Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Germany To-do:
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Thoughts about future directions for this article

As Lysy pointed out above, the structure and tone of this article is heavily driven by the German-Polish POV-pushing by various editors in the past. I got here via an RFC and I think I helped move the article to a more NPOV position. However, there is still the general approach that blame for the expulsions should be ascribed to one party or another. As Lysy and XX236 point out, there was no single act called "the expulsion" but rather a series of evacuations, flights and expulsions. We should revisit the German exodus from Eastern Europe article and consider how to weave a single cohesive and comprehensive narrative that gives an appropriate NPOV perspective on the whole sorry tale.

--Richard 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for boring you with my remarks, which may not seem very productive, but still my 2 cents. To me the major challenge seems to be that this is a very wide and diverse topic that we are trying to describe in a singe article. Therefore its structure is critical. I tend to see "the expulsions" as a multidimensional issue, with one of the aspects being chronological and geographic distribution of the different events, often driven by different sets of motives. Of course the assessment and legacy are also important, but first of all the article should focus on facts. Right now we have a relatively well written, but vague summary in the lead, and then immediately it goes on with the controversies, blame assignment, reasons and expellee organisations. The expulsions are being discussed but are not adequately described first, so the reader can only guess what all this is about. The facts and chronology of the events are missing. In the chaos of a series of different actions in different places at different times, a POV pusher will always find an example to support any claim. I'm not sure how we should approach this, as we need to linearise the events somehow. This can be easiest done if we describe what happened (evacuation, flight, expulsion), chronologically, perhaps. This would be challenging again, as many things could have happened simultaneously, e.g. as the Soviet Army proceeded westwards. This in turn can be fine-grained into individual distinct locations when reasonable (East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Hungary, Lithuania etc). Or maybe the other way round. Any thoughts ? --Lysytalk 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe two separate articles, one on "Evacuation and flight", and the other on "Expulsions" ? These are two different things easily recognisable, that are confused here. The problem is however, that the number of victims is usually counted together, for obvious reasons, so we would have to be careful when quoting any figures. --Lysytalk 22:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear Mr Lysy one who can not go back is victim of an Expulsion if he flight ore was evacuated, so the numbers should be counted together.

Johann

You mean that anyone who died should be considered an expellee ? --Lysytalk 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the above discussion with Johann risks becoming an argument about definitions that are perhaps not worth fighting about right now.

Getting back to the primary topic, I think that the overarching article should be German exodus from Eastern Europe with the discussion of flights, evacuations and expulsions being subsidiary articles.

This is sort of the case right now but if you look at the two articles German exodus from Eastern Europe and Expulson of Germans after World War II, you would think the two articles were written by two authors who never spoke to each other. This is not completely true since I did make some effort to rationalize the two articles a few months ago but I think we should revisit them and start to build a comprehensive framework on which we can hang all the material that we want to presnt.

If there is enough material to focus on individual locations such as East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Hungary, Lithuania etc, then we can create separate articles for those but, so far, I haven't seen enough material to warrant a specific article with the possible exception of the Wilhelm Gustloff (ship) article.

--Richard 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that different phases of the exodus should be discussed in German exodus from Eastern Europe, while this article should focus on the expulsions. The problem is that it also discusses the number of overall exodus victims, and there's a tendency to assign it all the the expulsions alone (see the example short discussion just above). Since most Germans perished in the earlier phases of the exodus, I naturally oppose to writing in one sentence that Germans were expelled from Poland and to be immediately followed by the one million death-toll figure. It simply requires some discipline. What makes the situation further confusing, is that the German Expellees tend to use the word "Expulsion" to describe all the exodus and thus provide gross population figures for all the events together but under a single name.
As for focusing on individual locations, with some effort I should be able to dig information on the expulsions from individual parts of Poland, including Silesia, Pomerania, Greater Poland and Masuria. Probably also we'd be able to cover German evacuation and flight from individual major cities, like Koenigsberg or Breslau. I'm not sure about the other areas, and the events that happened in the beginning of 1945, though. But even if incomplete, the facts about individual locations could help us build the large picture, and at the same time avoid dangerous propaganda generalisations. Any thoughts ? --Lysytalk 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with Lysy that the whole topic should be displayed in phases separated more clearly from each other in terms of time (1944, 1945, 1946, etc.) and location (Poland, Hungary, etc.) as otherwise the impression might be created that eg the Poles are responsible for 1 million overall casualties. As for the notion of "expellee", we should keep in mind that also the ones who were evacuated or fled before they could be expelled are expellees as they were NOT allowed to come back. (194.9.5.10 09:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Yes, they would have most likely be expelled as well, if the had not been evacuated earlier. Still this may be confusing, depending on the context, as the first association is "expellees are those who were expelled" not those who would have been expelled. Maybe this could also be explained somehow neutrally in the article for clarity ? The problem with using the name is best seen when we start to talk about those who perished in the flight or evacuation, and call them expellees as well, thus counting them among the victims of later expulsions. --Lysytalk 09:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good idea. (194.9.5.10 09:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Furthermore,in the course of a restructuring of the article, I would propose to reconsider the current order of reasons for the expulsions. It is not questionable that the "attempt to restore pre-Nazi demographics in the areas where native populations were displaced by Nazi ethnic cleansing and expansion" was one of the reasons, but I doubt that it was the main reason. In my opinion the main reason was the Potsdam Conferrence where Stalin managed to politically perpetuate the military status quo of 1944/45. Please to not misunderstand me, but I have the impression that Stalin was not very interested in what the people of Middle and Eastern Europe the territoties of which were occupied by the Red Army thought about the expulsion (like he was not in 1939 when concluding the Hitler-Stalin-Treaty). He was just interested in securing the extension of the Soviet sphere of control gained in 1945. However, I would appreciate if we could discuss this issue as well in the course of the planed restructuring of the article. (194.9.5.12 09:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

I agree that the reasons and their order should be revisited. For start I've just reordered the sections of the article, so that the facts are first and their discussion later. Hope that's OK. --Lysytalk 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


This is a very old discussion, because since 1945 some Polish and others try to convince us that the one witch fled before the Russian and Polish army overtook the area where not part of the expulsion and where anyway already in Germany. But it was refused that they could go back in their homeland so they where in fact part of the expulsion victims not physical but administrative because they lost their possessions and where refused to return.

Under your argument the Bosnians of the Serb Republica would not be part of an expulsion because they fled , like they would have fled voluntarely.

So you can not say this people are not part of the expulsion, and you can not completely make a difference between what happened while the war was still going on and after the war because in reality their are not clear cut lines like in books.

Johann


I think nobody here challenges this as a fact (please read the comments carefully). The discussion at hand is rather about the question how to reasonably divide the whole topic (=exodus or expuslion) into several phases in terms of time and locations (eg: evacuation, flight, expulsion). (194.9.5.10 15:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Order of reasons and justifications for the expulsions

I've shuffled a bit the subsections of the "Controversy over reasons and justifications for the expulsions": Moved "An attempt to restore pre-Nazi demographics in the areas where native populations were displaced by Nazi ethnic cleansing and expansion." to the bottom and "Compensation to Poland for territories occupied by the Soviet Union". Still, I have to admit, I'm not feeling comfortable about this section and would prefer that we leave it until later. The reasons given are of various weight, some are Poland-specific, others are more general, most of them are just speculations (although often very reasonable), and all this lacks any support in sources. It's also highly controversial and we could discuss it for ages without much progress. So my suggestion is to leave it for now and focus on the more general problems of the article instead. --Lysytalk 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was perhaps most recently responsible for this "Controversy..." section. It was part of my effort to help resolve edit-warring and POV pushing by including all POVs in the article (and in one place rather than spread all over the article). I tried to order the reasons somewhat but I wasn't sure what weight to give to the various reasons so there was a certain amount of randomness to the order. I agree that the varous reasons need to be grounded in the sources and preferably attached to citations. I am not familiar enough with the topic and the sources to do this. I assumed that, somewhere out there, there was a reliable source for each of the reasons and I repeatedly urged the warring POV-pushers to document their claims. Remember, we're not trying to say that any of the purported reasons is a "valid" reason. We're simply trying to assert that some reliable source asserted it as a reason. Ideally, this source would be one of the key decision makers: e.g. a leader such as Churchill, Stalin or Roosevelt or an act of Parliament or the U.S. Congress. Failing that, the work of a historian or politician would help. Feel free to use {{citation needed}} tags liberally throughout the section. It's time we made this section more encyclopedic. --Richard 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I see and I think you did a good job by isolating all these cases. I'm still having some problems making a clear difference between individual points, but I believe this can be discussed later. --Lysytalk 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the discussion can be deferred. For now, I will just make the point that this section has gotten messy because every so often some POV-pushing German or Pole comes along (usually an anon IP) and insists on inserting their particular POV. This usually winds up in the "Reasons" section and, after a while, the section got messy. I kind of lost interest in keeping it neat. I guess I just got ground down from trying to fight the POV-pushing. --Richard 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phases of the expulsions

I'd like to attempt to define the phases, but first we need to make a decision of the understanding of the "expulsion" term in this article. Do we limit it to "organised post-Potsdam population transfers" and leave all the other events to be discussed within German exodus from Eastern Europe ? Or should we rather use the "expulsion" name to call all the exodus phases ? Obviously there are good arguments for and against each of these, but until we make a decision, we cannot consistently think of the structure of the article, as it will mix different understanding of the term by different editors. Shall we make a quick survey to see if we are at any consensus about this ? --Lysytalk 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Maybe we should generally define the notion of an "Expellee" at the article`s very beginning and then divide the topic into its phases (eg: evacuation, flight, expulsion). Within the phases one may use the respective description of what factually happened (eg: evacuation, flight, etc.).

As for the general definition, we could eg use the definition of a displaced person ("Vertriebenen") under sec. 1 of the German Federal Displaced Person Law (§ 1 Bundesvertriebenengesetz) i.e. everyone who fulfilled the following criterias "enjoyed" the status of a displaced person:

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

1) as German citizen or a person of German ethnicity

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

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

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

(194.9.5.10 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

proposal: as the Law was issued in the 50ies we should accordingly ammend no 2) of the definition as follows:...of the FRG as of 12 September 1990..." (treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany)

(194.9.5.10 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

But, now I'm lost. The following is not meant to combative but a sincere question based on my ignorance and a desire to understand... Did the Treaty on the Final Settlement change the definition of "Vertriebener"? If so, can you provide us the specific text? Alternatively, did any law of the FRG change the definition after the first law was promulgated in the 50s? If not, we have to use the law as written in the 50s. This is problematic because I believe the borders of the German Reich on December 1937 were different from the borders in 1990 although I could not tell you "off the top of my head" exactly what the differences are. In any event, the definition of "Vertriebener" from the 1950s law is probably the best definition unless it was later amended by law or treaty. The proposal you make above seems like original research to me.
--Richard 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The difference between 1937 and 1990 in the East of Germany is that East Prussia and much of today's Western Poland belonged to Germany in 1937. --Lysytalk 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Question: The definition of Vertriebener seems strange in that it also contains those Germans that settled in Nazi occupied territories during WW2 in previously Jewish or Polish houses. Is this correct ? --Lysytalk 18:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda knew that but I wasn't sure if there was anything else. As the old proverb goes... "Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
--Richard 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, my earlier point was that changing the wording from "German Reich in 1937" to "FRG in 1990" would change the definition of "Vertriebener" quite dramatically and I am not convinced that this change in definition was promulgated by any law or treaty. Once again, I say this in full awareness that I don't know much about this area. Enlighten me if I'm wrong. --Richard 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that under the original (1950) definition the people that were expelled e.g from Breslau are not the Vertriebener, is that right ? If this is indeed so, I'm afraid the definition is not useful for our purpose but we also should not amend it in order to suit any particular agenda. --Lysytalk 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to German exodus from Eastern Europe ?

