Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia INSTEAD.

Contents

Old talk

"Prussian Holocaust" is inherently POV and returns only 8 google hits, including 3 on Wikipedia (this article and 2 talk pages. Pending someone coming up with a better title, I've moved it to "Soviet ethnic cleansing of East Prussia". Mkweise 14:11, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. 'Prussian holocaust' looked like a bait for a huge flame war. I did some amendments in effort to replace unpleasant nationalist propaganda with NPOV. Namely I changed mention of German historical provinces to 'lands that were to be taken from Germany in light of Potsdam agreements.
I write of propaganda because in reality that territories have very complicated history of settlement, conquest and peaceful culture mixing. Consider Silesia: first settled by Celts, then resettled by Slavic peoples, then included in early Czech state, then conquered by Polish prince, then ceded to Bohemia then annexed by Prussia, then unified with Germany and finally given to Poland.
However a phrase 'lands that were to be taken from Germany' is both neutral, factually correct as it points to Potsdam and hints to true cause of the misery of Germans. So please consider this before changing it to something else.
Also I mentioned an historic irony of Russian ethnic cleaning mirroring Nazi ethnical atrocities. I think it is a good conclusion to the article - it provides not only info on mayhem of World War II but also context hinting at some further reasons .
-- Forseti 15:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I much agree with your changes. — Jor (Talk) 15:53, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the title 'Prussian Holocaust' is all that POV, I've heard the term used before but maybe we should try to strive for a compromise.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 01:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jews want to "own" the term Holocaust, they also want to own "Genocide" - they even want you to forget that 42 million Christians died in WWII because they think 6 million of theirs is much worse.

This article is waaaaaaaaaaaaay POV. It really needs work to make it NPOV. -- ChrisO 13:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In which way is it POV? Then I suppose you also think the Holocaust article is "waaaaaaaaaaaaay POV"? Nico 18:34, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory ?

The following piece was removed by Nico, with the comment that Bernhard Fisch is a rather unknown "hobbyhistoriker". I have no knowledge in this domain, so let someone else decide. Gute Nacht.

<<< Without denying the latter, on the other hand, there are indications that the Nemmersdorf massacre was actually performed under the command of Goebbels, in an attempt to stir up the civil resistance before the advancing Red Army. Bernhard Fisch, see reference, in his book Nemmersdorf, October 1944. What had actually happened in East Prussia managed to find new eyewitnesses and analyzed both German and Russian archives to present a more realistic picture of the events.

- == Reference ==

- Bernhard Fisch, Nemmersdorf, Oktober 1944. Was in Ostpreußen tatsächlich geschah. Berlin: 1997. ISBN 3-932180-26-7, 192 pp, price: 14,80 DM. >>>

Mikkalai 20:41, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMO it does not say that the purges did or did not happened. What it says is that are people who doubt it - which is perfectly NPOV. Just like the Holocaust article should mention that there are some who deny the Holocaust and that's in illegal in most of Europe. IMO it should be insterted back.Halibutt 05:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Evacuation of East Prussia

The name for the article, how it is right now, seems apropriate. If you really think, that the Soviet crimes in East Prussia deserve seprate entry, please create an entry called Soviet crimes in East Prussia and it would be referenced in the main article, in section dealing with the reasons for evacuation. Cautious 07:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about a compomise, then? Evacuation and Soviet ethnic cleansing of East Prussia? It certainly ought to be in the same article. Nico 08:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, I would prefer not to mix to much in one article. Create Soviet war crimes entry with the reference to Nemesdorf, then remove the parts of the current article, that are dealing with soviet crimes and then add reference, that the evacuation began as reaction for the crimes of Soviets. Add the end add reference to expulsion and the article is ready. What do you think? In current state, one doesn't know if the article is about evacuation, crimes, ethnic cleaning. And encyclopedia article must have clear subject. Cautious 08:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Removed: All the inhabitans (men, women, and children) were slaughtered, as well as French prisoners-of-war. Many women were raped before they were murdered, and in at least one farmyard the women were stripped naked and nailed through their hands in cruciform position. To each of the two doors of a barn near the village inn a naked woman was crucified. At least 72 women with children were slaughtered, while their babies had their heades smashed in.

This is so thick a propaganda. You can find exactly same statements for every war for every side. Besides, it is absolute nonsense about crucifixed bodies. Crucifix means nothing for atheist Soviets. Rapes, yes. They are common war thing. And it was not only in Nemmersdorf. Mikkalai 17:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

"German forces fought heroically to hold the roads westward open so their fellow countrymen could escape."

Fought heroically, who as written this whole article ? It's not hard to guess !

This might've been anyone. Heroism does not depend on political option or side of the front. That's what it reads on many Wehrmacht graveyards in Poland - They fell as heroes. Halibutt 08:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I heavily reedited the article, as at previous verion it was unacceptable and extremally POV. Obviously, the Soviet crimes in Prussia or Silesia committed on ethnic Germans (but also on local Polish population) are historical events that just took place. But on the other hand we can not mix war crimes committed by Soviets with evacuation carried out by German authorities and finally, with undoubtly ethnic cleansng which took place many months after events described - I mean transfer of German population of this area as a rasult of Potsdam Agreement. And this is (or pretend to be) an encyclopedia and there is no place for eruptions of emotions.Yeti 18:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relevance Facts and Statistics

This articles says:

According to German side, all the inhabitants of those villages were killed. This pattern would in the following months repeat itself across entire East Prussia, and then spread to West Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg, and Silesia — in other words the lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line that were to be taken away from Germany in light of Potsdam conference agreements.

