into OR. If we say the expulsions weren't illegal, we should probably find a reliable source who makes that assertion. I'm trying to be NPOV about the "expulsions were violations of human rights based on international law as it stands today" vs. "expulsions were an accepted way of accomplishing things back then" and still trying to stay out of the OR trap. Any help by citing reliable sources would be much appreciated. --Richard 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

-- The UN Commission of Experts (established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780) held that the practices associated with ethnic cleansing "constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore ... such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention." The UN General Assembly condemned "ethnic cleansing" and racial hatred in a 1992 resolution.A/RES/47/80 ""Ethnic cleansing" and racial hatred" United Nations. 12/16/1992. Retrieved on 2006, 09-03

There are however situations, such as the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where ethnic cleansing has taken place without legal redress. Timothy V. Waters argues that if similar circumstances arise in the future, this precedent would allow the ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law.Timothy V. Waters, On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing, Paper 951, 2006, University of Mississippi School of Law. Retrieved on 2006, 12-13 -- I suppose It will take until some criminal uses the precedent set by the cowardly legal approach to the expulsions to win a genocide trial before the expulsion issue is reevaluated and explicitly stated to be a crime against humanity....--Stor stark7 Talk 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Honzula's recent edits to the Czechoslovakia section

I reverted Honzula's promotion of Czechoslovakia to level 2 as that gave it a section unto itself while all the other countries are subsections of the "Chronology" section. There is no reason to give Czechoslovakia such a prominent place in the outline. I presume that Honzula got confused and did this promotion unintentionally.

I'm a little confused by his other edit to this section, though. I thought that I had shortened this section and put the details in the Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II article. Honzula seems to have restored the detail. I am trying to shorten this article so that we will be able to discuss other topics and leave the unfortunate details of expulsion in each country to the article about expulsions in that country (i.e. Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II, Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II, etc.)

Honzula, can you explain to me what your thinking is behind your recent edits?

--Richard 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits: 1)"promotion of Czechoslovakia to level 2" it was my misunderstanding, sorry. However, though the idea to expel German minority may be arose in Czechoslovak conditions first, I'm sure the depopulation of German regions didn't start in Czechoslovakia. Thus the Chronology section should be reorganized. The "way to expulsion" should be described prior to consequences or or results of expulsion in individual countries.
2)I removed the "Benes decrees" titel, because there was no mention of decrees at all.
3)I removed the mentions about ruling communist party. Though the party's influence was strong, it was not ruling before 1948 and its role as initiator of wild expulsion and atrocities - I think in none relevant historical book it is stated, except of some authors in exile in early 50's. The participation of commies was average, not decisive.
4)I'm also sorry because I didn't check the article Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II. I agree that this one article have to shortened - there is still too much details (the citation of czech-german declaration is really needed here?), moreover the law No.115/1946 had no influence on the start or process of any phase of expulsion/transfer. The same opinion I have as for the article "Exp. from Czechoslovakia" but I want to consult further changes (in both) with you first --Honzula 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the Germans can not be seen as Minority because if of an area like todays Chech Republik a Minority makes 34 to 39 % of the population it is a second People with the same rights on the country especially when thea where their as long as the first group.

Johann

Polish forced labour camps

In Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 10, someone wrote:

"It does however state that beginning already in November 4, 1944, Poland started collecting all Germans into forced labour camps."

I would like to put this in the article but I would like to know what source states this.

--Richard 04:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I protest. Certainly not all Germans and not Poland. in November 4, 1944 the only legal government of Poland existed in London and didn't collect any Germans. The Lublin government didn't collect all Germans. BTW - how many Germans lived in Lublin Poland 1944? Not many. The situation changed in 1945, when millions lived under Polish administration, but certainly millions weren't imprisoned. Xx236 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is from a German article on Vertreibung in Meyers Lexicon Online. It uses the following sources (or points to them for further reading, not sure) Sekundärliteratur:

  • Flucht und Vertreibung. Europa zwischen 1939 u. 1948 , bearbeitet v. A. Surminski (2004);
  • Norman Naimark: Flammender Hass. Ethnische Säuberungen im 20. Jahrhundert (2004);
  • F. Nuscheler: Internationale Migration. Flucht u. Asyl (2004).

The text in question, in its context:

Im Dezember 1944 begann die gezielte Deportation von →Deutschen aus Südsiebenbürgen, Ungarn und Jugoslawien zur Zwangsarbeit in die UdSSR. In Polen wurden nach einem Dekret vom 4. 11. 1944 alle Deutschen in Zwangsarbeitslagern interniert. Schon im März 1945 setzten erste Ausweisungen ein. Im Sommer 1945 begann mit der ersten (ungeregelten) Vertreibungswelle die fast vollständige Ausweisung beziehungsweise teilweise Zwangsumsiedlung der deutschen Bevölkerung östlich der Oder-Neiße-Linie und in Südosteuropa (am grausamsten in Jugoslawien); gleichzeitig fanden Massenaustreibungen der →Sudetendeutschen in der Tschechoslowakei statt (wobei der kleinere Teil nach Österreich ging). Trotz der Verfügung von Artikel VIII des Potsdamer Abkommens vom 2. 8. 1945, die ›Überführung‹ in ›geordneter und humaner Weise‹ und erst nach Aufstellung eines Ausweisungsplans durch den Alliierten Kontrollrat vorzunehmen, erfolgte die Vertreibung zunächst weiter ungeregelt und wurde begleitet von unzähligen Verbrechen.

A very rough translation, hopefully a native can do a better job of it later:

In December 1944 began the deportation of Germans from Südsiebenbürgen, Hungary and Jugoslavia to Slave labor camps in the Soviet Union. (see also the article section stub on German forced labor, my note). In Poland all the Germans were following a decree from November 4, 1944 interned in slave labor camps. Already as soon as in March 1945 the first expulsions were initiated. In the summer of 1945 the first (wild) expulsions wave with expulsions and or forced resettlements of the German population east of the Oder-Neisse line and in southeastern Europe was executed (with most cruelty in Yugoslavia); meanwhile mass expulsions from from Czechoslovakia of Sudeten-Germans took place, (of which a minor part were expelled to Austria). Despite the fact that article 8 of Potsdam agreement from August 2, 1945 stated that "population transfer" shall be performed in ordered an humane manner, and not commence until after the creation of an expulsion plan partaken by the Allied Control Council, the expulsions continued thereafter without rules and were associated with untold numbers of criminal acts. --Stor stark7 Talk 11:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now my next question is: "But who is making these decrees? Is there any kind of Polish government in place yet or is it the occupying authority of the Soviet Union that is making these decrees?"
I note that the Nov. 4, 1944 date predates both Yalta and Potsdam. Thus, we see that these agreements are sanctioning forced labour of Germans after the Soviet Union had already started orchestrating it. Have I got this right? --Richard 14:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Decrees:I do not know who was making these decrees, an educated guess would be the communist Polish government supported by the Soviet Union, as they were the ones in position to enforce such a decree. The Polish government in London presumably was a lame duck in this matter. But I have to admit to little to no knowledge to the Polish political situation at that time. My books are in transit as I'm the process of moving between countries so I can't check if my copy of Naimarks book "The Russians in Germany" can shed any light on it. Although I presume a better bet would be for someone with access to a university library to check out the given sources, one of which is a translation to German of Naimarks book Fires Of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing In 20th Century Europe" (Harvard, 2001) According to the Polish Institute of National Remembrance the decree was issued by the Polish National Liberation Committee PKWN. read more here.
Slave labour: I think we should keep separate the "reparations" slave labour used by the victors, which consisted mainly of POW's in countries such as Belgium, France, the UK, and in Germany itself by the U.S. as well as POWs and civilians in the Soviet Union. (The Soviet run enforced labor of Germans in the East German Uranium mines probably qualifies here as well), separate from the Polish (and i think also Czheck) practice of 1. Interning Germans in forced labour camps, as well as 2. forcing German farmers to remain and tend to their farms as "slaves" of the farms new Polish "owners" and 3. Prohibiting Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia with specialist technical skills to emigrate to join their expelled families, i.e. forcing them to work for the Poles and Czechoslovakians. The Poles and Czechs use of civilian slave labor can be seen as oportunistic, while the victorious allies use of mostly POW slave labour was planned well in advance.
The use of slave labor as reparations was according to my copy of John Dietrichs "The Morgenthau Plan" seriously discussed as early as 1943 by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As early as October 5, 1943 U.S. President Roosevelt stated that he thought that reparations should be extracted both in equipment and in manpower. (from the memoirs of Cordell Hull, p. 1266) In the Teheran conference of November 1943 the Soviet Union requested 4,000,000 Germans to be used as forced labor. (from E. N. Peterson, "The American occupation of Germany", p. 36) In the Yalta conference of February 1945 the Allies agreed to use German slave labour. Apparently this policy agreement at Yalta was then effected after the German surrender. In March 1947 the number of Germans engaged in slave labour was 4,000,000 (from Eugene Davidson, The death and life of Germany) (probably roughly 1,000,000 used in the West). I suppose this total number does not include the Germans in Czechoslovakia and Poland, as Dietrich never mentions them and his focus is on the POW's.
Note that it was not only Germans that were used as slave labour, as this document shows: *Tarczai, Bela: Hungarian Prisoners of War in French Captivity 1945-47 On the Allied transfer of Hungarian POW's for forced labour, and their resulting death rates. Available as a PDF file only (57 kB)
Note also as to whether it should be called "forced labor" or "slave labor" I'm in favor of calling it for what it really was; i.e. "slave labor", especially after reading the transcript of one of U.K, prime minister Winston Churchills cabinet meetings.
transcript
In the meeting on May 18th 1945, the U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill discusses the amount of German labour they will request for use in the British agriculture.
In the meeting on June 11th 1945 they discuss the provisions made for Slave Labour in the Yalta protocol, and how many slaves the Russians should get as parts of the "reparations package".
  • Ch. a) Only reparations worth having are the German export markets.
The Directive takes account of that, but should state it specifically.
b) Also would like to omit last sentence in paragraph 15. If we count against Russia's claim the labour they take, we could get the total figure up to $20 billion. $16.000 million value could be assigned for 4 million slave labour.
  • P.M.
At Yalta Russia made it clear that their claim was exclusive of labour.
So to answer your question, the matter was a bit more complicated than your question made it out to be, i.e. I can't answer yes or no to it. The U.S. and the Soviet Union both intended to use slave labor well before they started using it, although the Soviet use began before before it was officially sanctioned in signed policy (Yalta). The Polish use of forced labor was probably not within the scope of the Yalta agreement.--Stor stark7 Talk 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that reading this makes my stomach turn. The official "party line" of the West is that the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, etc were far more humane towards Germany than the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. But when you combine the blanket expulsions of ethnic Germans regardless of personal culpability with the use of slave labor for reparations, I can't see how we can claim that post-WWII treatment of the vanquished was more humane than after World War I.
30 years ago, I had learned that the "evil" Soviets had taken Germans off to the Gulag but I hadn't realized that this action had been sanctioned by the Western allies or that the Western allies had engaged in it as well.
--Richard 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Justifications for expulsions?

Would Native Americans in the United States have the right to expell all palefaces because they invaded their homeland and murdered most of them? Wikiferdi 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I view the above question as inflammatory and irrelvant.
Read the bit about international law towards the end of the article. In today's legal environment, the answer is clearly NO. However, in the legal environment of the time, the answer is that these expulsions were some of the last to be considered legal. It is said that the 1922 population exchange between Greece and Turkey served as a model for the expulsion of Germans (at least it is claimed that Churchill considered the Greece/Turkey population exchange as a useful precedent). Certainly, the population exchange of India and Pakistan in 1947-1948 was also considered legal.
The section that I wrote is intended to communicate that there really wasn't any reason to argue that the expulsions were illegal in 1945 but that a similar expulsion in 2007 would certainly be considered illegal.
Times change, people change, moral standards change. Hopefully for the better but not always.
--Richard 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The expulsions in 1945 were illegal! The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) alone are sufficient to proof this - and the U. S. at the Nuremberg trials based their denunciations of Hitler's expulsions and mass transfers on this conventions.
So the expulsions of German people were a crime, too, although the German Nazis invaded the homeland of other people and murdered a lot of them. In this sense my question is provocative but not irrelevant. Wikiferdi 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost all Germans did in Poland 1939-1945 was illegal. Tell me more about Law.Xx236 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When one side is acting illegally the other side is not allowed to act illegally, too. Poland... (as puppet state or not) acted illegally after the war. Nazi-Germany had already surrendered. So there where no reason at all to act illegally. Crimes are crimes but when they are performed after a truce than they are even more cruel. This is my point of view! Wikiferdi 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, it is your interpretation that the expulsion in 1945 were illegal. Who knows, if I study it long enough, I might agree with you. That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee here in California. Nobody cares what you and I think. Can you find a reliable source who says that they were illegal? If so, we can put that in the article. Even so, we would have to give the assertion its "due weight". Is it an assertion made on a "Holocaust denial" website or by a respected scholar in international law? Have you read anything at all that suggests that respected authorities in German/Polish history or international law consider the expulsions to have been illegal in the context of international law of the time?

Xx236. the difficulty is when we talk about "all Germans". If you say "everything that the Nazis did in Poland was illegal", I can agree with you. If you say "many residents of Poland of German origin helped the Nazis and that was considered treason which was punishable by death, imprisonment or expulsion", I can agree with you. However, if you take these two facts and then argue that "therefore it was legal to expel all Germans from Poland depriving them of Polish citizenship and of their life, liberty and property without due process of law", that is where we part company. Perhaps you want to argue that the illegalities of the Nazis were greater than the illegalities of the Poles. I'm sorry but I cannot subscribe to such a philosophy. I fully believe that revenge was one of the primary motives behind the expulsions. I cannot support that the revenge was morally justified.

--Richard 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you assign me texts which I haven't written. It's obvious even linguistically.

My point is:

  • Germany had a long legal tradition in 1939. Thousands of German lawyers took part in Nazi crimes. Almost none German lawyer protested against Nazi crimes. Now some Germans talk about crimes against human rights commmitted on Germans since 1945. Why not about all crimes since 1933? Why some crimes are more important than others? What is credibility of such lawyers?Xx236 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't anyone, except possibly Wikiferdi, bother reading the sources we have access to in the article?
Why not listen to Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, who in addition of having a doctorate in history also, as our polish friends never tire of pointing out, is a "lawyer". More precisely he has a juris doctor from Harvard Law School.
He points out that Quote: "the only applicable principles were the Hague Conventions, in particular, the Hague Regulations, ARTICLES 42-56, which limited the rights of occupying powers -- and obviously occupying powers have no rights to expel the populations -- so there was the clear violation of the Hague Regulations"
"And, obviously, if you want to apply the Nuremberg Principles to the German Expulsions, considering that the London Agreement was supposed to reflect, and not to create international law, so if that was applicable to the German crimes against the Poles with regard to deportation of Poles, and deportation of French for purposes of "Lebensraum," certainly it was applicable to the expulsions by the Poles of Germans and by the Czechs of Germans. So, if you apply these Nuremberg principles and the Nuremberg judgement, you would have to arrive at the conclusion that the Expulsion of the Germans clearly constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity." End quote. --Stor stark7 Talk 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ouch! Touché and thank you, Stor stark7. I will comment that the intent of my response to Wikiferdi was to say that neither he nor I were qualified to pass on the legality of the expulsions. IMO, what we needed was reliable sources and you have provided one so thank you. However, the de Zayas quote is not the end of the story.

Noting that I am not an expert in international law, I will say that I find de Zayas' argument convincing but not as useful as we might hope for.

Here's the problem: we have the opinion of one lawyer who says that the expulsions were illegal. We may agree with him (some of us obviously will not) but, once again, it doesn't matter what we think or who we agree with. Do we have an authoritative finding anywhere that the expulsions were illegal? For example, has the United Nations or World Court made an official pronouncement as to the legality of the expulsions?

As an analogy, consider the case of a law against spanking 3 year old children (one that was recently proposed here in California). People might argue that such a law would be unconstitutional. A noted legal scholar or a U.S. Senator might argue that it was or was not constitutional. Would that tell you if it was constitutional? No, it wouldn't. Only a decision of the California Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court would tell you that. Decisions by lesser courts might provide some insight into the question if no appeal had been made to higher courts. However, until the law is brought to a court for adjudication, you would not know if the law was constitutional or not. You could only speculate as to its constitutionality based upon the arguments of experts in constitutional law.

So, by analogy, we would need to be careful in making arguments as to whether or not the expulsions were legal in 1945 or, for that matter, whether they would be considered legal now. We run the risk of engaging in OR here.

--Richard 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well de Zayas is aparently a professor in International Law, and has worked with human-right issues in the UN for a long time. I would also suggest reading

Not exactly what you're asking for, but offers some interesting info on how the current legal status of the Sudetenland Germans and their expulsion is interpreted by for instance the European Union, and the future consequences of that legal interpretation. Although since you're editing the legality section I presume you've already read it.--Stor stark7 Talk 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A caveat about invoking de Zayas' Juris Doctor from Harvard Law

Stor stark7 wrote:

Why not listen to Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, who in addition of having a doctorate in history also, as our polish friends never tire of pointing out, is a "lawyer". More precisely he has a juris doctor from Harvard Law School.

Yes, it may seem ironic that we cast de Zayas as a historian when his critics here seem to argue that he is not a historian but a lawyer. But, his PhD trumps his Juris Doctor. Why? The Juris Doctor, despite its name, is not a doctorate in law but a three-year professional degree which prepares you to practice law. Thus, assuming that he passed the bar examination and was admitted to the bar in some state, de Zayas is a lawyer but not necessarily a legal scholar. His having been granted a Juris Doctor tells us nothing at all about his credentials as a scholar in international law and therefore we should not assume that his pronouncements on the legality of the expulsions have any greater weight than that of any other lawyer or historian. (NOTE: I'm just saying that we should not assume this. If anyone has evidence to show that he is, in fact, a scholar in international law, I will willingly retract this point.)

--Richard 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a check of the links on his article page. "Alfred de Zayas is an American lawyer (Harvard) and historian (Göttingen), former Secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and currently professor of international law. He is President of the United Nations Society of Writers and Secretary-General of the PEN Club in Geneva, Switzerland."[1] This site has more extensive information on his activities in the area of international law and human rights. I'd say his pronouncements on the topic is mayor heavy-weight league.--Stor stark7 Talk 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Good thing I didn't go too far out on a limb claiming that he wasn't an expert in international law. All I was saying is that the JD from Harvard didn't establish those credentials in the least.
The "President of the United Nations Society of Writers and Secretary-General of the PEN Club in Geneva, Switzerland" is interesting but not relevant. Protecting the human rights of authors is important and worthwhile but it is very different from the international law of expulsions and population transfers.
The information above that begins to establish his credentials is the "former Secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee". But what really establishes his credentials is the number of publications in reputable journals of international law and the number of citations of his work in international law (as opposed to history).
I think it would be very valuable for us to determine what, if any, debate there has been on the legality of the expulsions. Has de Zayas published anything in a reputable journal of international law? Has anybody rebutted de Zayas in a reputable journal of international law?

--Richard 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You can check out his publications at his homepage, some are quite interesting and on topic. As for rebuttals, I don't know of any, but then this is hardly my area of expertise. --Stor stark7 Talk 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced. And I was never really in doubt... it's just that your original argument was weak and I wanted to point this out. It's not the JD from Harvard or even the PhD. that establishes his credentials but the fact that he is a Visiting Professor and, of course, also his positions on the UN Human Rights Committee.
J.D. (Harvard), Dr. phil. (Göttingen); Visiting Professor of International Law, University of British Columbia, 2003; Visiting Professor, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, 2004; Member, New York Bar, Florida Bar; Former Secretary, United Nations Human Rights Committee; Former head of Petitions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Right
--Richard 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

de Zayas supported Bacque. No serious historian approved Bacque's speculations, so de Zayas isn't rather a serious historian. Xx236 06:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is the old problem with the Second ww who disides who is a serious historian and what does it mean when somebody sómebody is no serious historian. ZB Goldhagen witch is surly no serious Historian is seen for Political reasons as serious historian. So be careful calling somebody is not a serious historian because often that is political. Johann

Goldhagen belongs to the same class as de Zayas and Naimark. You adress my statement - n serious historian should support naive projects like the one by Bacque. Xx236 07:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not saying he is a historian. look at his accomplishments again, Professor of International Law , and in case you didn't know, Bar means he is a lawyer/barrister, not a historian. I don't see anything about history in those, rather he is an expert on international law.
--Jadger 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to lift semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected for a week. There has been no edit warring and contentiousness on the Talk Page has been minimal. Should we consider lifting semi-protection? Yes, I know this exposes us to vandalism and leaves open the possibility of disruption from our friend anon IP 131. The past week of editing without vandalism, POV pushing or edit warring has been a luxurious vacation. However, Wikipedia's policy is to allow anonymous editing and I think we need to find a longer-term resolution to work with 131 than to rely on semi-protection.

For these reasons, I intend to ask for semi-protection to be lifted. Comments?

--Richard 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Götz Aly about expulsion of Germans

According to Götz Aly ( an interview for Wprost) the German image of the expulsion is biased, because there exists a strong group coming from Silesia. About 50% of Germans from Yougoslavia were killed, including their leaders, so their tragedy is underrepresented - see Yugoslavia section of the article. Xx236 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew one of the leaders of the former Yugoslav Minoity and the number of dead was about 180.000,- Interesting is that they tryed to issud books,i have seen them myselfe, where every formen German village has named all dead by name and photo when they had one.

I must again speak about Zrenanin ( Groß Beskerek) this Konzentrationcamp of the Serbs was not a normal "lager" it was what I said possibly the only camp for Germans existing only to kill them.

Johann

Legality of the expulsions

The words of Zayas "...the only applicable principles were the Hague Conventions, in particular, the Hague Regulations..." etc. etc. aren't applicable in the Czechoslovak case. Up to this day, every country has a right to expel undesirable aliens out of land. Which was the major principle applied in Czechoslovakia --Honzula 07:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Aliens? Such Germans were not aliens but the native population! As for me, people who hold views like you do are "undesirable aliens" on Wikipedia. (194.9.5.10 09:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

You are lucky, because even completely uninformed people are still welcomed here. --Honzula 11:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1) An alien is a person who is owing political allegiance to another country or government and not a native or naturalized citizen of the land where they are found.

