Talk:Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portal:Law
 Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
This article was created by splitting overly lengty section from the article Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Previous disscussion can be found there.

Temporarily removed, as it isn't estimates of number of deaths.

A German source from the mid-1980's [1] gives the following estimates of the population transfers.

German Expellees
Expelled from Number expelled
Eastern Germany 7,122,000
Danzig 279,000
Poland 661,000
Czechoslovakia 2,911,000
Baltic States 165,000
USSR 90,000
Hungary 199,000
Romania 228,000
Yugoslavia 271,000


--Wikimol 10:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And so, perhaps this is a problem with the title of the article. Someone suggested that the article be something along the lines of Historiography of the expulsion of Germans after WWII. This isn't quite Historiography. Can someone suggest a better name for the article that covers both the number of expellees and the number of deaths?

--Richard 16:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, but to be titled Historiography of the expulsion of Germans after WWII the content would have to be different.
Now I feel the current article is of general use, not only as a dump for main Expulsion article. The estimate is quoted in several pages, where its possible to give the range + link here for details. It seems to me thats better than previous way (to pick one estimate + add some weasel words).
Maybe the table can be simply returned to Expulsion article - the estimates of population size don't differ that much and arent so politicaly flamable.--Wikimol
Done. --Richard 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Apples & Oranges

The data listed by Reichling on the number of German expelee deaths is 2.020 million which includes 310,000 from the USSR. The German government estimate of 1958 was 2.1 million deaths for Eastern Europe but excluding the USSR. The two sets of data are not comprable and should be mentioned in the article.--Woogie10w 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So do it. Be bold!

--Richard 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another German sources

  • Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000

Why on German source is canonical and others are ignored? BTW - the link above the table is empty. Xx236 09:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. the link was in the article:

  • Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen. Bonn: Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen (Cultural Society of the German Expellees). ISBN 3-88557-046-7, 72.

Cultural Society of the German Expellees was a very biased institution in 1986. I haven't found any information about the author (BTW his name is misspelled once in the article, I'm not going to correct it, because I find the article biased). The same discussion continues since months, the majority quotes cold war and/or BdV propaganda. Xx236 09:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


The title of the article is "in connection with expulsion", but the table in the article says about "flight and expulsion". This is the problem for me - no Poles are responsible for the flight.

The Center against Expulsions as a source of data! The Center is biased, it ignores Polish victims of German expulsions. Xx236 09:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And it is biased to call the center biased - especially with that argumentation. Even if they are ignoring the polish victims ( what they are denying ) that doesn`t mean that the number of german expellee victims is wrong - that depends on the reliability of their scientific sources. But I agree that the polish concerns should be mentioned in the article. --Sushi Leone 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't quote any scientific sources there. BTW - historiography isn't a science. Xx236 15:54, 8 January 2007 (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). Xx236 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the article you are refering to? Do they talk about their sources? Is there a serious proof for the validity of this numbers? --Sushi Leone 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong title

The title Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII doesn't correspond to the text. The article discusses the problem of The population deficit. The article doesn't prove that the deficit was the result of the expulsion. Xx236 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Czy możesz dać mi web ling do tego "Süddeutsche Zeitung" andrewserfain@hotmail.com

keyword in the title is estimate, meaning roughly, aproximately, etc. etc. it does not mean it is a solid proven number, they did not go out and count all the bodies. perhaps you have a more respectable source that categorically denies every single one of these references in this article. We have multiple respected sources in this article, so in order to throw all of there information "out the window" we would need a couple of more respectable sources that deny their evidence.
--Jadger 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Congressman Reece charged that 3 million German civilians had died during the expulsion

Auschwitz doesn't quote old estimates (4 million). It's totally unimportant what Reece believed in 1957, he wasn't a historian. Eventually his source should be presented. A number of politicians more important than Reece also commented the subject, e.g. Joseph Stalin. German sources don't support the 3 million story. Xx236 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because he was not a historian does not make his viewpoint invalid or somehow less. No one has said the Josef Stalin's remarks on the matter cannot be added. If you can find them and correctly quote them from a reliable source I do not see a reason why we shouldn't add them. As that would be like not allowing the defendant to speak in his own defence. Although I dont think the testimony of a person who murdered up to 100 million people is really that strong of ground to stand on. As for someone "more important" than a congressman, that is yet to be debated. In the republican democracy of America, Congressmen are some of the most powerful people.
--Jadger 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... some Congressmen are very powerful. Others are not so powerful.