As it was reported as a war crime in the first two villages are there any records "all the inhbitants" killed in any other village? If not how is it know that it happened? It it was so common why single out this village? Did it only happen east of the Oder Neisse rivers. If so that would imply that it was orchestrated. Is there any proof of this? Is it true that the killing stopped at the Oder and Neisse rivers? If not then why imply that it did?

Possibly, more than 2 million people in the eastern provinces of Germany died, great majority of them with frost, starvation and fightings but some were killed directly by Soviet forces.

I have two problems with the above and the in the previous paragraph West Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg, and Silesia

  1. I thought that this article was about East Prussia not about all the German lands east of the Oder-Neisse rivers.
  2. Of the 2 million killed how many were German soldiers? But more importantly why mention the deaths of the whole area why not just those in East Prussia?

Fleeing

Fleeing from the advancing Soviet forces, the German refugees trudged in great columns through the snow at -25°C, while Soviet aircrafts performed shellfire raids on them.

When and Where?

The three big Soviet advances which effected East Prussia moved so fast that I doubt that much trudging could have taken place during the offensives without being quickly overtaken at which point any strafing would have stopped. If it was not an emergency evacuation why trudge when it was -25°C? I don't doubt that some unfortunate soles did this but what percentage of the total? How many stayed put? How and what were the conditions, under which most were evacuated?

At at technical level "aircrafts performed shellfire raids on them" is a bad translation from another language, German?. They may have bombed them, rocketed them, or strafed them with machine guns and cannon fire; but they did not performed shellfire on them. Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

do you need references, or what?

These things happened. I came to this article because I was discussing the Prussian Holocaust with a friend, and went to check the wiki article on the subject. I found a pro-soviet disgrace, and preceeded to repair it, and was twice reverted, once in my page move, and again in my restoration of factual content. If its references you need, I'll provide them, but don't revert or remove bulk content w/o evidence and discusson. Wikipedia:revert. Sam [Spade] 01:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don't repair a "pro-Soviet disgrace" by replacing it with a pro-Nazi disgrace, my friend. The term "Prussian Holocaust", which was quite obviously designed to equate the horrendous Nazi Holocaust against the Jews with the (quite violent and bloody, I admit) vengeance exacted by the victims of Nazi agression on ethnic Germans, simply reeks of pro-Nazi POV. Further, you'd better have evidence for all those gruesome anecdotes before you put them back in. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No problem, there is plenty. Sam [Spade] 01:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a lot of evidence for the so-called evacuation of East Prussia (I'll find links for you guys.)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 01:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of evidence for claims like "to each of the two doors of a barn near the village inn a naked woman was crucified". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I thought my links were ample, but apparently not. Try [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6]. Sam [Spade] 21:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You use a website called the "Racial Nationalist Library" (reference no.1) as a trusted source for WW2 history? Are you out of your mind? The big fat "Our race is our nation" motto right on top of the page should at least give you cause for some doubt regarding the accuracy of their claims. I'd also like to point out that your reference no.4 is a novel - as in a work of fiction, and at any rate I have been unable to locate anything related to the Evacuation of East Prussia in it. Your reference no.5 has nothing to do with Prussia or WW2 at all, because it is in fact a Hercules fanfiction story. So tell me, is this some kind of a joke?
The remaining 3 references are at least credible at first sight; I will look into them as soon as I can. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To my best knowledge ref #1 is actualy correctly quoting Alfred-Maurice de Zayas book A Terrible Revenge. The testimonies collected in the book are propably reproduced correctly, and Zayas is relatively reputable scholar. IMO the problem of the book is selection of what is said and how it is presented. Apparently image acquiered from the book by typical English-speaking intellectual with poor prior knowledge of Central Easter European history is badly distorted.
Quoting from Amazon reviews: "This work has bore light on perhaps the greatest atrocities of the entire war." "A balanced review of an act of vengance" "This tragedy, that was the extermination of an 800-year old civilization in Eastern Europe, is regrettably an event that still remains an unknown, even in modern western intellectual circles" "This book will be intstrumental in understanding the future evolution of Polish-German and Czech-German affairs." "...but after reading about the atrocities committed by Russians I found myself wishing the Soviets had bitten the dust in 1941."　
Holocaust deniers, WWII historical revisionists and neo-nazis must love such book.
I hope here on Wikipedia we can avoid this distortion just by enforcing NPOV. --Wikimol 00:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ref. #3 is assorted mix of quotations. The way it is sorted is problematic and some quoted sources are IMO not credible. E.g. Charles Lindbergh or some article from German neo-nazi newspaper Deutsche Nationalzeitung.
Ref. #6 is from Austin J. App affilated with Institute for Historical Review. Quoting from nizkor archives, "...Austin J. App, a professor of English at the University of Scranton and LaSalle College, also played a central role in the development of Holocaust denial, especially in the United States."
--Wikimol 11:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if one or two of my links sucked, I threw that together on short notice. I have an active life, and don't always have enough time to do more than steer others in the right direction towards the facts I already know so very well. Anyone who thinks the Soviet Union was any less monstrous than Nazi Germany has alot of unpleasent research to do. People are bad all over the place, and I'm tired of Germany serving as the scapegoat while modern day ethnic cleansing goes on before an uncaring pop culture. Ok, end of rant ;) Sam [Spade] 01:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Every nation has their own load of shitheads. And nearly every nation has some skeletons in cupboard of their history. It is an unpleasant task to uncover them, but care must be taken not to confuse KFC bones for them. While it is undeniable that East Prussia suffered, the article reeks with lack of diligency. BTW, this way of presentation also casts shadows of doubt on the very topic itself. If one sees a piece of bullshit, the rest becomes suspicious as well. Mikkalai 02:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not much concerned with suspicions. I entered some key words into google, and listed off a half dozen links while talking to my family and then hurried off when my friend came up to see what was keeping me. If you are suspicious, maybe that will help you read more carefully. If you think I'm being sneaky, maybe the fact I accidentilly linked to a hercules fan-fiction will allay your worries ;) My agenda here is one of neutrality, to help partisans understand that everybody suffers. If my links are less than perfect, maybe you should consider that when next I come before you for a pay raise ;) Sam [Spade] 02:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Engaging in a discussion on a touchy of subject while sitting on your left hand is not a good idea. Do you think we are idiots and cannot use google when we ask you for links? If you don't have anything serious to say, don't waste other people's time. The first thing I noticed when I looked into some several hundred of linnks is huge discrepancy in every single fact, indicating that the issue had risen to the level of legend. So, if one wants to take part in writing seriously on this subject, one has better stay away from the family for a while. Mikkalai 02:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not just one or two, but all your links fall into three cathegories