2) Already from the 13th century onwards the border regions of Bohemia and Moravia, called Sudetenland in the 20th century, were settled by Germans.

=> subsume (if you know what that means) statement 2) under statement 1) and even you will hopefully and eventually see what I tried to say. (194.9.5.10 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I see, but what about you? Ad 1) Citizenship is relation to the state, not to the land. Ad 2) Concerning Naturalization, do you mean that the citizen of other country -which is in addition enemy country- could be naturalized in 4-6 years? In which country, for example? --Honzula 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

??? (194.9.5.12 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I think the use of thw word "aliens" in this discussion is regrettable and unproductive.

The argument should be around allegiance and treasonous activities. Clearly, people who were guilty of overtly treasonous activities such as active collaboration with the Nazis should have been subject to punishment ranging from death to expulsion.

However, not all who were expelled fall into that category.

NOT ALL? I would rather say - taking into account that all adult men were POW anyway - MOST of the children, women and old men who had been expelled did not fall into that category! (194.9.5.10 08:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
This raises a very interesting point that really hadn't occurred to me before. Most of the German men who registered for the Deutsche Volksliste and were eligible for military service were probably in the military and had either been killed, captured or were still deployed with their units far from home. Thus, those who were expelled were very probably women, children and elderly. There were probably few men to mount any resistance to the expulsions and few men to protect those being expelled from attacks of local bandits or, for that matter, to protect them from the privations of the journey. However, all this is OR. Does anybody know of a source that makes these points?
Note that this insight also has another side to it... when the Statistiches Bundesamt did its "population balance" calculations, did they subtract out the men in the German military who were killed or captured? I think Overmans makes a correction for this which results in a downward revision from 2.1 million deaths to 1.1 million deaths.
--Richard 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In May 1945 there were lot of German men in Czech lands. Remember, the army group "Center" had over 1,000.000 soldiers and they couldn't be captured in one moment and the liberating/occuping armies couldn't be everywhere. The Czechoslovak army and also the groups of volunteers reaching the pre-war borders reported many cases of resistence (though not all were confirmed, some were fictional), especially in north regions. Honzula 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there was an equivalent of the Deutsche Volksliste in Czechoslovakia but, if there was, having registered as a Volksdeutsche would certainly make you a target of suspiscion about your allegiance after the war. The question is whether having registered on the list would make your allegiance so questionable as to warrant expulsion without due process of law.

The problem with the expulsions is that there was no process of law to determine your allegiance. By and large, if you were German, you were expelled (or you chose to leave because a family member was expelled). Some Germans were allowed to stay so it was not a blanket expulsion but it came pretty close.

--Richard 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Causes for deaths in Czechoslovakia

I'm looking for some answers and general clarificartions in regard to this edit by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs)

He changed this sentence:

Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 200,000 people, depending on source. They died in internment camps and on the roads.[2]

to this

Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 200,000 people, depending on source. These casualties include violent deaths and suicides, deaths in internment camps and natural causes. [3]

1. Is there realy a consensus that available causualty estimates include "suicides" and especially that they include "natural causes"?

2. Does the (later and after prompting) provided source (Z. Beneš, Rozumět dějinám. ISBN 80-86010-60-0) really support the allegation, i.e. has its content been discussed here? Why is there no page attributon (surelly the topic is not discussed throughout the whole book)?

3. This article will never get anywhere unless we demand that everything be strictly attributable. That also means that you can not insert extra information into sourced text, when the extra information is not supported by the present source. It is essentially lying.

4. Answer to these edits on my talk page by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs). We were talking for over two months about the sources and content of the article. We've reached some consensus and we are trying to write a NPOV article. If you will insist on biased words and if you will insist that "long march to Austria and Germany" is a source for "died on the roads" and if you will continue in breaking our effort to fulfil consensus and breaks NPOV we will ask for admin actions, even at ARBCOM. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw. why do you mean sentence I edited is not a NPOV and why do you add there biased words like "died on the road"? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me speak very simple English to you. The text had a source. It was a reliable source. The source stated: "between 20,000 and 200,000 people — depending on which source you believe — died in internment camps and on the long march to Germany and Austria." Now, you have made a claim that what Time Magazine wrote was biased. Can you explain why? And please do not use your own opinion as an example, only reliable sources can be used in Wikipedia. Talk 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stor stark7, it's true that your text was sourced to Time Magazine but Time Magazine and other popular news magazines are not good sources because their research and writing is quite loose and therefore not as reliable as those of historians. I'm not saying that Time Magazine is wrong in what it wrote but it might not be the whole truth. We can start with the Time Magazine article but we must not stop there. We should go beyond the popular news magazines and go to truly authoritative and scholarly books and journal articles written by historians. See below for a better source for us to consult. --Richard 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Now, I never said that what you wrote was violating NPOV, although it probably did. What I said was that you inserted un-sourced speculation into a sourced sentence.Now, inserting unsourced material into an already sourced sentence is a bad, bad, very bad, thing to do for an editor wanting to give the impression of reliability. Now, I was quite impressed by the royal tense used in the threat to ask for admin action. Although, I do believe you will have to provide a rather more specific accusation than being NPOV and "breaking consensus". How about accusing me of relying on a publicly available source?--Stor stark7 Talk 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I started to write this a few hours ago before Stor stark7 wrote the above comment but got pulled away to do other things so it's a bit out of date.

Regardless of who is right, the revert war should stop immediately and the dispute should be discussed here.
That said, I disagree with Tulkolahten that his wording is based on "consensus". Agreeing with Stor stark7, I cannot remember a definitive consensus for Tulkolahten's wording.
However, that having been said, I prefer Tulkolahten's wording to Stor stark7's wording. I have started to read the "Report of the Joint Commission of German and Czech historians" document that Tulkolahten provided as a source a couple of months ago and I have found it very enlightening. I don't necessarily believe that it is the gospel truth but I think it is very compelling and cannot be dismissed or ignored.
Here are the links to the parts of the document...

In this document, it is argued that there is no evidence to support more than 12,000 deaths and 6,666 suicides. This leads to an estimate of deaths due to expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia between 15,000 and 30,000 and not the 230,000-270,000 that are traditionally quoted by German sources. (Yes, I know that 12,000+6,666 > 15,000 but I don't have time to dig through the document right now and get you the exact numbers).

I --Richard 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the source I stated before, Erich Hartmann's biography wherein it described the circumstances in which these suicides happened. If we are going to separate suicides from the other deaths, we must also state that the suicides were the result of atrocities committed upon the people and and the people not wanting to endure any more of it.
--Jadger 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. please define "natural causes" as deaths from starvation or exposure may fit under "natural causes" but they are still 100% the result of being forced from their homes and having everything (including food) confiscated.
--Jadger 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. There is only one way to estimate natural cases - statistics. We can read the average numbers of deaths per 1000 inhabitants in 30's Czechoslovakia and then estimate the expected mortality in German population in 1945. --Honzula 07:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The yearbooks from 30's are only in several libraries, not in neighbourhood of my town. And I'm too bussy to visit them now. But I visited the website of Czech statistical office - just for comparison - the mortality in Czech Rep. in last 10 years was 12-10 per 1000 (decreasing). Using this number for the population of 2,725,000 the expected mortality is 32,700-27,250 people they will die per one year anyway!
But we cannot replace the mortality in 30's by the statistic from 90's. --Honzula 10:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But your original argument which you deleted is "on the money". Mortality in the 30's was certainly higher than it is in the 90's (lower deaths from heart attack, stroke and cancer).
So, if we apply mortality in the 90's to the 2.725,000 expellees, you come up with 27,000-30,000 baseline deaths due to natural causes. Which makes the 15,000-30,000 deaths reported by the Joint Commission nonsensical unless these are considered to be "excess deaths" over and above the deaths that would have occurred in more "normal" times. Without knowing the statistical methodology of the Statistiches Bundesamt, it is impossible to know whether the estimate of 230,000-270,000 deaths is "total deaths" or "excess deaths".
On p.231 of Chapter VI of the Report of the Joint Commission, it is argued that approximately 90,000 Germans changed their nationality from German to Czech after the war. This goes a long way to closing the gap between 220,000-270,000 and 15,000-30,000.
It is also argued that recent German research has increased the estimate of German military deaths from 3.7 million to 5 million. Since some of those deaths are of Sudeten Germans in the German military, the estimate of total civilian deaths would tend to go down. Unfortunately, no information is given as to how much this revised estimate of military deaths would affect the total civilian deaths in Czechoslovakia.
--Richard 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I deleted only one sentence, because when writting it I forgot that the 20,000 numbur are the deaths related to expulsion - over the normal mortality.
Richard wrote: "approximately 90,000 Germans changed their nationality from German to Czech after the war"
Acording to postwar reportsof Ministry of Interior, approximately 300,000 Czechs and Slovaks applied for German nationality during the occupation. Most of them without succes, but the succefull ones later wanted the Czech nationality and citizenship back. Usually without succes and they were transfered to Germany. I mean, may be most of the mentioned 90,000 "Germans" were originally Czechs until 1938. As I told you before, I know many (about 100) cases when the people from my district wanted the C-S nationality and citizenship back, but very few (about 20) succeded; I know no case in which somebody was forced to chenge to Czech nationality.
Anyway, the gap does not seem to be so wide: 2,725.000 (Germans in Sudetenland) - 2,232.544 (transfered to Germany) - 244,000 (remained in ČSR) = 248,456 - 500.000 (probably expelled during wild expulsin) = -251,544 which number probably could coverd by Germans from southern regions (not part of Sudetenland). --Honzula 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Richard, I think your digging through the document will not bring anything new, because its authors are right in this that there are no evidences. Note, the number 20,000 is only consensus (compromis) of the Czech-German commission of historians, so the real number could be higher (or lower). Basic problem is that 1) overwhelming majority of the caused deaths occured during the "wild expulsion" and there was nobody making statistics, the only enumerating casualities were in several investigated cases commited by (by complicity of) the army 2) most of the deads (but this is only my opinion) were the Germans evacuated and fled from east lands, their exact number was unknown and they were first target of expulsion (see the orders of the HQ "Alex" mentioned by you). Honzula 07:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Honzula wrote "overwhelming majority of the caused deaths occured during the wild expulsion".
Perhaps, but we can't be sure how many died as a cause of Allied bombing, during the evacuation or at the hands of Soviet troops. --Richard 08:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I can add more categories: how many German men were in armed forces (Wehrmacht, SS, Volksturm) at the end of war and thus became POW? How many civilians were carried out of Czech lands to labor camps in USSR? The estimates only for Slovakia are about 10,000 civilians -in fact kidnapped- regardless their nationality. The numbers of kidnapped people from Ruthenia were even higher. In Czech lands reportedly only "white" emmigrants (from Russia after revolution) were kidnapped, but may be also Germans? --Honzula 10:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Honzula wrote "most of the deads (but this is only my opinion) were the Germans evacuated and fled from east lands,"
If by "east lands", you mean "eastern Germany", then I agree with you. The "standard German estimate" is 10,000,000 residents, 7,400,000 fled or expelled, 1,225,000 unaccounted for (presumed dead). This is almost 2/3 of those who fled or were expelled and more than half of those who were unaccounted for. In comparison to this, the adjustment of numbers in Czechoslovakia from 230,000-270,000 dead to 15,000-30,000 dead is a relatively small adjustment. The report of the Joint Commission of Czech and German historians takes on more significance if we can extrapolate that a similar downward revision is appropriate for the other areas from which Germans were expelled. Based on previous discussions, it appears that Overmans and Nitschke think that the appropriate number for all expulsions is closer to 1.1 million, a 50% overall downward revision as opposed to the 90-95% downward revision in the case of Czechoslovakia.
This is a very difficult situation. The original German estimates from the Statistiches Bundesamt cited 230,000 - 270,000 Germans formerly living in Czechoslovakia unaccounted for. The Joint Commission of Czech and German historians argues that the right estimate is 15,000 to 30,000 violent deaths based on a count of confirmed deaths. Somehow we need to combine these two points and communicate the "state of knowledge" at the current time. I think Honzula is right that most of the deaths came in the early days and were due to some combination of evacuation, flight and "wild expulsions" but without a citation to a reliable source it is OR and we can't really use his explanation. --Richard 08:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What I wrote collects all causes I think: Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 200,000 people, depending on source. They died in internment camps and on the roads. and now please tell me, where it is sourced, it is died in internment camps and on the long march to Germany and Austria this sentence? Isn't "died on the roads" biased for encyclopedia? Yes it is. I changed it to: Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 200,000 people, depending on source. These casualties include violent deaths and suicides, deaths in internment camps and natural causes. And doubtful consensus we've reached was to remove all biased statements as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. I don't think you can find any consensus on these Talk Pages other than a silent consensus not to collaborate in a collegial manner or abide by the principles of Wikipedia. You and I are about the only ones who agreed to anything although I think Jadger also made a grudging agreement to participate. --Richard 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Removing or at least properly sourcing and characterizing biased statements is part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There certainly was not a consensus as to which statements in this article were to be considered biased.
--Richard 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

200 000 story should be excluded into Cold war German propaganda paragraph. Not all POVs are equal.Xx236 09:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How is saying they died on the road biased? my cat was hit by a car, does that make my cat a revisionist or a Pan-Germanist? Would you prefer died on the roads and in the ditches? "died on the roads" means died on the march to Germany/Austria; died in transit. You are taking something too literal again, rather than the way it means in English usage.
Xx, please cite a source, we can't relegate something to a propoganda section because you say so.
--Jadger 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would quote the Time Magazine article directly i.e. say "on the long march to Germany/Austria". "on the roads" is an extrapolative interpretation of what they said. The expellees did not necessarily go to Germany/Austria on foot. At least some of them travelled on railcars (like the boxcars that you see in the photo). That doesn't mean they didn't die of hunger and exposure in the rail cars but "on the roads" paints a different picture. --Richard 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How long will we discuss the 200 000 claims? Not all POVs are equal. I believe that a group of Czech and German historians who know the subject is more reliable than other sources. Xx236 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

COMMISSIONS

I know so many people witch have relative witch died in this event. This so called commission is a collection of left wing , so called historians on the pay check of people witch are not any more interested in the truth. For some strange reason since EU and unification the numbers of German killed in the second world war are dropping in each of this commissions, where always historians are sitting, witch are linked tostudies witch come up with the lowest numbers possible. Only by reason it must be clear it you move 2,5 Million people 3 Million by force, most of the underfed and old, ore children their will not be 20.000 dead, that is unrealistic, still so called historians come up with this numbers, always by commissions official so what the goverment of germany has other interests now. The big interest of the EU and the companies witch are dealing with the east, mostly German companies and witch are forming the interest groups in the German government is to earn money and to cover up the past. The real revisionists are the official historians. One typical example is the Dresden bombing with Napalm ( it is not even called so). A wooden town packed with half a million people and on witch is Napalm dropped on and the official Commission is comming up with a number of 25.000 dead, that historiens you know are the revisionists. The same people are sitting in the Czech German commission. Politically in Dresden it was a guy from the FPD ( surprise) witch made this commission, witch was stopped after no facts where discovered witch could explane the low numbers, but the number is going around and is mentioned ov cause in this forum even it is clearly politicly made up. And that is going on since 10 years, before nobody questioned the high numbers. So when the German attac witch some two engine bombers, a lot of people died but when thousand huge bombers with Napalm bomb a wooden city some are dieing, less den in Hamburg where you can ecape much better the raid. You must judge yourself what is going on. And exactly that is going on with this commissions witch where even criticized by more liberal Newspapers. They cover up for the higher good of the EU.

Johann

Legality of the expulsions #2

The paragraph is unproportionally long and contains a long quotation from de Zayas, who is biased, because he pretends that the expulsion of Germans was exceptional. In reality Stalin pushed tens of millions to the West. The expulsion of Poles was exactly in the same way (ill)legal as the expulsion of Germans. German revisionism undermines European peace. Xx236 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So cite one or more sources who make these points. I remember reading somewhere on the Internet someone (I think it was a Pole) who said that we run the risk of decontextualizing the expulsions. Find that stuff, summarize it and cite it. --Richard 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, xx236, but I eventually fed up with your unstructured, incoherent and false accusations. Except for a handfull of maniacs (ie Preussische Treuhand), nobody in Germany is revisionistic (neither the politicians nor the vast majority of the German people). The only one who serverly undermines European peace is the current Polish government, in particular the extremely right-winged "League of Polish Families" which eg seeks to put Homosexuals into "re-education camps", participates in Nazi-parties with burning swastikas, hates Jews, Arabs and Germans and wants to forbid arbortion even in case of rape! Hence, not Germany but Poland requires some extra classes in democracy and tolerance! (194.9.5.10 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

I would agree with the above POV in nearly all points. But for calling the Preussische Treuhand "maniacs" we would need more reliable sources. As I know this is just a lobby which seeks recompensation for individual losses to which Germany never has renounced and never will be entitled to precisely because these are individual (!) losses; deprivations which were commited in violation of individual human rights and against international law as above mentioned.

An important document on the "legality of expulsions" is the Fourth Geneva Convention:

Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. (cf. Wikipedia)

Wikiferdi 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For inattentive readers: The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war (...) The convention was published on August 12, 1949, (...) The convention entered into force on October 21, 1950." Honzula 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, because it was assumed before WWII that common people would be treated with atleast a little dignity. But it was made clear afterwords that unwritten laws had yet to be written so everyone would follow them.

--Jadger 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Honzula, Jadger brings to the point what was/is valid for other conflicts, too. E. g. the "middle east conflict" or the conflict of Greeks and Turks about Cyprus. Laws had been/are implemented which were written out in full first after the outbreak of these conflicts. Or in the case of Turkey: Greeks had to be recompensed although Turkey hadn't signed the Human Rights Convention. To understand this better you would have to read the distinction between natural law and positive law. - Wikiferdi 12:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jadger and Wikiferdi, I think I understand the distinction between natural law and positive law, but what you are complaining is that expulsion process didn't respect the nonexistent rules! As for your example, yes, Turks had to recompense Greeks, although Turkey hadn't signed the Human Rights Convention, but the H-R Convention in 70's already existed and many UN members respected it. But you cannot claim the "illegality of expulsion" (1945) or transfer (1946) with reference to Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) !!Honzula 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But I want to return to the "regrettable and unproductive" part No.1) What the prewar "unwritten laws", and "natural law" etc. are telling us about the staying of one state's citizens on the territory of an enemy state? --Honzula 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Generally historical articles don't contain legal paragraphs, especially discussions of laws issued after something happened. Either the paragraph should be removed or any historical article in this WIkipedia should contain such legal paragraph.
  • The goal of legal works in Germany was either revision of borders or big economical claims. Anyone can write here that neither revision of borders nor big economical claims are destabilising Europe. Anyone can write here about abortion in Poland, because the abortion law in Poland now has a strong connection with the expulsion of Germans in 1945.

Xx236 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) BTW - accidentally a certain IP number has some legal problems...Would you register to prevent suspicions?Xx236 07:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you like Potsdam Conference, let me remind you its statements [17], especially II.A.3.(ii) and XII. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Honzula, it is rather simple, the Human rights convention did not exist during WWII, that is what you are saying right? well than why where the Nazis tried for murdering the Jews? by your reasoning it is certainly acceptable. We can either try every individual case and have the polish and Soviet gov't condemned for every single action, or you can say in general. So, let me get this straight, you are saying because there were no rules explicitly waved in their faces, the conquering allies could do whatever they wanted? Please, there is basic humanity here.

ah yes, Tulko, the Potsdam Conference, an official statement of the conquering powers deciding what will happen. Does that mean all the General Government's actions were thus legal? after all, the conquering powers of that time issued them.

--Jadger 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, dear Jadger, you're trying to push my words where they never were directed. "H-R Convention did not exist during WWII...", yes, but I wanted to say something else - the mentioned article of 4th Geneva Convention, from which Ferdi extrapolates the illegality of transfer, didn't exist in the time of transfer. There is nothing in my words what can explicate the statement that the murdering of Jews (or murdering of anybody) was "certainly acceptable". You probably forgot the Haag convention which orders to respect the lives of persons in occupied territory. But I asked you (not only you personally) if there was a rule prohibiting to expel out of own territory the citizens of enemy state. Do you have any information about this? --Honzula 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Indians should obtain their lands back and expell all white people.Xx236 07:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just another "great" Xx236-statement: Where is the context? What has your comment to do with the applicability of international law? Who of the persons involved in the discussion has said that Germany shall obtain its lands back and expell all Poles? Is it so difficult to follow the discussion at hand? Or are you just making jokes? However you can hardly be serious. Instead of torpedoing the discussion at hand with your unqualified statements you should rather try to contribute something reasonable! As for me, your behaviour is childish and simply unbearable! (194.9.5.10 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

  • Whould you be so kind to be more polite?
  • Would you be so kind to register?
  • If someone is making jokes, these are people who - instead to inform about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II (there are still many open problems - prefer to discuss the legal side of the expulsions and do it exactly here. Wikipedia isn't a court, it doesn't solve legal problems. Poland wasn't happy when it was re-occupied in 1944/1945 so I'm not interested in your stories. Go to the USA article and write the paragraph "US imperialist in Postdam".

There is a big mountain of human tragedies of the period 1939-1989. Some Germans dig the history to find golden coins. It's nasty in the same way as when some people dig Jewish teeth in Auschwitz.

  • After German and Soviet occupation the majority of Poles don't care about any legal aspects. The only way to survive under Germans and Soviets was to cheat. Germans who obtained freedom, democracy and law from abroad don't have the right to use the law against the victims of Germans.