I've just read German exodus from Eastern Europe as Richard suggested earlier, and my conclusion is that it is in much better shape and has the structure that our article here is missing. On the other hand it's very brief on the expulsion itself and it the Expulsion of Germans after World War II as the main article on this particular topic. It also discusses the other "phases" and the background of the exodus. I'm sorry for not being consistent with myself now, but after a closer look at the "exodus" article, I would suggest to either:

or

Any thought on this ? --Lysytalk 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is already quite long (arguably too long). I'm afraid that merging this article into that one would make it way too long. Instead of a merger, I would propose a process of "information transfer" (forgive the lame pun on "population transfer"). Both this article and the Exodus article share the same historical context and background. Let's merge those so that the information is not repeated in two articles. I would keep this article but try to scale it back significantly. It is arguable that the data about number of "expellees" and "deaths" belongs in the Exodus article because of the difficulty of determining who died from what causes.
I believe the numbers are still based primarily on "population balance" methods rather than actually totalling reported deaths. Thus, we don't know exactly how many died during the various phases of evacuation, flight and expulsion. Stuff the data in the Exodus article and document the uncertainty.
What do you think of this approach?
--Richard 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems more reasonable. I would suggest the following sections to be renamed and bulk transferred at first:

  • The results
  • Controversy over responsibility for the expulsions
  • Legacy of the expulsions

and them both articles would need to be polished, naturally. --Lysytalk 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on "the results" and "the legacy". We cannot separate "the results of the exodus" from "the results of the expulsions". Similarly, we cannot separate "legacy of the exodus" from "legacy of the expulsions". I have mixed feelings about the "controversy over the responsibility". Perhaps what we need to do is have the main discussion of these three topics in the "exodus" article and a short one paragraph summary of each topic in this article with references to the exodus article.
I should further comment that the idea of a merger was discussed on Talk:German exodus from Eastern Europe in April 2004 and again in September 2006. There is recognition among some of the editors of that article that there is a problem but no consensus on how to resolve it. Please read the September 2006 discussion on that Talk Page for a partial list of articles with similar scopes and then let's start a discussion (perhaps on that page) about how to resolve the various issues.
--Richard 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Controversy over the responsibility" as it is now seems to mix the responsibility for the tragedy of evacuation, flight, pre- and post-Potsdam expulsion in a single section. Therefore I thought it belonged to the "exodus" article rather than here (after being renamed to something like "The responsibility for the evacuation, flight and expulsion"). I don't know. --Lysytalk 04:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that there is a number of similar articles but I'd be a proponent of small steps approach here, and would rather limit the first effort to the two articles mentioned so far. Otherwise the complexity could scale up too high beyond any reasonable control. I need a short break now and will get back later, after I consult the "exodus" talk. --Lysytalk 19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I very much agree with "small steps". The point I was trying to make is that we should agree what the final picture will look like (so as not to move towards something that we don't want). Also, it's important to make sure that we have involvement of any "Exodus" editors that are not watching the "Expulsions" talk page. For example, you will note that our friend "Jagder" is involved in the merge discussion on the "Exodus" page. --Richard 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've read the "merger dispute" in the "exodus" talk, but it's mostly a personal rant. I agree with the "big picture" approach as well. As for recruiting other editors, I think the most positive way to achieve it would be to do it gradually, otherwise various revert wars between them can overwhelm the whole effort (this said, I'm already surprised it's so calm here). Ideally, I would like to have a number of both German and Polish reasonable editors recruited to support this, but let's hold on just one more minute and see that those that are present here agree on this approach. As to my "big picture" it would be presenting the whole German presence in Eastern Europe in a single general article, and then having individual issues discussed in more detail in sub-articles. This would eventually involve all the other articles, including not only the "expulsion" but also "colonisation" (Historical Eastern Germany), "evacuation and flight" and more. This is why I appreciate the "exodus" article as it already has most of the framework that we need. It should probably eventually be renamed to something like History of Germans in Eastern Europe. This may seem simple, yet I'm afraid it'll prove to be challenging enough. Would this be any similar to your final picture ? --Lysytalk 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like this idea. Right now there are too many articles providing glimpses of the overall narrative from the "Drang nach Osten" to the Exodus/Expulsions. We need a big picture, broad overview article that integrates the narrative that is then threaded through the articles on various detailed aspects of the story. I can't remember if you were involved in the debate over the naming of the Historical Eastern Germany article. The problem with that title is that it is considered to be POV. By comparison, History of Germans in Eastern Europe is very close to the title that I proposed which was History of German settlement in Eastern Europe. I think our titles are likely to be considered POV. In a nutshell, the problem is that calling a piece of land "Historical Eastern Germany" is too reminiscent of the Third Reich's claim to those lands on the grounds that they were part of "historical Germany". Check out Talk:Historical Eastern Germany for that debate.
--Richard 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Correction: I meant to say "I think our titles are LESS likely to be considered POV than Historical Eastern Germany."
Yes, I've been there and opposed the "HED" title for that reason. So the article tree could be something like:
--Lysytalk 04:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like the above outline with two modifications. First of all, I believe that some of the "emigration" was due to negotiated "population transfers". If possible, that title should be changed to reflect that. Secondly, I dislike the title "Post-war emigration" because it doesn't leave much room to discuss the Germans who stayed. Admittedly, these residual German populations are small and perhaps dwindling but they are still there and so I would prefer that the title be something like "History of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe after World War II". This title can cover both emigration and the residual German populations.
Finally, while History of Germans in Eastern Europe is OK with me, what do you think of History of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe? This uses the distinction in German between Deutsche and Volksdeutsche. English readers who are unfamiliar with this distinction won't really focus that much on the "ethnic German" bit but people who are familiar with the distinction will understand what is being referenced and why.
--Richard 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have explained that I was not sure about their names of some articles and therefore I've left them unlinked, unlike the more obvious ones. Therefore I agreed with your comment on the "emigration" already before you wrote it ...
On the second note, Germans make the largest ethnic minority of modern Poland, so you are right that this was missing here.
Finally, could you elaborate a bit more on the importance of "ethnic" word ? BTW: Volksdeutsche in Poland and Germany have quite different connotations. --Lysytalk 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, if nobody objects soon, I'm going to be bold and will be soon moving most of the contents of "The results" and "Legacy of the expulsions" sections to German exodus from Eastern Europe. I understand that these too had been agreed upon so far. --Lysytalk 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Probably some cleanup will be now required. --Lysytalk 08:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I was a bit surprised to see the "Legacy" stuff moved over to the "Exodus..." article. I hadn't remembered agreeing to that but, when I re-read the above discussion, it's obvious that Lysy asked and no one objected so I guess it's a reasonable first step. I guess I hadn't really focused on what the proposal really meant.
Here's the problem that I have with the move now that I've actually seen it "in the flesh". Throughout the "Legacy" stuff, the text keeps talking about the "expulsions". I think we need to review the text in the context of the new location (i.e. in the Exodus article rather than the Expulsions article). Should the word "expulsions" be changed in some places? I think we need to evaluate the word "expulsions" in each place where it is used. For example, the title of the section should be "Legacy of the Exodus" not "Legacy of the Expulsions". On the other hand, I'm sure there are many places where "expulsions" is the right word and should not be replaced by anything else.
Also, I'm concerned about the "Federation of Expellees" and "Centre against Expulsions" being in the Exodus article. I understand how those topics got there but I wonder if they are not more appropriate in the Expulsions article.
I'm not committed to any of the points that I make above. This is just a gut feeling. Let's all re-read both articles and see what changes need to be made.
--Richard 08:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, probably we misunderstood each other. You wrote I agree on "the results" and "the legacy" and I thought you only objected moving the "controversy over the responsibility" section. Anyway, luckily, all can be undone and we can either expand the sections here or move relevant parts of the content back. Let's consider this a step towards the "big picture"... --Lysytalk 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe

Let me start by saying that I am far from an expert on these kinds of questions. Most of what I know about this topic I either learned from Wikipedia or from Google searching for material to add to Wikipedia articles. So I might be wrong in part of what follows:
A good definition of ethnic German can be found in the article on the topic.
I also note that. in the discussion earlier on this page about the German legal definition of "expellee", the text quoted from the German law says "Vertriebener ist, wer als deutscher Staatsangehöriger oder deutscher Volkszugehöriger ...". I don't know how good your German is. Mine is pretty weak but I think the quoted text says something like "An expellee is someone who as a German citizen (deutscher Staatsangehöriger) or an ethnic German (deutscher Volkszugehöriger) lost their homes due to WWII". The point is that German law makes a distinction between German citizens and ethnic Germans who are not citizens but are Germans nevertheless. When people say "Germans" in English, it's unclear whether we are talking about just German citizens, just non-citizens who are German in ethnicity or both. You can say the same thing about Chinese people. Are we talking about citizens of the PRC or "overseas Chinese"? "Ethnic German" is the term used in Wikipedia (and presumably elsewhere) to talk about these "Volksdeutsche" (literally German people) who are not German citizens per se but are nevertheless considered Germans rather than being considered Poles, Czechs or Slovaks. Does that help?

P.S. How great it is to just say that I am an American without having to say that I am an "ethnic Chinese" who happens to have been born in America. How great that China cannot claim California because of the many Chinese who live here. Of course, the Mexicans outnumber the Chinese so we're more likely to become Mexican than Chinese. ;^)

--Richard 05:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! As for Volksdeutsche, I know that this notion sounds fairly odd and I have not invented it but it was presumably necessary to include all the people of German ancestery living outside the boarders of the German Reich of 1937 into the scope and the protection of the Law (for historical backround please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksdeutsche) (194.9.5.12 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. It seems that again we have found two sister articles: Volksdeutsche and Ethnic German, one with a German and the other with an English title. Still, the term seems to be pretty new, originating from 20th century, while the history of Germans in Eastern Europe is much, much longer than this. On the other hand I see it would be more accurate, so I have rather mixed feeling about History of Germans in Eastern Europe vs History of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe for the framework article. BTW, there is a word ""folksdojcz" (Polish spelling of Volksdeutsch) in Polish, which generally meant a traitor, a person not loyal to his country (Poland), who signed a Nazi Volksliste during WW2, probably for material gains or some other benefits. No need to discuss it here, I only mentioned it to illustrate how the same word can have very different flavour in different cultures. --Lysytalk 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. To Richard: I always thought CA was Japanese, not Mexican :-P. Isn't it that the US had to intern ethnic Japanese Americans during WW2 for that ?
RE: the Japanese in California... not anymore... the Japanese in California have been way outnumbered by Mexicans, Chinese and Indians. (Don't quote me on that. I don't have any statistics to prove it but Japanese-Americans are not growing as a group because Japanese immigration to California is limited compared to immigration by Mexicans, Chinese and Indians. All of this is, of course, gross generalization.
Yes, the Volksdeutsche article was quite helpful. I will point out that the Volksdeutsche article emphasizes Germans in Eastern Europe whereas the Ethnic German article covers ethnic Germans in countries around the world (notably in South America).
I am fine with calling the article History of Germans in Eastern Europe for now. I just wanted to raise the issue of "ethnic Germans" because it will surely be raised by somebody eventually.
I think, by the way, that the Polish word "folksdojcz" is actually very important because it explains why there was such strong Polish enmity against the Germans and why they were willing to accede to and facilitate their expulsion. The exodus and expulsions article needs to document reasons like these because they were real (in the sense that significant numbers of people held them). We should either reserve judgment on whether these reasons were "valid" and "justified" or we should make sure to put any judgment in the words of a reliable source.
--Richard 09:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment on judgement reservation. I believe these articles suffer most from judgemental attitude of individual editors (from either "side"), so if we could maintain some discipline wrt judgement, it would be very beneficial. I understood this is what you tried to achieve by isolating the "controversy" sections. From de discussion above it seems that most correct title would be The history of Volksdeutsche in Eastern Europe but this would be really awkward. I'd go with simply History of Germans in Eastern Europe for now, and later it can (and most probably will) be renamed if a need arises. --Lysytalk 09:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I was of course joking about the Japanese in CA, but the fact that they were interned during WW2 shows that the mechanism of ethnic distrust is not strange to Americans as well. And who know how would this feeling develop if Japanese somehow managed to murder 1/5th of the US population ? --Lysytalk 09:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the recent note (reverted) of User:194.9.5.12. I think that our objective is to focus on the expulsion (maybe exodus) and the discussion above is only because Richard thought it would be good to sketch a wider picture first, so that we better understand where the expulsion fits, what it is and what it is not. We can slowly move towards achieving this more strategic framework (with all possible modifications disputed, including Drang nach Osten, naturally, which I used as a short name for the 19th century colonization) but for now I think we all agree that the focus is the expulsion/exodus. Now I think it would be good to recruit reasonable German and Polish editors to discuss and hopefully support this motion. --Lysytalk 10:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. To be honest, I had not read the discussion above carefully before inserted the comment, sorry. When I discovered the comment was nonsence I canceled it in order to prevent a needless discussion about it. (194.9.5.10 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)) ps: Sorry, Richard, I do not want to start a discussion about that topic but also the treatment of Afro-Americans in the 18th, 19th and in the south of the USA even in the 20th century (just think of seats in buses for white and black people) shows that the "idea" of ethnicity was not unknown in the USA (194.9.5.10 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] My 2 Pfennige's worth

Lysy has again asked me to comment on this discussion, as he did a couple months ago.