  1. Total nonsense.
  2. Excerpts from de Zayas.
  3. Quotations which can be traced back to neo-nazi propaganda and/or holocaust deniers. Holocaust revisionists disguise themselves as pseudo-science and on first sight may look credible (give references, publish journals,...)

--Wikimol 11:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Types 2 and 3 are relevant here. Your suggestion that I am wasting your time by providing you with leads which you were and are unwilling to gather for yourself is almost as preposterous as your suggestion that
"if one wants to take part in writing seriously on this subject, one has better stay away from the family for a while"
which strikes me as the sort of madness I should expect on joining a cult or communist cell, not in discussing matters of weight on an volunteer open source reference source. If you were my boss, I'd fire you. As is, I advise you:
Please review and revise your wretched attempts at personal advice.
Sam [Spade] 21:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Solzhenitsyn quote

After the paragraph Allegedly, Soviet troops had been told... Solzhenitsyn quote would be IMO good. Please, can anyone find it in The Gulag Archipelago English editon? Its in first part first chapter. I found online only Russian original online and there the paragraph is:

Да! Три недели уже война шла в Германии, и все мы хорошо знали: окажись девушки немки -- их можно было изнасиловать, следом расстрелять, и это было бы почти боевое отличие; окажись они польки или наши угнанные русачки -- их можно было бы во всяком случае гонять голыми по огороду и хлопать по ляжкам -- забавная шутка, не больше. Но поскольку эта была "походно-полевая жена" начальника контр-разведки -- с трех боевых офицеров какой-то тыловой сержант сейчас же злобно сорвал погоны, утвержденные им приказом по фронту, снял ордена, выданные Президиумом Верховного Совета -- и теперь этих вояк, прошедших всю войну и смявших, может быть, не одну линию вражеских траншей, ждал суд военного трибунала, который без их танка еще б и не добрался до этой деревни.

in English its somthing like

Yes! Three weeks the war was going inside Germany, and all knew very well every German girl can be raped ...

--Wikimol 23:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you see any different war anywhere? Also, did you notice that russian soldiers could also play games with russian and polish girls found in Germany? It is a very nice way of quoting pieces out of context. I am just curious why you didn't "translate" the following piece instead: "every German girl can be raped and then shot down - it would be almost battle honor". Do you really think that this piece of literary exaggeration may be converted into an encyclopedic piece, kind of "In Soviet Army, soldiers were awarded military honors for raping german women"? Mikkalai 02:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for "allegedly told", this is bullshit. First, the term "nazism" was not in use by Soviet propaganda. It was all "german fascism" and "german-fascist occupants". And second, it was only very well known to everyone that "german fascism" was born in Bavarian beer pubs, i.e., hardly in eastern prussia. Mikkalai 02:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. Yes, but in scope it was different. The level of hate in WWII was greater than in many other wars. Because of German behaviour on Soviet territory, casualities and Soviet propaganda Soviet troops hated Germans more than soldiers in most wars hate their enemy.
  2. Yes.
  3. Because the paragraph begins with what I had translated. Pourpose was only to help someone find it in English edition.
  4. Solzhenitsyns Gulag Archipelago is not a work of fiction. IMO the paragraph describes a mood in the Red Army - "now we are on German terriotry, now we can take our revenge". IMO reader understands soldiers werent awarded honours for raping, but on the other hand they knew they wouldnt be prosecuted for that.
  5. "Allegedly..." - I hadnt examined every piece of this article. My contribution to that part is the word allegedly.