Xx236 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

well, in countries where the law applies, everybody has the right to use the law. That is the very definition of the rule of law: that people have rights and responsibilities. So you cannot say that the one or the other person "doesn't have the right" to use the law, just because you do not like that person's nationality. This would mean doing away with the whole idea of having a set of laws in general.--Chris Camp 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a law that I have to pay all I have to Germans because of the UK policy 1945 I don't care about the law.Xx236 06:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon? What does British politics have to do with the legalities of population transfers and the acquisition of territory by war?--Chris Camp 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The UK was co-responsible for the post-war Europe, less than the USA and SU, but still was.Xx236 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but why are you even dragging the UK into this discussion? Remember that the UK tried to save Poland from the Nazi aggression. This topic concerns potential legal disputes between Poland and Germany. So I don't know hat the UK has to do with it. As to your original statement - I do not think that your personal opinion that the rule of law should not apply where it is used against you is held by the majority of all the people in the world. Laws are there for everyone - not just for people you like.--Chris Camp 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank your Britain for your phoney war. Xx236 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just childish. Here's a user who is making assumptions about me personally (including his speculation that I'm British, simply based on the fact that I live in Britain) and then evades discussion points by making puerile attempts to get a rise out of me. Instead of trying to provoke by making jingoistic comments about Britain which have nothing to do with any potential legal disputes between Germany and Poland, he should focus on what is actually pertinent to the issue at hand. I was interested in his earlier statement when he says that he does not care about the law the moment non-Polish(i.e. German) people seek to be protected by it. What is the intellectual merit of this? And how could this be included in a wikipedia article? Does it belong in a wikipedia article? What kind of a legal system is accessible to some people but not to others? And are there names for legal systems that give some people preferencial treatment?--Chris Camp 11:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? What in the world are you trying to tell me. Where is the CONTEXT? (194.9.5.10 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)) ps: I have to admit that "childish" and "unbearable" are the wrong words which I hereby would like to withdraw.

Don't worry. There is probably no one. ;-) Did you read the Xx's contrib. as the first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honzula (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Honzula, it was not Polish land, the expulsion started as early as 1944, and the land was not officially or legally a part of Poland until 1990. It was land put under Polish administration, but in no way did the Potsdam conference or the Yalta Conference (or any conference) give them ownership of the land. yes, respect the lives of persons, does that sounds like you are allowed to confiscate all their belongings and take the land their families have owned for centuries, then force them to move a couple hundred miles west to a land alien to them? Sure doesn't sound like any respect to me.

--Jadger 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. As far as my former contribs to discussion concerned the expulsion/transfer from Czechoslovakia, all my contribs still are, though it is not stated explicitly. So, can we leave the former East Prussia and talk about the transfer of German citizens from the Czechoslovak territory? Well, I start to be disapointed by your dodging in the topic. First you claims that non-restricted expulsion allows murdering, now you're trying to derive from "respecting to lives" also the respect to ownership and prohibition of forced transfer... And an "alien land" do I read it well? Didn't you hear the demand "Wir wollen heim ins Reich!" What an alien land - just the demanded Home! But back to the topic - this is not the discuss about the legality of murdering or confiscation, this is the discussion about the legality of expulsion. --Honzula 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Potsdam Conference, Article III. GERMANY:

It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people. It is the intention of the Allies that the German people be given the opportunity to prepare for the eventual reconstruction of their life on a democratic and peaceful basis. If their own efforts are steadily directed to this end, it will be possible for them in due course to take their place among the free and peaceful peoples of the world.

Senator Homer E. Capeheart of Indiana in an address before the United States Senate on February 5, 1946:

“At Potsdam the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics solemnly signed the following declaration of principles and purposes:

It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people.

Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolical skill, that the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap.

[…]

Those who have been responsible for this deliberate destruction of the German state and this criminal mass starvation of the German people have been so zealous in their hatred that all other interests and concerns have been subordinated to this one obsession of revenge. In order to accomplish this it mattered not if the liberated countries in Europe suffered and starved. To this point this clique of conspirators has addressed themselves: "Germany is to be destroyed…”

(cf. Ralph Franklin Keeling, "Gruesome Harvest" the Allies' Postwar War against the German People, Institute of American Economics (Chicago) 1947, ISBN 0-939484-40-4, pp. 75f)

-Wikiferdi 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people. nice told. Do you think -as probably senator Capeheart thought- that German people were enslaved or destroyed? Do you have sources or references that German people were forced to labor for free to the end of their lives? How many German communities were anihilated from 90% or how many Germans could say that 30-50 of their close relatives were killed resp. murdered? --Honzula 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the expulsions #3

Xx236, Honzula and others... I am aware that the legality section is long. I do think it is important to discuss the legality of the expulsions. However, I suspect that the current treatment here may be a bit POV. The question is how to trim it while still making the points and also how to find the "NPOV sweet spot".

However, we must not to resort to wild arguing based on personal thinking and original research. This kind of debate goes around and around and gets us nowhere.

It's clear to me that Roosevelt and Churchill thought the expulsions were legal. Nitschke discusses the use of Greco-Turkish population exchange of 1922 as a model for the expulsions of Germans. The India-Pakistan population exchange happened after the expulsions of Germans. Seems to me that population exchange was clearly legal in those days. So, in essence, I think I disagree with de Zayas. But he's the expert in international law and human rights and I am not. Nobody cares about me and my original research. Or about you and your original research.

If you also think de Zayas is wrong, then please find some sources that challenge his assertions. You know that I will support insertion of material if it is adequately sourced.

Instead of arguing about the legality, please go dig up some sources that we can cite.

--Richard 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The legality section length - see below. In the former (now mostly archived) discusion I tried to explain the contemporary statement of Czechoslovak representatives, including sources. There I have nothing fundamental to add. The agreement of Powers in Potsdam was important (as they were recipients of expelers) but not essential for the legality or will of transfer from Czechoslovak territory. Note, even after the war the president was willing to cede some territories. So (in a pure theory) there was a possibility to transfer the Germans to some of this regions and proclaim its independence. Honzula 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard, I am under the impression that you misunderstand at least the expulsion of Germans out of their ancestral homeland in East Germany (which wasn't considered officialy as "Polish" until 1990) in one important point:
Stalin didn't want to give back "East Poland" to Poland, the Allies didn't want to annoy the Soviets (because they still needed them...) and so Churchill had the idea to compensate Poland with German territory...
(I don't think that I have to proof the truth of this historical fact, should I?)
Wikiferdi 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not 100% convinced that giving German territory to Poland was Churchill's idea per se
But I can believe it to be true so let's not get caught up on that point right now
--Richard 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Richard, it seems to be idea of Soviet leaders. Take a look at this map. It is considered to be drawn during the Czechoslovak-Soviet negotiations in December 1943 (the map such this one is mentioned in records of negotiation). The blue color shows the Beneš's idea of post-war borders, the red painting is the idea of Soviet leaders (Stalin and Molotov).
--Honzula 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything in this Wikipedia article about the shifting of Poland from the east to the west which was eventually the reason (at least for Stalin and Poland) expelling Germans living in those former East German territories.
Oh really?
Have you looked at the "Controversy over reasons and justifications for the expulsions" section?
How would you characterize reasons #1 and #7 and the corresponding sections 3.1 and 3.7?
--Richard 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, could you explain me, why you always compare the expulsions of those Germans with historical "population exchanges"? Poland took German territories and Germany got the (German) population. How is this to be seen as an exchange?
Wikiferdi 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you arguing that Germany got the people for free without having to give up any Poles? ;^)
No, I guess not.
Perhaps you are arguing that Germany should have had to pay reparations for World War II along the lines of those mandated by the Treaty of Versailles.
No, I guess that's not what you're arguing either.
Look, the bottom line is that Germany was required to submit to unconditional surrender. No "Fourteen Points", nothing. What was envisioned by the Allies for postwar Germany was far worse than what the Germans ultimately had to suffer and only because the Western allies suddenly realized that a reconstructed Germany was more useful in defending against Communist expansion than a weakened and agricultural Germany.
If you have been with me for the last 9 months, you know that I think the ethnic Germans in Poland and Eastern Europe got a raw deal. Well, recently I've been thinking that some of them deserved it but certainly not all of them.
As for Germany losing territory? Can't make me weep over it. Even more than World War I, Germany was the clear aggressor in World War I. If Poland could be partitioned in 1939, why couldn't Germany be partitioned in 1945?
From my point of view, the problem is not that Germany lost the territory. The problem is that individual ethnic Germans lost their life, liberty and property without due process of law (us Americans kind of care about that "due process of law" thing). The Allies convicted the nation of Germany and the ethnic Germans paid the penalty. This "collective guilt" thing is the thing that I object to.
If Germany had lost the territory but the ethnic Germans had been allowed to stay and become Polish or Czechoslovakian citizens, that would have been OK in my book. Perhaps a little difficult for the Polish and Czechoslovakian governments to manage but at least human rights would not have been violated.
--Richard 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thank you for the clarification. I lost the overview... But I adhere to my statement that the expulsions of the Germans out of territories like Silesia, Pomerania etc. (which over centuries had been German) cannot be declared as "population exchange". If you hold on to this thesis I would ask you for a reliable source.

  • If Poland could be partitioned in 1939, why couldn't Germany be partitioned in 1945?

The partition of Poland in 1939 obviously was illegal but this doesn't make the partition of Germany in 1945 legal. Is this really so difficult to understand?

  • As for Germany losing territory? Can't make me weep over it.

Well, anyway it's a violation of human rights (right on self-determination - Political Freedom). In the Atlantic Charter the Allies 1941 declared solemnly that they wouldn't intent any territorial changes against the will of the concerned people. The Allies didn't adhere to this agreement - not even the western because Stalin quasi forced them i. e. they wanted to satisfy him because they needed him furtherone as ally (for the fight or "Credible Threat of Force" against Japan...). Immediately after Stalin fell in disuse for the West the Cold War broke out. Wikiferdi 07:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Germans deported millions without understanding that the expulsions were illegal, after 1945 all Germans know that expulsions are illegal. So the expulsions were very instuctive. A second Versaile wouldn't have lerned anyone anything.Xx236 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • So the expulsions were very instuctive.

Could you please explain how you consider the expulsions of the Germans "instructive" and why apparently expulsions before 1945 weren't instructive that much that the concerned people would have learned that they are illegal? - Wikiferdi 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, I created two new articles Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II and Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II. I had my doubts about doing this since there is a lot of overlap between these and the primary article on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Still, there is also a lot of material that is unique to each country from the details of the evacuation, flight and expulsion to the re-assessment in the last two decades. I still think there is value in having separate articles on these two countries as it allows us to get into a lot more detail without turning the primary article into a monster article.

Here's my question... I am looking for other editors to review these three articles and give me your advice on how to distribute material across them? For example, I have copied over the "controversy over reasons" section to each of the subsidiary articles and then specialized the section to that country (i.e. dropping all references to Poland from the section in the Czechoslovakia article and vice versa).

How does all this look to you? Am I on the right track? How can we improve these articles?

--Richard 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the extreme solution, the article can serve only as the disambiguation page with only short introduction and conclusion. But I think this will never happen, because for most of countries which expel the German minority, there is not enough informations and sources to make independent article, but the further reduction of some parts will be welcomed. My opinion is - the reasons for expulsion were similar, the legacy as well, Potsdam conference must be mentioned and reparation negotiations must be mentioned. But the process of expulsion/transfer or e.g. it's legality were individual and different not only between countries but even regions and changed in phases. This should be moved to the subsidiary articles.
Honzula 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But in the "mother" article, but also in the subsidiaries, I still miss important matter - the remuneration (compensation) for the losts, which the expelers in Germany and Austria gained, I also miss the deals (except the Czech-German Declaration) made between Germany or Austria and expeling countries, concerning the expulsion/transfer. Honzula 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment. Do you mean "compensation for loss of property by expelled Poles and Czechs"? How is that within the scope of this article?
What other deals have there been besides the Czech-German Declaration? There was the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. Are there others? And why would they be important?
--Richard 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
To avoid more confusion, I'll try to explain it slowly ;-)
Since the Čs. Government in exile decided for the transfer-solution of German problem, the problem of reparation (war indemnity) was closely associated. The transfer-proposal consulted in negotiations with government of USA, GB and USSR, presumed the confiscation of German's property to cover the reparation demands of Czechoslovakia; then Germany should pay the compensation to satisfy its citizens. This fait accompli should to prevent the Germany's evasion of reparation payment as it happened after WWI.
This plan was suggested to the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency (IARA) in 1945, but because of the rising Cold war was never confirmed by any treaty with Germany. IARA ends its activity in 1959 and the status quo is as follows: Czech Republic keeps former German's property and Germany didn't pay the reparation (only about 0,5% of Czechoslovak demands were satisfied[18]). Even during the preparing of Czech-German declaration the German side avoided the Czech demand to confirm the status quo by the agreement.
This is why every time when Sudetengermans request for Czech Rep. the compensation or the abolition of all decrees the Czech side strikes back by the threat of reparation demands.
However, Germany adapted the Czechoslovak fait accompli and had paid the compensation to the expellers. There is only few known about this fact, but reportedly until 1993 the German government paid about 141,000,000,000 DEM to the expelers. Relatively it could be about 14,000 DEM per one expeled Sudetengerman (just for comparation: the still living prisoners slavish-working for Siemens in Ravensbrück during the war, got only 1000 EUR(=cca 2000 DEM) as the compensation). But as I told, in Czech Republic there is only few known about the total amount of money given to Sudetengermans by German state.
In contrast to Germany, the expellers question was (seemingly) closed by several treaties with Austria and Hungary.[19] The most important follows:
According to the treaty of 19. December 1974 the Czechoslovakia pledged to pay 1,000,000,000 ATS to cover the property demands of Austrian citizens and waived all former territory and all other demands of country or individuals against the Austria. The Austrian side waived all demands angainst ČSSR and pledged to not support any demands of individuals against the ČSSR related to expulsion.
According to the treaty of 3. Februry 1964 the Czechoslovakia pledged to satisfy all demands of Hungary and Hungarian citizens related to confiscations by paying 20,000,000 Kčs.
The money were paid out, but the Austrian and Hungarian government have still problems to fulfil the agreement, especially in time when the extremist (e.g. J.Heider, V.Orbán) are their members.
Honzula 07:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out the "Legacy" section in Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II. I just added a subsection titled "Compensation" which is a cleaned up version of your text above.
--Richard 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added 2 more sources I forgot before and I also remowed some "my opinion" sentences. The info about 141,000,000,000 DEM of compensation for expellees could be mentioned also here, as it relates to all expellees in Germany.
Honzula 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Without the Expulsion of Germans from Yugoslavia after World War II and Expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia after World War II the subject isn't covered. Xx236 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There is only few known about this fact, but reportedly until 1993 the German government paid about 141,000,000,000 DEM to the expelers.

Did Germany pay this amount of money to the expellers or to the expellees? I am pretty confused about this statement. Well I deleted it on Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II. There it wasn't correct either way. Not even grammatically. Much less the related source is reliable. Money which Germany paid according the de:Lastenausgleichsgesetz was given not only to Sudetengermans but to all Germans which had any property/economic losses during the war. If you consider how much Germany was destroyed by allied bombers with the end of he war (e. g. Bombing of Dresden in World War II) there wasn't much left for the individual. It was just ment as "initial aid", not more. Germany has never pretended to have compensated German expellees for their losses. And as I wrote above, Germany won't ever be entitled to renounce to individual claims for indemnity. -Wikiferdi 23:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Minorities in Poland after the War - there is no such paragraph.Xx236 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Without the Expulsion of Germans from Yugoslavia after World War II and Expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia after World War II the subject of expulsions isn't proportionally covered. Xx236 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" is not covered adequately without discussions of every country in which significant numbers of ethnic Germans were expelled. Please expand the "Yugoslavia" section of this article as best as you can. If there is enough text, we can consider creating a separate article to treat the topic.
However, "Expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia" and "Expulsion of Hungrarians from Czechoslovakia" belong to the wider topic covered in the newly-created article World War II-era population transfers.
If, however, your point is that reference should be made to these other expulsions in order to put the expulsion of Germans in context, I agree. We just should not spend more than a sentence or two doing it.

--Richard 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the expulsions #4

I deleted following statement from the first topic of this article “…before the population transfers were officially sanctioned by the Allies at the Potsdam conference.”

Reason:

On 10 February 2007 I wrote here under 11. Read the "Potsdam Protocol":


This is a quotation of the Potsdam declaration. Hence it is not correct to speak of “officially sanctioned by the Aliies at the Potsdam conference”. - Wikiferdi 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

sentence removal

I removed this sentence:

  • One important variable to consider is also the fact that some of these German ethnic minorities were created by the redrawing of national borders after the Partitions of Poland and World War I.

I removed it because ethnic minorities are not made by shifting borders, the people had lived there previous to the borders being changed. It also needs to be rephrased, as XX placed the "partitions" part in there, but the point of the sentence was to say that areas where ethnic Germans were predominant came under foreign (i.e. Polish) control following WWI, and were no longer in Germany. in Poland as a whole they were a minority, but in the region itself (for instance, Polish corridor) they were often in majority.

--Jadger 06:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support removal of the sentence for the reasons mentioned. The sentence, as written, was a mess.
Is it worth rewriting the sentence to mention the fact that the presence of these ethnic Germans within Polish borders occurred for a number of reasons: reconstitution of Poland after WWII from previously Prussian/German lands, settlement of Polish lands annexed by Nazi Germany by Germans and Volksdeutsche between 1939 and 1945 and the westward shift of Poland's borders per the Potsdam agreement?
--Richard 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

from previously Prussian/German lands previously Polish, robbed by Prussia and Germanized by Prussia/Germany.Xx236 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Xx, can you please cite a source for such obvious POV. I fail to see how Prussia/Germany Germanized them when they were already settled by Germans under Polish reign, well before Germany or Prussia got control of the land. Also, why has Angela Merkel or any other German not been arrested for theft if it was robbed from Poland?
--Jadger 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"I fail to see how Prussia/Germany Germanized them" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Eastern_Marches_Society For instance, the Settlement Commission throughout the 27 years of its existence managed to plant about 25,000 German families on 124,000 ha of land in Greater Poland and Pomerania. --Aurelism 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • reconstitution of Poland...

Poland was reconstituted twice: After WWI (after been "partitioned" since 1772 and eventually disappeared from the world map) and after WWII (after been partitioned by Hitler and Stalin during that war). From 1815 to 1918 - this are around 100 years - Poland didn't exist on the world map, and this with the seal of the European powers gathered on the Congress of Vienna. However someone views those partitions of Poland in that time, the more important question concerning this article is, wether the way how Poland reappeared on the world map (after WWI) was correct or not and which influence it exerted in the politics. Don't take me wrong. As I had already stated before and always will assert: Polish people had the right to build a nation state. This is the right of self-determination which is to concede to all people.

Just a question could be: Was it right that Polish people, constituting anew a political community, disregarded the right on self-determination of e. g. Silesians or East Prussians, which voted by the majority for remaining in Germany (to which they were counted for centuries)?

Hence by disregarding the rights of those Germans, Poland created German minorities (Germans which weren't used to live as minority) in a new Polish nation state. I consider it obivously that if Poland had respected their rights yet before, there wouldn’t have been such “minority problems” which eventually supplied Hitler the pretext to attack Poland.

IMHO, this is a very important issue which shouldn’t be ignored. On the contrary, I consider it highly important in its influence on Germans and (Nazi-) German politics before WWII.

Just some more food for thought in this matter: As I recently heard, Poland waged five wars between 1918 and 1938 against its surrounding neighbours – well, many Poles may say, those countries waged wars against Poland. But the result of those wars was that Poland grew bigger. Another fact be that during the German occupation of Poland more German civilians lost their life than German soldiers – because they were victims of Polish indiscriminate outrage against all Germans.

Well, I know I have to supply reliable sources for these allegations but maybe someone helps me? – Thank you. -Wikiferdi 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The same Germans are responsible for the death of more than 5.000.000 civilian citizens of Poland. The same Germans enslaved, tortured, robbed 1939-1945. Than you WWikiferdi for thsi discussion. Do you want more details?Xx236 07:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Dear Xx 236 we all know that from this civilians the most where Polish but ethnical Jewish, witch the polish them selfe attact before, during, and after the war. The rest must be partly Ukrainians and Bielorussians as Polan had occopied big areas with this ethnical background.

Johann

particularly brutal

particularly brutal was German occupation of Poland. If we keep particularly brutal in this article, we need extremely brutal or inhuman to describe the German policy. Xx236 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I know the history second World war I would say that the worst areas where Yogoslavia, Ukaine and Bielo Russia and the best of the areas occupied by german forces if you where not jewish, France Chechia and Poland. As I say if you where not jewish for them everey where the occopation was a pure horror. I dont know what you want to show by butting the Polish fate so much forward, as there where a lot of other peoples in Europe witch can complain much more about the German occupation, witch was in Poland often a reaction on 20 years of Polish agression against Germans but against others like the Ukrainians too and this was going on after the war. Poland was in no way a peaceful pigon, it was the countrys in Europa witch between 1918 and 1939 attact each neighbourcountry. Germany; Chechoslovakia; Ukraina; Russia; Lituania all countries attact by Poland between 1918 and 1939.

Johann

Washing your hands won't help, the bloody stains will remain. Happy washing, Johann.Xx236 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We will share the bloody hands with the Polish and some others. Johann

Johann, if German occupation was so good for Poland, why 3 million non-Jewish Polish citizens died under that occupation? Anyway, if you think you can compare Czech occupation or France occupation to Poland, where people where regularly shot on the streets, hanged, where whole villages were razed without any rational reason, you are lunatic. How many street executions in Prague or Paris? Szopen 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know exact numbers, but when you walk in the streets of Prague you can see hundreds of plaquettes rememebering people shot by Nazis. Everyone knows Lidice and Lezaky and Kobylisy shooting range. My ancestors lifes were destroyed and bothered by Nazis and I don't want to be bothered by anyone for what they did in the past. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
With whole respect, you remember what were the words of gov. Frank when he was asked about difference in occupation between Poland and Czech? I didn't suggest it was paradise. However, I tend to kind a remember that in Poland there were hundreds of such Lidices. Szopen 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Germans murdered my family. Good, warm, Germans, who probably loved Wagner and learned Goethe at school. Their children didn't know who they were, they remeber sweet old Heinz Reinefarth and others like him. It's my last answer. Xx236 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You dont understand I dont want to but you family down but I knew personaly serveral people witch survived Russian Concentrationcamps for German Zivililians in Prussia (Königsberg) or Serbien Konzentration camps in Serbia ( Zrenanin) I can tell you this camps a comparable with the worst German camps. They where camps for killing nothing else. I dont know from first hand how bad the camps in Poland where but what I read not much better. And here is the political point. By saying but the Germans where the one witch made the war you prakticly say it is good to kill civilians when they are from the one witch starts the war. You must just force a weeker country to start a war and you can kill as many civilians as possible. That can not be the way we are dealing with this things in the future. So next to Heiz Reinefarth schould stand the names of the people witch where leading this deadcamps in Königsberg and Zrenanin. May be when thea would have stand their since 1945 their would have never been the camps in Yugoslavia again, because the Serbs witch murdered in Vukovar where exactly from the same towns where the Serbs came witch murderd the German civilians after the war and where settled in their former villages around their in the Voiwodina.