Again, I think the existing approaches are overly detailed and polemical. To my mind, what would make sense (to the reader, for whom we're supposedly doing this) would be an essentially chronological approach.

It's true that there wasn't just one expulsion, but the expulsions, or if you prefer the German "exodus" from central-eastern Europe, all were the result of one historical event: Germany's defeat in WWII.

The Oder-Neisse border between Germany and Poland had been decided upon (by the Soviets) long before Germany was defeated. This border had nothing to do with ethnographic considerations. The Soviet military victory on the Eastern Front made imposition of the border possible as an act of power politics by Stalin and the Soviet colossus, which occupied the entire region militarily. This act of Realpolitik was presented for public consumption as a justifiable retribution against Nazi Germany, as follows:

The annexations by Poland were justified in Soviet rhetoric at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam as "compensation" to Poland for the Soviet annexations of prewar eastern Poland. The obvious implication, though it was never stated in so many words by the Allies, was that this was the territorial price Germany was to pay for her aggression and horrendous crimes against the Eastern nations. Nothing was said about the moral or ethical character of the Soviet annexations in '39; they were treated as an accomplished and irreversible fact.
The annexation of Stettin (now Szczecin) by Poland, which appears to have been decided upon somewhat later than the Oder-Neisse line, was justified by the argument of economic and military necessity, as Stettin supposedly would guarantee Poland the ability to export from the Silesian industrial area via the Oder.
The annexation of northern East Prussia by the Soviet Union was justified by the mendacious assertion that the USSR needed the allegedly "ice-free" port of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) for access to the Baltic.

The expulsions of the Germans from Czechoslovakia (3.5 million) and other central-eastern European nations, including prewar Poland, were generally justified on the grounds that German minorities had engendered pan-German expansionism in previous years and aggression by Nazi Germany. As is usual in central-European history, the matter is a good deal more complex than this, but the details are not really germane to this story. The article or articles should be limited to what actually happen in the context of the historical framework, which should include mention in summary form of the precedents set by the Nazis in expelling Poles from the so-called Wartheland and beginning to replace them with Baltic Germans. (The Baltic transfers, BTW, were a result of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, which should be explained high in the "story" to prepare the reader for the "compensation" theme.)

Oh, I see, and the redrawing of Germany's borders, with loss of territory to France and Poland in the WWI was not the basis for Nazi's getting the idea of explusions. This is rich. One additional challenge with Poland, is Polish Slavs were defined in areas related to Poland of today, but prior to that, German populations defined before the Slavs had come. How far back can we go in this game? Nonprof. Frinkus 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Acts of revenge and retribution against the German population of the affected areas also should be mentioned, but not in a manner that attributes any peculiar degree of moral or cultural depravity, as these acts of revenge were set in motion by the horrible savagery of the Nazi-German occupation. Violence begets violence. What should be explained, however, is that in large measure this revenge fell upon ordinary human beings rather than, for the most part, upon those who have been labeled Hitler's "willing executioners." Due to wartime dislocations, the objects of this revenge included a disproportionate number of women, children and elderly people. This is factual. The narrative should stick to factual events rather than attempt to ascribe or condemn motivations beyond the obvious phenomenon of ethnically based revenge.

Oh, I see, savagery done to German populations by WWI allies does not count, but what Hitler does, does count. Makes lots of sense.  :-) And your next comment here is that genocide and ethnic cleansing killing 1.5 to 3 million, cleansing 15 million is justified in a scientific sense (evolutionary ethics). Hmmm, I do not think so. Just because humans have been out of touch with nature for a while, does not excuse any acts they commit; it is those humans who are indeed out of touch with reality. Nonprof. Frinkus 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia entry, the ideal is to let the reader decide for himself whether this or that occurrence was right or wrong, good or bad, justified or unjust, etc. The emotional problem posed by this topic — and the reason it arouses such strong nationalistic feelings — is its moral complexity and ambiguity. Nazi-German aggression and atrocities were wrong. Did that make the annexations, expulsions and acts of retribution right? A Kantian or Christian idealist may think not; those who view themselves as realists may say the idealists are out of touch with reality. (Said Stalin at Potsdam: "We cannot abstract ourselves from the results of war.") This discussion goes on forever. But none of that is relevant to this article, which should simply present a concise summary of what happened within the political/historical context, without trying to reach a final judgment on its character. Leave that to historians.

The difficulty, of course, is distilling the story into a reasonably concise narrative.

Sca 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks, Sca. You're the obvious choice for being asked to comment here for two reasons. Firstly, because you can be neutral to it, but more importantly because of your previous knowledge of the subject. I believe it is really difficult for both Poles and Germans to be truly neutral and not emotional about this. Thanks for being patient with me and still responding to my requests for comments on this. One more question came to me while reading your comment. You wrote that "the revenge fell upon ordinary human beings" rather than Hitler's supporters. Do you know how many Germans actually supported Nazism in the "Historical Eastern German" territories ? Was it 10% ? 50/50 ? or maybe 99% ? What struck me once was that Marek Edelman, who was usually considered to be a moral authority, said once something like why is it that I've never met a single "good German" during the occupation. I wonder, why would he say that... --Lysytalk 19:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw some unneutral stuff with Sca's above comments. Why is it so hard to call governments on all sides "evil", Nazi's and Communist alike? There is no justification for that war, and nor was there any justifications for any of the outcomes of that war. That is neutral. Nonprof. Frinkus 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The extent to which the German people supported the Nazis, acquiesced in Nazi dominance, or "inwardly emigrated" during the Nazi period — and secondly, which Germans supported, acquiesced, or turned the other way — is an extremely complex one involving varying degrees of support or acceptance for varying reasons (personal, ideological, political, economic, religious, etc.). These questions will occupy historians literally for ages. The answers, to the extent they can be given, are significant for everyone because these are questions about human nature, not just about "Germans."
Some observations based on years of reading:
1. Contrary to the sometime myth, the Germans did not "elect Hitler." Hitler was appointed as a result of a cabal by conservative political leaders who thought they could control him in a right-wing coalition. Nationally, the Nazis' highwater mark in free elections was 37.4 percent in July 1932, and it declined to 33.1 percent in November.
I don't know what proportion of votes the Nazis obtained in Silesia, Pomerania or East Prussia. The election results would be readily available with a little research. I have seen a map in a German historical atlas indicating the Nazis achieved a dominant position in southern East Prussia, i.e. Masuria, in 1932. Previously, most of East Prussia favored a conservative party, the DNVP, except Kõnigsberg, where the SPD had been No. 1, and the Ermland (Warmia), which favored the Catholic Center Party.
In Danzig, the Nazis achieved just over 50 percent of the vote in the last free election there, in May 1933, but it should be noted that this was four months after the seizure of power in Germany, and the Danzig Nazis were riding on Hitler's coattails; many of the votes they attracted were because Nazism held out the real promise of returning Danzig to Germany, which was favored by the vast majority of Danzigers, not only for ethnic-nationalistic reasons, but also on economic grounds.
2. Hitler and his crew of political gangsters were able, with acquiescence of centers of authority, to quickly consolidate their power, eliminate opponents and dethrone the rule of law (in what had been a Rechtstaat) because of an almost universal German desire to overturn the results of WWI and Versailles (including the economic results). Many who would not otherwise have supported the brownshirts did so initially because the Nazis promised to fulfill these nationalistic aspirations, and in the mistaken assumption that the Nazi "excesses" could be controlled, curtailed and overcome.
3. It's certainly true the Hitler and the Nazis came to enjoy the support and even enthusiasm of a majority of Germans after achieving a series of surprising political and economic successes before the war: The abrogation of the Versailles Treaty, reoccupation of the Rhineland, return of the Saar (which voted 90 percent for Germany), virtual elimination of unemployment through public-works programs, the Anschluss with Austria, the acquisition of the Sudeten territories. But it's also true that the German people by and large didn't want war. While some of Hitler's political opponents realized his policies and mentality would lead inevitably to war, many ordinary Germans took comfort in the fact that he had achieved all those successes without war, and believed his professions of peace. (Of course, all the time he was plotting war.)
During the war, the initial period of military triumphs reinforced Hitler's popularity among a majority of Germans, many of whom were duped into a naive nationalistic faith in the Führer's supposed infallibility. If there were "excesses" in the East, that was war; if the Jews were disappearing in "the East," many Germans didn't know — and didn't want to know — the details. Many of those who did know something of the atrocities kept silent and worried among themselves. But, Daniel Goldhagen notwithstanding, I have to conclude from all I've read over a period of four decades that comparatively few Germans knew the extent and enormity of the crimes. Remember, this was a different era; there was no CNN reporting from Auschwitz, or from Warsaw either.
Those Germans who, in the final months of the war and thereafter, experienced the wrath of the Soviets, Poles and Czechs would have reflected the broad attitudes of German society alluded to above. But for the most part, they would not have included the "willing executioners" of the Einsatzgruppen, who apparently (I haven't studied this subject thoroughly) were mostly policemen from other parts of Germany. Nor would they have included the Nazi Party Bonzen (bigwigs), many of whom effected their escape in the last hectic evacuations.
Another point is that those eastern Germans who were able to flee in 1945 seem often to have been relatively prosperous and mobile residents of cities who had the means and opportunity to flee by car, train or ship. Many of those caught up in and overwhelmed by the Soviet juggernaut were rural people fleeing on horseback, in horse-drawn carts or on foot. And as mentioned above, those who experienced the revenge of the East first-hand were largely women, children and old people because nearly all able-bodied males over 15, and some who weren't, long since had been taken into military service.
None of the above should be taken as an apology for the German cause in WWII, but one must understand what actually happened in this most savage chapter of modern history.
Okay, I've spouted off long enough. It's a big topic. Sca 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but most interesting. And would deserve at least a wikipedia article of its own one day. But so far it's probably too controversial and difficult. --Lysytalk 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa...you said a mouthful there, pardner. I agree with Lysy that what you wrote should be in Wikipedia somewhere. Unfortunately, most of it is only tangential to this article. However, I do think the last two paragraphs could be put into this article or the Exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe article. Can you source these two paragraphs to a reliable source?
Those Germans who, in the final months of the war and thereafter, experienced the wrath of the Soviets, Poles and Czechs would have reflected the broad attitudes of German society alluded to above. But for the most part, they would not have included the "willing executioners" of the Einsatzgruppen, who apparently (I haven't studied this subject thoroughly) were mostly policemen from other parts of Germany. Nor would they have included the Nazi Party Bonzen (bigwigs), many of whom effected their escape in the last hectic evacuations.
Another point is that those eastern Germans who were able to flee in 1945 seem often to have been relatively prosperous and mobile residents of cities who had the means and opportunity to flee by car, train or ship. Many of those caught up in and overwhelmed by the Soviet juggernaut were rural people fleeing on horseback, in horse-drawn carts or on foot. And as mentioned above, those who experienced the revenge of the East first-hand were largely women, children and old people because nearly all able-bodied males over 15, and some who weren't, long since had been taken into military service.
--Richard 03:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
With the spouting above, I do completely concur with that all. It is such a challenge to produce an easy to read NPOV article, that leaves the reader with the correct ideas of what happened when they finish the article, and do so in a short and concise manner. I know I severely lack eloquence in my words, and I do need to do something about air in my head, or as we prefer to call it in the PC world, the empty-space over-enhanced; c’est la vie. Nonprof. Frinkus 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that Sca is considered to be biased both by "German" and "Polish" editors. You're my hero! :-) --Lysytalk 07:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I second :-) Das ist sehr gut. Który jest wielki. Nonprof. Frinkus 08:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I third (can you say that? :) Its good to have a non-biased outside view. Thanks Sca --Splette :) Talk 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, fellas ... dziękuję bardzo, danke sehr. Sca 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving of Legacy section to the German exodus from Eastern Europe article

OK, I reviewed the text that was moved to the German exodus from Eastern Europe article.