--Wikimol 10:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How to proceed with article

Sam, please stop reverting to a version that contains a lot of false statements presented as truth. Mikkalai

Please research the subject before you edit again. Sam [Spade] 02:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am in no way to defend Soviets, but your lack of diligency in etail is appaling. In no way I am going to defend soviets, but this careless exposition is shooting into its own leg. Mikkalai

  1. nemmersdorf: date incorrect
  2. crucifixion has no meaning to Soviet soldiers. This nailing is pure invention of goebbels.
  3. there was no propaganda that nacizm was invented in East Pruissia for simple reasons: (1) the terms "german fascism" and "german-fascist occcupants" were in use, and (2) every russian schoolboy knew that "german fascism" was born in Bavarian beer pubs.
  4. The overall text has a number of inconsistences, showing pattern of careless edits without eading carefully what was written before.
  5. Presenting the picture of horror as an established fact without source of reference is inadmissible.

You need more? Mikkalai 02:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will follow your advise and do further research. You, on your side, please don't put neonazi propaganda here indiscriminately. I am starting from a simple non-contradictory test and will add facts in the order of their verification, discribing it here, one by one. I suggest you to do the same, to avoid silly game of reversals. Mikkalai 02:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The detailed description of Nemmersdorf event is in its own article. Only summary is preferrable here, since the Nemmersdorf case is a potential place of its own conrtoversy, so let it be localized in its place. Mikkalai


Doing my research, withiout haste of cut and paste.

  • In Soviet historiography, Prussia was presented as the root of "Prussian militarism and reaction" (not with historical reasons). This is probably the origin of the strange phrase about alleged propaganda of "Prussia as birthplace of nazism". Mikkalai 03:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Added to article. Mikkalai 05:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nobody is surprized that the article says nothing about actual evacuation, after Potsdam conference. Why's that? Mikkalai 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because its known as expulsion. See German exodus from Eastern Europe. --Wikimol 10:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is not an argument. The reference you mention does discuss Potsdam. In fact, it is the Potsdam part that matches the "expullsion" word. The events during the war were "fleeing", "genocide", whatever. Mikkalai 22:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reference itself does not, but just after introduction it points to Expulsion of Germans after World War II.--Wikimol 23:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The phrase about Nemmersdorf controversy to be moved to Nemmersdorf. Mikkalai 05:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am joining this discussion late but hope to contribute. Is the article name agreed upon or are you still taking suggestions? Nobs 16:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you just spell out your suggestion? Everything is changeable in Wikipedia, if there are merits in proposals. But please keep in mind that another title may well mean another subject, and hence a valid separate article. You know this say about all eggs, don't you? Mikkalai 16:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a suggestion if the object is to recieve most hits, Soviet Advance on East Prussia may work, seeing "Evacuation" has more of a precautionary tone, and is often associated with the post-Potsdam Conferance deportations. "Advance" has more of the quality that can help to highlight attrocities that were committed during the Soviet Advance. Also, is this limited to East Prussia, which essentially is term relating to Wiemer Republic map pre-1939? Nobs 17:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have two points against your suggestion: (1) IMO "advance" makes you to expect a military article (2) It is one-sided as referring to actions of one side ("evacuation" version has the same drawback). So I would suggest to look for a more comprehensive title, kind of "events in East Prussia" or "East Prussia at the end of WWII", or so, so that all what happened at this time and place could be described: German evacuation, Soviet advance, Soviet atrocities, German propaganda, etc. Mikkalai 18:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, when thinking about the title please look at the links to this article to see in what context it is being discussed. The "evacuation" article is pretty valid in the context of forced migrations, atrocities being a factor affecting the process. Mikkalai 18:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Have refreshed myself with the Ehrenberg information and am still reading others. "East Prusssia I take to mean Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) and environs, i.e. the detached portion of Wiemar Germany and not Germany proper. On the Talk:Federation of Expellees I find this quote: "article did not take into account the intricacies of the situation" which is the polite way of saying: "this is neo-nazi revisionism". You are absolutely correct in using the trojan horse "Soviet Advance" absolutley suggests a military article. The article I presume is not simply a laundry list of excesses, but wishes to demonstrate Soviet atrocities were part of a government directed policy (Ehrenberg evidence, for example). The Soviet advance differred from the German advance of 1940 which had mental patients following in Einsatzgruppen trucks on the heals of the Wehrmacht advance; Soviet atrocities were, I beleive, committed by advancing troops. By showing to Americans what "our Allies" did on the road to their glorious victory I beleive may in the longrun attract a wider readership rather than be dismissed out of hand as "revisionism" or "isolated instances", which is what has been the fate of efforts for 50 years to bring his information before American readers. Nobs 18:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions:

  • Prussia 1944
  • Vistula Front
  • Soviet Population Policy Nobs 02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving the article and restoring old content

If you continue your actions without discusssion, you will be blocked from editing.

the current article discusses evacuation, which was started before the end of the war. No one disputes that it turned into ethnic cleansing, which is clearly stated in the article. But the topic is broader.