Johann

I think there are too many anecdotals and emos in this discussion ("Germans murdered my family" / "there were hundreds of Lidices in Poland"). It is, after all, completely uncontroversial that there was at least some degree of resident collaboration with the Nazi occupiers in every country they managed to invade. This was particularly true of France, Poland, the Netherlands and Austria, but also in some instances in Norway and Hungary. The most notorious example of Polish civilians pre-empting the German SS's intentions was the massacre at Jedwabne where Polish civilians spontaneously murdered Jewish members of the community without any stimulus from the Germans whatsoever. Anti-Semitism, homophobia, xeonophobia (all of which were key characteristics of Nazism) remain strong in Poland today. Polish people traditionally see themselves as victims of WW2 (which is often true) but they seem to be disinclined to look at the many instances when they very much harmonised with the Nazi occupiers. This default victim status is a very convenient tool to deflect any sort of criticism that one might direct at Polish people. An honest search for the truth would lead to conclusions which would make it impossible to justify this stubborn and unrealistic victim mentality.--Chris Camp 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It's quite interesting that you select my anectpdes and my emotions, ignoring the fact that I answerd to the campaign by someone other. Would you please study the whole dispute before you attack me?
  • It's quite interesting that you ignore British collaboration, both in free UK and in occupied islands.
  • There is a forum to discuss the subject Talk:Jedwabne pogrom, go there. The problem was a little more complicated.
  • This forum isn't about degenerated Poles today. The level of crimes in your country is comparable to Poland, including the rape and murder of a Polish student. British tourists in Poland are legendary.
  • This forum is about the "Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII", not about your obsessions.Xx236 09:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Well, I have read the entire discussion. This is something that I have been interested in for quite a long while, not least, because it is a large part of the field I have taken studies in. I do not care who "attacked" you (I think a more appropriate term would be "sought a discussion with you", but it always appears to bring about the same knee-jerk reaction). Emos and ancdotes will not make it into a wikipedia article. The town I live in was bombed extensively by Germany in WW2, but I do not use this to make a point in wikipedia.
  • I do not "ignore" British collaboration on the Channel Islands. Put simply, I have not come across a lot of useful material on the subject. But collaboration on the Channel Island was sui generis limited by the very nature of the occupation: a very small population, and there was no large Jewish population that the non-Jewish population could have reported to the German occupying force. There's no doubt in my mind that there would have been a lot of collaboration had the Germans managaed to capture more British land. As it happened, they did not. Furthermore, this is not a discussion about Britain. Again, I could take the convenient emo route and go on about how cities in the West Midlands were bombed, but I know that this would be dishonest.
  • Yes, I am following the discussion there. But there is nothing there that would lead the reader to question any of Jan Tomasz Gross' findings.
  • Personally, I would counsel against putting words into other people's mouths. In the long run, this will hurt your cause. At no point did I call Polish people "degenerate". What I do say is that the simplistic view on the past that seems so common among the Polish establishment leads to problems today.
  • Exactly. The uprotting of Germans from many partos of Eastern Europe creates a number of questions which still need to be addressed today. Because this is my field of interest, I have followed many discussions that follow from this (this one, the one about an information centre planned for the German capital Berlin, the discussions involving Polish people uprooted from Belarus, the one about Hungarian people uprooted fro Slovakia etc...) But every time somebody brings up a sensible discussion point, that user is inundated by a flood of emos, inventions and sheer nonsense.--Chris Camp 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

One of the points of controversy about this and related articles is the use of the word "expulsion" as a blanket term to describe "flight", "evacuation", "wild expulsions" and "organized population transfer". This is not all our fault. This is a common flaw in the rhetoric of the ZgV (Centre against Expulsions) and de Zayas. Several impassioned (and some now blocked/banned) editors have been trying to make this case for over a year.

Over the past few months, I have come to agree with them and some recent reading has given me support from reliable sources for this POV.

From James Bjork's review of Bernadetta Nitschke's Vertreibung und Aussiedlung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus Polen 1945-1949.

The author (Bernadetta Nitshke) is also careful to differentiate the various stages of population movement that I have been lumping together as "the expulsions." The first mass movement of German civilians in the eastern territories, a migration that Nitschke describes as a combination of spontaneous "flight" and organized "evacuation," lasted from summer 1944 through spring 1945 and was driven by fear of the advancing Soviet army. This dislocation involved several million people, of whom several hundred thousand died of cold or hunger or in Allied bombardment, though hundreds of thousands of others soon made their way back to the area. Nitschke reserves the designation "expulsion" (the German equivalent, Vertreibung, has a more visceral ring) to the so-called "wild" expulsions conducted by the Polish military and civilian authorities in summer 1945, before the population transfers were officially sanctioned by the Allies at the Potsdam conference. These actions gave way in spring 1946 to a series of larger, better organized, and less lethal "forced resettlements" which continued through 1947. A final major wave of resettlement resumed in 1948 and 1949. Nitschke's chosen terms for each phase seem judicious and appropriate. Though their bloodlessness might strike some as euphemistic, she does wisely avoid the misleading term "repatriation" that was used in many of the official sources. In any event, those interested in terminological hair-splitting will face a daunting challenge as debates become effectively bi- or trilingual, since each term in each language obviously has slightly different connotations. H-Net Review

If we were to adopt Nitschke's use of "expulsion" to denote the "wild" expulsions, we would have to change the title of this article or its scope. I propose that we keep the current scope but change the title to "Forced migration of Germans after World War II". We could have Expulsion of Germans after World War II redirect to this article. I have already taken a first step towards this proposal by changing the wording of the lead paragraph. However, I figured it would be better to discuss this proposed move first to develop a consensus for my proposal.

I should comment that this proposal covers related articles such as Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II, Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II. It would also affect terminology used in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe and other related articles.

--Richard 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

after - i.e. since May 9, 1945, without the flight, "Gustloff".Xx236 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Good point. Maybe it should be Forced migration of Germans at the end of World War II. I really think the topic has to cover the entire migration starting with "flight" and "evacuation" otherwise we still get the mess of people arguing that the estimated deaths are due to "flight and evacuation" and not "expulsion".
We still need to dig deeper into the numbers but this is probably a task that will take us some time.
--Richard 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Germans which fled or had been evacuated, were they allowed to return to their homes? NO! Until today, more than 60 years after World War II, they are not allowed to return to their homes. Contrary to the Human Rights Convention! - So they were expelled, they are expellees and not migrants. It's a shame how some people here at Wikipedia are denying the terror obviously their countries exerted at the end of World War II and still after that war (and politically until today - by refusing to apologize for that terror and conceding human rights to all people).

Wikiferdi 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC) What about those Germans who were driven from homes taken from Poles after Nazi occupation ? I think countries that expelled Germans would be more willing to apologise if not for facts like Nazi members in BdV or former SS-men becoming politicians in expelle organisation. The issue of German minorities supporting plans to expell Poles in WW1 and later in WW2 shouldn't be also forgotten. --Aurelism 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, homes which were taken from Poles belong to Poles. Had they not been given back to their owners? However, homes which were taken from Germans belong to Germans just as well. This is very simple and therefore such thoughts are part of International Law at least applied against the expulsions of Poles (but not against the expulsions of Germans).

About Nazi- and SS members in expellee’s organizations: Could you name some of them?

Well, Günter Grass as an adolescent was a SS member, too. But this had not hindered him to change some (political) views. (He won the Nobel prize for literature.)

But obviously in Poland… aren’t many people who consider now, more than 60 years after WWII, incorrect and wrong what Poland (under the rule of the Communists) did indiscriminately against Germans in Poland and in the old German Oder-Neisse - territories. And this would be really a shame for Poland.

Wikiferdi 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Even "forced migration" is not as good a term as "exodus" since the "evacuation" and "flight" were not technically "forced". I understand what you are saying about the evacuees and refugees not being able to return to their homes but I don't think we should address that issue in the article rather than insisting on the word "expulsion" in the title.
Do you accept Nitschke's use of "flight", "evacuation", "expulsion" and "organized population transfer" as a better description of what actually happened?
--Richard 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Zayas

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04262006-071805/unrestricted/larson_kevin_m_200605_ma.pdf

GERMANS AS VICTIMS? THE DISCOURSE ON THE VERTRIEBENE DIASPORA

Of particular interest in respect to de Zayas’s book is that it was originally published in German in 1986—two years before Maier’s work detailing the Historikerstreit was published—under the title Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten. Whereas Maier was reacting to the reemergence of a conservative Germany that was seeking to make less of the Holocaust while raising support for its own victims, de Zayas saw an opportunity to profit from the political situation and published a book with an agenda that closely matched the CDU’s agenda. While the book did address Germans as victims and was among the first to do so, it did not approach the topic from a constructive tangent. Rather, it sought to assign blame heavy-handedly toward the Russians and others who “persecuted” Germans during World War II. This argument’s appearance in print suggests that a change in the political leadership of a nation can influence scholarly discourse. It is also interesting to note that the original German title translates to “Commentary about the Expulsion of Germans Out of the East.” Over time, as the Streit over culpability for all versus innocence for some began to sway toward innocence, de Zayas capitalized on the shift in the historiography. He published the book in the United States in 1993 under the title The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace. The 1994 paperback edition trumpets the title A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950. Instances like these make it difficult for some Germans to lay legitimate claims to being victims. The words “ethnic cleansing” applied to the German Vertriebene ring hollow and lead to unfair and unsettling comparisons to the Holocaust. At no time does the fate of twelve million people who were forced to relocate equal the deaths of six million people at the hands of a ruthless government. This kind of historic discourse draws readers to make comparisons between two linked events that should not be compared. Furthermore, in his discussion of Operation Barbarossa, De Zayas only briefly mentions that “special squads of German Security Service (SS) troops murdered hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, primarily Jews.” When he addresses the Russian response to German atrocities, De Zayas writes of the “hate-mongering pamphlets and fliers” that were distributed to Russians, calling upon them to kill as many Germans as possible. De Zayas even quotes from one of the pamphlets, highlighting the Russian prose that calls upon Russians to create a “heap of German corpses.” This type of comparison that De Zayas uses is heavy-handed and unfair. What De Zayas is doing is vilifying the Soviets by quoting from one of their pamphlets, showing that they had documents that called for the deaths of Germans. It is as though De Zayas is desperately pointing to a well-organized effort to kill Germans and thus hoping to make German victimhood more attainable. De Zayas does a disservice to Germans and the legitimacy of German victimhood with his analysis. By not quoting from a German document that called for the deaths of the Russians—Operation Barbarossa was well organized and these documents do exist—De Zayas makes his bias painfully obvious. He tries too blatantly to pin atrocities on the Russians and hide the crimes of the Germans behind a single sentence. This is irresponsible use of source material and makes it more difficult for Germans who are victims to lay claim to that status. De Zayas analysis is one-sided and does not promote a victimhood claim that embraces all who were affected by the war. Instead, it creates controversy in a historiography that is already controversial enough.


I humbly request that per Zayas quotes and theories be removed to his article. Extreme opinions are presented in article about people presenting them, not in main articles about issues they make opinions about. --Aurelism 00:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Dear Mr Aurelia !

VICTIM'S ARE VICTIM'S THERE IS NO DEFFINITION IF THEY ARE GOOD ORE BAD VICTIMS. GENERALY OLD MAN, WOMEN AND CHILDRENS ARE SEEN AS VICTIMS EVEN FROM THE WORST ENEMY.

People witch like to kill old man children and women too, are seen as barbaric. I think that needs no further comment, you should think about your ideas. On a moral point of view, your comment is inhuman, and shows only to well, why we have the problems on this world now, what we have.

Johann

A personal attac. You can choose. One uncle Kommunist fighting with the Bolshevist after the first WW One uncle SS fighting with the Division Hohenstauffen . One Sozialdemokrat 1934 in the camps of the Austrofashists. My grandfather declared Monarchist he kept the sabre till after the second WW. What ever you like . My father HJ and later Sozialist fighting against the Kommunist after the II WW. What you think what this years ment for the people in middle europa ?

Johann

Your family came to my family uninvited in 1939, so we revisited in 1945. Xx236 13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As my communist uncle faught probably against the Polish on Russian side and the Polish had attact the Russians and he had and somew here their is still some russian relatives I could say the same. Johann

The "extreme opinion" belongs in this article because it is a notable opinion. If you believe it is extreme (and it is at least a bit extreme), then you are welcome to present counterbalancing perspectives. It may even be useful to create an article called Historiography of the expulsion of Germans after World War II which can discuss the positions of various historians over the course of the last 60 decades.
However, NPOV policy requires that all notable POVs be presented.
--Richard 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
basing this all on the college thesis of a student? please! reputable sources, a possible college dropout is hardly reputable.
--Jadger 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Master of Arts thesis is acceptable source of information. --Aurelism 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if it has been published. In order to be verifiable, there must be a way that I can obtain a copy of the thesis either by purchasing it, through a library or an online publisher. "It's posted on/downloadable from the web" or "I'll e-mail it to you" is not an adequate verification method because anybody could create a document and claim that it's a Master's Thesis submitted to XYZ University.

So order it rather than spreading accusations.Xx236 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was responding to the Jadger/Aurelism exchange solely on principle and not with respect to the specific document in question. Apparently, they are talking about this Master's thesis. I think we can use the Master's thesis because it is published electronically by Georgia State University. It's a digital world and electronic publishing from a reliable source (Georgia State) should be acceptable.
--Richard 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Legality of expulsions #5

I deleted this part of the article about the legality of the expulsions of the Germans:


It is not possible to maintain its affirmative connotation if you consider the opinion of Dr. de Zayas:


The Hague Regulations had been International Law, too, and therefore the expulsions of the Germans had to be considered illegal.

And regarding the Nuremberg trials:


(cf. both citations: [20])

Wikiferdi 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the removal of the paragraph. It's German POV written by a biased author. Xx236 07:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

there was little public knowledge of the expulsions

Where? in Western Germany or the USA? "the silence has been broken" - there wasn't any silence ever. The Expelled (led frequently by former Nazis) were active after the war. Who writes such lies?Xx236 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC) "to break the taboo" - did the "Documentation" and Navratil's propaganda come from abroad?Xx236 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) "such as the crimes committed by the Soviet Army during the World War II" - it's false statement. The main goal of German propaganda is Poland, not Russia. Either because the majority of the expelled came from Poland, or because the expelled are rich and influential than the other expelled, or because they want money or/and land from Poland.Xx236 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Swinemünde bombing should also be mentioned with Dresden

On March 12, 1945 during World War II, Swinemünde suffered heavy destruction by USAAF bombing. At least 23,000 civilians died, mainly refugees fleeing from East Prussia and from surrounding areas Xx236 10:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

by the Poles (by de Zayas)

Which Poles? There is a basic difference between by the Germans (there existed one German state with no opposition) and by the Poles (there existed two governments, Poland was under Soviet occupation, fights and repressions were on the level of Nazi occupation of Western Europe).Xx236 10:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • there existed one German state with no opposition

Haven't you heard of the downtrodden opposition in Nazi-Germany? For example the Kreisau Circle. - Wikiferdi 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kreisau Circle was a discussion club, not a real opposition.Xx236 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Ouch, a bad example. Plotters from 1944 bombing wanted to have German border along 1914 line with Polish population under German occupation. Stauffenberg despised Poles and was glad they were doing slave work. --StudnickiWladyslaw 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the Legacy paragraph

If you won't correct this idiocy, I'll remove it. It misinforms rather than informs. Xx236 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What precisely do you object to? I have changed the tone somewhat but you need to be more specific about your objection before I can act on it. --Richard 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Western Germany didn't recognize the Oder-Neisse border till 1970. There existed a party of expelled, a ministry, many cultural organizations, books. The situation in Germany influenced Poles living in formerly German lands, who were expecting expulsion. Only the Soviets supported Poland. Now we know that Adenauer pretended, but millions of Poles didn't know.

The expulsion of Germans was more visible in Germany than the Holocaust restored only by the US TV series. Do you want to describe the situation in Western Germany or only outside? Eventually some other articles should be linked. Xx236 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

@Chronology of the expulsions

I removed this passage from the article:


Such comparitions should be better placed on Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II. Please cite reliable sources then. Well, if you consider the internment camps like Łambinowice which existed over thousand in post-war Poland, I disbelieve what this passage asserts. And what is known, too, is that German population were not allowed to carry much. And of what they carried many Poles dispossed them during the expulsion.

Bertrand Russel wrote in "The Times" on 19 October 1945:


Norman Clark from "News Chronicle" wrote on 24 August 1945:


F. A. Voigt reported in the "Nineteenth Century and After" in November 1945:


The Manchester Guardian's wrote on 10 March 1946:


All these citations are from the book "Nemesis of Potsdam" of Prof. de Zayas. (pp. 108ff.)

Wikiferdi 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There didn't exist one thousands camps like Łambinowice. The best prove is that you quote Łambinowice. The same not all German camps had gas chambers, so we remeber rather Auschwitz than thousands of small German camps, not opposed by German opposition. 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong namae of the article

The name of the article misinforms. Rename the article. The Wikipedia isn't a BdV board.Xx236 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename it to what? I've made several proposals. You haven't indicated what you want to rename it to. --Richard 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

driven by fear of the advancing Soviet army

  • Germans weren't allowed to run away in 1944, so the German administration was responsible for the Winter flight.
  • German propaganda controlled a big part of the fear, eg. partially staging the Nmmersdorf murder.

Xx236 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

@Chronology of the expulsion #2

All citation is based on "Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2001. ISBN 0-674-00313-6". The numbers in brackets are the pages.






Wikiferdi 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki*, would you please end your crusade? I can write 1000 lines about German crimes in Poland answering any your line. BTW - Germans used to kill about 100 Poles for any killed German in Poland. Don't dig because you may find a dead body there.

The state you describe was Poland under Soviet occupation, after the war of 1939, 6 years of cruel German occupation and the war of 1945. Do you expect that the victims washed hands and said "Please" and "Thank you"? You keep to ignore the historical context. Learn about WWII in Poland if you want to judge the post-war period. Xx236 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, I consider your comment as an evasion. We are trying to write here the history of the expulsion of Germans as it was and not as Stalin or some Poles would like to write it. If you like to write about German crimes, who precludes you from doing so? I am sure there are some sites at Wikipedia where you can let of steam. And about your advices: Learn about international law before you wash Polish hands of the crimes commited against innocent Germans (children, women, elderly, antifascists etc.).

Feel free to disagree with me, but don't try to muzzle me.

Wikiferdi 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to write the history as it was and you try to impose the point of view of the BdV, rejected ebven by many Germans and supported by two foreigners - Naimark and de Zayas. So you quote Naimark, because you cannot quote hundreds academic historians who don't have German bias. There is also Bacque, a journalist. Xx236 06:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want an emotional interpretation of history, like you prefer, than I can give you one. It was Germany witch established Poland 1916 and it was the Austrian army on witch side Pilsuzki fought. 1918 Poland changes sides after the war and stabbed the Germans in the back occupying territories like upper Silesia witch was not even Polish before the division. And harassing the German Minority for 20 years not respecting the League of Nations rules of minorities. Even canceling the contract signed about Minorities witch was part of the Versailles Treaty so a preach under witch Poland got Upper Silesia. So actually Germany occupied this territory by international law. And at last killing 10.000 Germans ore more the real number was never counted for because there are only counted the Numbers in Bromberg but not the rest of the country. At last being so stupid to listen to the western powers like now again witch did not send a singe shot in 1939 while Germany offered an alliance against Russia before it went to Russia to ask the same. Johann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk • contribs)


"It was Germany witch established Poland 1916 and it was the Austrian army on witch side Pilsuzki fought." Poland was established in 996. Germany never made anything serious besides vogue declarations. Pilsudski rebeled against Austrian Army during Oath Crisis when they tried to force him to declare loyalty to German Emperor rather then to Poland. This German puppet state "Poland" was to have 30,000 km2 annexed from which 2.000.000 Poles and Jews were to be expelled to make room for German colonists. Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to German plans-Poles would be virtual serfs in German protoctorate really.... --StudnickiWladyslaw 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Emotional? I want dry and cold numbers, not the emotional 2 000 000 of post-war German propaganda. Thank you for every German kindness of the 20th century - finally your family had enough technology to kill all my family but killed only part of it. Xx236 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


That where war time plans. There was the plan that Poland became a kingdom along Austria too. It is not clear witch plans would have been fulfilled at last the imperial Germany was not the Germany of Hitler and in the path of a peace process the outcome may have been totally different. The English had plans too to cut Germany into 2 or 3 states so had French but none of them was thinking to take the whole German east. By the way in 996 Poland was established with the blessing of the German emperor as in 1916 when a German military chapel played by the official declaration of independence. Johann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk • contribs)

Mr. Johann, earlier you wrote something about Bromberg and famous 10.000 number. If you really researched the topics, you are perfectly aware that the official number of ALL GERMANS, Polish citizens killed in September 1939, the number established by NAZI ORGANIZATION during the war (but not quoted in propaganda of course) was slightly more than 5.000. 10.000 killed in whole Poland is realy high estimate, and that number would include those who were seving in Polish army, were killed in Luftwaffe raids etc. Szopen 09:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I dont know either, the problem is that it was never realy made a caculation because there where only calculated the dead in Bromberg but the Progromes against Germans took place in the whole of Poland. You had the minorities in Upper Slesia, in Posen Disdrict and some smaller Minorities in West Galicia and biger in Wolhynia and in Lemberg(Lviv). So nobody knows. And it is not clear either if the Polish differciated between German and German Jews. A lot of Jews where often very Germanic so I ask my selfe if their where not killed some of them with the Germans too, witch is quite likly. In right wing Pubications you can find estimations about 50.000 witch I think is not realistic but up to 10.000 may be real. The German air raids looked dramatic ( Junkers )but where minor compaired with later bombardments. So mostly more people in all occupied countries died later from Allied airraids 1943 to 1945.( Huge bulkes of bombers not 20 or 40 Twoengine planes like the Germans) So normaly you see only the German films of the German bombraids and nobody shows ever the allied films of bombing Katowice or other Cities or Paris for example Hunderttausend of people died by friendly fire in the second world war for political reasons the numbers are never shown nore compaired with the German numbers. And Their is no book about this even each allie of the American- British coalition lost more civilians thrue that, than thrue any thing else.