What makes the number worth mentioning is that it was read into the Congressional Record by a Congressman and therefore is a verifiable reliable source. Note: the source is reliable even if the number is not.

Personally, I don't think his number is necessarily reliable. We would have to understand how his number was arrived at in order to evaluate how reliable the number is.

--Richard 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is a respected and reliable source, so my point stands that it should stay in in the article and not be somehow deminished in the article. there are the other lower numbers that use sources in the article, so it is let the reader decide which source they will rely upon.
We would have to understand how his number was arrived at in order to evaluate how reliable the number is. ditto, I believe the same thing.
--Jadger 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Though you completely ignored me when I last tried to discuss your edit at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II and I now told you to kick off a discussion if you have grievances rather just edit war the hell out of the page, I'll try to initiate a discussion again.

In reference to the NPOV tag, the article is about the finding of a number only, not pinning blame on anyone. If you want to write or see the background of the expulsion, needless to say, see "Expulsion of Germans after World War II". Since it doesn't assert a POV on who's responsible, how can this breach the Neutral Point of View? In fact, your insistence on either the pov tag or "naming who's responsible" is ironic: it is your disclaimer that clearly flies in the face of NPOV.

As for the other tag, you're declaring that the article didn't cite its references or sources. But if you make it to the bottom of the page, you'll see that it even cites both. With only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia citing sources and references of all the sentences, the implication of the tag is that there are no references and sources at all (not where some sentences aren't sourced, or the tag would be everywhere, from the articles sound (1 ref) over Poland (6 refs) to George W. Bush (161 refs)), which is untrue.

The future product tag was not meant to describe anything that may be in the future, like feelings or, as you said, "future clames and arogance", but, well, like a new car that is not on sale yet, which might undergo changes before its final version. But I presume you've let go off the tag anyway now.

What is "recent"? What time frame does it encompass? In the POV of some the newspaper from last week isn't recent anymore. In any case, you're supposed to avoid statements that will date quickly. "Recently" is even cited as an example of it. You're also to Wikipedia:avoid weasel words. Which studies? How old? What makes them more recent than, say, other studies, to a point where only they're the recent ones?

You must be referring to Overmans and Ingo Haar, two historians. Does the total number two really justify a plural expression? Anyway, let's take a look at them.

Overmans published the first edition of "Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" in 1999[1], the second in December 2000 [2] (see bottom of the page), the third in 2004[3]. I doubt that it happened to be the part about the expulsion death numbers that were added with a new edition, if anything was added at all. But the fact is it must have been in there before the third one, because the post in the forum about this part was submitted in 2002. Is 2000 or, more likely, 1999 "a recent study"?

Ingo Haar's case is no better. (Not only was his opinion controversial - the Federation of Expellees, for example, claims that he was only referring to the number of those directly murdered[4] - but) He didn't make a study at all. All he did was say in a radio interview that 500,000 was realistic, basing this number on the studies from the late 60s ("Offenbar ist er aber in diesem Punkt nicht befragt worden, denn es gibt ja Zahlen von 1974 aus einer Studie, die damals in den späten 60er Jahren die Große Koalition aufgelegt hat"[5]). No, I was wrong. He didn't say 500,000 was realistic - but "500,000 to 600,000". Now even the plural "recent studies" becomes questionable.

So these "recent" "studies" are more recent than anyone else's? Well, even my old history book is more recent and this said something about two million. Surely a German conspiracy, I can hear the unspoken voices. But what about, for one, Alfred de Zayas study in 2005(more recent) ? I'm unfortunately not superviser of all historians and their studies on the planet, but even confined to the Internet there are more "recent studies" than this; for example, Bernadetta Nitschke, a Polish historian who published a book on the expulsion in 1999, translated in German in 2003.[6] According to her, 1.1 million died in Poland, eg more than 400,000 as Haar said the number in the area beyond the Oder-Neisse line was ("Und danach betragen sich die Opfer jenseits der Oder-Neiße-Linie auf 400.000 und die aus der Tschechoslowakei auf 100.000."[7]). Sciurinæ 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (revised Sciurinæ 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed change of title