The article went a long way to NPOV, and reverting to old version will not be tolerated. Mikkalai 01:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Soviet "Propaganda"

The article gives this as an example of Soviet "propaganda": "The Soviets later blamed the Second World War on German militarism."

This isn't a case of Soviet propaganda. This is a case of the Soviets nailing the issue right on the head.

I vote we delete that sentence.

Someone "improved" it some time ago. I restored the original idea. Mikkalai 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Edits of Chammy Koala

The issue is mentioned briefly below in the article. Since this is a disputable issue, this page may have a neutral general statement and the details must be restricted to the Nemmersdorf article, where the event may be discussed from all points of view. What you added was reported by Nazi, which undermines the credibility of the overall statement. Mikkalai 00:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have proof that what I added was reported by a Nazi? Or is that just your POV? I actually didn't add as much as I would have liked due to the sensetivity of the article. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's incorrect. WP article on Zayas. --Chammy Koala 10:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you look at my user page, you will probably get a better understanding of my likes and dislikes. In particular, if your phrase means that I want to whitewash the Soviet Union, then you will see that I am doing in wikipedia exactly the opposite job. In particular, you may look at my vote about Zayas: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Terrible Revenge. Mikkalai 21:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for who reprorted this, why don't you answer the question yourself, since you want to add it.
You also seem to ignore my advice to look at the Nemmersdorf article. Please use some logic and think who else could provide this information at these times.
When writing about, as you correctly noticed, sensitive topics, you are not supposed to grab the first best website or book and type claiming it as an established fact. I would also like to remind you about the policy of neutral language in wikipedia articles. Mikkalai 21:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find the official position of Germany on the Nemmersdorf issue. Mikkalai 21:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have now looked at the article on Nemmersdorf, very short with not much information. Is that because it's hard to find facts, or because it's hard to find facts that aren't "sensitive"? I will not edit this page again until I get my hands on some published literature, not just the internet. I never sugested you wanted to whitewash the soviet union. NPOV means all relevant positions should be reported even if you don't like what's said.

Nemmersdorf describes both positions, but briefly because of lack of reliable sources provided. For example, if you search internet, you may find very different numbers of victims, from 26 to 94. Mikkalai 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article lacks a lot of information becasue that information is sensitive, well if it's factual, then too bad if you don't like it. An article that shows both sides reported: Noam Chomsky --Chammy Koala 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please refraing from using the expression "you don't like it" implying "you dont like information". I like information. The article lacks information because it lacks sources that are agreed upon, for perfectly understandable reasons.
In the cases when there is no commonly accepted agreement the article must clearly say whose point of view is presented. In the case of Zayas book, which contains quotes of eyewitnesses I would prefer to see the quotations of eyewittnesses, rather than of Zayas opinions. His opinions have a perfect place: articles about his works.
While I do believe that Soviet troops raped, killed, and plundered, I don't believe one detail: a repeated motif of crucified bodies. For a Soviet person crucifixion does not have the associations common to the West, for a simple reason: the Russian generation that were soldiers in WWII were atheists. For example when Whites painted colourful pictures the atrocities of Bolshevik Commissars, they were smart enough to say that they cut 5-ray stars on the bodies (that became red of blood), but they knew who they were dealing with, and did not suggest that Boslheviks crucified somebody. For this reason I tend to believe that the crucifixion is an embellishment added by a Western person. But I do not write this in the article. But also I will not object that the article will say "Corporal Kurt Drillenhengst in his memoires wrote:"We saw women bodies crucified with breasts cut off" " But I will strongly object to the phrase "On the door of each house there was a naked woman nailed." Mikkalai 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never wrote about the crucified bodies, although it was in an article I read. I deliberately left it out as I didn't want to go into gorey details. --Chammy Koala 01:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was just an example of dramatic information that circulates in internet. Mikkalai 02:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Please do not make large reverts to articles without discussing it first on the talk page. You perhaps should review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If information is factual it should be included, we should not try to make readers of wikipedia conform to our bias, we should present the facts and allow them to draw their own conclusions. If you feel the article is too one sided, then you should make edits for the opposing side to promote neutrality.--Chammy Koala 14:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article is about Evacuation of East Prussia, which started before Nemmersdorf. YOu are free to edscrive the POV of Zayas at any level of detail in the corresponding article, A Terrible Revenge. The old version which you are trying to restore with all the massacres and rapes is phrased as a matter of fact while such phrases like "The Soviets slaughtered not only the inhabitans to the last man, woman, and child but French prisoners-of-war too" pose natural questions: why would Soviet kill their allies? A possible explanation it was a result of indiscriminated shelling or bombing, rather than throat-cutting. If you want it as a fact, please provide proper context, otherwise this is just a horror movie, not an encyclopedic article. Mikkalai 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, why was cited information removed, as well as a citation itself??

  • Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge, St. Martin's Press, 1994 — ISBN 0312121598

is a particularly worthwhile citation for this article. Sam Spade 14:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It had been entered twice, just worded the other way around, so I didn't notice at first when I added it. So I was just deleting a doubling up.--Chammy Koala 15:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just double checked it's still there, and it is — A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 - Alfred-Maurice de Zayas - 1994 - ISBN 0312121598 so I did only delete a doubling up of information. --Chammy Koala 15:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you seriously not see that "The Prussian Holocaust refers to the genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign of the Red Army on the German population of East Prussia and other Prussian lands in 1944 and 1945." is hopelessly POV? john k 15:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is at Evacuation of East Prussia. It should not begin with "The Prussian Holocaust is". john k 15:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you think it is, then edit it, don't just revert. --Chammy Koala 15:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing about the Mikkalai version which was improved by the subsequent edits - only dubious information and POV has been added. A revert is thus appropriate. john k 15:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My version has a drawback that it does not include information from Zayas's book. I already wrote to Koala that data from this book deserves includion here, but only the parts where he quotes evidences, with proper attribution, not just hyserical antisoviet shouts about rapes and murders. No one denies they were. Just as rapes in Normandy by anglo-saxon "liberators" of France. Just as in any war. And I repeat, there is a good place to go in all detail: A Terrible Revenge. This aricle is a different topic. You may also start the article Soviet war atrocities in Germany or "...in East Prussia", which must describe witnesses's desciptions presented as such, not as a matter of fact, because unfortunately there was no "Russell Tribunal" for Soviet Union, and wikipedia is not in a position to confirm or deny the truthfulness of the withesses descriptions. Mikkalai 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am more an more inclined to think that Soviet war atrocities in Germany would be a reasonable article to describe various things, such as various versions of Ilya Erenburg's address to Soviet soldiers (most atrcious ones denied by Erenburg). Mikkalai 17:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, let us look for the points of view of official Germany, Federation of Expellees (Territorial Association of East Prussia in particular), Prussian Claims Society, and other bodies. The article Federation of Expellees speaks about claims towards Poland and Czechia, but not towards Russia/Soviet Union. Why? Mikkalai 18:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would assume claims by expellees can only be pursued within EU member states under current treaty arrangements. Any more information on Beneš decrees? Nobs 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One problem with English is at the exact moment American and Soviet members of the Nuremberg Tribunal were charging Nazi's with "Mass deportation of polulations", one party to the prosecutions was engaged in such activity. Hence historians of that generation came up with euphemisms like "expulsion" and "evacuation" to explain away the "intricacies of the situation". Nobs 19:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

references

I find the talk above very constructive and hope provoking. I would appreciate that references be left in the article if nothing less. i understand they are imperfectly formatted, but improve, rather than delete them. I'm open to dialogue as to specifics btw, and it would be helpful to go point by point rather than reverting generalities.

Cheers,

Sam Spade 23:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "Prussian Holocaust"

Neologisms should not be used in encyclopedia. Google search of the term PH in connection with the WW2 events points only to a couple of places outside the WP itself or sites that mirror WP articles. Those who repeatedly introduce this term to this article, please cite your sources here. I will wait for some time, and if no sources are given, I will strike down this term.

On another note, I find the behavior of Sam Spade to be completely unacceptable. He repeatedly makes reversions disregarding the talk page discussions, makes copyvio edits, see this for example [7], and, instead of responding at the talk pages, simply ignores all objections. This is clearly done in bad faith! Irpen 20:32, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Information from Ezion Geber's site is not Copyvio! Permission has been given by Ezion, after explaining wikipedia and our copyright policy. Do not delete information from that site for reasons of Copyvio. --Chammy Koala 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no way of knowing the Ezion gave permission to use his text word for word. Anyway, I did not delete anything just for the reasons of Copyvio. I stand by my comment that the term "PH" is not commonly used for these events and, therefore, should not be used in WP. Discussion whether these events qualify to be called Holocaust is a legitimate one, but until it is settled to at least some degree of acceptance in serious works, using it is original research at best. I will stand corrected if serious references where this term is used are given. Irpen 01:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Since no sources were cited after the previous request which was up long enough, I think it is legitimate to conclude that the term has no acceptance among serious authors (see above). However, maybe we should still keep the term in this article just for the information because in the current context its usage does not create any false impressions about its acceptance. Instead, I edited a separate Prussian Holocaust article to make it more an article about the term rather than about the events. The events have an article on their own (this one) which, hopefully, will keep getting better. Irpen 03:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Good edits User:Mikkalai and User:Chammy Koala! I find them an agreeable compromise! Maybe we can remove the dispute header soon thanks to your fine work. Cheers,

Sam Spade 23:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Please notice that the dispute header is about accuracy, not about POV. there is still lots of work to be done to convert the article from an emotional outcry to an infromative text.

  • How many actually fled and how many sat in place and were later expelled?
  • How many were evacuated to Russia for works? And it was not Siberia gulag camps, as a common cliche says. A significant (if not major) part of germans actually worked in the European part of the Soviet Union on restorative road and construction works.
  • What exactly the original report about Nemmersdorf said. In particular the number 72 is definitely incorrect.
  • What is the official position of Germany about Nemmersdorf and East Prussia in general.
  • Federation of expellees position
  • Soviet/Russian POV on the events. For quite some time things like Nemmersdorf were simply left in silence, but in modern times there are chances to hear something new.
  • The pattern of violence against civilians repeated in the following months: I highly doubt this. While at the first thrust it could have been, but pretty soon Soviets realized that this would be bad message to Europe, and all bloodthirsty calls were recalled and converted into the idea of "liberation" of Germany from fascism, and murderous violence against civilians was blocked (rapes and robberies were declared inadmissible as well, but usually the eyes were closed).
  • and much more.