Johann

You admit you don't know. So why do you write so many words? BTW - this discussion is about the "Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII". I find it interesting that people prefer to wage their crusades in the Talk page instead to write a sound article. I find it interesting that German speaking people prefer to quote two English speaking authors rather than hundreds of German ones. Xx236 08:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Johann, 58.000 is the number not from right-wing publications but right from Nazi propaganda, which was debunked quite long ago. The data we have for German deaths in 1939 is usually based on informations gathered by wartime Nazi instutution (The name was something like Central for German graves in Poland, I can search the name), which documented all deaths of German minority members it could find - amongst others, for purposes of giving the money for families of victims. Again, those were not only victims of lynches and pogromes (assuming there were such events, of course), but all cases of German deaths. Some of them could be victims of regional violence, which however was not sanctioned by the state (which is quite clear in Bydgoszcz/Bromberg case). However, German minority members also served in Polish army, were victims of air raids and general war conditions. The bombs and artillery shells do not choose the victims. There were singular accidents of violence outbreaks, but neither the number of victims is clear, nor the circumstances are (As in Bromberg, when there are plethora of testimonies and documents that Polish army was fighting with saboteurs - but there is also data that many dead could not be possibly saboteurs). If you want to discuss this further, let's talk in Bromberg talk page, to not pollute this talk page - or even better, I can give you my private email. Szopen 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Johann is adult and has access to thousands of German books about WWII. If he prefers Nazi propaganda, we should respect his decision and ignore his Nazi lies.Xx236 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would have read my articel than you would know that I myselfe was writing that this number is not realistic but that on the other hand the Bromberg number is to low because ist only refers to the people killed in and around Bromberg, while there where a lot other German minorities in Poland, witch where attact I will stop this now, because it does not belong to here, but it is importend to show that allready 1918 and 1939, some polish people attact German civilian population so it is more than only a reaktion on the war 1945 and it where not only the russian ore communist the Polish as a people are responsible too for this what happend that is shown thrue the killings witch happend in 1918 ( 1500 civilian dead upper slesia) and 1939. Johann

This article isn't about 1918. But if you wish - millions of Poles had to live under German and Austrian occupation 1815-1918. Mora than one million were drafted and forced to fight, generally Poles against Poles. Hundreds of thousands died. Why don't you mention the hundreds thousands and write about the 1500? Are 1500 of Germans more important than hundreds of thousands Poles? The other aspect was economical one - Germans in Poland were capitalists, Poles were workers. In many countries workers murdered capitalists but you know only that "polish people attact German civilian". How many German people were killed in Germany during revolutions and street fights 1918-1932? Xx236 08:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is nonsens. You can not call 1815 to 1918 an occupation ore I can call the rule over the former German east from 1945 on an occupation by Poland. IN Austrai Hungary- Galizia the Polish hand an own Parliament and the right to use the language in Germany in the beginning their where simelar rights. The Polish nobility was highly guilty for the deviding of Poland. You can only devide ometing witch is too week to defend itselfe, they prakticly sold their state. Westen Prussia ( Pomerce) was under Polish rule and still it was mainly German. You dont tell that in the 18 century the Polish performed a simulare politic of making the area around Danzig Polish as the germans did in the second half of the 19 th century. Sorry but history is more complex than you are showing it. The poor Polish victims the week witch was attact by germany 1939. But POland was an huge military force only they used their force in a wrong way simelar like the Russians in the beginning of the war against them. The Germans lost 200 airplains in the Polish campain it was not an easy victory against horses witch is shown in the west witch is propaganda to cover up that the west actualy left Poland alone. But the POlish learnd nothing out of this the still are isolated and call upon the west witch never helped them. Johann

West Prussia, or Royal Prussia was not mainly German. The cities were German, the gentry and countryside was mainly Polish. Even Prussian census from before WWI showed that in part which was given to Poland, Poles were majority. Also, in XVIII century Poland had no similar policy to Prussian one. Definetely nothing compared to buying out Poles' land, state sponsored colonisation, laws preventing Poles to build new houses, arresting Poles for singing Polish songs, firing out Polish teachers because they were speaking Polish at home and similar. And no plans to expell all Poles after the war into the newly established Polish kingdom, as was proposed by many Prussian intellectuals. Mainly because in XVIII the nationalism was uncomparable to XIX century, and secondly because Poland-Lithuania was highly decentralised state. But let's stop this here. 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

West Prussia as a whole had a German majority, the part witch was given to Poland had a Slavic majority, it depens if you see the Kashubian as Polish or not, otherwise their would habe been 40 % Polish 40 % German and 20 % Kashubian. As nobody asked the people, where they wanted to be ( als Wilson promissed )we will never know.

Johann

But we know something about Germans, see Piaśnica Wielka. Xx236 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not the questionn here I answered their and you will not like the answer. Korridor was basicly the reason for the II WW because without the Prussian dominated army Hitler would have been a Postmaster in Upper Austria to the end of his live and Prussion officers followed him because they felt betrayed because of the loss of Western Prussia and the Frensh occopation of the Rheinland witch they sah as broken treaty.

Johann

Yes, the Poles are responsible. Poor Germans had to use Zyklon B, because of the Korridor. Thank you Johann for your integral explanation of the 20th century history. We mentally disabled Poles aren't able to understand the problem without bright German leadership.Xx236 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I see now. That explains also the Anschluss, occupation of Czechoslovakia, invasion of France, the Battle of Britain, invasion of the Soviet Union and the operations of the Deutsche Afrika Korps. Silly me. I am very grateful for having it explained to me that the Poles were responsible for all this. We should demand reparations from the Poles.
It's time to stop this line of discussion and focus on discussion which improves the article.
--Richard 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And this would be really a shame for Poland.

It's really a shame for Wikiferid to use such language and shame for neutral editors, who don't oppose it. Xx236 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, no personal attack! "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (cf. Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

"It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement." (cf. personal attack)

Wikiferdi 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do write the article instead to wage your crusade against Poland and me personally. Thank you for you teachings, but apply the rules yourself. Xx236 07:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, you shouldn't take the truth about Polish history personally. Wikiferdi 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do write the article instead to wage your crusade against Poland and me personally. Thank you for you teachings, but apply the rules yourself. Xx236 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if you have to continue this kind of chatter, would you consider doing this in your userspace instead ? --Lysytalk 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Romania

I have removed "After the World War II deportation of Jews to Transnistria (considered collectively), it was the largest mass deportation in modern Romanian history.". Let's concentrate on facts - number of expelled, number of dead victims.Xx236 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous

I don't know if Germans were able to travel spontaneously. Those who worked had to work. People obtained ration cards in their towns. Can someone explain the problem? The majority didn't run away during the Summer 1944.Xx236 07:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your question, could you try to rephrase it ? The majority of Germans from East Prussia and General government ran away as the frontline approached. --Lysytalk 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsens you would have been shot dead if you run away with no allowens. The NS dictatorship was in controll of everything ,you could not do nothing without allowence. The Germans started to run away in Eastprussia, as the russian army was standing allready 40 km before Königsberg ( Kaniningrad)

Johann

Johann, please try to be polite and avoid using such terms as "nonsense" when addressing other editors. The Germans had detailed evacuation plans prepared long in advance. The problem is that these plans were not implemented in practice, and most of the people ran away on their own. Usually those who were responsible for the evacuation left earlier, so those who you think would be shooting dead the escapees were already not there. The flight and evacuation was a chaotic and ill-organised process and it was not started in time. The civilians were not evacuated before the soldiers and many escaping civilians collided with the withdrawing German army, which was given the priority in transport. German evacuation plans assumed that the civilians would be evacuated first, while the army fought, not that both would be fleeing at the same time. --Lysytalk 10:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say you are right in many ways. The people witch where allready not theire where mainly partymembers. I just reread this issue in the DMZ a German histoical magazin.From their I have the quoted that the real evacuation started after the russian offensive I thing around the mid of January 1945 when East Prussia was allready cut of from the rest of Germany.

I myselfe know several people witch have been theire. One soldier from the German GD tank unit witch became russian POW and survived the camps theire around Königsberg. As there where civilian and military POW camps only sperated by a fence. I know very well what was going on, so that I must say that theire was a real will of the ussr Autorities to kill a part of the German civilian Population. Often supported by the communist Propaganda ( I Ehrenburg) witch realy called on the Russian soldiers, witch normaly where quit neutral to the civilian Population ( what i know from stories in Austria, if they where not trunken ) to kill the civilians and to rape the womens and often kill them.

This was tolerated in the camps on bright daylight. The leaders of the camps where choosen from Minorities witch had reason to have hate against the Germans, that was to done by plan of the Kommunist party. So one can say the NKWD witch was behind this, was an as criminal organisation as the SS , they are realy twins in their concepts.

Johann

Read Ilya Ehrenburg#Controversies and the Talk page before you accuse him. Soviet soldiers (not Russian) killed, robbed and raped in many countries, not only in Germany, there are thousands of accounts, eg. by Sándor Márai from Budapest. According to Milovan Đilas Stalin accepted the cruelties as a reward to the heroes. Many rapes of former KZ inmates, also Soviet citizens, are documented. Xx236 15:03, 16 May 2007

(UTC)

I dont need Ehrenburg, I have a book about him but not here it will take me a time to get my hands on it again, there is Lev Zalmanovich Kopelev Sovjet officer of jewish backgroung witch confirms in his books the sovjet propaganda against the german civilian population and their are speaches oft other sovjet Generals witch are recorded.

Johann

The situation was different in different places and times, which should be explained in the article. I have started this discussions, because the article says was composed of both spontaneous "flight" and organized "evacuation" starting in the summer of 1944 and continuing through spring of 1945 - I doubt that "spontaneous" flight from East Prussia were possible in the summer 1944. Xx236 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The part of the article about flight and evacuation in various places remains to be written yet. --Lysytalk 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Johann, you are right but it was not only Russians but also Poles who ill-treated German civilians, maybe not in East Prussia but certainly in some more western areas. Of course there were many reasons for the Poles to hate Germans but why was it even further encouraged ? The communist propaganda used hate language and Polish soldiers received explicit orders from their command reminding them that they should be brutal towards the Germans, that all Germans are guilty and should be punished with no mercy. I wondered who wanted this and why. Of course for most the Polish command was only theoretically autonomous, while in practice it was controlled by Soviets. My only theory was that the Soviets wanted to make sure that Poles and Germans hate each other even more, so that they could easier control the situation. Or maybe they wanted to be sure that Poles focus their hatred against the Germans, and forget about the Soviet occupation. Or maybe both. Otherwise it does not make much sense. --Lysytalk 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Causes for deaths in Czechoslovakia - removal

Several lines by Richard were removed by Johann. I bet it's not allowed.Xx236 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I never remove nothing. I put comments inbetween what I now stoped to do. Now I put them on the end, because that is more in the spirit of this forum.

Johann

The paragraph below was signed by Richard. If you are the author of it, sign your contributions.Xx236 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the number of suicides are explicitly mentioned in the document. I don't remember if natural causes are mentioned. The part of the document that you will probably want look at first is this one.

A desire to punish ethnic Germans for the German invasion

The invasion was the smallest of German crimes in Eastern Europe. Auschwitz wasn't an invasion, neither millions of slave workers, state robbery, drafting, terror.

What is the idea of the "Nazi" dispute? The German state was responsible. If the crimes were Nazi or conservative - who cares? Xx236 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

German and Soviet hate propaganda

German propaganda is also recorded, I'll quote (in German) if you insist. I'm not a fan of Stalin, but he was a copycat criminal. Xx236 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Nazi collaborators

I think this is not really correct and just aims to supply an apologia for the atrocities done to the Germans (e. g. enslaving, killing or polonizing German people).

The Nazi plan was not to Germanize the world but to Aryanize the world. The best proof are the Jews. They were killed although many of them were patriotic (!) Germans, too. (Jews in Poland were often associated with Germany - and therefore even more hated (by Poles), isn't it? (Polish) Jews spoke Yiddish which is similar to German.) So it was not the aim of the Nazi to Germanize people but to extinguish all people who didn't match to some racist, Aryan criteria. Germans were Aryanized, too. Aryan race as a higher Germanic (!) race. Germans who didn't match to these Aryan criteria were downtrodden, sterilized, send to internment camps etc., too - although they hadn' been Jews or Slavs.

Furthermore there hadn't been only (many? - please proof it) Germans in East Europe who were complicit in Nazi crimes. There were also Slavs recruited by Hitler as soldiers (also within the SS) and Slavs who extinguished Jews (e. g. Jedwabne pogrom). These Slavs were complicit, too.

Therefore I delete the above-mentioned section.

Wikiferdi 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi. The sentence was about Generalplan Ost, and to this extent it was correct. The sentence is perfectly valid. How would you characterize the goals of the plan ? --Lysytalk 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was an accurate summary of Generalplan Ost. Germanize the "racially pure" blonde, blue-eyed aryans, keep some as slaves for the German colonisers, kill the majority. Without mentioning this plan it is impossible to understand why the Germans fled before the retreating Whermacht. They knew full well that retribution (just and unjust) was inevitable given the scale of the crimes of the Nazis.

The German civillians were not targeted after 1918 because the scale of Austro-German atrocities was much smaller.

149.254.192.192 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jedwabne is an obsession of some Germans - 0,0025% of the Holocaust is systematically quoted, the town visted by German journalists, who prefer to describe wild Poles rather than their good German neighbours. Jedwabne pogrom took place under German administration, after German order to secretely instigate pogroms. One of the leaders of the mob was a Volksdeutsch.

Educated Germans invented the Holocaust and created the framework for a number of pogroms, now some German try to transfer part of the responsibility to uneducated mobs acting in extremal conditions of Soviet and German occupation, after killing of Polish policemen by the Soviets, after Soviet organized mass deportations of educated people.

If Germans were the victims of Aryans, why didn't they oppose the regime? The Poles had to print faked German opposition bulletins, because 100 millions did nothing.Xx236 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They did not "do nothing", most Germans were a part the Nazi regime or supported it. --Lysytalk 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a description of Generalplan Ost is appropriate to this article and I disagree with Wikiferdi's deletion of it although I also disagree with some of the arguments used in opposition to Wikiferdi's comments.

HOWEVER, I do not think it is necessary to discuss Generalplan Ost in the lead section. The lead is too long already (8 paragraphs compared to the recommended 4).

This is why I have deleted the sentence from the lead. It would be better to discuss Generalplan Ost in the body of the article under "Purported reasons for the expulsions".

--Richard 04:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • They knew full well that retribution (just and unjust) was inevitable given the scale of the crimes of the Nazis.

This is one sticking point: Many Germans didn't flee the oncoming occupation of east Germany because they didn't know about the atrocities done by German soldiers and especially the SS. Do you really think that Hitler told them about such things? And it is known that many German civilians didn't believe the warnings in Nazi broadcasts about atrocities done by the Red Army. They just considered them as Nazi propaganda. A Nazi propaganda which had lied through their teeth about the victorious and heroic German army...

Wikiferdi 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons

There existed

  • hard reasons - agreements, orders
  • soft ones - ideas, hard to measure.

Any other speculations can be eventually written as' 'Views on expulsion or Rationalizations but not reasons.Xx236 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree about your concept of "hard" reasons although I understand what you're getting at.
Agreements and orders are only instruments of the policy not the reasons behind the policy. Thus, they are completely different animals from reasons.
Last year, I came up with a a different title for the "Controversy over reasons and justifications for the expulsions". It was "Purported reasons for the expulsions". I didn't like that title so I eventually changed it to "Controversy over reasons and justifications for the expulsions".
Nonetheless, the point is that many of the "reasons" given in this article are speculation and arguably OR unless we can put those ideas into the mouths of a Reliable Source.
It would be good to cite each and every reason to a reliable primary source (e.g. Churchill or another WWII-era policy maker) or a secondary source (e.g. de Zayas, von Nitschke, Overmans, Haar).
Let's be clear about the OR problem here. We can source fact Z (e.g. Z = Germans were expelled) and we can source facts X and Y (e.g. X = Germans committed crimes during WWII and Y = Poles hated Germans because of their atrocities) but we cannot then write "X and Y were the reasons for Z" unless we can source the entire statement "Germans were expelled because Poles hated them for their atrocities".
Why? Consider the objections of people who argue that the expulsions were not the acts of Polish ethnic cleansing, revenge for atrocities or Polish territorial expansion but solely the result of geopolitical maneuvering among the Big Three and ultimately the result of Soviet territorial expansion into Europe.
Both of these are legitimate theories that could explain why the expulsions were conceived and executed. How do we tell the reader which reason had more weight in actual fact? We can't. Not without sources.
I came here a year ago as the result of an RFC. The solution that I crafted was to have a single "reasons" section in which all the reasons were mentioned without committing to which one was right and which one was wrong. The compromise was for the article to refrain from endorsing any one set of reasons but rather to present all the reasons and let the reader decide. This is in keeping with NPOV policy.
However, to this day, this article sources the basic facts (e.g. X, Y and Z above) and not the causal linkages (e.g. X and Y caused Z). We need to look for more cases where politicians, policy-makers and historians explicitly state the causal linkages. Until then, the reader has no basis for evaluating the argument that X caused Z vs. the argument that Y caused Z.
BTW, I think there is potential to write a separate article on this topic alone. I'm not sure what would be a good title for it though. Something like Rationale for expelling Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII.
--Richard 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if we find sources claiming that "X and Y were the reasons for Z", it would still be opinions only, not hard facts. --Lysytalk 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but opinions of reliable sources are admissible in Wikipedia articles. There is an ocean of difference saying "X and Y caused Z" based on our collective consensus and "According to de Zayas, X and Y caused Z". By citing de Zayas, we allow the reader to evaluate how much credence to give the statement based upon the credibility of de Zayas. If someone can find another source to counterbalance de Zayas, we can add "According to Reliable Source P, X contributed to Z but W was a much more important factor". Thus, the debate becomes a debate between the reliable sources not between Wikipedia editors.
And, you're absolutely right. We should present "facts" that are in dispute as opinions rather than as undisputed facts.
--Richard 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. The opinions should be clearly attributed and presented in a neutral way. And of course not presented as facts. I agree that attributed opinions are much better than opinions of wikipedia editors, which may seem as facts. --Lysytalk 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have strated the discussion, because we should be aware of propaganda, or rather propagandas - of any involved side. Xx236 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

the reason was exactly as it was worded - a desire to collectively take revenge on german minority, of which large part joined different Nazi organizations and were denouncing Polish neighbours

What is the source? Xx236 11:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion from German territory

I reworded the sentence because it is wrong that most German expellees had been expelled from territories outside of Germany. The contrary is correct. The most Germans had been expelled from territories which were annexed by Poland / the Soviets. To remind: E. g. Silesia hadn't been Polish for at least 600 years! Concerning the Sudetenland remains the question if it belonged to its German population or to the Czechoslovak country in which it had been integrated contrary to the declared intention of the German population in 1919.

Wikiferdi 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sudetenland belonged to Czechoslovakia. But otherwise the point you make is valid. --Richard 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Sudetenland belonged to Czechoslovakia.

Well, before Czechoslovakia was founded 1919, to whom belonged the Sudetenland? To Austria. And why had the Sudetenland been forced into Czechoslovakia, although the absolute majority there had been Germans?

Wikiferdi 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Expulsions of Czechs by Poland

František Emmert: Češi ve wehrmachtu (The Czechs in the Wehrmacht), Nakldatelství: Vyšehrad, 2005. ISBN: 80-7021-805-3.


In this book Czech author František Emmert lets contemporary witnesses from the Teschen region report (besides their memories as Czechs in the German Wehrmacht) about the occupation of this region by Poland in 1938. During the German occupation of Czechoslovakia Poland followed the German and Hungarian claims for Czechoslovak territory. In the Teschen region lived in 1920 (!): 18.000 Czechs, 5.000 Germans, 15.000 Poles and 1.000 Jews. On 30 September 1938 Poland occupied this territory. Immediately they had closed all Czech schools and the population had been terrorized by jingoistic cliques from Poland. On 24 of December 1938 many Czech families received an ultimatum of 6 hours to leave their houses and properties for the instantenous "departure" to the Czechoslovak Republic. To the turn of the year 20.000 to 30.000 Czechs and around 5.000 Germans had been forced to leave.

Wikiferdi 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Divide et impera. Wikiferdi loves Czechs, when he can use them against Poles. Half-true is very useful in propaganda.

At the moment Zaolzie article informs about the subject. If you know better - go there and correct, don't start the next quarell here.Xx236 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Xx236 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, could you please stop your personal attacks? - The only reason why I mention this issue here, is to show, that expulsions by Poland hadn't been only a reaction on atrocities done by (German) Nazis. Poland itself had been among the aggressor - from the beginning - as I often have mentioned. So, here I have a reliable source - which is not German.

Wikiferdi 03:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about the "Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII". You systematically introduce other subjects. This discussion isn't about Zaolzie. Xx236 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Der natürliche Siedlungsraum des Deutschen Volkes ist das Gebiet östlich unserer Reichsgrenze bis zum Ural ... In diesem Raum werden wir siedeln, nach dem Gesetz, daß das fähigere Volk immer das Recht hat, die Scholle eines unfähigeren Volkes zu erobern und zu besitzen."

Richard Walther Darré, 1936 Reichsminister für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft


Your unfähiger Slave Xx236 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Xx236, you miss the point again. This discussion is about Poland... as aggressor (which expelled systematically people, Slavs and non-Slavs) and not about atrocities done by German Nazis. If you prefer to write about German atrocities I recommend you to select one of those sites dealing with these issues. Besides, you are not my slave. You are a free person.

Wikiferdi 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, you miss the point. This discussion is about the "Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII". It's not about cabbage and not about the Moon. Don't misuse the WIkipedia to your nationalistic German agenda. there is a number of services for your ideology.Xx236 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"which expelled systematically people" Imperial Germany 1850-1918 

By Edgar Feuchtwanger page 92

"In 1885 over thirty thousand Poles and Jews of non-German nationality were expelled from Prussia, a previously unheard of procedure, the precursor of twentieth-century ethnic cleansing and genocide."