The title of this article is "after WWII". There is a certian level of absurdity, under which no discussion is possible. I'm not going to discuss claims 2 000 000 of Germans died after WWII. If those Germans died during and after WWII, change the title. Xx236 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not perceived you attempt to discussion, sorry. Actually the article is doing worst possible by the so named “finding of a number only” there estimations which are intentionally increased like the “Centre Against Expulsions” work. Unnecessary you need to point on somebody who is responsible it is enough offensive providing numbers which are subjective and biased. There are official more or less numbers of all nations population killed in WW II. You should start from this, until I know the Germany lost 8.7% of population in it 2 810 000 civilians. Thus it is impossible that the numbers can reach 3 millions during expulsion. Are you count also those who were collaborators of Nazi Germany? Well, … I ask you to be reasonable. Do not put numbers which are just somebody biased “supposition”. Any way I found only one non-German estimation, which are Cold War effort most probably. Do you have UN or other independent sources regarding this numbers?

Do you?

Instead public “findings” which are very irritating you should look for objective source of information. Private multiplication of possibilities is offending. Do you know it? It is particularly such if you consider that other nations in fact lost much more and were not responsible for spark the hell of war. In total proportion for one German in the WW II was kill ten people of other nations. When somebody unleash beware dog who the culprit is? Dog or the person, and this is the case. I do not contradicts that after the WWII could occur lawlessness and lynches. Are you surprised of it? I am not, but you see if in competition during the 80’s the Soviets would invade Poland and Jaruzelski would support it in some way – we would blame Jaruzelski for our deaths in first place. The Soviets we world also, but first and above all Jaruzelski. He was the totalitarian and collaborator. Exactly the Germans should immediately and in first place blame Hitler and Nazi, though some love the Nazi ideology and activity. Instead I see the article where numbers are juggled for God knows what. Thus I say to you the article look unbalanced and with bad faith. I just do not have time to discuss details as it is from the start bad. The tags are unimportant until you will point to Hitler and Nazi in first sentence as the primary culprits. You or others definitely opposed the introductions, so…? The “recent” is not for philosophical deliberations. I took the word and sentence from the same article written long before I knew about it. Just I emphasize existing points – maybe deliberately hidden somewhere in the back and under carpet. Again, somebody dos not like the truth? Put “most recent” if you like. Do you? You must be referring to Overmans and Ingo Haar, two historians. Does the total number two really justify a plural expression? Anyway, let's take a look at them. I agree that total number of German deaths in Poland could be 1.1 milions. Twice there, 6 years of ocupations and guerrilla warfare, escape front od Soviet Army in winter 1944 and last the expulssion, which I can be shure was fewest deadly. But be specific with this numbers do not stick others. I very much beleave that in the post war phase the were revanges, but again are you surprised ?– evry 5th person in Poland was killed. Are you expecting after the “total war” against civilians evry of Polish citizen will be ideal christian and give you other chick to hit. If that was expected so it means the Nazi sin is all the more bigger. Also, the XX236 sugestion is good . Change the title of the article. Best A.--131.104.218.46 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


As I've previously stated, I would be supportive of changing the title to "...resulting from WWII" instead of "...after WWII" as many German civilians were murdered by the polish "Home Army" and other partisan groups before the official cessation of hostilities. I don't really care to respond to 131's comments, for obvious reasons.

--Jadger 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My answer to 131

The value of human life is absolute and indefeasible ( and so are human rights). To deny it systematically is nothing else but inhuman relativism that leads to totalitarism. When someone tries to rape a child or to burn it alive and you do not help it because your intervention depends on the ethnic background of the child, I would seriously question your moral integrity! The same when you help to conceal this incident – that would be a ( retrospective ) participation in this incident or at least an act of aiding and abetting it. But this article is not about moral philosophy, it is supposed to be an objective description of a specific issue – based on quantitative research. And it should be left to the reader to come to a ( subjective ) conclusion.