I am aware of the history of the article and how it became called "Evacuation". The original text was not primarily about evacuation at all. But since we have it thusly, the actual information about the proceeding of the evacuation is badly needed. Definitely much more is to be said instead of just "trudging knee-deep in the snow shelled by Russians." Mikkalai 00:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote: I'm not sure about Germans in East Prussia, but in the case of Poland the front-line troops were relatively friendly towards the civilians. On the contrary, the true hell started after the front troops went westwards and the second echelon arrived: second line troops, marauders, NKVD... Most reports of mass rapes and pillaging of Polish cities are about the second line troops. Halibutt 01:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

  • Discussion at talk subsided months ago. Does it mean that there are we could remove the "disputed" tag? If not, please explain here. --Irpen 02:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I read the article yesterday for the first time and although I don't consider it a masterpiece, to me it doesn't need a tag. Otto ter Haar 06:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree User:Nickhk

template:unreferenced

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.

I have reinserted the unreferenced template into the references section. Part of the reason for writing the Evacuation section yesterday was to demonstrate how IMHO citations should be included in this controversial article in line with the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. The template could be placed at the top of the three sections which do not cite their references: "German propaganda", "Soviet propaganda and retribution", and "Fate of the feral children" but I would prefer to leave the unreferenced template in the References section because I do not like lots of these banners cluttering up an article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reliable and reputable sources

Apart from the lack of citing references, I am not altogether sure if all the sources given meet the criteria of reliable and reputable sources. For example the extract by William I. Hitchcock:

  • It has at least one distortion and one factual error of admission in it regarding Dresden. "Dresden. This ancient capital of Saxony, once called the Florence of the Elbe for its magnificent baroque architecture, possessed little heavy industry. Following an assault by some eight hundred RAF bombers and 311 American B-17s, the city was swallowed by fire, and over 50,000 people were incinerated". No it did not possess heavy industry but it did possess light industry which in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with materiel (Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945. By Frederick Taylor, page 169). The number killed is at the high end of the range given by other respectable historians, who have specialised in the attack. If this was a reliable and reputable source one would expect him to note the Allied bombing assessments and to list the range of figures on the death toll which other respectable historians who have specialised in the raids have come up with.
  • "Russian soldiers were urged on by their commanders to behave as brutally as possible." If they had there would not have been a German alive east of the Elbe. The Zhukov quote which follows his assertion does not say what he says it says. As Beevor points out in Berlin the downfall on Page 409 "in Berlin the feelings of the civilian population were very mixed. While embittered by the looting and rape, they were also astonished and grateful for the Red Army's major efforts to feed them".
  • "Some women's bodies were found raped, mutilated, and nailed to barn doors." It may have happened, but this sounds like the crucified Canadian soldier story of World War I. (The crucified Canadian has been studied by several historians and the general conclusion is that it can not be positively verified to credible first hand reports (This is not to say that it did not happen, just that the rumours that it did conveniently dovetailed into Allied propaganda whether the incident was true or not). Niall Ferguson: Pity of War James Hayward:Myths and Legends of the First World War). In the same way if one looks at the Nemmersdorf article it is possible that reports of the atrocity was tainted by Nazi propaganda. Any reputable historian ought to mention this while laying out the known facts [8]

Of the author himself, his biography is available with a review of the book "The Struggle for Europe" from the publisher (Random House) along with some glowing review quotes.[9]. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

when I first heard this I found it similar to the case of the Canadian soldier in WWI, but this has been actually documents to a much greater extent. I think this has often been unfairly called a hoax because it resembles the WWI case so much.

  • As for Russians being urged on by their commanders,it was not necessarily their commanders that urged them on, but the Russian national radio had a very anti-German announcer (i forget his name now) who very much urged them to rape, pillage and murder Germans. It was most oftenly the commanders who stopped the atrocities after a period of time, but they hardly urged them on.

to quote you: "If they had there would not have been a German alive east of the Elbe." That is an exaggeration, that would of been nigh impossible, the Nazis couldnt kill all the Jews and the plan they had was state controlled, how could the Russkies do any better to a larger population in less time? while the Red army's atrocities where not organized until after the war was over and the remaining Germans in the areas were forced accross the Oder-Neisse line.

  • in his book on Dresden, the number given in that book is "in the high-range" as you say, but still in the commonly accepted range from historians, it is not hundreds of thousands and millions like the Nazis had said.