Wikiferdi, calling Poland agressor is a big exaggeration. Polish envoy delivered Czechs an ultimatum, which was accepted. Poland was not in the stae of war with Czechs, and Polish army didn't attacked Czechs, but took over the area, which Czechs agreed to gave up. Comparing this situation to invasion of Poland is exxageration, even if the conditions under which Czechs were forced to accept the ultimatum put my own country in extremely unfavourable light. Szopen 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi writes the same since 2005, I wish you luck in educating him.Xx236 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikiferdi, calling Poland agressor is a big exxageration.

Do you really think to expell umpteen thousands of Czechs and Germans on Christmas day and around the turn-of-the-year is not aggressive? (Notabene: Before WWII!) Poland used the opportunity of the "Munich agreement" to get a piece of the action...

This all shows clearly that the expulsions of Germans after WWII weren't originally motivated by Nazi crimes but generally by an attitude of Poles for (mis-)treating other non-Polish people (equal if they are Slavs or not Slavs) especially when they are a hindrance of Polish expansion plans. Wikiferdi 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, once again you are overexaggerating. Taking over the Zaolzie was the effect of political situation in 1938. As you know, in Munich Four powers agreed to decide on fate of Czechs without asking them for opinion. They also said that they will decide on Polish claims (and Hungarian) in the future. Poland could not agree wiyh these plans. Polish stance always was against large powers deciding over the heads of Poland. Otherwise those powers could for example decided that Poland would get Zaolzie in exchange for Danzig or corridor. That's why Polish gvt decided to act fast and issued ultimatum to Czechs. Poland didn't initiate the aggression - Poland exploited the German aggression. There were no plans of Polish expansion in 1939 - that is, even most extremist Polish nationalists (e.g. Giertych, which were anyway outside the government) were talking that ONLY IN CASE WHEN GERMANY WILL ATTACK POLAND, Poland would have to get territories from Germany. But once again, ONLY IF GERMANY WOULD ATTACK POLAND. Usually German revisionist ommit this phrase and post the rest. Szopen 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to move your discussion to Talk:Zaolzie?

Wikiferdi didn't mention the mass expulsion/emigration of Poles from Zaolzie in 1920 and you approve his manipulation. Xx236 14:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Taking over the Zaolzie was the effect of political situation in 1938.

You mean that other political forces but not Polish are to blame that Poland expelled umpteen thousands of Czech and German civilians on Christmas day 1938 and to the turn-of-the-year?

Well, you seem to know much things but actually nothing (!) what you have written is based on a reliable source as I did. Hence, according to Wikipedia rules we have to consider it more or less insignificant. I really would appreciate it if you could supply at least one or two small reliable sources. BTW, I don't want to discuss "Zaolzie". I just want to discuss here that Poland had expelled masses of people (Slavs and non-Slavs) already before WWII and so Poland was quite practiced on such issues as it expelled Germans after WWII.

Wikiferdi 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Would someone more competent than me copy the above disussion to Talk:Zaolzie? Xx236 07:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII

This discussion is about the "Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII". Please return to the subject.Xx236 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Interesting to see the article saying that German propaganda caused the Germans to flee because of stories of Russian atrocities. A woman I worked with said her husband was shot down - US bomber - and endied up in a German POW camp. This US airman said that when the Russians captured the local town near the POW camp "you could hear the screams all night". Unless Russian soldiers make funny noises at night, he seemed certain that the noise was coming from German women. The German army also was trying to escape toward the west so that they could surrender to the US, few if any Germans tried to escape to the east - there was little need for propagand in the last days of the war - most individual Germans knew their neighboring countries quite well.159.105.80.141 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Trivia - East German women from the WW2 era called the Berlin memorial to the Russian forces "The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist".159.105.80.141 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell sorry you seem to have a problem with the above - constructively the above comment is meant to counter the impression given in the article that propaganda was the reason the Germans fled. I assert - with evidence, all of these states can be verified ( the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist particularly ). Germans had more than enough reason to flee for their lives from the Russian army - they lot was not much better going west than east but they took what they thought was a better chance ( ie even prison camp inmates retreated with the Germans to escape the Russian army - can be verified ). The story told to me by my former co-worker can't be verified both have died years ago.159.105.80.141 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


German government controlled the flight in 1944 and partially in 1945. German media inform about German propaganda usage of the Nemmersdorf massacre. It happened, don't criticze the truth, even if you don't like it.Xx236 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Germany killed millions of civilians

The subject of this forum is the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII. If you prefer other subjects - be welcome, ~there is a long list of German subjects.Xx236 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans

As I showed above based on a reliable source from a Czech author, Poland expelled people (Slavs and non-Slavs) already before WWII (on Christmas day!!!). This shows clearly that obviously the atrocities done by German Nazi not be the (only) reason for expulsions perpetuaded by Poland during and after WWII. I think there are urgent needs to discuss such issues. Wikiferdi 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent need to stop the anti-Polish crusaide by Wikiferdi

  • It's not the place to discuss 1938. There are many place where such issues should be discussed. Wikiferdi, stop the anarchy.
  • The main reason why Germans were expelled was Stalin's will. Stop the speculations. WIkipedia isn't about I belive that ..., it's about facts.

Xx236 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that 1938 is irrelevant although it's obvious that the scale of expulsions is at least a couple orders of magnitude smaller. Moreover, I have the sense that Wikiferdi's points are WP:OR unless they can be sourced. Here's the problem... even if we source fact A (Poles expelled Germans and Czechs in 1938) and also source fact B (Poles expelled Germans after 1945), we cannot write that A is related to B because that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." (see WP:OR). If you want to tie A and B together, you must provide a source that makes this connection explicitly.

I will comment that ethnic cleansing did not start with the Poles in 1945 or even with Nazi Germany. Population exchange was an accepted means of achieving nation-states in the early 20th century. It was not until after 1945 that forced population transfer became considered a violation of human rights.

--Richard 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about Expulsions in 20 century Europe. We cannoy put everything here. The problem has been caused by speculations about the reasons of the expulsions. The speculations are speculations and should be removed or at least reduced here. You may create article Speculations about reasons of post-WWII order in Europe but you cannot put fantastic stories here as facts.

The context of Wikiferdi's stories was that Zaolzie was annexed by Czechoslovakia in 1920 by force as it was by Poland in 1938. The 1938 was the result, not the cause. Xx236 09:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have to look at "the big picture", which in my opinion is: European borders shifted constantly for hundreds of years before the 20th century. The big difference was that, for the most part, people stayed put and the borders shifted. The problem with nationalism is that it asserted the concept of a nation-state in which a "nation" or "people" should have their own state. This became the grounds for territorial claims and "population transfers". At least some of the reasons for the expulsions lie in Polish nationalism which was probably not much different from the nationalism in any other European country of the time. The question that I'm interested in is why Poles did not expel Germans after WWI.
--Richard 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The question that I'm interested in is why Poles did not expel Germans after WWI.

Well, actually Poland had expelled Germans after WWI! I thinkt that I don't have to repeat all my comments and reliable sources already stated to this issue, but as a short recapitulation I would like to refer to the incidents in east Upper Silesia where after votes clearly in favor of Germany the region had been splitted contrary to the voting stipulations but according to Polish (and French, who had still been the occupation power there) wishes. Around 750.000 Germans from this region and from other parts of new created growing Poland after WWI had to leave their homes. From this point of view the reasons for expulsions of German out of growing "Polish territory" is the wish of Polish leaders to recreate Poland in borders of before. Once Polish - for ever Polish. This was/is the maxim of some Polish leaders. - Copied to other powers - for example the Roman empire - it shows clearly how absurd and anachronistic this attitude is. To sanctify this political maneuver Polish people had been inculcated systematically with an anti-Prussian and eventually an anti-German "syndrome" - although Polish nobility and people themselves had been partly accountable for the break appart of Poland and although e. g. Silesia as political entity had been prey of Prussia...

Wikiferdi 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I admit that I haven't been paying attention as I try to ignore the long polemical arguments that keep cropping up on this page. Did the Poles expel all Germans from Poland or only from east Upper Silesia? Presumably they did not expel all Germans from Poland so why did they expel the ones in east Upper Silesia?
If you could source the above with a citation to a reliable source, we could make a brief reference to it in the article. However, the discussion of Polish-German relations prior to 1939 belongs elsewhere. Let's talk about where that might be and get this stuff documented. Then we can wikilink to it from this article. --Richard 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the reverse was true. Unlike Germany, Poland has been historically a multi-ethnic state, and post-WWI Poland was not different. It was not Polish but German government that attempted to incite Poles of German origin to leave Poland after WWI. Sadly nationalism soon developed in Poland as well, particularly during 1930s. --Lysytalk 20:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the reverse was true. - So - then cite a reliable source!
  • Sadly nationalism soon developed in Poland as well, particularly during 1930s - Who has annexed east Upper Silesia? Germany or Poland?

Wikiferdi 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • However, the discussion of Polish-German relations prior to 1939 belongs elsewhere.

Why? Is there a logical reason? IMHO, these relations are important to understand WWII which didn't begin out of the blue. I think it's highly important to investigate the role Poland played at the eve of WWII. Well, actually Hitler had begun the war but according to some reliable sources Poland was quite interested in a war with Germany. Not to forget: Poland had a well-trained army field-tested in five wars between WWI and WWII. By all means it is important to understand the Polish-German relations prior to 1939 for falsifying the prejudice that the expulsions of Germans and the annexation of their territory were (only) motivated by Nazi-crimes. Instead it is more likely that Nazi-crimes serve as an alibi for Polish dreams for regaining ancient borders (and beyond...)

Wikiferdi 01:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement that "according to some reliable sources Poland was quite interested in a war with Germany" is blatantly untrue. I'm sorry but such claims and the rest of your statement are bordering on neo-Nazi revanchism. Please try to focus on facts. --Lysytalk 05:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but such claims and the rest of your statement are bordering on neo-Nazi revanchism.

This is the method of some Poles to libel opinions which they can't bear - although they might be true. I consider this a personal attack and therefore outrageous. Some people here should learn to argue rather than run people down. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Wikiferdi 05:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you simply provide these "some reliable sources" ? --Lysytalk 06:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the expulsions

  • It was not until after 1945 that forced population transfer became considered a violation of human rights.

I think this is not correct. Well the wording "human rights" may be coined especially after the experiences of WWII (Appalled by the barbarism of the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. cf. Human rights), but the subject matter itself was known and accepted by most civilized nations quite long before (cf. e. g. Hague Conventions). Not "forced population transfers" had been considered "legal" but "population exchanges" at best.

Wikiferdi 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Alfred de Zayas argues along these lines. A detailed discussion probably belongs in Population transfer. The only source that I know of on this topic is Alfred de Zayas and he is clearly biased. --Richard 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The only source that I know of on this topic is Alfred de Zayas and he is clearly biased.

If this is true I am wondering why you argue the converse without citing a reliable source.

Wikiferdi 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've gotten lost. What are you suggesting that I am arguing the converse of? Also note that there is a difference between arguing here and inserting text into the article.

I think you are saying that I am arguing that "population transfers" were legal. I'm not actually arguing that. I'm not even arguing that de Zayas is wrong when he says that they contravened international law. I'm just saying that de Zayas is clearly biased and so I would like to see some other sources confirming his assessment before I accept his POV. I will comment that de Zayas was chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission and so he does have some heavy credentials to back up his assertion.

If you want to argue that the Greco-Turkish and Indian-Pakistan "population exchanges" were legal because they were exchanges but the expulsion of Germans was illegal because it was a unilateral transfer, I suppose you can make a thin case for that but, if you focus on the coerced abandonment of property and rights of residence, it seems obvious that all of these were violations of human rights.

What I am arguing is that, legal or not, many powers sanctioned forced population transfers and exchanges in the first half of the 20th century. Greco-Turkish population exchange was 1923. India-Pakistan was 1947. Legal or not, the concept of expelling Germans was sanctioned (at least initially) by the USSR, the UK and the US. What was challenged and criticized was not the fact that it happened but the way in which it was done. (Well, we could argue about this but, in essence, Churchill and Roosevelt gave in to Stalin without arguing about legality. Some of the later challenges and criticisms were based on Cold War polemic of the 50s.

Thus, while de Zayas may ultimately be right about the legality of the expulsions, it does smack of revisionism. Apparently, the Big Three conspired to do something illegal that was being done in other parts of the globe during that time.

--Richard 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interbellum relations between Germany and Poland

From History of Poland (1918–1939)...

In the final years of the 1930s, Poland's policy of equilibrium between potential enemies was failing. As Poland's international position was rapidly deteriorating, the Polish regime began to act somewhat incoherently, attempting to shore up its domestic position with a series of diplomatic actions aimed at smaller neighbouring countries. In March, 1938, after a border incident, it presented an ultimatum to Lithuania, demanding that the previously undefined border with Poland be marked and opened, and that diplomatic relations be established [1]. Faced with a threat of war, the Lithuanian government accepted the Polish demands. In October, 1938, after the Munich Agreement, which ensured British and French approval, allowed Germany the right to take over areas of Czechoslovakia with a significant German minority, the so-called Sudetenland, Poland similarly demanded that Czechoslovakia give up the Cieszyn area, inhabited by a significant Polish minority. Faced with an ultimatum, Czechoslovakia gave up the area (about 1% of its territory), which was taken over by Polish authorities and annexed by Poland on October 2, 1938.
Shortly thereafter, the Nazis proceeded to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia which in March 1939, then ceased to exist. This aggression did little to repair the tensions between Poland and Germany. Earlier, Germany had proposed that Poland join the Anti-Comintern Pact and previous attempts were made by Germany to create an extraterritorial highway connecting Germany proper with Danzig and then East Prussia. Germany also pressed for the incorporation of the Danzig, separated from Germany in 1920 and functioning as a Free City in a customs union with Poland ever since. However, Germany offered compensation for Poland's concessions by promising territory in Lithuania and Ukraine.
A final offer was prepared on the eve of hostilities where elections would be held to determine the ownership of the "Polish corridor". Only those living in the corridor prior to 1918 would be allowed to vote. The proposal called for a subsequent population exchange that would move all Germans in current Poland out of the final region declared to be "Poland". The same would occur for all Poles living in what was declared, after the vote, to be "Germany". Danzig was to become part of Germany regardless of the vote, but if Germany lost, it was still guaranteed access to East Prussia through an authobahn system that it would administer, stretching from Germany proper to Danzig to East Prussia. If Poland lost the vote, the corridor would go to Germany and the seaport of Gdynia would become a Polish exclave with a route connecting Poland with Gdynia.

If the above text is accurate, Poland was already thinking about expelling Germans from Poland prior to WWII. If done in peacetime, the proposed population exchange would probably have been less arduous then the postwar exchange turned out to be. I wouldn't use this information to cast Poles as "evil expellers" but rather to simply state that this was the proposal and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

--Richard 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who in Poland was already thinking about expelling Germans? Any names, sources? Poland certainly didn't because countries don't think. As far as I understand the text above - the idea of the exchange of populations was German, so why don't you write Germany was already thinking about expelling Poles? Germany had already expelled thousands of Jews, among them hundreds of Polish Jews. Was it OK to expell Jews but expulsions of Germans became a problem in 1939?

BTW - after 1933 Germany wasn't the old Germany but a Nazi revolutionary state with a strong network of spies and terrorists in Poland, unhappy among Slavs and welcome in rapidly developing Germany.

Richard, don't introduce Polish-Lithuanian problems here. Enough is enough. The next subject I'll introduce here will be Sexual rituals of Sioux trybe in 16 century.Xx236 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Xx236, don't shoot the messenger. The text I quoted is from the Wikipedia article History of Poland (1918–1939). I didn't write it. If you don't like it, then work with the other editors to change it.
I will note that the text is sorely lacking in citations. Who made the last minute "final proposal" on the eve of hostilities? the Poles or the Germans? Can the terms of that proposal be sourced to a reliable source?
--Richard 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to quote an unrelated tetx of poor quality. Why don't you discuss the subject there? Xx236 07:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, if it's true, then it suggests that Wikiferdi's point is relevant to this article. I don't argue that this is the only motivation for the postwar expulsions or even the primary motive. However, it is reasonable to consider that it was one of the motivations.
Try it on this way... if Poland had managed to expel Germans prior to the Nazi invasion, Hitler would have had to come up with a different excuse for invading.
Here's what I would like to know... "Is the text from History of Poland (1918–1939) accurate? Can it be sourced?"
--Richard 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I'm sorry I give up. If you ignore Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam and want to duscuss Polish policy in 1938 - it's your choice. What about Sioux rituals, equally related to the subject?

Questions regarding the History of Poland (1918–1939) should be asked there, not here. Xx236 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC) -

The "final proposal" was made by Germany. As you can see of course, this proposal contained the conditions unacceptable to any sovereign nation and clearly shows, that it was just a smoke screen. So, already in 1939 Germans thought about expelling Poles _AND_ transferring Germans from Poland to Germany. Szopen 07:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I see now. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. Someone should clarify the text in History of Poland (1918–1939). I admit that I was led astray by Wikiferdi's POV and so I interpreted the text incorrectly.
--Richard 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased selection of maps

This article is about the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII, so there should be maps of the whole area included in it. Maps of Poland should be eventually included into the other article.Xx236 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the map showing Poland in 980. However, the other two maps are OK if we also add similar maps of Czechoslovakia. These two maps should be included in the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after WWII article. --Richard 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole discussion about Polish minorities doesn't belong to this article. It's not the right place to presnt your POVs. The borders were set by the 3 superpowers on startegic basis. If you have any proves that Stalin cared about Poles, write a book and became famous. Wikipedia isn't the place for your own research.Xx236 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The other two maps are OK if we also add similar maps of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Kaliningrad area with Memel, in another words one map for Central/Eastern Europe.Xx236 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Polemic historiography

I reworded this passage because it is polemic and tries to disparage the German government as biased. Instead, most historians are concordant with the estimates of deaths... Germany adopted as official. "Recent analyses" - IMHO this is euphemistic for some (poor) research's and tries to disavow "old analyses".

Wikiferdi 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your wording. I understand the point that you are making but the new text goes too far in the opposite direction.
I don't have time right now to provide a detailed explanation of the issues around this point but I will try to do so within the next few hours.
--Richard 03:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Last year, there was a very long discussion about the numbers put forth by Bernadetta Nitschke, Ruediger Overmans and Ingo Haar.
To begin with, we are still not quite sure what these numbers are and what they represent but what we do know is that Haar says the number of deaths "could hardly have been higher than 500,000", Overmans seems to say 1.1 million and so does Nitschke. We are unclear on whether Overmans and Haar agree at 500,000 or 1.1 million.
At one point, I inserted text into the article similar to yours suggesting that the 2.2 million was the majority opinion but the lower numbers were an emerging minority opinion.
Lysy challenged me on that assertion and I conceded that I was speculating as to what was the majority opinion and what was the minority opinion. The ensuing discussion is what led to the wording which you object to.
We (in particular, Lysy and I) have spent a lot of effort trying to assess the current consensus among historians regarding the number of deaths attributable to the flight, evacuation and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe. If a definitive consensus exists among historians, it has eluded us. I created the Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe article to document our efforts and to allow a much more in-depth discussion of the various estimates that we had run across. I readily acknowledge that it is not a great article but it does, at least, present what we know about the historiography of this topic. I urge you to read that article before continuing this discussion.
If we want to say that the majority of historians accept the 2.2 million number, then we must provide a citation to a reliable source. We cannot simply cite a bunch of historians who accept the number as we will never be able to prove whether the historians that we cite represent the majority or not. We must look for a reliable source who says "The majority of historians accept 2.2 million and those who propose lower numbers are a minority." I actually believe this statement to be true but I cannot prove it within the standards of Wikipedia's reliable source and verifiability policies.
Most of this discussion was held on this Talk Page in the fall of last year (I think). User:Jadger and User:Tulkolahten were active on this page back then. This is not to say that they agreed to the text in question but, at least, they did not object too strenuously.
I'm perfectly willing to re-open our discussion and research into this question but I urge you not to insist on your text without proof. That will not go over well.
--Richard 07:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Overmans in his article in "Historia Najnowsza" says less than 500 000 and Nitschke quotes the paper, so 1.1 million is apparently for whole Europe, not Poland only (eventually with Koenigsberg). Xx236 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is great! For a long time, we have known that "Overmans agreed with Haar" but we could not figure out what specifically they were agreeing on. Haar said 500,000 but we weren't sure what the 500,000 represented. Overmans agreed with him. Now, if we can nail this down to say that Haar and Overmans agree on 500,000 for Poland and 1.1 million for all of Europe, we have made significant progress. Can you provide us with a citation reference for "Historia Najnowsza". A page number would be great but failing that just the standard bibliographic info would help. It would also be great if you could provide a citation for where Nitschke cites Overmans.
CAVEAT: None of this is intended to say that Haar, Overmans and Nitschke are right in their estimate of 1.1 million. However, our job is not to determine who is right but to accurately present the current state of knowledge about this topic. AFAICT, the current situation is some historians (maybe even most) say 2.2 million and others say 1.1 million. Perhaps the consensus is 2.2 million and the emerging minority opinion is 1.1 million. All new ideas start as minority opinions. Some become majority opinions and others are relegated to the trash heap of history. Can we safely say what will become the judgment of history? I don't think so.
--Richard 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Red Cross has its numbers, quoted by Haar. Are the Red Cross numbers quoted here? Xx236 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No... this is the first time that I've heard of the Red Cross numbers although it seems obvious to me now that the Red Cross would have tried to compile such numbers. Can you provide a citation? --Richard 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted two German radio interviews with Ingo Haar~, where are the links? There is also his SZ article (in German) quoted in Polish [23], so I'm re-retranslating - General German Archive declared in 1974 that 400 000 died on the another side of the Oder (which includes Koenigsberg and Memel). Gazeta Wyborcza commented - according to Polish sources 50% of thoser 400 000 died in Soviet camps, about 60 000 as the result of Polish repressions (camps and transport), the rest was killed by the Red Army.