I think the problem is that some topics should be discussed in this article, some in that article and some in both articles. Here is my first cut

6.1 Cold War assessments of the expulsions (here definitely, maybe in the Exodus article also)

6.2 Expelled Germans in postwar Germany (mostly in the Exodus article)

6.2.1 Federation of Expellees (both)

6.2.2 Centre Against Expulsions (both)

6.3 Polish-German relations (mostly in the Exodus article)

6.4 Czech-German relations (mostly in the Exodus article)

6.5 The German minority in Hungary (mostly in the Exodus article)

6.6 Russia (mostly in the Exodus article)

6.7 Re-examination of the expulsions in the 1990s (mostly here, mention in the Exodus article)

--Richard 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me get back to this later. I appreciate your patience. Feel free to edit the article as you feel is appropriate. I can always complain later ;-) --Lysytalk 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

After re-reading parts of Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin, I have to correct one thing I said above. Poland's western border (the Oder-Neisse Line) had not been determined at the time of Teheran, in November '43. At Teheran, Stalin secured Western agreement only to eastern border, generally the "Curzon Line" — although Roosevelt apparently argued for inclusion of L'wów/L'vov/L/viv (Lemberg) in postwar PL. But at Teheran the Big Three already were discussing "compensation" for Poland through annexations of Germany territory.

Sca 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Expanding the "Legacy" section

[edit] Cold War assessments of the expulsions

What and why would we like to have it here ? The first passage about the Churchill speech seems to be related to territorial changes, not the expulsion (and still remains unreferenced).

The second part (Reece's speech) is relevant, but I'm not sure if we should not rather base the assessment on historic research, and not politicians.

Finally, Solzhenitsyn and Kopelev objecting during their military service is a little vague. Did they object to expulsion ? How exactly did they object ? How is it related to "cold war assessment" ?

--Lysytalk 08:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to menton Reece quite so explicitly and provide that level of detail. It was just interesting to me because it was something I found on Google. It's one of the few Internet citations that provides an estimate (awfully high at 3million) of deaths.
A replacement sentence could be..
During the Cold War, anti-Communists in the U.S. used the expulsions to excoriate the Soviet Union for alleged cruelty and inhumanity of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Because of the polemic nature of these allegations, estimates of deaths due to the expulsions tended to run higher than subsequent assessments by historians. [cite Congressman Reece's speech]
What do you think?
--Richard 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. I just would not like to risk confusing the obviously political facts with scholarly research, so it's better to be very clear about what and why is being cited. --Lysytalk 21:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-examination of the expulsions in the 1990s

I don't know what to do with these sentences:

In November and December 1993, an exhibit on the Ethnic Cleansing 1944-1948 was held at Stuart Center of De Paul University, in Chicago, where it[citation needed] was called an unknown holocaust, which had been forgotten about.
Reports have surfaced of both Czech nationalist as well as Soviet massacres of German civilians (see the book A Terrible Revenge). Also, some of the former German concentration camps were used as temporary camps for German civilians.

Where do they belong ? --Lysytalk 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you dropped these two sentences during the reorganization.
I understand that they seem to disrupt the flow and appear to be non sequiturs but I think they make important points and we need to find a way to include them. I think the problem is that they are singleton sentences where a fuller discussion of paragraph length would be more appropriate. Otherwise, they seem to be non sequiturs.


The first sentence about the De Paul University exhibition needs to be built on a foundation that sets up the idea that the whole sorry episode was almost deliberately suppressed from popular consciousness because it was considered unimportant or inconvenient. If this idea is "set up" first, then the sentence about the exhibition will make sense.
I admit that I was not really aware of this episode in history until I ran across this article via an RFC six months ago. I would wager that most Americans are not aware of it either.
The second sentence makes sense if it is set up with an introduction that says something like "Attempts to cast all the blame on the Soviets have been called into question by the revelation of involvement by Polish and Czech nationals."
--Richard 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem was that they seemed to be more general ("1944-1948", "holocaust", "concentration camps") and therefore relevant to the exodus events in the wider sense not only the expulsion. So I suppose they should go to the "Exodus" article back. Am I right here ? --Lysytalk 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solzhenitsyn note

I personally don't recall anything about Solzhenitsyn objecting "during his military service" to Red Army conduct in eastern Germany. I bvelieve he got in trouble for a letter to a friend criticizing Stalin.

However: Solzhenitsyn, who had been a Red Army captain in East Prussia, recorded in Volume One of The Gulag Archipelago that "all of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction." (P. 21 of U.S. paperback ed., 1973.) Sca 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, this does not seem to be related to "cold war assessment", and in fact does not seem very encyclopaedic at all. --Lysytalk 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-examination of the expulsions in the 1990s

Many re-examiners don't remember WWII (Erika Steinbach, Peter Glotz). Many recent German books are written by such people, who present idealized image of Nazi Germany, where any town had a working camp. Erika Steinach lived near Piaśnica execution place, not far from Stutthof. Xx236 11:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's your point ? --Lysytalk 12:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"who present idealized image of Nazi Germany" => Sorry, Xx236, but to allege that Peter Glotz idealized the image of Nazi Germany is simply not true and discredits a man who during all his lifetime as a politician, social scientist and journalist tried to mediate between Czechs and Germans! (194.9.5.10 13:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Anyway, what part of the article do you relate this to ? --Lysytalk 17:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Glotz' father managed a Jewish business in Nazi Prague, so he preferred to run away after the war. Legally he was able to stay because his wife was Czech (I don't know if the law was respected). Glotz' mother wanted to join her husband, she wasn't exactly expelled, the same for Peter. His book about the expulsion doesn't exactly "mediate" according to Eva Hahn. Xx236 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actively pursued by the Polish government in Exile ?

The border on Oder-Neisse line which historically had been a border of the Polish Piast dynasty, was actively pursued by the Polish government in Exile

It's not obvious. The statement should be removed. Xx236 12:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the sentence do you find dubious ? --Lysytalk 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See the title of the paragraph.

The government in exile wanted originally Upper Silesia (maybe till Opole), not Lower Silesia. Arciszewski declared he preferred Lwów and Wilno. The Western allies disn't care about any opinion of the Polish government since 1944 or even 1943. Western historians erroneously translate "Śląsk" as "Silesia". "Śląsk" meant Upper Silesia, even today there is Województwo Śląskie. Xx236 08:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish positions

In late ’44 or early ’45, after the Soviet-sponsored (Communist) "Lublin Poles" had announced their demand for the Oder-Neisse frontier, the Polish government-in-exile, in London, said it wanted "neither Breslau nor Stettin." Tomasz Arciszewski, its prime minister, told Churchill that Poland had no desire to push her border so far west as to include 8 million to 10 million Germans.

However, when the "Lublin Poles" were invited to the Potsdam conference in July 1945, their president, Bolesław Beirut, argued for the Oder-Neisse border by saying the Poles would get less territory from Germany than they were losing to Russia. At his point, even Stanisław Mikołajczyk, who in 1943 became prime minister of the (London) Polish government-in-exile after Władysław Sikorski was killed in a suspicious plane crash – and who earlier had opposed the Oder-Neisse Line – now supported it with the argument that Silesia had been an arsenal of German militarism and that Polish control of the Oder would prevent German arms exports.

"The Poles ... gulping down immense chunks of German territory, had obviously become ... ardent puppets" of the Soviets, Churchill commented in his memoirs.

Sources:

Churchill, Winston. Triumph and Tragedy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1953, p. 661.
Mee, Charles L. Meeting at Potsdam. New York: McEvan & Co. Inc., 1975, pp. 141-42.
Roos, Hans. A History of Modern Poland. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966, p. 214.
Sowden, J.K. The German Question. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1975, pp. 233-237.
Szaz, Zoltan Michael. Germany's Eastern Frontiers: The Problem of the Oder-Neisse Line. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1960, p. 81p.

Sca 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How can the sentence in the article be rephrased then, to reflect this ? --Lysytalk 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