Xx236 argument is reasonable, so I agree to changing the title. --Sushi Leone 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

pretty much Ditto, except I believe the current title is satisfactory, but it can always be improved upon. It was not Xx that wanted to change the title, he wanted to remove the information and the number of people killed before the German capitulation in May 1945. I explained why the current title suits, I did not claim it was the best title ever. what does everyone else think of my proposed version (the only proposed version as Xx has not offered one). That is, my version Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans resulting from WWII?
--Jadger 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think it's not only expulsion, but also (and mostly) due to mis-organised evacuation and flight, prior to the expulsion. This has been discussed over and over again. --Lysytalk 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Even many German texts specify Flucht und Verteibung, i.e. ~flight and expulsion. English Wikipedia shouldn't be more nationalistic German than many Germans are. Xx236 14:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The current title was developed because the original text of this article was extracted from the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I think the current title is awfully long and also focuses on deaths rather than on "total expelled and associated deaths". Only problem is that fixing these two problems makes an even longer title. Imagine Total number expelled and deaths associated with the evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans at the end of World War II. While a much accurate description of the topic, that would just be ridiculously long.
I propose instead that we change the title to Statistics related to the exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe. Still pretty long but shorter than the monstrosity in the preceding paragraph.
--Richard 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Xx, as I said repeatedly before, those who ran for their lives did not give up their land to the next Pole who wanted it, they didn't give their housemaid the deeds to their place when they left. Do you have any evidence that proves that ALL of them didn't want to return to their homes after the war? They ran for their lives, not because they all of a sudden got up the whim to give away their house and move to central Germany. I like Richard's version, except exodus should be replaced by expulsion

--Jadger 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, as I said repeatedly before, don't attack me.

If the title is after it means after, not during. The word one shouldn't be repalsed by the word two, even if you badly want it. Xx236 14:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


TO: Sushi Leone >The value of human life is absolute and indefeasible ( and so are human rights). To deny it systematically is nothing else but inhuman relativism that leads to totalitarism.

That is right. Thus put the number of other nation death close to German casulties. Putting the numbers separately suggests you “selective” intentions. One cry about his looses and forgot about the offended party casualties. I say put first think first. I proposed to mark in first sentence that the expulsion was direct result of Nazi German aggression and unprecedented savagery. Is not truth?

>When someone tries to rape a child or to burn it alive and you do not help it because your intervention depends on the ethnic background of the child, I would seriously question your moral integrity!

That is right. Unfortunately German Nazi did it and why? Germans supported Hitler so much or what? Why the Germans did not stop Hitler before he got to much power? Etc. etc. That question the ethic of all nation is not it? And, are you referring by some accident to others then the Nazis actions? Where is the proof that some bandits of Polish nationality did it? Do not you accuses others for German Nazi attitude just for “moral” confort?

>The same when you help to conceal this incident – that would be a ( retrospective ) participation in this incident or at least an act of aiding and a betting it.

You are damn right? So what is you explanation to Hitler success? Why he was not stopped before WW II started?

>But this article is not about moral philosophy, it is supposed to be an objective description of a specific issue – based on quantitative research. And it should be left to the reader to come to a ( subjective ) conclusion.

I do not think the spreading of ESTIMATIOM is quantitative research.
Estimation is a perfectly valid tool in science, especially in the social sciences. What is critical is to examine and test the assumptions and methodologies underlying the estimation process. Almost all "quantitative research" involves some level of estimation in the form of statistical analytical methods.
I challenge you to provide international research result.
Most research in any field is performed by individuals or teams that are located in specific national locations, whether German, Polish or American. Some research teams may consist of individuals of various nationalities. There are occasionally international bodies which sponsor and sanction research but there is nothing which indicates that only research sponsored by such bodies is admissible in Wikipedia. Thus, a challenge to provide "international research results" should not be considered as a challenge that dismisses all other available data. --Richard 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And about the subjective reader conclusion, let me remain you Dr. G. says: “A lie repeated many times become truth.”

TO ALL: I think those guys who are not Polish or German should voluntarily withdrawal from the argument. They do more harm to the question than both interested parties, I mean German and Polish, would like to see. I already have in my mine one particularly TROLLING individual. AS> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs).

(Trying really hard to keep civil.) Nonsense. Such a request is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. You do not have the right to make such a request. I would suggest that all POV-pushing editors, whether German, Polish or otherwise, voluntarily withdraw from their POV-pushing as their insistence on pushing their biased fixations do far more harm to this article than the NPOV efforts of disinterested parties. --Richard 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV check template

To Jagder et al.:

Please stop edit warring over the {{WP:POV check}} template. Let us give User:131.104.218.46 a chance to air his grievances in a more formal fashion.