--Jadger 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Rape and stuff

I am tired of reading this Nazi propaganda that Russians raped half of Germany. On the other hand it is not my business to run around and deny or neutralize this by "brute force". Are there any reputable sources that seriously study and deny these allegations? I mean of course, where is war there is rape. But on such a scale it sounds like a joke. It was battlefield. Soldiers were not running here and there with bare dicks. There is such a thing as military discipline. One might got killed during war, after all.
Also, there are quite a few stories about german girls sleeping with Americans for chocolate and tin can food. I'd rather guess something similar could have happened on Russan side as well. But after it was over it was more fun to declare themselves raped.
So, is there any Russian sources that deny all this? Of course poor suffering Germans were ready to shed plenty of tears how these nasty Russisch Untermenschen raped all innocent arian blondies. `'mikka (t) 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of rape was brought to a relative prominence recently by Beevor's book "The Fall of Berlin 1945". Beevor is no doubt a respected historian and it is a pity that of the whole book, the part about the rape is the only one many here seems interested to cite. I haven't read a book. I only read some of its reviews. The most respectable of those, is in the Atlantic monthly and can be found here (email me for the link if it requires a supscription from your IP, I can send you a link to a full version). Of the lengthy for pages review, there is only one paragraph about the rape, although a drammatic one. It only shows that there was so much more to it and the sensation hungry public is only eager to read and discuss this juicy part, as well as some reviewers in lest respectable publication. Here are the part related to rape from the review[10]:

For the Germans this was by far the worst period of the war. They knew that when the Soviets arrived, there would very likely be an orgy of rape—old women, young girls, whoever. Beevor goes on and on about this. He has interviewed women who remember these horrors. The book has been rather badly received in some Russian quarters, because—at least in the captured cities, where officers could keep order—Red Army soldiers (as opposed to those in their wake, camp followers and former prisoners) were under some sort of control; and in any case, the previous German occupation of a large part of Russia and Ukraine had been distinguished by extraordinary cruelty and pillage. But there is no doubt that rape on a grand scale distinguished the Soviet advance through the countryside; and even before the end of the war Churchill was asking himself how he and the Americans could have let such "barbarians" into Europe. To the Soviets, however, the Germans had been the real barbarians, and Stalin was not going to let them forget it. Not until some days after the end of the war did it all stop—and then only because the Soviets needed at least some German cooperation.
The Nazis had forbidden anyone to retreat from eastern Germany. To stanch the Soviet invasion they even (grotesquely, as Beevor captures well) organized young boys and old men into a Volkssturm (typically pompous, untranslatable Nazi language; "enraged territorials" is probably close enough). Then, at the last moment, civilians were allowed to flee. In the millions they did—column after column of horses and carts, laden with family valuables, sick old people, children, and pregnant women, plus a few able-bodied men who were trying to keep order. There was panic and death as the civilians were evacuated across the sandy spits of the Frisches Haff and in the Wilhelm Gustloff, which a Soviet sub sank in the freezing Baltic, with the loss of 7,000 lives.

You can read excerpt from other reviews here or google for more. You can also look at fragmets of the book here. Just enter "rape" in the search string if you are only interested in these parts. --Irpen 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote. And your text here contradicts texts elsewhere. They all write exactly opposite: Berlin, was raped, Konigsberg was raped, etc., not countryside. Thet's what I am saying: is there any text that says something opposite? Of course among tens of millions of German women I would guess 2-4-5 thousand raped, and their memoirs may fill 50 books. But to write that it was a blanket raping orgy, it smacks thick bullshit. `'mikka (t) 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

it smacks thick bullshit? so you say they would only rape people in the cities, but not in the rest of the land that they conquered? so only the Russians tasked with capturing cities would rape people, not anywhere they conquered, only in the cities, that is what your saying. come on, be realistic, it happened everywhere, just like when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the atrocities happened widespread. Mikka, what are cities surrounded by? countryside, but you are saying that on the way to Berlin, Koenigsberg, etc. the Russians never touched anything or anybody, then when they saw Wilkommen zu Berlin signs they went hogwild.

other then the source already given, there are many other reputable ones that back up what is being said. for instance read The vanished Kingdom: Travels through the History of Prussia or The Blonde Knight of Germany. the latter is a biography written about Erich Hartmann.

And as for German girls sleeping with Yankee GIs for chocolate and supplies, that is well known, but to say that since it happened in one place, it must of taken place in others as well is incredibly stupid. Russian soldiers were not as well supplied or equipped as American GIs, and did not have chocolate (or not nearly in as much in supply) to trade for.

As for your blatant racism against Germans (Of course poor suffering Germans were ready to shed plenty of tears how these nasty Russisch Untermenschen raped all innocent arian blondies.) proves again that it was indeed rape. The Yanks were not considered Untermenschen, so relations with them was not as frowned upon as with the Untermenschen Russkies, so if your racist ideas were true (although they arent), the German girls would not have had sex with the Russians (or atleast not at the level of rapes, and come on, millions of girls are raped but millions of soldiers say it was consentual) I can't believe your reasoning.

--Jadger 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I have not read it, it is my understanding that The Vanished Kingdom is not critically-acclaimed and the author is quite POV at times. R.A.C. Parker's The Second World War does not denote much space to the topic: "It was the largest migration ever recorded, inflicting on Germans some of the iniquities the agents of 'Germanism' had earlier meted out. First the Red Army smashed into German homes, permitted, for a time, to indulge in indiscriminate revenge on Germans. Pillage, rape, and murder struck the victims." (297). Olessi 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to really have some serious problems. Do you honstley belive the terrible crimes the German state has commited give you the right to make fun of innocent women and girls raped by soviets? You should seek some proffesional help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.114.69.134 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia INSTEAD.