My view is that this entire sentence ...
The border on Oder-Neisse line which historically had been a border of the Polish Piast dynasty, was actively pursued by the Polish government in Exile, which, under the pressure from the Soviet Union and its western allies, was looking for possible compensation for the Soviet-occupied eastern regions which Stalin was not willing to give back.
... takes a misleading tack — misleading in that it leads the reader to believe that the Oder-Neisse border was, at least primarily, a result of Polish initiatives and aspirations. Viewed in historical perspective, the Oder-Neisse Line (ONL) was a result primarily of Stalin's geopolitics, as was the Soviet acquisition of eastern Poland in '39. The "compensation" rationale was for public, mainly western-Allied, consumption as an act of retributive retaliation against Germany for the Nazis & WWII. This argument obscured the fact that it was, ethnographically, wholly unjustified. "Compensation" also presumably made the ONL more broadly acceptable to Poles both in Poland and Polish-American voters in the U.S., who were loathe to renounce claims to Wilno/Vilnius and L'wòw/L'vov, which had been (from the Polish POV) stolen in '39.
A basic logical fallacy in Stalin's rationale: If the Soviet acquisition of eastern Poland was unjust ethnographically, then eastern Poland should have been returned in '45; if it was just ethnographically, as Stalin presumably would have asserted, then Poland (now the USSR's client state) had no complaint and did not deserve "compensation." So what Stalin, that master manipulator, did at Yalta and Potsdam was to turn his '39 venture in cooperative aggression, partitioning Poland with Hitler, into an act of retroactive retribution against Germany, which was made to pay for Soviet aggression in '39 by forfeiting a fourth of its pre-Nazi territory to Poland in '45.
In all of this, I'm afraid, the Poles were pawns in the game of their more powerful neighbors. I don't view the demand by the "Lublin Poles" for the ONL as anything beyond a ploy by Stalin, who by 1939 exercised dictatorial control over the Soviet politburo, the Comintern and, I have no doubt, the Soviet-sponsored "Union of Polish Patriots" (the "Lublin Poles").
As far as the ONL having been "a border of the Polish Piast dynasty," I have to reiterate my view that this is a red herring, as it reaches back to an era vastly different from modern times and predating the gradual eastward expansion of German settlement and civilization. I believe this argument was repeated so many times by Polish Communist propagandists in 1945-89 that it has become widely accepted among Poles even though it ignores the ethnographic realities of that part of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. By the same logic, the southwestern U.S. should be returned to Mexico, Alaska should go back to Russia, and so on.
What does seem to be true, based on the reading I've done, is that during WWII various Poles, including some in the London government in exile, thought and argued that Poland should receive Danzig and East Prussia after the war, not due to ethnographic considerations, but because they felt Poland deserved these areas as compensatory rewards for Nazi-Germany's horrendously savage occupation and for geopolitical and economic reasons. Whether one would accept this argument in the context of conditions in 1945 depends on one's POV or basic beliefs.
Sorry again for being so wordy.
Sca 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Polish western frontiers have been typically further east (Germans were originally sourced west of the Vistula … but their migrations elsewhere caused Slav so go eastward to the point they at one point occupied much of what East Germany's borders were in Germany … only to have the Germans slowly migrate got it all back and then some [then some being anything east of the Vistua, like Prussia proper). I completely a Sca's comments here … I do not think this was much of a Polish initiative ... but more of Stalin wanting to ensure he could keep the territory he bargained with Hitler for. Nonprof. Frinkus 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated and thoroughly off-topic note: Mexico could indeed get back Northern Mexico again (Texas and California and everything in between) if demographic trends continue and protections for culture become more of an issue (other North American situations like this has been the province Quebec in Canada). Nonprof. Frinkus 05:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)\
We shouldn't carry off-topic discussions too far but I would like to comment that the above comment presumes that Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in Texas and California WANT Mexican government. Much of the reason that they are in the U.S. is because the Mexican economy is in the toilet as a result of decades of mismanagement and corruption.
A more accurate statement of the situation is that the United States is rapidly becoming a Hispanic country. In fact, according to one editorial I read in a Latin American newspaper, the U.S. already IS a Hispanic country if you consider the total number of Hispanics living there vis-a-vis in other Hispanic countries. Los Angeles has the second largest population of Mexicans outside of Mexico City.
Feel free to continue this off-topic discussion on my Talk Page.
--Richard 07:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, all analogies break down somewhere because every historical situation is different, but the Mexican/U.S. situation is the closest parallel I could think of, even though it took place over a much shorter period of time than the German eastward expansion — which if you go back to when the Germans were west of the Elbe, not just the Oder, went on for something like 800 years.

But as an aside, the thought that the Mexicans are, demographically speaking, "reclaiming" the Southwest has crossed my mind — though again it's more complex than that.

Another problem with the analogy is that the West Slavs dwelling east of the Elbe back at the start of the second millenium weren't really Polish in the modern sense, but more like proto-Polish, as I understand it. (I'm told the Kashubes are a similar group.) As most of us know, a few remnants of West-Slavdom remain in Saxony to this day — the Sorbs (or Wends).

Sca 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Poles" were also proto-Polish. I'm not an expert, but Western Slavs weren't cetrainly divided linguistically about 1000. Czech Hussite preachers of sermons were understood in Poland (i.e. even after 1414). The same probably for Sorbs. The division was made only by the rulers. Xx236 08:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lublin Poles" were nominet and controlled by Stalin. Osóbka-Morawski claimed later, that he opposed Stalin once, when he asked for a part of Białowieża Forest. Did any Lublin-Pole opposed Stalin regarding the Western border? Who and when? Did he survive? Xx236 08:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Forgot to mention that the western annexations also, presumably, made the idea of renouncing pre-'39 eastern Poland more acceptable to Poles in general. Not that they had a say in the matter.
I do understand that the west-Slavic languages have a lot of commonality. Many words are the same — like pivo! :-) Sca 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispution

Please make sure that all facts in this highly controversial article have appropriate citations otherwise it fails "Nationalist:bias" wikipedia policy. For example "German civilian casualties are estimated to number in the millions during the whole process of evacuation" as obvious nonsense without any citation, fact or qualified academic history research should not be there. Tulkolahten 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this does come as a surprise. After all the influence exerted by Richard and Lysy, is an allegation of recent German nationalist bias really tenable? You've given a total number of one example, writing that it was wrong to maintain the statement "German civilian casualties are estimated to number in the millions during the whole process of evacuation". There are many documents (my former history schoolbook being one of them, and more were cited, I believe, by an anon one or more talk:archives ago) saying - whether right or wrong - that over 2 million died, which in itself would verify the sentence. Moreover, a casualty is not limited to someone killed. Anyway, regardless of whether the sentence is acceptable or not - you've even deleted it already - please be careful not to jump to conclusions about the article's neutrality. It is understandable to be critical of an article's background but, in this case, you might have been to quick to draw a conclusion. Sciurinæ 13:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right I was too fast. But it was just an example. I reviewed that article several times including history and there are some more facts requiring citations where neutrality is a point of discussion. Tulkolahten 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sciurinae, thank you for the compliment. I have worked hard to push this article towards NPOV. However, I'm always open to hearing why people might think it's not neutral and unbiased. This is a difficult topic but I have learned a lot and am still learning. --Richard 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that two million died during the evacuation, Soviet-German fights AND expulsion. Naming "evacuation, Soviet-German fights AND expulsion" - expulsion - is German nationalistic propaganda.

Question to a native speaker - is "two millions" "in the millions"? Xx236 13:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sort of. If it really is only two million and not 3 million, we would say "a couple of million" or just "more than two million". --Richard 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII in this Wiki. It says that 1 300 000 German civilians died. It's not "in the millions". Should the discussion go to Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII discussion? Xx236 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know we discussed the 1.3 million number a few months ago when we were debating the creation of the "Estimates..." article but I don't see that number anywhere in the article. It probably should be mentioned if there is a reliable source to attribute it to. I personally think the "real" number is between 1.2 and 2.3 million. Numbers like 500,000 and 3 million are probably out of the range of reasonability but it is not our job to determine reasonability. We should mention the full range (oops, maybe the intro to this article should be changed to reflect the 500,000 number) and provide some indication of what the mainstream opinion is. I think the mainstream is 1.3-2.3 million.
--Richard 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I just found the 1.3 million number. It's buried in the table at the beginning of the "Example statistical computation" section. I think it's misleading to say that the "Estimates..." article says "1.3 million". That's just one of the numbers cited and the whole point of the article is that the range of estimates is pretty wide. --Richard 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
(You're distinguishing between the words evacuation and expulsion, like their difference was the difference as between flight and deportation. But the word evacuation can include both flight and deportation, can it not? And the word expulsion can include both flight and deportation. Or was the expulsion of Polish people by the Soviets a deportation? They were indirectly forced. And so were the Germans fleeing from the Red Army.
You're absolutely right that one or two million are hardly "in the millions". But maybe casualty is to you a killed person, while it wasn't to the author of the sentence. And even if the author was meaning a killed person, maybe he or she just couldn't summarise the range of estimates better than by saying "in the millions".)
All I'm trying to say with the two paragraphs above is that you shouldn't assume the wrong faith about the sentence. And the sentence is most unlikely proof that the article has now been hijacked by German nationalists. And the scrutiny by users like you support my argument. Please stick to the point I was trying to make in my response to Tulkolahten, which was, like I said, that regardless of whether the sentence is acceptable or not - it was even deleted already - please be careful not to jump to conclusions about the article's neutrality. It is understandable to be critical of an article's background but, in this case, you might have been to quick to draw a conclusion. Sciurinæ 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So this was the (very recent) edit you think is inappropriate. Why not just correct or remove it, rather than doubt the whole neutrality of the article? Sciurinæ 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of view of many Poles is that the whole "expulsionist culture" growing recently is German revisonism. The war meant death, only the happy ones survived. It's hard to understand that the survivors complain, especially those living in Western Germany. Neither Erika Steinbach nor Peter Glotz would have succeded in Communist Poland, Czechoslovakia nor in GDR).

DOes the article include the tragedy of Germans expelled from France or Belgium? Why not? It's not only bias, it's racism. Xx236 15:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"three million German civilians lost their lives" - no comments. Xx236 15:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"It's not only bias, it's racism." Xx236, please calm down a little bit and return to a more unemotional way to discuss - thank you. (194.9.5.10 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

In reference to Xx236's post, please keep politics out of here or put it unto another headline. No real connection to the talk subject anyway.
The expulsion of Germans after WW2 is universally understood to refer that in the east. The article makes the subject clear as early as in the first sentence.
That's picking it out of context. "Estimates vary by source, but it is generally accepted that between one and three million German civilians lost their lives" is the sentence in the article. And yes, three million is occasionally cited, like here. Sca has just written between one and a half and two million had lost their lives. It would be good if the discussion about the number was continued there, not under this headline.
I'm not sure whether you read what I write. You didn't seem to have clicked on the link to casualty in your first post under this headline and none of your three paragraphs is referring to my post above. On the contrary, I feel we're drifting off again. Sciurinæ 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my opinion about Western stereotypes -cultural imperialism or orientalism. Eastern under-people do terrible things, the West is pure. Why Anni-Frid Lyngstad isn't an expelee, Erika Steinbach is one? The other method isto put me out of the discussion as a crazy nationalist. Your stereotypes are better than my knowledge. Xx236 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

also the "DTV Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" (Atlas of World History) in its edition 2006 cites number of 3 Mio. overall German civilian casualties (194.9.5.10 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)) "overall" doesn't mean "during the expulsions". Xx236 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that this depends on the definition of expulsion. As for me, this notion comprises as well those who had flet before they could have been expelled and those who were not allowed to come back. By the way, please do not take it personnaly, but your comments are partly very aggressive and offending. Why don`t you try to discuss in a more unemotional way. (194.9.5.10 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Human cost

For those who are interested in this topic, I offer the following excerpt from an academic paper I wrote nearly 20 years ago, relying on sources available to me at the time:


Official German estimates of the German population of German and Polish territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line in 1944, before the Soviet advance, amount to about 11.9 million, including nearly 9.8 million in the territories themselves (borders of 1937). Figures cited by Hans Roos total about 10.1 million. This total includes 8.4 million in the Oder-Neisse territories, 400,000 in the former Free City of Danzig and 1.3 million in Poland, but does not include northern East Prussia, annexed by the Soviet Union (now the Kaliningrad Oblast).
The official German history estimates that about 7.5 million Germans fled from territories east of the Oder-Neisse in 1944-45, but says about 1.1 million later returned, and puts the number subsequently subject to expulsion at 5.6 million. The total expelled in 1945-50, according to the official history, was 3.5 million. This figure also is cited by Zoltan Szaz.
Germans remaining after 1950 in the Oder-Neisse territories and prewar Poland are put officially at 835,000 and 75,000 respectively, or 910,000 altogether. Roos, however, estimates 1,190,000 Germans remaining in the Oder-Neisse territories, 30,000 in Danzig and 430,000 in Poland. These do not include about 1 million "autochthons" – Polish-speaking or bilingual German citizens – in Upper Silesia, Masuria and West Prussia. Szaz says about 1.1 million Germans remained. Thus, it would appear that about 1 million, and possibly more, Germans remained after 1950.
(Note: A significant proportion of Germans remaining in postwar Poland were allowed to emigrate in the 1970s and '80s as a result of Brandt's Ostpolitik and other factors. Sca)
The official history, using prewar population figures, wartime estimates and postwar figures from both German states and Poland, concludes that 2,167,000 people from the Oder-Neisse territories died as a result of the war and the subsequent expulsions, but estimates that about 500,000 of these were military casualties, reducing the number of civilian deaths to about 1.6 million. To this it adds the deaths of 100,000 Danzigers and 217,000 German residents of Poland, for a total of about 1.9 million civilian deaths.
No breakdown is given in the official history of the proportion who died in the flight from the Red Army, during the occupation or during the expulsions, but an analysis of the figures indicates that about a third of the casualties must have occurred among those who fled during the conquest; the balance apparently occurred during the period of expropriation and expulsion.
Roos says approximately 7.2 million fled or were expelled from the Oder-Neisse territories put under Polish control, along with 380,000 Danzigers and 880,000 German-Poles. "Of these," he says, death claimed about 1.2 million from the territories, 90,000 Danzigers and 200,000 German-Poles, for a total of nearly 1.5 million civilian fatalities, not including those in northern East Prussia.
Walther Hubatsch says about 1.4 million Germans from the Oder-Neisse territories and 600,000 from other areas died, for total of about 2 million. Szaz mentions the 2.16 million cited by the official history, which includes military casualties, but elsewhere says "over 1 million" of the 3.5 million expelled from the territories lost their lives.
From these estimates it is evident that 1.5 million to 2 million German civilians lost their lives in the Soviet conquest of eastern Germany and subsequent expulsions.
Sources for this excerpt:
Hubatsch, Walther, ed.: The German Question, New York: Herder Book Center, 1967.
Roos, Hans: A History of Modern Poland, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966, pp. 213, 215-16.
Schieder, Theodor, ed.: Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe, Bonn (no date).pp. 62, 120, 122-23,.
Szaz, Zoltan Michael: Germany's Eastern Frontiers: The Problem of the Oder-Neisse Line, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1960, pp. 96, 126, 130.