To 131.104.218.46:

Please read Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View and specifically the guidelines on using the POV check template. Then follow the policies and guidelines as they are laid out. While there are a number of editors (including yourself) who have strong opinions that espouse a particular Point of View, there are others (like myself) who make a strong effort to make sure that all points of view are represented in the article and that the article truly adopts a Neutral Point of View. If you feel that this article does not have a Neutral Point of View, it is incumbent on you to explain why.

It is not sufficient to say "That source is a German historian and therefore his results are not reliable." Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. The appropriate way to challenge data given by one historian is to provide data given by another historian. It is not for us to judge who is right and who is wrong. What we should do is provide sufficient information for the reader to make their own decisions or, failing that, sufficient references so that the reader can do further reading and then make his/her own decision.

--Richard 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

he keeps adding the unreferenced tag also though, and there are clearly references at the bottom of the article, he has been blocked before for this exact action, the admin called it vandalism. Also, the POV check template says to see the discussion on the talk page dealing with a POV check, there has been none. for a POV check, there must be previous discussion and a consensus on the talk page that a POV check is needed.

--Jadger 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The value of human life is absolute and indefeasible

Jadger, show me any your contribution, proving you apply your rule by yourself - describing any German crimes, even German crimes on German people. Xx236 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

see the Wola article for instance, I helped to expand the information on German crimes there substantially. and a sidenote, it is not my rule, maybe you should read the discussion more carefully (although I do agree with the rule). Also, your comment is non-sequitur, just because I value human life does not mean I know everything about every crime against humanity in history.
--Jadger 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, I have checked Wola, the same as always. Xx236 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the same as always? notice that before I started editing there, there was only half a sentence describing the crimes. But when I started editing, I pushed the people working on the article with me to cite sources, if it wasn't for my badgering, the article would never be as good as it is now. And that was just an example, and my first page I editted. But since we're attacking the credibility of other user's here(which is a personal attack), show me any edit of yours, oh great magnificent Xx, that altered the course of history and made Wikipedia ruler of the Internet.

--Jadger 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I’ve written that sentence, so I think I should answer as well. I MEAN what I said: I don’t care about the nationality of the victims or the perpetrators. ( here and anywhere else ) BTW: Thank you for quoting me – but unfortunately my plea not to relativize the incidences seems not to be heard. Again: We should leave the interpretation of this topic to the reader ( an encyclopedia should describe - not suggest ) --Sushi Leone 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 131's love of tags

If you follow the link on the {{POVcheck}}tag, it states The POV check template is not for disputes.

Also, he keeps adding the {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}} tag despite the fact that their is a reference section at the bottom of the article, with references. How can we solve this problem without blocking him or protecting this page?

--Jadger 01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you keep removing the {{POVcheck}} tag.
On the other hand, dear anonymous editor, why do you keep inserting the tag ? The reason for nominating the article for POV-check should be explained in its talk page, that is here. --Lysytalk 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no justification for the tags at all. On the contrary, they're as alternative to pinning all responsibility of the expulsion to the Nazis, which in effect means that either there is a tag questioning the neutrality, or breaching the neutrality. I've said it before. There is irony in violating the NPOV without success and then unconvincingly tagging it for NPOV. And how would adding a no-refs template be in the spirit of the template? Serafin had several days to give a reasonable and convincing explanation related to the case and considering the rules, but didn't. Sciurinæ 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is equally unbalanced as is the Centre Against Expulsion. The tab sits there from October. Most of the number manipulations are from there. Anyway we have infos there practically only from German sources and the differences are in range of magnitude. Where is the sense to put all the suppositions in Wikepedia. I know answer: to show that Germans again suffered wrong. However, if it grows for cleaning the conscious or for some more practical reasons? The conclusions are: 1) Germans do not know themselves the correct figure. 2) At the same time the are no place for Nazis' victims’ memory. In one words there is no mathematical nor ethical balance. This must be expressed in “visible sign”. AS>