Tell me more about millions of Germans victims in Poland. This is the time to stop the lies.Xx236 09:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which historians say 2.2 million? I know that some German politicians say so. Xx236 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi's recent edits

Wikiferdi,

I understand that you have strong and passionate opinions on this topic. Nonetheless, the current text represents the net result of a lot of collaborative discussion and research. If you disagree with a point that is made in the article, please discuss it here first and assess whether there is a consensus to support your POV. If not, then discuss it further and build a consensus before inserting text that has a strong POV. I will attempt to address below each of the edits that you made and that I just reverted. I do not wish to get into an edit war over these points. I understand what your position is and I would like to find a way to present it as ONE OF the multiple Points of View on this topic. Please discuss your concerns with civility and without personal attacks.

--Richard 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If you disagree with a point that is made in the article, please discuss it here first and assess whether there is a consensus to support your POV.

Who discussed the above-mentioned passage before it was published in Wikipedia? There is no reliable source cited and so I think we should either delete the whole passage or write it less polemic.

Wikiferdi 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which are the specific parts that you object to and why ? --Lysytalk 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Distrust of and enmity towards German communities in Poland ->annexed territories

I think this caption is anachronistic because Silesia, Pommerania etc. were annexed by Stalin/Poland... There was no minority problem of Germans in those regions until Stalin/Poland incorporated these territories in their dominion. Hence, this caption / passage should be rephrased.


  • now belonging..

This is/was Stalin's/Poland's POV - but not of the western world. Clearly the Potsdam agreement stated that a forthcoming peace conference should have decided about the dimension of territory separated from Germany. "now belonging" = "accomplished facts", accomplished by Stalin/Poland!

Wikiferdi 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, West Germany was the only country that did not accept the Polish-DDR border, because of its revanchism. Are you aware of any other country that contested it ? --Lysytalk 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are totally wrong! - Read the correspondence of Dr. de Zayas with high US-officials et al. and you will understand that at least till the seventies the western Allies opposed clearly this border! - If it would be necessary I can cite the letter(s) and statements. - Can you cite your POV?

Wikiferdi 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any country other than West Germany contesting the Polish-DDR border. What kind of citation would you expect to support this ? Are you aware of any official position of a government contesting the border ? --Lysytalk 06:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I bet thewre exists "correspondence" proving that US leaders were pro and against in any possible subject, including Darvin's theory and abortion.

It's not true that there existed any real revanchism. Adenauer wasn't able to accept Oder-Neisse because the rexpelled were his voters, so he pretended he didn't accept the border, but he ded nothing to change it. Xx236 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant official position of a government, not a statement of any individual. Was there any ? What government ?--Lysytalk 06:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By Adenauer I mean his government, the one of BRD.Xx236 11:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I won't rail against anybody here - although there are no reliable sources. Well here my reliable sources:


US-High Commissioner in Germany, John McCloy declared on 9 June 1950 - three days after a communique in Warsaw which proclaimed the Oder-Neisse border as irrevocable - that the U. S. had not recognized the Oder-Neisse border nor the integration of those territories into the Polish state, which Potsdam had put under Polish administration. John McCloy referred among others to the Byrnes' speech and to declarations of State Secretary George C. Marshall at a conference in Moscow on 9 April 1947. (cf. Kessing's[24], Volume 20/1950, p.2426.)

Separating out discussion of "Eastern territories of Germany" from discussion of "Poland"

Up to now, we have been treating all flight, evacuation and expulsions in the territory currently belonging to Poland in one section titled "Poland". This makes some sense since all of this territory was first under the control of the Soviets and then later under the control of the Communist government of Poland. From this perspective, there should not have been any substantive difference between the expulsions in East Prussia, the Reichsgaue and those in the General Gouvernement.

However, from a different perspective, there were a number of differences and this is what motivated my breaking out the "Eastern territories of Germany" as a separate section.

First of all, we can see from the map of 1931 Poland in this article that there weren't that many Germans living in pre-1939 Poland. Presumably, most of them were living in the areas annexed by Germany.

Germany annexed certain territories of Poland and called them Reichsgaue. The rest of Poland was called the General Gouvernement. Germany tried to fill the Reichsgaue with Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche while shipping Poles off to the General Gouvernement. The numbers are often presented with separate numbers for the "Eastern territories of Germany" vs. "Poland". Thus, we see from the table in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe that 7.4 million fled or were expelled from the Eastern territories of Germany while only 675,000 were expelled from Poland.

Second, because the "Eastern territories of Germany" were heavily German, the flight and evacuation was probably markedly different in those territories. This explains perhaps why we have an article titled "Evacuation of East Prussia" and not articles about evacuation of German-occupied Eastern Europe. The evacuation of German-occupied Eastern Europe was probably primarily the retreat of German military and civilian administrators. The evacuation of East Prussia entailed actual evacuation of civilian residents.

--Richard 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "Eastern territories of Germany"
I don't think that with these territories are ment e. g. Reichsgau Wartheland. Those territories are Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia... territories which had been Germa for several centuries. - Wikiferdi 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that pre-Postdam would be in these territories would be "Eastern territories of Germany" and post-Postdam would be "Poland" ?

Here is my understanding of what happened before Postdam:

  • East Prussia - was mostly flight in terrible conditions: first German evacuation, then panicked flight as Soviet army surrounded the are. Not many Germans remained but those who did were mistreated by Soviet soldiers.
  • Pomerania - it got some influx of escapees from East Prussia while it was not isolated. Then flight westwards and later through the sea to German and Danish ports.
  • Generalgovernment - here most of the Germans were evacuated before the front arrived
  • Greater Poland - probably most Germans evacuated but I'm not sure
  • Silesia - many decided to stay, many were Silesians, not Germans, some escaped through Czechia earlier.
"many were Silesians, not Germans" - What nonsens! Did they had a Silsian or a German passport? Silesia had been German for around 700 years! - Wikiferdi 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • New March - many were expelled by Poles in the period of wild expulsions. The area was controlled by Soviet military administration, but it was Polish military, not Soviet, who expelled the Germans.

--Lysytalk 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote above should be researched in greater detail and then inserted into the article. It's an additional level of detail that's not in there now.

NOTE: In what follows, I am using numbers from the first table in the Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe article. As we all know, these numbers may not be reliable but my questions below apply regardless of the actual magnitude of the numbers.

This "Eastern territories/Poland" question is very difficult to get right but I think we basically have "Eastern Territories", "General Gouvernement" and "Poland occupied by USSR in 1939".

What is the distinction that you are drawing between General Gouvernement and Greater Poland? Was Greater Poland outside the General Gouvernement?

Greater Poland was directly incorporated into German reich as reichsgau wartheland. Nazis authorities orchestrated and expulsions of several thousands Poles from this area. There were also a lot of mixed families in this region, who could pass as either Poles or Germans, depending on who has the upper hand at the moment. From my mother's side, one uncle was untermensch fighting in AK, who got caught and was tortured by gestapo. The second uncle was in ubermensch in hitlerjugend. What's most funny, I find out about both this facts only some time ago, and only because of Tusk' grandfather controversy :) Szopen 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Eastern Territories" is important because of the scope of the expulsion. What % of the total population does 7.4 million fled or expelled equate to? Are the 1.225 million who are unaccounted for part of the 7.4 million or in addition to the 7.4 million? If there were 12 million Germans in the Eastern Territories in 1944/45, how many others were living there? Just guessing, it looks like 1/2 to 2/3 of the population was expelled or died depending on the answers to these questions.

"General Gouvernement" - as I speculated and you confirmed, there weren't many Germans left here. Probably weren't that many long-time German residents. I suspect most were military or civilian administration.

"Poland occupied by USSR in 1939" - Was this added to the General Gouvernement after 1941? I assume so.

So, under the category "Poland" who were the 675,000 expelled and 273,000 who were unaccounted for? Presumably these were Volksdeutsche who did not go to Germany as forced labor. These numbers are a tiny fraction of the total population of these regions.

--Richard 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To call a spade a spade

I think we should reword this passage because the forced migration (=expulsion) of Germans (why ethnic?) hadn't been orchestrated (???) by the Western Allies. Actually, they accepted the plan to transfer Germans and they turned a blind eye to the atrocities done against Germans but the expulsions and atrocities themselves had been accomplished by Poland, Czechoslovakia, UdSSR of course - and other countries in the south-east of Europe. Why not call a spade a spade?

Wikiferdi 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that the Western Allies simply accepted a plan proposed by the USSR is perhaps whitewashing them too much of their responsibility. I read on this Talk Page a quote from Churchill that seems to indicate that the Western allies felt that this was the best way to minimize violence. The Western Allies used slave German labor (although I gather that they used far fewer slave laborores for far shorter a period of time than the Soviets). I wouldn't try to shift all the blame on the Soviets, the Poles and the Czechoslovaks although I do think they deserve the lion's share of the blame. We could perhaps mention the Poles and Czechoslovaks in the sentence quoted but I think it will make the sentence unwieldy. We could perhaps change "victorious Western allies and the Soviet Union" to "victorious Allies" and be done with it.

--Richard 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Poland was under Soviet occupation 1944-1989. USA and UK conspired against Poland since 1941, approved or tolerated Soviet crimes including Katyn. Now you put the blame on the Poles. Xx236 06:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Poland expelled umpteen thousands Slavs and non-Slavs on Christmas-day... of 1938 - although Poland wasn't under any occupation then. Why should we shift all the blame on the Soviets regarding the expulsions after WWII?

Wikiferdi 10:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Germany murdered millions, including Christmas-days.
  • Noone shifts all the blame, I'm describing the context - German genocide, Soviet genocide and occupation. Generally survivors stink and are aggresive. The German executioners were freqently educated, loved classical music and poetry. Does it make them less responsible?

This forum is to discuss the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII. If 1938 is O.K. so Zyklon B is also O.K. here.Xx236 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Xx236 11:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't say that we have to include the factum of Christmas' Day of 1938 - but it helps to show that Poland always expelled people, more or less independent if it stood under occupation or if there was a war etc. before... Wikiferdi 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dachau, Buchenwald help better understand WikiferdiXx236 12:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Germans

[25]: Germany's 1885 expulsions of Poles and Jews made official the various strains of anti-Semitism and racism circulating in Germany and Europe during this era. Xx236 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget the Jewish Polish history during the 1800s... But don't you think that we discuss here the expulsion of Germans (by Poles...)?

Wikiferdi 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi doesn't understand the difference between Poalnd and Russia, but he is an expert.

Polish and Soviet Communists harmonized quite well, isn't it? There’s honor among thieves. - Wikiferdi 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The best harmony existed between German and Soviet Communists:

Xx236 08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The best harmony existed between German and Soviet Communists
Therefore the western world didn't accept the Treaty of Zgorzelec about the Oder-Neisse line - because it was a (Soviet) communist treaty.

Don't forget why German-speaking Jews came to Poland - because Germans expelled them. Don't forget why there was no Poland - because Prussian imperialists with Austria and Russia destroied it. Oh those good Germans. Xx236 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • because Prussian imperialists with Austria and Russia destroied it

Any reliable source? (To discuss better on another site.)

Anyone can find many informations in this Wikipedia.Xx236 08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the precise description. - Wikiferdi 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent conference in Berlin

Prof. Tomasz Szarota related yesterday in Polish TV a last week conference in Berlin, during which some German historians acknowledged that old estimates (2.5 million) were exaggerated. I don't know anything more, even the name of the conference. Xx236 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Former conference in Berlin (Potsdam)

Wikiferdi 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, the goal of the Wikipedia is to write good articles. My opinion is that your goal is rather:

  • To bash the Poles (You write much more about Poles than about the Red Army and NKVD, who killed hundreds thousands of Germans.
  • To claim recent territory of Poland.

It's not the right place for your activities. Join the NPD or something, don't misuse Wikipedia.Xx236 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, incivility, please tone it down a bit Xx.
--Jadger 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you many times, I repeat once more - don't adress me.Xx236 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

well this discussion ended rather quickly, didn't it? I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is based upon consensus, and that refusing to participate with other users just puts yourself at a loss, as your viewpoint wont be represented when you are the only person trying to exclude others. So in short, by trying to exclude others from an internet encyclopedia meant to allow everybody to edit, you will only exclude yourself.
--Jadger 09:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much in a consesus with people who invent their identities, eg. believe to be Winnetou, Harry Potter or a Prussian.Xx236 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish majorities?

"Overwhelming Polish majorities" - I think this is wrong. As I am informed more or less the same number of Ukrainian as Polish speaking people lived in those eastern regions (Kresy). (Read Polish-Ukrainian War... - I would like to know where in Wikipedia is something written about the Polish-Ukrainian battles during WWII. - These must have been grim battles.)

Well, after WWII Polish population from the Kresy were transferred to Poland (o. k. Poland transferred them to the eastern German territories which had been occupied with the end of war, for Polonizing them) and Ukrainian from Poland were transferred there... i. e. a "population exchange" between Poles and Ukrainians.

Wikiferdi 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article contains the map which proves you are obviously wrong.Xx236 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, the map is based on numbers which were published somewhere. It would be preferable to provide a citation to that source. --Richard 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The map comes from Historia Polski by Zieliński, this information is quoted in the description of the map. Here are the numbers for Vilnius area.Xx236 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One large expanse of ruins

Regarding Poles coming back to Poland after WWII the current article states:


IMHO, this text is not specific. "Not known in such a scale in Western countries." - Germany for sure had been destroyed by carpet bombing, much more than Poland... Germany (the cities) had been one large expanse of ruins. Around 7 mio Germans died in the most stupid war of the world, more than Poles and Jews but less than Russians. Above mentioned "justification for expulsion" would mean: Around 10 mio Germans had to leave their houses in Poland and in east Germany (Silesia, Pomerani, East Prussia...) for making place for around 3-4 mio Poles? - It should not been ignored that other nationalities had to leave Poland, too. E. g. around half a million Ukrainian. Well, as already mentioned some time before, Churchill opposed such enormous population transfers.

Wikiferdi 00:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Germans started WWII, so they should have made place for the victims.
  • The Red Army occupied parts of Poland till about 1990, especially the city of Legnica.
  • Churchill opposed something and I oppose German propaganda here. There are Nazi sites, you may find friends there.Xx236 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody except Germans had to leave Poland, Ukrainians (like millions of Poles who had to "leave their houses") were just relocated within the new borders of Poland.
  • "Germany for sure had been destroyed by carpet bombing, much more than Poland" - can you provide some sources, numbers etc., because "for sure does not really convince me.
  • Germany did not just start the war but they also started mass exterminations of several nations: Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Gypsies and in return some of them just "had to leave their homes" and "lost their favorite china".
  • I'm not saying I recommend Nazi websites for you and I'm not saying I don't. But I do. Space Cadet 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

USA had begun the war against Iraq and US soldiers did atrocities against Iraqis (Abu Ghraib prison). Hence Iraqis have the right to destroy some more American towers and killing innocent people? - Well, this is not my opinion, but obviously the opinion of people stating such killer arguments above... Wikiferdi 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody except Germans had to leave Poland, Ukrainians (like millions of Poles who had to "leave their houses") were just relocated within the new borders of Poland."

Re mentioned Ukrainians, maybe many stayed where they were & the Ukrainian Border came to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century

The article isn't linked from any article. It should be linked, integrated or removed.Xx236 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly speculations

There are many speculations in this article, why the Germans were expelled. The decision was made by a small group of Soviet leaders, mostly by Stalin [26]. It was a part of mass population transfers in Europe. The speculations should be reduced and labelled as speculations.Xx236 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

In the section 'Chronology of the expulsions' I found the following sentences.

"The Potsdam Agreement called for equal distribution of the transferred Germans between American, British, French and Soviet occupation zones in the post World War II Germany. In actuality, nearly twice as many expelled Germans found refuge in the occupation zones that later formed "West Germany" than in "East Germany" (Soviet Zone)"

After first reading them I figured that the French, British and American zones got a larger share of the refugees than was called for by the Potsdam Agreement. But then I realised that since they were three zones they should have gotten three times as many refugees as the Soviet zone if all zones had gotten equally many. Hence the most logical way to interpret this is that the Soviet zone got a larger share than was called for. Is this the right way o interpret it? Either way I think the wording is confusing, maybe even misleading. Jkej 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Provocative remark?

Just before the Background headline I found this sentence:

"It should be noted here that no expulsions would have occurred at all except for the invasion and brutal occupation of most of Europe by Nazi Germany."

I also noted this and similar sentences had been added and removed a couple of times. I'm not disputing causal relations between the occupations and the expulsions but it seems like the underlying message of this remark is: "Germans shouldn't complain. They started the war." The rest of the paragaph seems to be describing that there is a controversy over, among other things, the resposibility for and moral justification of the expulsions. This is done in a good and npov way but this last remark totally disrupts the neutral tone. If this remark was intended to discuss the responsibility for and moral justification of the expulsion I think it would be better suited in their respective sections and in a more neutral tone.

Can anyone convince me that this sentence should not be removed?

Although not as important I'd like to point out that the use of the word 'except' in the meaning 'unless' is deemed archaic by my Oxford dictionary. Jkej 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania and Russia paragraphs

The facts are mixed up. Either the two paragraphs should be integrated or separated. The Russian paragraph should be much longer than the Lithuanian one because of the numbers of the expelled.Xx236 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

German networks

"As Nazi Germany invaded first Czechoslovakia and later Poland and other European nations, some members of the ethnic German minorities in those countries aided the invading forces" - not true, Nazi terrorist/political networks were created years before the war, see [27]. Xx236 09:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What does Lumans say about the Volkdeutsche Mittelstelle?

Note to 4.242.183.245

We know about the VoMi. That's not the issue here.

What does Lumans say about the expulsions? Does he assert that the expulsions would not have occurred if the Germans had not committed crimes in Poland? Or is that your assertion? This is the essence of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The assertion "It should be noted here that no ethnic German expulsions would have occurred at all, except for the invasion and brutal occupation of most of Europe by Nazi Germany, including the expulsion (and slave-labor displacement) of non-Germans from many areas." can be re-inserted if you can put it in the mouth of a reliable source. Does Lumans say this? If so, please provide a quote. And change the text to say "According to Valdis O. Lumans, ....". --Richard 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide any reliable source indicating that Wiki requires that either all citations require a quotation or any further explanation. Wiki is not meant to do ALL your work for you. If you have a problem with the citation - and certainly your calling into question a UNC publication as a 'reliable' source indicates that you have a POV agenda here - either do some work and actually READ the book, or do some work and find a source that refutes Lumans. Any further deletions of the now-cited material without the aforementioned work on your part will be considered vandalism, and reported as such. Have a nice day, y'all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.183.115 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you are asserting that Lumans makes the assertion that you have inserted? Would it be accurate to change the text to say "According to Valdis O. Lumans, ...."?
--Richard 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculations

Border changes and population transfer were decided as a strategic question by the superpowers in Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. Practically Stalin decided about anything. All discussions about German crimes, history, Polish nationalism are speculations. They eventually helped to rationalize the annexations and transfers, but didn't explain Stalin's logic. Xx236 07:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I take your comment to mean that you agree with my repeated reversion of User:4.242.183.245's edits?
I don't see any way forward except to ask for mediation or issue an RFC since this user seems unwilling to work collegially to discuss and resolve the content dispute. --Richard 07:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I criticize the whole speculative paragraph, which contains mostly POVs. It should eventually say : the Polish-Communist governmet claimed, Polish governmet in London believed, US administration said...Xx236 10:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... would you like to discuss these proposed changes now or do you want to wait until the page protection is lifted? --Richard 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of this page

This edit war over the assertion that "the expulsions would not have happened were it not for the crimes committed by the Nazis" has gone on long enough. I have asked for this page to be protected and another neutral, uninvolved admin has done so.

As it turns out, he has protected the version with the disputed text deleted i.e. the last revision by me. However, it is NOT my intent to win this edit war by having the page conveniently protected on my preferred version.

My objective in asking for the page to be protected was to encourage discussion of the disputed text rather than continuing this fruitless edit war.

I will start the discussion...

Even if it is shown that Lumans has explicitly said that "the expulsions would not have happened were it not for the crimes committed by the Nazis" , this is still speculation on his part. He cannot prove this. No one can. He can only assert it and provide evidence to support his argument. Thus, Wikipedia cannot make this assertion as if it were indisputably true. It can report Lumans' opinion as one point of view. It should thus be stated along the lines of "Valdis Lumans asserts that the expulsions would not have happened were it not for the crimes committed by the Nazis". This leaves room for other people to insert text along the lines of "According to Source X, retaliation for German crimes helped to rationalize the annexations and transfers, but weren't the primary motivations for Stalin's decisions regarding Eastern Europe." Of course, we would need a citation to a reliable "Source X".