Sca 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All the sources are 39 years or more old, based on German accusation written by former Nazi intelectuals. Xx236 12:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The above comment by Xx236 seems to betray an extremist mentality in which the simplest way to dismiss inconvenient information is to malign someone's reputation or character. Hitler and the Nazis were past masters at this technique, labeling everyone they didn't like as "Jewish," "Marxist," "godless" or "degenerate." The Soviets were good at it, too, and had all sorts of labels for those who opposed their ideas and ideology.
As to the sources being "old," historians generally consider age to be a endorsement of the authenticity of a document or account. For the modern era, contemporaneous newspaper reports often are considered a primary source, and eyewitness descriptions, obviously, are highly valued.
Every event in history must be considered in its historical context, and this context includes the attitudes and prejudices of the individuals involved. That's why in history, as in journalism, it's best to have multiple sources, if possible from both sides of a conflict, or from disinterested observers. Such balanced sources can be difficult to locate when describing wartime events.
While the books cited may reflect a German POV, that obviously doesn't make them ipso facto wrong, anymore than sources could be dismissed merely because they were Russian or Polish. I don't accept that the death-toll estimates in these sources can be dismissed as "propaganda," because:
— The entire history of Soviet (and to some extent, Polish and Czech) vengeful reprisals against the German population in the Oder-Neisse territories and Czechosolvakia is voluminously documented.
— The books cited were published well after the war and not subject to politically motivated censorship.
— Their authors were professional historians or journalists, and each book is a serious attempt to address an issue, based in part on demographic data.
Sca 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See above, you do exactly the same you criticize.

A number of former Nazis were involved in the Documentation..., some of them involed in designing Nazi expulsions in the III Reich. Is there any rule that writing about facts is wrong in the English Wiki?

Some German authors criticize the Documentation... as biased. It's legal to criticize the Documentation.... I don't criticize the crimes but the bias of some German authors, working during the Cold war.

The minister was Theodor Oberländer, who took part in Hitler's putsch of 1923. His student Theodor Schieder was the chief-editor, who during the war demanded Entjudung Restpolens. Werner Conze prented his antisemitic views even in 1953. More in [1]

Their authors were professional historians or journalists, and each book is a serious attempt to address an issue, based in part on demographic data. - do you mean Schieder? Xx236 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. How do you reconcile the numbers in your essay against those in Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII? The "Estimates..." article suggest 13.6 to 16.8 million expelled with 1.3 to 2.3 deaths. Your numbers are much lower. What would account for the difference? --Richard 22:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


My paper was concerned primarily with the pre-1937 Reich territories annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union, plus the Free City of Danzig — the prewar (German) population of which totaled around 10 million. However, I did note elsewhere in the paper that altogether 16 million to 17 million Germans — either German citizens or ethnic Germans in other countries — were subject to the rigors of expropriation and expulsion in 1945-50.
The 1.5 million to 2 million casualties referred to above do not include those among ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania or Lithuania. My impression has been that most of the casualties occurred during the last months of the war in 1945 or during the mass expulsions from territories annexed by Poland and the USSR in 1945-46, and that later expulsions or so-called "repatriations" involved less arbitary violence.
Sca 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Article does not mention these casualties were caused by the conditions of expulsion under the red army. It should be mentioned. Tulkolahten 08:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It does kind of mention it but I agree that the current revision does not highlight this aspect. How would you propose to change the article to address this? --69.236.173.181 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) --Richard 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the above query. Let's put it this way. These people would not have died if they'd been allowed to remain in their own homes and land which was rightfully German. They died as a result of the jointly agreed Allied policy of ethnic cleansing. Whether it was 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 dead really makes no odds. It was an utterly disgraceful policy that caused untold suffering to millions of people and will forever more be an appalling stain on the Allied leaders concerned, namely, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Andrew 18th November 2006

Just one other thing to add. Is anyone aware that Winston Chrchill stood up in the House of Commons on December 15th 1943 and said in a speech, ...the total expulsion of Germans from the Eastern territories is what is proposed. It was an official policy of the Allies to kick out all Germans from their own lands in the East. That policy cost more than a million lives. You can discuss this until the cows come home. Page after page after page. Whatever anyone thinks, this policy was a disgrace. No matter what, there was no excuse for it. All those men, all those women and all those children died as a result of Allied policy and it was wrong. In a thousand years of discussion it will still be wrong. Nothing that Hitler or anyone under him did can ever excuse Allied ethnic cleansing on that scale and death on that scale and that's that!! Andrew. 19 November 2006

Any day brings disgraceful acceptance of starvation and genocide. Churchill had much more reasons to hate the Germans when Auschwitz KZ was working than the contemporary politicians have reasons to do business as usuall.

Churchill wasn't able to fully preview in 1943 the situation in Eastern Europe under the Soviets in 1945. Quite many people aren't able to accept the truth till today - see the USSR article. Xx236 13:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] many of whom were expellees themselves from lands further east

Citizens of the SU (not only Russians) colonized deserted areas in the West, replaced Germans and Poles. It was kind of "Drang nach Westen". Does a Western reader understand this from the article? Xx236 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a german-speaking person I am able to understand the term "Drang nach Westen". But for a non-german-speaking person this term needs an explication, I presume. Perhaps the historical tendencies of polish or russian "Drang nach Westen" should be presented and explained in a special article. (user, Nov. 16th, 2006)

As far as I know Stalin wasn't under Polish influence, when he designed the post-war Europe. Xx236 13:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] further documentations and a forum of documentation and discussion seems to be necessary

I think this Wikipedia-forum helps to inform and to understand. But for the difficult and controversal topic of expulsions we need an independent science-center of international documentation and discussion. It is necessary, because it gives a face to those human beings who lost their lives and who suffered a lot. It is also necessary, to help us understanding the human character and the history and avoiding problems in today's international conflicts. (User, Nov. 16th, 2006)

I prefer to study mass executions first. The evacuation of prisoners from e.g. Auschwitz, too. Xx236 13:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing countries

There are missing France, Belgium, Nederland, Italy. Tulkolahten 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Norway. Xx236 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's explore this. I say the following based on personal speculation and not on the basis of knowledge so feel free to correct me (not that you needed my permission to do so).

I think the difference between "expulsion" in Eastern Europe and "expulsion" in Western Europe is the difference both in scale and in nature of the expulsions.

I don't think anyone is claiming that expulsions on the order of millions of people occurred in Western Europe. I do believe that small groups of Germans may have felt it desirable to leave but it is my sense that these were more about societal pressures rather than due to an official government policy. I suspect that the governments involved did nothing to protect German minorities within their borders and may have encouraged the societal pressures by turning a blind eye towards any actions taken to pressure German minorities to leave. (cf. the case of Anni-Frid Lyngstad's mother)

This is partly because of the difference between the Western governments and the Stalinist regimes and also because there were no major border changes in the West.. However, a major reason is that there were not large communities of Volksdeutsche in Western Europe.

I haven't hearad of any major expulsions from Western Europe. The one area that I know of in Western Europe that had a significant ethnic German minority is Alsace-Lorraine. The following text is from that article:

When Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France after the war, the fact that many young men from the area had served (in many cases by force) in the German Army, and even the Waffen SS, resulted in tensions between Alsace-Lorraine and other parts of France.
The French government pursued in line with traditional French language policy an "anti-German" policy. The German language as well as the local Germanic dialect Elsässisch were for a time banned from public life (street and city names, official administration, the educational system, etc). Largely due to this policy, Alsace-Lorraine is today very French in language and culture. Few young people speak Elsässisch today, yet the closely related Alemannisch is alive on the opposite bank of the Rhine, in Baden, and especially in Switzerland.

If you wish expulsions in the Western European countries mentioned above to be included in this article, then please document the scope and nature of those expulsions.

Note that I am not saying that there is no place in Wikipedia to document the treatment of German minorities in Western Europe after World War II. What I am saying is that the nature and scope of the two situations are so radically different that it is inappropriate to deal with them in the same article.

If there is sufficient material to document prejudice, persecution and expulsion of Germans from Western Europe after World War II, then I would propose that a separate article be created with links between the new article and this one.

--Richard 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's something about Operation Black Tulip, which would need to be linked with a short text.Anonytroll 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... As I said, the scale of expulsions in Western Europe was much smaller. Let's see what other material we can find on expulsions in Western Europe and determine whether we need a separate article for those or whether to have a small section on them in this article. --Richard 20:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] radically different

  • The same the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe was radically different, but Western writers believe that their countries were under Nazi occupation and this Wiki doesn't stress the difference (France - one burned village, Czech Republic - one, Poland - hundreds - how many names of the villages do you know?)
  • The best known expelee is Erika Steinbach. The history of her family wasn't in any way more tragic, that the history of Germans expelled from Western Europe. So either Erika isn't a typical expelee or the article Expulsion of Germans after World War II should include any part of Europe.

Xx236 12:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are there parallels between the concept of racial hygiene ("legitimation" for the holocaust) and the concept of creating ethnically homogeneous states and territories ("legitimation" for the expulsions)?