So, can we get this page unprotected then? can we have a consensus as to wether the tags should be removed or not? I say remove them as a) the article is referenced, b)I don't see any real reason that is viable in Andrew's comment above, the reason this is called "estimates" is because the exact number is not known. by his reasoning (Germans do not know themselves the correct figure.) the statistics for the Holocaust should also be removed as no one knows the exact number of people murdered. I am in no way saying we should blank the number of murdered people in the Holocaust, I am simply pointing out the ludicrousy of Andrew's statement.
--Jadger 04:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I read it, the POV check tag is meant to be used as a request for someone else to check to see if the text is NPOV. If you feel that it is not NPOV, then there are other tags for this. If you believe you know how to resolve the POV problems then be bold and fix it.
Or, at least put your concerns here with your ideas on how the problems can be fixed.
--Richard 19:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are falling on deaf ears I think Richard, since Andrew has been blocked the article's name has been changed, perhaps he does not know where it is located now. Or he is just ignoring the article and waiting for it to be unprotected, as his version is in place now. I think the article is NPOV, and I know it is referenced, so both tags should be removed. Can we unprotect this page now?

--Jadger 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another source for estimates about Poland

I saw this several months ago but didn't pay much attention to it at the time. I'm not arguing that this person (R.J. Rummel) is right. However, it provides another perspective to consider...

R.J. Rummel Statistics Of Poland's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources

Statistics Of Poland's Democide: Addenda

--Richard 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rummel doesn't have any idea about the history of Central Europe after WWII. Xx236 09:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you think (or what I think either). Find a verifiable and reliable source who criticizes Rummel. --Richard 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written - there exists cultural imperialism, e.g. in form of Orientalism. Rich and free ignorants write books about Western stereotypes, copying data from another Western sources. The time has changed, you don't write the history of Afroamerican slaves from the point of view of of their masters, you even have to write Afroamericans. You don't have the right to copy German stereotypes because such stereotypes are written. No, the Poles haven't murdered 1.5 million of German civilians in 1945, even if one man on the Pacific island believes this.

Even the German politician admits he means both the flight and the expulsion.Xx236 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estimaties in Czechoslovakia

Rozumět dějinám (Understanding history) ISBN 80-86010-55-4 printed in 2002 page 218: 22.247 violent deaths including 6.667 suicides in the Czechoslovakia during the expulsion 1945-1948. Allies headquarters approved it was a highly civilised expulsion (in the post-war period). 238,000 is ridiculous. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Czechoslovakia, there exists a report named Opinion of the Commission on the losses connected with the transfer, which was prepared by a joint Czech-German commission of historians. It suggests that, in the case of Czechoslovakia, the maximum number of deaths is 15,000 to 30,000 and that numbers such as the 220,000 estimated by the Centre Against Expulsions are not supported by the evidence. That Opinion has been rejected by other researchers, as the commission did not carry out any in-depth demographic studies of its own.
This is highly offensive, insulting and biased. It expresses that Centre against expulsions is a wisdom of the Earth and others are less then they. Who rejected that - centre against expulsions ? I demand this to be rewritten and results of the commission to be written without biased statements. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Presumably you would be OK with the text if the last sentence was deleted. The problem, as I see it, is that the last sentence uses a "weasel" phrase, specifically "other researchers". I think you have a valid objection. If this phrase cannot be made more specific by naming the researchers who have rejected the Commission's work, then the last sentence should be deleted. Would that satisfy you? --Richard 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you hit the point. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vital history

We have a problem here with the new title of this article - because now we are describing “vital history”. What means: The exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe hasn’t stopped yet – even 2007 there are still people emigrating from Romania, Russia, Ukraine, etc. If you take the new article title literally you have to mention them as well. Maybe now you understand what I mean with “problem”……. --Sushi Leone 08:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

so would you prefer soemthing like Demographics of the evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe?
perhaps the title of the Exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe article should be changed to Evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe?
would that solve the problem?
--Richard 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

so we could add examples such as Miroslav Klose or Lukas Podolski to the article then, of the modern day people leaving the weak post-communist societies and coming to the economically powerful west (in this case Germany). is that what is being referred to here?

--Jadger 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The former GDR isn't the economically powerful west (excluding Berlin) but rather a weak post-communist society. Neo-Nazis are active there, East-Germans are massively moving to West Germany. Xx236 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany has the largest economy in Europe, and people from lesser countries such as Poland are flocking there now that there countries are a part of the EU. Neo-nazis are active practically in every country, what are you going to say next? that there is gravity in Germany? I didn't realize that, thanks a lot.

