Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review 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] Lift the protection 2

In survey to lift:

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

In opposition to lift:


[edit] Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Semi-protected

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

[edit] Page is now semi-protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] What I did during my summer vacation...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Germanization of Poles and the Deutsche Volksliste

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

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

Johann

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Changing status in international law

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

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

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

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

[edit] Honzula's recent edits to the Czechoslovakia section

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Polish forced labour camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The text in question, in its context:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Justifications for expulsions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My point is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stor stark7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal to lift semi-protection

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

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

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

[edit] Götz Aly about expulsion of Germans

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

[edit] Legality of the expulsions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Causes for deaths in Czechoslovakia

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

He changed this sentence:

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

to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Legality of the expulsions #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikiferdi 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xx236 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


Potsdam Conference, Article III. GERMANY:

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

[edit] Legality of the expulsions #3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • So the expulsions were very instuctive.

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

[edit] Organization of articles related to the expulsions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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