Are there scientific publications or internet-articles about this topic? (User 82.207.181.26, Nov. 16th, 2006)

The following is based on personal speculation so, once again, feel free to correct me if I get this wrong.
While there are some surface similarities between racial hygiene and ethnic cleansing, I believe that the concept of racial hygiene did not play a major role in the expulsions documented in this article.
The major unique feature of racial hygiene is the concept of race and genetics (eugenics). This concept argues that you are who you are by dint of your parents race and genetics and that what you think and how you act is irrelevant to the "pollution" caused by your inferior genes. Thus, Hitler could argue for an Aryan super-race that was polluted by Jewish, Slavic and other inferior races. If you had any forebears from a non-Aryan race, you were suspect.
In contrast, ethnic cleansing is more about removing those of a different ethnicity where ethnicity is usually marked by language, religion and customs. Those considered to be a different ethnicity might be of the same race (e.g. Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda). It is hard to argue that Poles and Germans are of different races unless you are a Nazi. To most people, they are just different ethnicities of the Caucasian race. It is similarly hard to argue that the various ethnic groups (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians) in the the former Yugoslavia are of different races. As far as I know, the major differences are language and religion.
As a thought experiment, consider the case of a German woman married to a Polish man in the first half of the 20th century. If the family spoke Polish at home and raised their children as Poles (i.e. Polish-speaking Catholics), would that family have been expelled? I doubt it. If you agree, then you can see that the expulsions of ethnic Germans may have been motivated by ethnic cleansing but not by racial hygiene.
Hope that helps.
--Richard 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A note of clarification: Please do not take what I wrote above to mean that I think ethnic cleansing is any more justified or moral than racial hygiene. I'm just commenting that they are different in their purported justifications. --Richard 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Purely my opinion based on my research of many ethnicities as different times in the past, "creating ethnically homogeneous states" is a form of ethnic cleansing, which ranks pretty high on the scale of crimes against humanity. I agree with Richard in that racial hygiene implies more, such as eugenic motives, etc.. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. From my point of view there are differences and parallels between the two concepts: One parallel is that both concepts are intending a territory with a homogeneous population. The difference is: the concept of racial hygiene is intending a homogeneous population regarding the criterium "race" (whatever "race" might be), the concept of ethnically homogeneous states is intending a homogeneous population regarding the criterium "ethnicity". A second difference is that the concept of racial hygiene has led to more extreme forms and methods in political practice in history (example: the holocaust - not only expulsion but also extinction of millions of people in an industrially organised process). (User, Nov. 17th, 2006)
Yes, I think I agree with what you wrote but I would also point out that this discussion seems only tangentially related to this article and so is probably not really appropriate to this Talk Page. Specifically, Wikipedia Talk Pages are not intended as general discussion forums but rather for discussions specifically about improving the article associated with the Talk Page. Thus, if your points would improve the Ethnic cleansing or Racial hygiene articles, they should be raised on the appropriate Talk Page. To the extent that those topics should be discussed in this article, we can discuss what points need to be raised in this article and where. Otherwise, this discussion, while interesting, is not appropriate for this Talk Page.
--Richard 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if "User" above were a registered user. Sca 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please consider getting an account. --Richard 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there is another parallel. Both concepts are political (psychological) instruments to get controll about people: By dividing the people in "good people" and "bad people" I can get an effective controll about the "good people". They feel supported and they feel interested in my visions an promises. By that way I can get also controll about the "bad people", because they feel fear. If I divide the people in these people (minority) who should be expelled and those people (majoritiy) who should get the property of the expellees I shall have big support in a labile society which feels insecure. User:toto61 7 December 2006

"user" said: The difference is: the concept of racial hygiene is intending a homogeneous population regarding the criterium "race" (whatever "race" might be), the concept of ethnically homogeneous states is intending a homogeneous population regarding the criterium "ethnicity".

you were right in saying "whatever race might be", many people use race and ethnicity interchangeably, especially here on Wikipedia I have noticed. since saying "race" can often make you look racist in the current times, they have replaced it with the word ethnic. when someone says "ethnic _______" I think of the general characterization of that nationality/race/ethnicity, so for instance when someone says "ethnic Nigerian" I think of a black man, not someone resembling Saint Nicholas. these are highly complicated terms as one persons ideas about race/ethnicity are totally different than anothers. for instance, one person can see all Caucasians as one ethnic group/race, and another person can see every nationality or distinct culture within Caucasians as a different race or ethnic group. this is seen in this article well, as the term "ethnic German" is used to describe basically everyone that was expelled. but what is ethnic German? is a mennonite an ethnic German? there blood line is still 100% German since they emigrated to the new world hundreds of years ago, so what makes one German. the term is used on wikipedia to avoid using the word race and is used by many nationalists to describe us and them

--Jadger 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Re the comment above that begins, "A number of former Nazis were involved in the Documentation," apparently from User Xx236 (two times three is six?) — I have an open mind regarding the sources for my paper, which as I've said is almost 20 years old and was written using the few sources that were available to me at the (pre-Internet) time. I am not a professional historian and do not claim to be presenting the last word on this complex topic.

I certainly would never endorse the Nazis' program of "ethnic hygiene," either in Germany or in the areas they conquered. I am no fan of ethnic cleansing no matter who does it. (BTW, had I been born in Germany 20 years before I was born in the U.S., it's quite likely I would have been "euthenized" due to childhood physical/medical problems.)

That said, to dismiss the events by labeling my sources as "Nazi" or to say that they have been criticized (I'm all for critical evaluation of everything) would be another example of what I objected to before: Discounting information by maligning its sources. As I've said repeatedly, the history of the events themselves should be reported without descending into ethnically or politically motivated vituperation.

I will read and evaluate the "Freitag" article linked to above. Thank you. Sca 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I’ve read the article. I was not aware that Schieder had been a Nazi sympathizer or fellow-traveler. Whether he was actually a convinced Nazi, or merely sailed before the prevailing political winds to further his career, I do not know. I do know there was tremendous pressure on academics to at least pay lip-service to Nazi ideology.
Thus, it’s not surprising that a young German history professor would have spouted, and perhaps espoused, Nazi rhetoric in 1939-40, as the article states. Gleichschaltung was a fact of life in the Third Reich – and this sort of pressure to conform seems to have been even more pervasive and intense in Nazi Germany than it was in the Stalinist Soviet Union.
This observation is not meant to excuse anyone or anything. Nazi ideology and policies were reprehensible. The annexations and expulsions were set in motion by Nazi-German aggression and atrocities. Having said that, I see nothing in the cited article that disproves or even seriously questions the essential veracity of the eyewitness accounts collected in the Documentation. Granted, some of the statements contain language and terminology that reflect the attitudes and prejudices of those who made them. As I said above, "Those Germans who, in the final months of the war and thereafter, experienced the wrath of the Soviets, Poles and Czechs would have reflected the broad attitudes of German society…"
That does not mean that what happened to them was anything other than ethnically based expropriation and expulsion, often under brutal conditions. It does not change the fact that some millions of Germans were subject to these actions, or that 1.5 million to 2 million of them lost their lives in the process. This aspect of the whole history of Nazism, WWII and its aftermath is not generally known in the West, and in my view should be included in this massive story of humankind’s inhumanity to humankind.
Sca 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"that 1.5 million to 2 million of them lost their lives in the process". No, they didn't. Your numbers include many processes, eg. US bombs, SU navy, Nazi terror. Even the Center against Expulsions doesn't support your numbers.

Ten of thousands of Slavic women were raped by Soviet soldiers, the majority of them never registered their accounts because of highly conservative society and Soviet rules.

The other side of the "ethnically based expropriation and expulsion" was that Germans were allowed to emigrate to the West and thousands of Slavs and Balts were deported to Siberia. Millions lost everything during collectivization and nationalization. More than one million of Poles expelled (or running away) from the SU travelled in comparable conditions as the German fugitives, in cattle cars, terrorized by criminals and police.

In 1944 all Warsaw people were expelled, many of them into Nazi camps, the city destroied. Is there one book in English~/German describing the expulsion?

"see nothing in the cited article that disproves or even seriously questions the essential veracity of the eyewitness accounts collected in the Documentation. "

We are discussing the numbers and opinions, not individual tragedies. However any source should be proessionally evaluated.

BTW - recently a group of liberal Germans wanted to publish a number of female accounts of 1945. They had to correct them because of the racist anti-Slavic language of the accounts. The Nazi rules influenced both Germans and Slavs. Their master/slave relationship inverted in January 1945 but the ideas remined. Xx236 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an article Theodor Schieder in German Wiki. Xx236 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a bitter lesson it allegedly had learned in 1938

A minority destroied a democratic state, is such lesson alleged? The conclusion was probably wrong but the problem existed. I believe that the word alleged has been added to attack Czechs rather than to explain anything. Xx236 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "any source should be professionally evaluated," although I'm not sure what "professionally" means in the context of our little discussion here.
As I've said repeatedly, in various ways, on Wiki over the last couple of years, I make no excuses whatever for the crimes, atrocities, genocide, etc., committed on a gigantic scale by Nazi Germany. But again I ask the question: Do the wrongs done by Germans to others make the wrongs done by others to Germans — mostly other Germans — right? And whatever one's answer to that question is, should not the entire story be reported, whatever it is?
The basic enabling phenomenon of all the human pathologies we're talking about — racism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, violence, war, genocide, etc., etc. — is dehumanization of other people. I maintain that Germans were human, too. That is what makes the entire story of Hitler/WWII so distressing but also so crucially important.
Sca 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream of German historiography and the radical BdV wing select certain expulsions (Germans expelled by states in the East) forgetting others - evacuation of Jews and other prizoners called Death marches (Holocaust)("Schindler's list" is about this process), expulsions from Western countries and the Soviet Union, executions of deserters. It's a kind of dehumanization under the banner of human rights. Only some leftist and Jewish authors oppose such division.

Poland cooperates with German historians publishing documents of the expulsion. I don't know about such cooperation with Kaliningrad historians.

A Wrocław theater presents a documentary play by Jan Klata. 5 German and 5 Polish old refugees speak about their expulsions in 1945.

An average Pole knows history of WWII much better than an average German. I believe that Germans should learn about their crimes in the East during WWII if they learn about their tragedies, but they don't. An explanation - we have 20 non-German children in many German classrooms. How to teach them German history? Xx236 14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Germany do need any coaching with regard to the coming to terms with its past. (194.9.5.10 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Wow, Xx do you have any references or proof that backs up your claim that "An average Pole knows history of WWII much better than an average German". That smacks of a racial superiority complex, how can you even evaluate and place the two systems of education side by side and claim one is better than the other when they are so different. Of course, one could always cite the fact that Germany has much better, and often prestigious post-secondary institutions in Germany, whereas Poland generally isn't a place one thinks of when you say higher education.
--Jadger 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Another stereotype from the Cold War era.
Space Cadet 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jedger, you seem to ignore what happened to Polish academicians during WWII. Thousands of them were murdered by the cultural Germans. Xx236 08:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

well than correct me and name a number of outstanding Polish Universities that outclass German ones, perhaps look [2] or perhaps [3] the second is from the EU, you can hardly argue with that.

but this has gone off-topic, my point was that you can't make claims about such a specific topic without quizzing every German and every polish student on WWII questions, which would bring up a dilemma, what are the questions? Western Europe or the Eastern Front?

--Jadger 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, do you understand what I'm writing about? Germans murdered almosty all Jewish academicians in Poland and many gentiles, too. You seem to be happy with it. Xx236 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

xx, you obviously don't understand what we are talking about, you made claims that Poles know more than Germans and learn more in school, an obvious racist and nationalistic superiority comment. I pointed out that German universities are some of the most prestigious universities in the world. Now why are you claiming that Germans killed all the professors? that was 60+ years ago, the professors would all be dead today by natural causes, so you can't possibly claim that Nazi Germany made the current educational system in Poland bad. btw, it is rather manipulative for you to post before my posts with newer comments, in order to make it look like I have been avoiding your accusations and lead the unwary readers astray
--Jadger 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking German is common in Poland, Germans don't learn Polish. Poles watch tens of German TV channels, Germans don't watch the Polish ones, partially because of the technical and financial superiory of Germany. Poles learn about German history and culture at school, Germans rather don't learn about Polish history and culture at school. There are researches confirming my point of view. Which research says, that Germans know about Poland, Jadger sir?

German outstanding universities teach eventually about Russia, not about small Eastern nations. Please, learn before you teach.

Xx236 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

lol, your whole comment is a general stereotyping of all Germans.

"Poles watch tens of German TV channels, Germans don't watch the Polish ones, partially because of the technical and financial superiory of Germany." Point being? I live in Canada and most the TV we watch is American, what is your point? TV for the most part doesn't educate, we are talking about the education systems in the two countries (which is off-topic), not about the latest episode of [desperate housewives].

"There are researches confirming my point of view. Which research says, that Germans know about Poland, Jadger sir? " please cite some of these "researches" Xx, so that one can atleast read them and be enlightened.

we were not talking about whether or not they teach about German research on Poland, but the differing education systems in the two

and BTW, German is a dominant world language, being the language of Engineering and other subjects, not the least of which is cultural (Goethe's writings for example). German is 2nd most common language books are published in, so learning German may be needed for continuing education. Polish on the other hand is not nearly as prevalent. Most English speakers don't learn Polish, so are you saying that all people who don't speak Polish are ignorant of matters concerning Poles? Or is it just all Germans who don't speak Polish who are ignorant?