--Jadger 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not practically every country has a neo-nazi party in two regional parlaments (MV - 6 places, Saxony - 12). Many German politicians want to ban the party. More than 150 000 Germans emigrated in 2004. Some Eastern German cities lost about 25% of their population during the last 16 years. Yes, people are flocking, creating islamic ghettos in Berlin and public schools, in which German-speaking children consist a minority. German industry is exporting working places against the will of the trade unions, e.g. into Poland.Xx236 09:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure – because not every country has federal /county parliaments (a lot of checks and balances) and a significant amount of Immigration (one in every five persons living in Germany has an – direct - immigrant background)[8] And the economical situation must be seen in following context: Germany is the most successful nation on the global markets ( in exporting goods ) and the third biggest economy in the world. I will not even start to talk about the amount of Hooliganism, Neo-Nazism / Fascism, the Post-Stalinistic Behavior Pattern, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Religious ( Catholic ) Fundamentalism which lingers around in Poland – because that would lead to nowhere ( except to pointless discussions )
Furthermore I don’t understand: What has all that to do with the article and the problem I’ve mentioned above?
I just wanted to point out the fact, that the new title of the article would open a new chapter ( Immigration to F.R. Germany ) and move away from the subject “expulsion in the aftermath of WW2” From 1987 to 1999, Germany took in a total of 2.7 million ethnic German repatriates from the territory of the Soviet Union [9]– if you stick to the new title of the article we would have to mention all that. So I agree to Richards suggestion and would like to recommend to stay focused on the “Expulsion / Evacuation” Topic. --Sushi Leone 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany is the most successful nation on the global markets - you choose one indicator and ignore twenty other ones. Educated Germans emigrate and are replaced by uneducated immigrants who don't like to be integrated. It's not exactly a success.Xx236 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this thread. It has nothing to do with the article and is just a magnet of endless yada-yada. If you like, I can give you my opinion as to why the United States is the most successful nation on the global markets. Or Japan. Or China. None of it is relevant. --Richard 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia and not the GERMAN Wikipedia. Here, we like shorter words and shorter sentences because English speakers think in short words and relatively short sentences. The intended meaning of the phrase "German exodus from Eastern Europe" is to provide a shorter way of saying "Evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans at the end of and shortly after World War II from Eastern Europe including eastern portions formerly part of Germany prior to World War II". I wouldn't put it past a German speaker to build an article title like that but English speakers just don't think that way.

Now, if you feel that this phrase is not the best way to express what we mean, by all means, propose a better way. I will comment that I chose the name of this article because there is already an article titled German exodus from Eastern Europe. I was just trying to establish some consistency between the title of this article and the title of that one. --Richard 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for patronizing and lecturing me – yes, I know I’m on English wikipedia! So I will keep it short: There is a difference between a historical event ( Expulsion ) and a present incident ( Exodus ) In other words: The expulsion was a PART of the exodus – but not the END of the exodus. Logical conclusion: You can’t use these terms as synonyms. Ok, you’ve chosen the word “Exodus” to shorten the phrase: ”Evacuation, flight……” Fair enough! But exactly that was…let’s say the faux pas. Why? Because they are no synonyms! This is all I wanted to point out in my humble post. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, we’ve got two reasonable options to solve this problem: a.) We keep the title and add the immigration scenarios from 1950 – 2007 ( consistent with German exodus from Eastern Europe ) or b.) We change the title to “estimates of flight and expulsion” etc. and keep the focus on flight and expulsion in the aftermath of WW2 ( consistent with Expulsion of Germans after World War II ). --Sushi Leone 06:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to insinuate that you didn't know this was the English Wikipedia. I was trying to make a joke about the differences between the English language and the German language. Sorry if it came across as patronizing and pedantic. Thanks for not taking offense. I was hoping you would get a chuckle out of my "lecture".
That said, I get your point now. I see that a section about emigration exists in the German exodus from Eastern Europe article. I don't remember that being there. Seems like a relatively new addition. Although the easy solution is to add statistics about post-1950 emigration of Germans to this article, I think it would be a distraction here. So, we need to change the title to something like Demographics of the flight, evacuation and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe. I can't do it right now because the article is protected. One of us should do it once we get the article unprotected. --Richard 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, sorry for my flippant answer – but I really felt totally misunderstood. Sushi Leone 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there were at least two "exoduses", maybe three. One big one at the end of the war, another continuing from 1950 until the fall of the Berlin Wall and perhaps another one after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is all speculation on my part as I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I assume the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact had some impact. Assuming that I'm right, the question is whether German exodus from Eastern Europe should cover all three exoduses or just the first one. We need to figure out the number of articles and content of each first and then worry about the titles. And, as should be obvious, the discussion should take place on the talk page of German exodus from Eastern Europe. This article, IMHO, should remain dedicated to the first exodus and the title should be changed to reflect that. (I was just hoping to avoid a title which would extend beyond one line. Perhaps it was a forlorn hope.)
--Richard 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] die Opfer von Flucht und Vertreibung