--Richard 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Richard. This claim is counterfactual speculation and I don't think such should ever be stated as facts in an encyclopedia. An analogy would be if the article about WWII said that WWII would never have have happened if it weren't for the unfair treaty of Versailles. Sure, many historians view the terms of the treaty of Versailles as a significant cause for the rise of the Nazi Party but nobody can claim to know how history would have developed if some circumstances were completely different. These speculations might be included, as Richard described, if they're stated as such, but I think the article would still be better of without them. I think history articles should focus on what happened, not on what might have happened. Why not just state that this or that historian asserts that this or that was a major cause of this historic event? Furthermore I strongly object to the phrase "It should be noted...". Just state the facts you think are noteworthy and let the reader decide whether or not to note them. Jkej 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly for the claim, but:

  • "WWII would never have have happened if it weren't for the unfair treaty of Versailles" - the analogy is partially wrong, the Versaille was 21 years before the WWII. The border changes and population transfers (including also expulsion of Poles) were immediate result of the WWII, decided during the war and at the same time when Germans expelled and murdered millions.
  • 99% of English language speakers ignore the context of the Flight and expulsion of Germans, so this context should be explained in the article - crimes against Slavic nations, Soviet victory and occupation of Central Europe, Western passiveness. The Germans were transported in the same cattle vagons as Polish prioners returning from Germany, so it wasn't any mistreating but the standard. Xx236 08:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course the examples are not exactly the same. The point I was trying to make was that nobody can claim to know what would have happened if the atrocities of Nazi Germany would never have taken place. I'm not saying it is probable but expulsions of Germans might have happened for other reasons at some point.
On the other hand I totally agree that it is very important to clearly describe the context of these events, but it should be done in a npov way. Describe the German atrocities in as much detail as you think is suitable but don't indicate that the expulsion of Germans was justified or excusable. I'm not saying it wasn't but the article must have a neutral tone. Just state the circumstances and let the reader decide if it was justified.
Regarding your example with the cattle wagons: I think it's important to state that it was standard and that the Germans did the same thing but I don't like the the statement that it was thereby not mistreatment. That something is standard doesn't mean it can't be mistreatment. Just state the circumstances you think are important and let the reader judge if it was mistreatment or not. Jkej 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean that Boxcars were standard transportation of people during and after the war. The same trains which transported expelled Germans, transported on their way back Poles from Germany to Poland. The exchange of the people was defined in post-war agreements, not an expulsion. In Communist countries soldiers were transported in such cars even many years after the war. I doubt very much the cars were real Stock car (rail).Xx236 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The important thing here is that it is a legitimate argument that expulsion of the Germans was a decision made by Stalin and not by Poles. However, this argument needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source (i.e. a historian). I think the reason the statement about the Nazi crimes is OR is because it speculates on whether the expulsions would have occurred without the Nazi crimes. As stated above and in the article, there are other reasons why the expulsions might have happened anyway.
It should be clear that the Nazi crimes aroused strong anger, resentment and hatred among the Poles and gave them less reason to oppose the expulsions or aid the Germans. That is probably part of what motivated the "wild" expulsions. The organized expulsions were more likely the work of the Soviets. However, are there any recorded instances of Poles objecting to the expulsions? Once again, we need a citation to support these statements.
This is my personal opinion (OR) but I think it's worthwhile to note that there don't seem to be many stories of Poles helping Germans to resist the expulsions or even protesting against the expulsions. Contrast this to Germans and other Europeans helping the Jews during the Holocaust. Why is this? Is it because the Poles felt differently about the Germans? Or was it the chaotic postwar conditions in which everyone was just struggling to survive? Any answers need a citation to a reliable source but I think it's an interesting topic to consider.
We should not totally exonerate Poles of complicity in the expulsions nor should we seek to excuse their behavior. We should document what happened and suggest why based on reliable sources. Let the reader decide who was responsible and whether the expulsions were justified.
--Richard 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I don't accept some of your points:

  • The majority of Germans was evacuated by German authorities or wasn't present in annexed lands (soldiers, some workers) or were deported to Soviet Union without even meeting a Pole after the war. (BTW - this article is general, the expulsion from Poland is only one case, big but not the most cruel.)
  • Many Germans left to join their families.
  • Many Germans declared Polish nationality and lived in Poland. Some others were working for the Red Army.
  • Many Germans weren't allowed to go to Germany because they were qualified workers.

So the problem of expulsion of Germans who wanted to stay but weren't allowed was only one of many.

Some Poles helped Germans to stay, e.g. marrying German women. But culturally, economically, politically those Germans who left won, so the help was counterproductive.

Were there any Germans hiding, wanting to stay in Poland? How many of them? Did they hide under dunghills like some Jews did? Why should they? Was Germany Siberia? Or do you mean helping during local persecutions, when they were forced into trains? There were frequently no Polish communities yet, only army units or Communist police there. So the Holocaust analogy is doubtful.

wild expulsions were generally organized by the Communist authorities before Potsdam, not by the mob. They were called wild, because they weren't accepted by Western allies. Xx236 08:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points. These should be summarized in this article and discussed in greater detail in the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after WWII article. With citations to reliable sources, of course.
In fact, I think it may be useful to draw a distinction between expulsion of Germans from pre-1939 Poland and expulsion of Germans from the "Former eastern territories of Germany". I don't think the [[Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after WWII article]] makes this distinction and it's clear from what you wrote above that there is at least the distinction of there being "no Polish communities" in the Former eastern territories of Germany". I don't think this distinction should be drawn by creating separate articles as some have proposed. Instead, I think the distinction should be called out in the article.
--Richard 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this a bit further... in the "Former territories", Germans were in the majority and Poles in the minority so there were no Poles to help but also no significant hatred except that the few Poles that were there were probably reasonably happy to take over the vacated properties and businesses. Even if they had any second thoughts, the privations and exigencies of postwar Europe probably made it so that there was someone who would ignore any moral compunctions and do what they needed to do in order to survive. Some mixed families probably had difficult decisions to make.
In contrast, there were relatively few Germans residing in what had been in pre-1939 Poland but the Poles probably had good cause to hate them because of their collaboration in Nazi oppression and crimes. (cf. the VoMi)
A problem that I am beginning to see with these expulsion articles is that, with respect to Poland, they conflate and confuse these two separate situations. The two situations need to be distinguished to the reader and described separately (with citations to reliable sources, of course).
Do you agree? --Richard 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about where this discussion is going. It was going to be about the sentence that has been added and deleted a number of times. I can see at least three reasons why it should be deleted:

  • It is unsourced (or it is at least unclear if it is properly sourced).
  • It is counterfactual speculation.
  • It does not use a neutral tone.
From what I understand, nobody has yet defended the sentence in this discussion. It would be interesting to hear what those who have added the sentence has to say. Until that happens, the article remains as it is. Jkej 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeh. I'm not a fan of leaving page protected for a long period of time. If nothing else, the discussion between Xx236 and myself suggests that further editing is needed. It has been three days since the anon added the disputed text and he/she has not seen fit to join this discussion. If no one defends the disputed text in the next day, I plan to ask another admin to unprotect the page so that editing can continue. --Richard 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sad thing is, this is the second page I've full-protted in the first ten days of my adminship where one side of the argument has disregarded the talk page (The first is much more problematic than this one). I'll prod him to come here, but iff he will not show up, I'll unprotect the article and keep an eye on it. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the contribs, I see that my message would likely be missed - he's using a dynamic proxy. I'll unprot the article at 0:00 PST on 10/30; if he shows up and edit-wars again, I'll request a rangeblock (I'm not knowledgebale enough about blocks to pull off a rangeblock). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the Germans in Eastern Germany only.

Polish Germans were persecuted as Volkdeutsch, some of them were killed eg. in Nieszawa. I have read about a Home Army German, killed by the Communists - was he killed as a German or as a Home Army officer? The history of Volksdeutch was very complicated and should be (is ?) described in a specific article. If someone was a Polish citizen, obtained German citizenship against his will and was persecuted because he wanted to live in Poland - it's not exactly an expulsion.

I don't know what you mean by "it's not exactly an expulsion". Sure it is. What else would you call it? What distinction are you drawing here?
Earlier this year while this page was protected due to the "Serafin" wars, I created the Deutshce Volksliste and VoMi articles and am a major contributor to the Volksdeutsche article. I'm sure some of the Volksdeutsche truly exploited the opportunity for self-aggrandizement at the expense of ethnic Poles. However, it also seems clear that some of them had to choose between persecution or signing up for the Deutsche Volksliste (another article that I created). Some of these were Category III or Category IV. The penalty for not signing up was "deportation to a concentration camp". The "reward" for signing up was "to be sent to Germany as labourers and made subject to conscription into the Wehrmacht". Great choice, huh?
But what I don't know anything about is what happened to these Category III and Category IV Volksdeutsche and their families when they returned home? Were they allowed to return and reclaim Polish citizenship or were they expelled along with the Category I and Category II Volksdeutsche?
--Richard 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
@Richard Maybe you can find part of the information you are looking for here. [28] --Stor stark7 Talk 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There was also the problem of former Polish inmates of German camps. They recreated sometimes the camps, mistreating and killing Germans. It was learned violence, now much better understood than in 1945. Xx236 09:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on, "learned violence". Poles were violent from the start, Poland didn't mind war, they actually thought they would win the coming war. And you know about the violence, since you deleted the following [29]
But thank you about the pointer about the title, using that as argument I will be able to remove all mention of selbstschutz as motive for expulsions, since you are not willing to include the 60,000 massacred Germans during the first few weeks of the war which imply that selbstschutz (self-defence) was in deed needed, and that some of the the early actions against Poles after the Polish defeat probably were just retribution for Polish massacres of German civilians. How many German civilians were massacred before the war? I know Hitler used inflated figures to justify the attack, but inflated or not, they were based on killings before the war.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It happens that Germans invided Poland killing millions of Polish citizens. Many Germans in Poland supported the Nazis, joined terrorist organizations and were later distinguished with Nazi orders so I don't approve Polish crimes but quite many Germans deserved to be killed as terrorists during the war.

Sure, the Poles were responsible for WWII. Everyone knows they attacked the Glewitz radiostation.Xx236 10:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Xx236-the 60,000 number was made by Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda or Propagandaministerium and published IIRC in a book called "Tod in Polen" a racist attack against Poles printed in 1940. I doubt anybody takes this figures seriously, at best they are used as example of Nazi propaganda claims, just like claims about Jews and Poles being something lower then animals. As to Selbstschutz -its aim was to exterminate any resistance to enslavement of Polish people by Germany(the final decision to exterminate Polish nation was made in 1941-the method was to be determined, gas chambers or some other means already used), they were responsible before for preparing lists of people to be murdered, and during the invasion performed sabotage and mass killings as well as established death camps. They were also engaged in rapes of girls and women before killing them.--Molobo 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There are scholarly books, and then there are Molobos statements. I believe books are far more credible. Returning to the original question, Victor Rothwell Origins of the Second World War Manchester University Press, 2002, ISBN 0719059585 p. 106 almost 60,000 ethnic Germans were massacred by Poles during the September campaign. "The first victims of large scale massacres in the Second World War were Germans." The 60,000 number is referenced to Martin K. Sorge, The Other Price of Hitler's War: German Military and Civilian Losses from World War II (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1986), p 89.
Then there is the question of the reason for the invasion of Poland. The Impact of Nazism: New Perspectives on the Third Reich and Its Legacy - Page 121 by Alan E. Steinweis, Daniel E. Rogers - History - 2003. As the main reason for the invasion of Poland the Germans provided the 62,000 german civilians in Poland killed in the few months before the war. In addition they stated that 58,000 civilians had been killed by Poles during the September campaign. According to a Polish source the number of German civilians killed by Poles during the September campaign was probably closer to 2,000. (The source does not allege that the number for Germans killed before the war is wrong). Essentially we have two distinct groups of German civilians killed by Poles, one in the months before the war, and the other killed during the few weeks of the war in 1939. Naturally Nazi German propaganda might have been interested in inflating the numbers, just as Communist Polish propaganda might be interested in minimizing them during the following half century where it controlled all Polish schools teachers, schoolbooks and scholarly institutions. Fact remains, we have an unchallenged (for now, do bring in more books) number on those killed before the war. And a number for those killed during the war that is challenged by a Pole, but supported by modern English language literature. What Communist Polish propaganda later made selbstschuts out to be is just as irrelevant as Nazi German propaganda. Unfortunately I expect we will have to wait for a generation for the lest remnants of that Communist propaganda to disappear.--Stor stark7 Talk 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"I believe books are far more credible"-sure books are credible, unless they are Nazi or revisionist propaganda. You, however are not a book. And judging by your claims about Polish "slave camps", calling Allies "a gang" etc I take your words with a grain of salt. As to 60,000 number- that pure Nazi propaganda. Either somebody is completely ignorant about his sources or you are just not telling us everything about the text you quote-a similiar thing I recall happened in previous articles you edited.--Molobo 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You are a fine one to call names. Your latest manipulative work was promptly deleted, remember? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_collective_guilt. Seems to be a recurring history with you. I'm amazed that someone recently returned from a one year block for with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (Used up all your last chances: the edit warring and incivility continues, and shows no sign of ever stopping.)", continues where he left of and for example persists in deleting a sourced quote by Churchill and lying by as usual giving a miss-leading edit summary: "expanded".[30]. What's a really laughable example of Polish nationalist POV pushing is when you in the same article replaced the name of the city Königsberg with the Polish name "Królewiec" as the main link. "[31].

In addition, when my sources are online I try to provide the sources, unlike you. By the way, which "Nazi propaganda book" have I used? As I said I provided the links to the books I was refering to, so please tell me which of the authors above is a nazi????--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Overlooking your text I noticed several manipulations. Let's start
  • A-The first text gives a reference to the number but you never mention what is the reference used, it would be usefull to know.
You deliberately make no sense or have serious difficulties reading English. The reference is to the book in the text. Should be self evident, eh?--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • B-"According to a Polish source the number of German civilians killed by Poles during the September campaign was probably closer to 2,000."-nope the source doesn't mention anything about 'civilians' but speaks about minority-thus this could have been Selbstschutz members or other paramilitary activists. A big difference which your wording has concealed.
Yeah right, the text also uses the word "victims", ever heard of "paramilitary victims"?--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • C-"The source does not allege that the number for Germans killed before the war is wrong" False logic, the source doesn't even concern itself with any fabrications like those so naturally it doesn't mention them, not "doesn't allege that the number is wrong" which you try to manipulate into suggestion that it agrees with allegation.
My my, what an interesting interpretation by the master historian. I read another reputable source regarding Germans killed before the hostilities, I'll dig it up again, no worries.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • D "What Communist Polish propaganda later made selbstschuts out"- I don't understand- are you are denying that Selbstschutz took part in Holocaust and also in genocide of Polish people, and that scholary research on its activity by scholars like praised Jewish historian Szymon Datner are communist propaganda ? Sources please. --Molobo 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you still beat your mother Molobo? Thats the kind of question you are asking here. I'm not denying that Selbstschuts committed atrocities for the brief period it existed, but not on the scale your constant banging on the drum merits, since as you should know its disbanding began as early in November 1939 and was fully completed by April 1940. I am saying that it was convenient for the Communists and Polish nationalists to inflate its importance, they needed the creation of an inflated 5th column myth to explain-away their crushing military defeat in 1939 (a polish "Stab-in-the-back legend") , and to help justify their efforts to create an ethnically homogeneous Poland by expelling all Ukrainians, Germans and Jews. There were other organizations formed after selbstschuts that committed many atrocities in Poland, and parts of them were recruited from disbanded former selbstschuts-members, but since you seem to be blissfully unaware of this basic fact I'm highly skeptical of any of your claims in this topic.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And finally the claim about murdered pre-war Germans and quarter of them massacred was invention of Reich's propaganda machine: Nazi Wireless Propaganda, by Martin Doherty, Edinburgh University Press, pages 34-39.--Molobo 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? He does says say something about quarters does he?!?!?! Doubtless the deaths were useful as propaganda and inflated, but please provide the cite where Doherty he states that the pre-war deaths were an "invention"!!! I actually believe it does not exist!!!
Also, are you saying that pre-war persecution of the German population was all German propaganda? You seem fond of pointing out that the numbers of Germans in Poland when the war started were less than a million. What you never mention is that just 20 years earlier ,in 1919 the were 2.1 million Germans in Poland. Gee, wonder why more than one million left, can't have been their nice Polish neighbors, must have been something else eh....--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Victor Rothwell has a problem called sometimes Orientalism - he considers Germans to be Europeans so he quotes German Nazi sources as scholar. According to him and a bunch of others Poles are animals, able to commit any crime. Finally no European historian reads under-language used by animals. Russian, yes, but Polish? Why to learn a language of some NY offices cleaners or London dish washers?

Yeah right, Rothwell is a historian at the University of Edinburgh, a fairly prestigious place in my eyes, and the book is published by a reputable scholarly publisher[32]. The rest of Molobo (talk · contribs)s random interjections completely ignored. --Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The first massacre of civilians was the one committed by German Luftwaffe knights - the Bombing of Wielun.

Really, is it considered a massacre? By whom, where? Which were the perpetrators, and how were they brought to justice by the allies after the war, which they must have been if they had committed a documented "massacre". By the way, there is a conspicuous absence of references to the claims in that article.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem of German victims has been discussed in Bloody Sunday (1939). Even the German Wikipedia says ein Vielfaches des tatsächlich ermittelten Wertes. Wow! Either Stor stark7 is totally wrong or German Wikipedia is controlled by Jews and Poles.

Bloody Sunday was an interesting although substandard article. I guess you and Molobo have been editing there? No mention is made of the scholarly estimates of the number of dead in the city of Bromberg and its surroundings (roughly 1000), even though it is the topic of the article. How come you didn't link to the German article de:Bromberger_Blutsonntag, which states this number?
Xx236 (talk · contribs), what exactly is behind your obsession with Jews by the way? I thought almost all surviving Jews in Poland and those that returned had been expelled by the Poles in the years after the war. And you should know that wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, not even the German one. This article should be ample evidence of that.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This Talk page is a wrong place. Go to Bloody Sunday (1939) Talk page. Don't write your Nazi propaganda here. Xx236 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was you Xx236 (talk · contribs) who started this by here calling polish violence "learned".
Good thing I don't take you in any way shape or form seriously or I might have been upset by your last sentence.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Poles and Jews were guilty of WWII andthe Holocaust, according to Stork star7.

Interesting that the Germans, who got almost all Polish archives in 1939, including lists of Polish spies in Germany, didn't find any documents proving the alleged genocidal policy of Poland. The same Germans multiplied the number of German victims by ten, at least. Would you be so kind to quote German acdemic sources rather than Nazi propaganda?

Which alleged Polish camp tortured Germans, preparing future wardens for Auschwitz? Any names of such people? Himmler, Koch, Frank? Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just when I though you could not descend even further, you manage to surpass my already very low expectations. And you have actually been taken seriously here in the past? I'll ignore the rest of the confused ramblings for now and go to the core of your slanderous message. I'm actually glad you made it, because it clearly exposes your degree of "competence" for editing in wikipedia. "Poles and Jews were guilty of WWII andthe Holocaust, according to Stork star7.". Well then, mr or ms Xx236 (talk · contribs), time to prove your worth. Show us exactly where "Stork star7" claimed
  • 1. Jews were guilty of WWII.
  • 2. Jews were guilty of the Holocaust.
  • 3.Poles were guilty of WWII.
  • 4.Poles were guilty of the Holocaust.
If it was said here, then you should have no trouble proving it for each and every of the 4 statements with quotes and links to those quotes. If on the other hand you refuse to provide this evidence then truly through you slanderous lying you have spent whatever credibility you may have had in this venue and whatever article edits you've made in English wikipedia should be regarded with outpost suspicion.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Stor stark7 claims that the killing of about 1 000 civilians and destruction of Wielun hospital weren't a massacre.
http://www.zeit.de/2003/07/A-Wielun?page=all Das Massaker lag erst wenige Stunden zurück.
Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Xx236 (talk · contribs), I gave you a chance by asking you to provide even a shred of evidence for your quite significant personal attack on me where you for example claimed that according to me Jews were guilty of WWII and that Jews were guilty of the Holocaust. Essentially you have called me a Nazi and Antisemitic. You naturally have provided no evidence whatsoever to support those allegations against me.
I am willing to (for now) take the high-ground here and assume that your problem is simply abysmal English skills, and not something far more sinister. I suggest you take steps to remedy your problems, preferably with the help of professionals. Meanwhile, as long as your English remains at this seriously substandard level I strongly suggest that you stick to editing in Polish Wikipedia and leave the English Wiki to people with at least some degree of competence. -Stor stark7 Talk 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

cattle trucks

The article contains a picture of the trucks. They aren't Stock car (rail). Xx236 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Just interested in the {{editprotected}} mechanism. There is an broken ref tag which just needs a slash. Lycurgus 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Where? --Richard 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Background § at end of the ¶ beginning "As Nazi Germany ..." Lycurgus 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done. Sandstein 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 200,000 people

A number of people believe the earth were flat. too. Stop your neo-Nazi campaign.Xx236 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure which person that is the intended target of this latest personal attack by Xx236 (talk · contribs), but I do believe poor Xx236 is in need of help. Xx, Let me explain to you a bit about the Internet.
The sentence; "Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 200,000 people, depending on source." has been in the article for quite a while and is referenced to P. Wallace (March 11, 2002). "Putting The Past To Rest", Time Magazine. It seems you have a problem with the editors of Time Magazine. But please try to understand, it is highly unlikely that they will learn about your complaints when you write them here. I suggest you try contacting them directly on their website about your problems. But I have to warn you, it is quite likely that you calling them neo-nazis will likely only result in them ignoring you as yet another crackpot or worse.--Stor stark7 Talk 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This actually should be the lead -UN Charter article 53 and 107 makes those actions legal

If we are going to include legality issues: [33] Article 53

1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

2. The term enemy state as used in para- graph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

Article 107

Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.


Basically this makes transfer of Germans after the war perfectly legal and nobody can use UN Law to claim it was illegal. --Molobo (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Poor Molobo (talk · contribs) engages in OR again, and totally useless OR at that. Exactly where in the current article is UN law referenced to? Nooooooowhere!!! And the quite funny "Molobo logic" conclusion,"Basically this makes transfer of Germans after the war perfectly legal" So essentially what is not covered by UN law is legal? Since UN laws did not apply until the UN was founded (after the war), that would by the same logic make everything the Nazis did in Poland "perfectly legal" as well. Are you going to argue that as well, Molobo? Didn't think so.--Stor stark7 Talk 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps you should cool down, since you are clearly violating WP:Civil guidelines. As to OR I don't have to argue since this is the thesis of

  • Mariusz Muszyński - profesor of international law and international relations and

Krzysztof Rak - historian of philosophy and an expert on international relations. Published in article "Transakcja Wiazana" in Gazeta Wyborcza 2007-10-12.

Cheers.--Molobo (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC) PS:And you are right that indeed the article needs to mention UN law makes those actions legal. Thanks for spotting that. --Molobo (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Molobo (talk · contribs), your first post made no mention of any professors, it simply pointed to the raw text of the U.N charter, followed by your conclusions. This hints to me that what you engaged in was in fact plain OR.
After your behavior on the topic Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_collective_guilt and countless other occasions I am naturally prone to assume bad faith on your part as I'm sure you understand. I would therefore request that you ask a respected Polish speaking editor, preferably an administrator, to vouch that your interpretation of the Polish article is accurate, including the credentials of the authors. This since I've experienced that you have a far too common tendency to misinterpret the sources you provide. I am mystified as to why you do not provide a link to the article in question, since the Gazeta wyborcza is clearly available online. Even pay-sites usually provide the first few lines free of charge and offer you the choice of initiating a subscription so you should have been able to link to it, had you wanted to. Nevertheless, if you can acquire such a vouchsafing I would have no problem with you adding a line to the effect that "x and y on the other hand argue that..."
Of course this is an interesting topic, such as the question whether or not the expulsions should be classified as a case of Genoside[34]--Stor stark7 Talk 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)/Archive_11&oldid=1178775765"