--Jadger 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, I would call you way of discussion hostile. Would you please consider that about 50% of my family was persecuted during WWII, by Germans and their Soviet allies, many of them died. How many members of your family were murdered by Poles to explain your attitude?

  • A historian of Central Europe should speak not only German and/or Russian. No historian, except Irving, writes history of the Holocaust using only non-Jewish sources. The majority of Western historians of Central Europe quote German/Russian/French sources and are happy with it.
  • German public TV presents many documentaries. Even private Sat1 has shown many popular ones. You can find listings of those broadcasts, even of those archival ones. Guido Knopp has presented many TV documentaries and written popular books. Ther are also movies - Hollywood ones (Schindler's List), German ones Downfall (film).

Xx236 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call Schindler's list an authorative source for anything but how to make lots of money off of the suffering of millions. Spielberg didn't even create a sensible movie that followed any real history. for instance, the Kommandant's house was not really on top of the hill IRL, and his taking potshots at prisoners was a total fabrication. der Untergang is my favourite movie of all time, I fail to see your point. unless of course, your point was to reinforce my point that German is a world-dominant language as people around the world watch german movies, but most have never heard of a single Polish one.
none of my family were murdered by Poles, as my family was fighting to free the Poles and all the other people being forced to live under Nazi tyranny, including the freeing of the Germans as well. as for explaining my attitude, what do you mean? I am not a racist or have any superiority complex as your posts above have clearly shown you do. whereas your family being persecuted clearly shows you have an axe to grind, Wikipedia is not a place to grind your axe, i'd suggest writing a blog instead of disturbing all these other users
--Jadger 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futility

This is like trying to discuss religion with fundamentalists: It's futile. However, let me state for the record that I will never agree with anyone who contends that the Germans, in general, don't know the history of the Nazi occupations, expulsions, genocides, Holocaust, etc., etc. It's been done and done and done.

I'm very sorry to have to say this, but: These circular, futile discussions tend to reinforce an impression I had before but was trying to get beyond: That some Poles simply don't want the world to know about what was done to the Germans in 1945-50 — and in some cases, about the ethnographic history of the former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line.

I'm not trying to start another argument or offend anyone. I'm just stating what my impression — as an American who's taken a deep interest in the whole topic over a period of decades — has been.

Just once on Wiki, I'd like to hear a Polish person say: We are sorry, too, for what was done to the Germans. I heard a Polish person say something like that once when I lived in Warsaw. It's interesting to note that her family had been compelled to move from what's now Lithuania to Pomerania; perhaps that gave her some insight into what the other side experienced. At this point, as far as Wiki is concerned, I'm just tired of the whole "discussion," if it can be called that.

Sca 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


ditto, my thoughts exactly

--Jadger 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Sca, comparing me with a fundamentalist just because I resist against (anchorless and unfounded) allegations like WWII is not subject to German history lessons or German Wiki is biased with regard to what happened in Poland under German occupation, appears quite unreflected and, hence, unfair to me. (194.9.5.10 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Słucham? Sca

Slucham = you do not understand what I talk about? No problem: I referred to your statement "This is like trying to discuss religion with fundamentalists" => ahora comprendes la conexiòn? te saludo (194.9.5.10 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)) ps: nonsence is of course nonsense...

I still don't get what you're trying to say about "German history lessons," etc., and at this pt. I don't care. Re the comparison with fundamentalists, I wasn't talking specifically about you, whoever you are.
PS: I don't speak Spanish. I do know of one Polish Wikipedian who does, but he has a different User signature, and his English is better, so apparently you're not him. Sca


As you, as you wrote, do actually not care at all what I tried to say I guess I do not have to waste my time by giving further explanation.

Ps: Like you do not speak Spanish I do not speak Polish and my response in Spanish was therefore a (funny) reply to your Polish "Slucham?" (it took me some time before I found out that it is Polish and what it means). Thus, suprisingly, I am not Polish (although I speak Spanish). Last but not least, please excuse my poor English which definitively requires some improvement (like your German). (194.9.5.10 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

True, my German grammar is pretty shabby, but I can read German quite well. As to Polish, I don't speak it — I just know a few words & phrases from when I lived in Warsaw for a while. So, I assumed you were Polish, which goes to show one should never assume anything. Sca


If you claim that I "don't want the world to know what was done to the Germans in 1945-50 — and in some cases, about the ethnographic history of the former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line" - prove it. How do I prevent the knowledge to be dpread? Do I censor, imprison the authors?

I claim that the world, especially Germany, doesn't want to know about German crimes against non-Jewish Poles. It's obvious that German history books , including the school textbooks, concentrate on German history, not the history of crimes against ethnic Poles. Check the German WIki, you will find hundreds biased articles. Now the German point of view comes to the English Wiki, because of you cultural stereotypes.

My position is that Germany (frequently former Nazi politicians and academicians) created the idea of "expulsion" which contains German crimes and errors in 1944, war, Soviet crimes (including the area of the future GDR, where no expulsion took place) AND expulsion. The role of the Soviet Union is being minimalized, the one of Poland and Czechoslovakia overestimated. Xx236 08:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Check the German WIki, you will find hundreds biased articles." ok, Xx236, now I really fed up with your unfounded allegations. Please quote at least five of the hundreds of biased articles in order to prove what you said. Not to mention that you presumably do not even speak German, you will not be able to quote just five. So, come on, I am looking forward to receive the list! But otherwise: please stop this nonsence! (194.9.5.12 09:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

194.9.5.12

Wir sollen uns hier kümmern nicht um was in deutsche Wiki steht oder nicht steht, sondern um was in unser englischen Wiki steht. Ich bearbeite dem englischen, nicht deutschen, Seite, weil ich kein deutscher bin. Sca

Would you please concentrate on the subject rather than on my personality? I do speak German enough to understand 99% of the German Wiki texts about Poland. This forum isn't the right place to discuss the German Wiki, I have answered you in German nationalistic bias in German Wikipedia. Would you please read German Wikipedia before you write nonsence? Xx236 11:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The word is nonsense. Sca

Memorandum - the situation of the Slavistic in Germany. Xx236 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What? You wrote: German Wiki is full of bias. And when I ask you to please quote at least five of these hundreds and hundreds of biased articles you tell me that this is not the place to discuss German Wiki?! So why do you talk about in the first place? Sorry, but this level of discussing is simply to low for me. Either you prove your statements or please refrain from alleging - sorry - such nonsence. By the way, the quoted article is not a Wiki article. (194.9.5.10 11:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Talk:German Wikipedia contains my answer. It is in Wikipedia.

Would you please be more polite, sir. Xx236 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider my statements to be unpolied. However, in case you felt offended by it I hereby beg your pardon. Your answer does merely repeat what you have alleged here but no prove is given whatsoever. Although one has actually not to prove to be not guilty, please refer (for example) to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polen#Zweiter_Weltkrieg_1939-1945 and tell me which information is missing there making the article biased. (194.9.5.10 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

At first, sorry. I know this isn't a discussion forum and I managed to just read and not comment anything so far. But at this point I can't help myself. Dear Xx236, I am shocked about your (unfounded) percecption of Germany. I don't know how you imagine history is being taught in school here. Erika Steinbach herself teaching us the "Bund der Vertriebenen"-version about WWII? Rather not. Believe me WWII, the Holocaust and the other shamful chapters of German history are being teached extensively and its not a chapter of our history we are particulary proud about. But at some point I feel like I want to stop apologise about what happened back then and just get the facts straight. That doesn't make me a nationalistic POV-pusher. This is wikipedia, a place for facts... To come back to the German history lessons: XX236, I am sorry, that in school we learn about the "crimes against ethnic Poles" not before, but only after the Holocaust. By the way I have learned almost nothing about the expulsions in school at all! I can only speak for that former East-German school I went to and don't know if it was taught in other schools or the West. But everything I know about the topic, is what I read later on. Now talking about biased articles: How come there is no link to this article in the Polish Wikipedia? Even the Japanese Wikipedia has it. I am sure there must be some article covering expulsions in the Polish wikipedia, no? After all its the 4th biggest Wikipedia articlewise and subjects about Polish history are especially well covered. --Splette :) How's my driving? 15:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. unnamed editor you might consider getting an account if you edit regularly

Erika Steinbach wants to teach German children and she started in Berlin, where many schools visited the Erzwungene Wege.

I don't think that the article deserves to be linked, because it is biased. BTW War crimes of the Wehrmacht has false link to German Wiki and doesn't have one to Polish Wiki. Bombing of Wieluń doesn't have any link, the same Bombing of Frampol.

The 4th place of the Polish Wiki is the result of automatic generation of thousands of articles about nothing. You may check the lenghth of the articles, the number of pictures. Xx236 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other-language versions

I see from the "in other languages" box that there are versions of this article on the German (of course), Hungarian and Romanian Wiki sites, but apparently no Russian, Polish or Czech versions. How can this be?

PS: Can someone (an administrator, perhaps) please archive this page? It's getting overlong. Thanks. Sca 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd think they are simply not linked. The German Wikipedia link for example is to an article about expulsions in general (with some specific ones, though). I'd guess it is the same for these language Wikis. Anonytroll 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] /* Expulsions of Germans in the west of the Oder-Neisse line by Poland */ Please put new posts at the bottom of the page; it makes them easier to find and more likely to be read

Poland's western borders have been determined by the allies during the Potsdam Conference in summer 1945 by the term Oder-Neisse line. This term means that the rivers of Oder and Neisse should mark the future western borders of Polish administration. But in July 1945 - regardless of the Potsdam Conference - the Soviet Union handed over territories in the west of the Oder-Neisse line (including the important city and port of Stettin) to Poland. After this transfer to Poland organised expulsions of Germans began also in these territories in the west of the Oder-Neisse line. (user, 1 December 2006)

I'm going to add this to the article. Anon user (User: 82.207.181.26), please consider getting an account. Here's some reasons why.
--Richard 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The text about Stettin should be corrected.

BTW- which geographical names should be used - historical or current? The states are named using current names, e.g. Czech Republic and cities have historical names - Stettin. Strange. Xx236 12:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashubians?

Was the fate of Kashubians specific in any way? Upper Silesians had exactly the same problems living between Germans and Poles and their number was bigger. Xx236 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masurians

The fate of the Masurians also should be included. Sca 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet-occupied ?

Czechoslovakia was quite independent 1945-1948. Xx236 12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 400 000 - 473 000

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung of November 14, the total number of victims of the expulsion was estimated being 473 000 (1964) or 400 000 (1974). Do you really know the subject better than the author - Ingo Haar? Xx236 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But it gets even better! The Federation of Expellees disagrees[[4]] with his numbers. The man should be beatified alongside Ralph Giordano. Anonytroll 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, my bad. Ralph Giordano may constantly bash Germany, but he's for the Centre against expulsions, thus does not qualify. Anonytroll 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not The Federation of Expellees but Erika Steinbach. The late Peter Glotz opposed the ZgV data and was its president at the same time. Xx236 08:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think them having it on their website should count for something, though. Anonytroll 12:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm old enough to rememeber people like Sartre, Joliot-Curie, Ezra Pound being on someone's Webpage. Historical research isn't based on votes and intelectuals, but rather on critics of sources. Xx236 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. I posted critique of Haar's numbers, which quotes different numbers from other sources. Anonytroll 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expelees who died in Denmark

Since most of the victims who died at the hands of the Danes in 1945 were expellee’s, (as stated in the Spiegel article), I think the subject of Danish treatment of the refugees should be inserted somewhere in the article. Der Spiegel article, Deutsche Welle article --Stor stark7 Talk 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/x/p/Talk%7EExpulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II_5ceb.html"