Bergner discusses the number of the victims of the Flight and Expulsion. Xx236 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meyers about the numbers

http://lexikon.meyers.de/meyers/Vertreibung Xx236 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My German is not very good but it seems these are the critical sentences in the above link from Meyers...

Bis 1950 sind etwa 12,5 Mio. Deutsche vertrieben worden, davon etwa 7,9 Mio nach Westdeutschland und 4,4 Mio. in die SBZ/DDR. Angaben zu den Todesopfern der Vertreibung schwanken; nach Erhebungen von 1950 oft mit etwa 2,1 Mio. angegeben, wird diese Zahl in der neueren Forschung stark relativiert.

In English

Up to 1950 some 12.5 million Germans were expelled, of which some 7.9 million went to West Germany and 4.4 million to SBZ/DDR (question: what is the SBZ?).

I need help with translating the second sentence. All I can understand is that the number of deaths was often given as 2.1 million but that the numbers have changed over time. What does "Angaben zu den Todesopfern der Vertreibung schwanken" mean? What does "wird diese Zahl in der neueren Forschung stark relativiert" mean?

If there are other important points made in the above link, please indicate them by pasting them onto this Talk Page.

Who is Meyers by the way? Why is he a reliable source?

--Richard 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Meyers Konversations-Lexikon

As the Wiki deffinition says: "Meyers Konversations-Lexikon was a major German encyclopedia that existed in various editions from 1839 until 1984, when it merged with the Brockhaus encyclopedia." [10]

SBZ - Sovjetische Besetzung Zone - Soviet Occupation Zone - Space Cadet 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Meyers Konversations-Lexikon Xx236 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DHM

DHM says 400.000 bis 2 Millionen, in another words - no idea what happened: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2/kriegsverlauf/massenflucht/index.html Xx236 11:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job Xx. Here is some translation from German:
"Until 1950 are approximately 12.5 million Germans been expelled, from it approximately 7.9 million to West Germany and 4,4 million Into the SBZ / GDR. Statements to the fatalities of the expulsion fluctuate; after rises of 1950 often with approximately 2,1 million boasted, this number is relativesed strongly in the newer research."
This need some consideration, if the numbers are correct 7.9+4.4=12.3 and 12.5-12.3=0.2 it can be twice so much but unlikely 2.1.
The second link is also good. Shows short story what happened during flight and what can be the causes of majority of deaths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

That is faulty mathematics 131. that is how many were expelled to Germany, that does not include how many didn't make it. and the word you ignore is approximately in approximately 12.5 million.

--Jadger 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2,225,000

What does de Zayas claim? Did 2,225,000 die after the war? I hardly can believe such bias, you must misquote him.Xx236 08:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" (the German expellees in figures) concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished

The study by Dr. Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" (the German expellees in figures) concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation - I doubt very much that someoene here has seen the book, because the name of the author has been misspelled twice. Does the author exclude the flight and war as causes of deaths? Do the numbers include POWs deported to the SU? Such small manipulations create the tune.Xx236 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to know how to spell his name, does that mean you've read the book? just because something is mispelled is not reason to delete it. It is however reason to correct the spelling mistake.
--Jadger 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] later the survivors were transferred to East Germany

It seems that civilian workers were (all?) transferred to East Germany but POWs were liberated in 1955 after Adenauer's trip to Soviet Union.Xx236 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemographic_estimates_of_the_German_exodus_from_Eastern_Europe_4199.html"