Talk:Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What is missing

Prewar Czechoslovakia was not only inhabited by Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians but also by another important minority, the Jews (not mentioned here). Not much of them survived the World War II. Czech Jews were an integral part of the Czech history, for most of them there was no return and there was no chance to restore the prewar demographic structure. Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be discussed in the German occupation of Poland article. --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the German occupation of Poland is a different story. What I wanted to say was, that there was no chance for return to the situation that there was before the war, for example Prague was a city of three cultures (Czech, German and Jewish) and one of them was totally lost. Cepek 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Only one was totally lost? Presumably you mean the Jewish culture. Was the German culture retained?
In any event, this is out of the scope of this article. I agree that the story of Jews in Czechoslovakia starts much earlier and continues until just a little bit past the end of World War II (i.e. to the point where it became obvious that Jews would not or could not return to Czechoslovakia).
Consider creating an article like Jews in Czechoslovakia. I don't begin to know enough to write such an article. Perhaps you could propose an outline. However, creating such an article is getting off topic so feel free to continue this part of the discussion on my talk page. --Richard 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I will start it, but you have to give me more time. Hmmm... the outline: few sentences about Jewry in Czech lands, more (at least one section) about Jews in 19.cent. (between Germans and Czechs, begin of Zionism, Hilsner affair) Jewish-Czech relations during WWI, early years of 1st Czechoslovak rep., culture-science etc., Jewish immigration into Czechoslovakia, crisis 1938, 2nd Czech-Slovak rep. + Sudetenland, Holocaust (Protectorate + Slovak rep., Terezín), Jews in outland resistance, Jews in post-war Czechoslovakia, communist regime (Slánský-trial), culture-science, Jews after Velvet revolution... - no more idea for this moment
--Honzula 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I am missing at least some information on Nazi's plans for most of the Czech population. Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be discussed in the German occupation of Poland article. Presumably there was a plan similar to Generalplan Ost for Czechoslovakia. --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The historical background ("renewed constitution" ...) is a bit simplified from my point of view. Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean the first paragraphs of the article which I have now made into a "Background" section. Well, a "Background" section should be simplified but what are the significant points that you see as lacking? --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What I had on mind was that since 17th century not only "the German language was established as a second official language in the Czech lands" but it was the start time of recatholization of Czech lands and suppressing of Czech culture and language. Czech lands lost much of the nobility, many protestants left the country (like Comenius). The long term result was that Czechs became second class citizens in their own lands. Cepek
I'm OK with adding a sentence that makes this point but I think that this is better covered in History of Czechoslovakia or maybe in an article with a more narrow scope (i.e. we may have to create a new article to discuss this topic). Please think about what such an article might be called. However, once again, creating such an article is getting off topic so feel free to continue this part of the discussion on my talk page. --Richard 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What possibly might be stressed is the personal role of Edvard Beneš.Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What specifically would you like to see included that is not there now? --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Some people believe that the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia was heavily supported by Edvard Beneš because it was his personal revenge for Munich agreement (memoirs by Václav Černý). Cepek 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So be bold and add this information to the article. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, then write the proposed text here and we can review it prior to adding it to the article.
I think it's clear that Beneš was planning the expulsion of Germans while he was in exile in London. What would be interesting would be any insisghts that Černý can provide on the development of this mentality. Was it monomaniacal? (i.e. did it become an obsession) Or was it more a matter-of-fact conclusion that this was simply the best solution for Czechoslovakia? What was Černý's assessment of Beneš' position on the expulsions? Did Černý agree with Beneš or did he think that Beneš' stance on the expulsions was detrimental to Beneš or to Czechoslovakia?
--Richard 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We would welcome your assistance in expanding on any and all of these topics although some of them are arguably more suited for the German occupation of Poland article. --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Germans in Slovakia should be mentioned

This article only speaks about the Germans in in Bohemia and Moravia ("Czech lands"). The post-war expulsion of Carpathian Germans from Slovakia is not mentioned at all. --AtonX (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The following text was copied from my Talk Page...

Several notes to the Expulsion from Czechoslovakia: Benes proclaimed the program of the newly appointed Czechoslovak government Beneš was not the head of the government, only prime-minister or government as the team is competent to do this.

It is not equal to describe the "Sbor poverenikov" (Board of Slovak Commissioners) as the "an appendage of the Czechoslovak government in Bratislava" The process was complex, but in 1945, till 20 October), "Sbor poverenikov Slovenskej narodnej rady" was an executive part of the Slovak national committee (SNC), and thus fully independent on the Czechoslovak government. Since 28 oct. 1945 to February 1948 the decreasing influnce of SNC meant that the "Sbor" slowly changed into the the detachment of central government. After February 1948 the independence of all Slovak administration was only nominal (though in theory survived till 1960).

So called "reslovakization" reffers only to Slovak territory.

"various forms of persecution, including: expulsions, deportations, internments, peoples court procedures, citizenship revocations, property confiscation, condemnation to forced labour camps, involuntary changes of nationality" I'm not sure if the criminal proceedings and trial shall be involved among "forms of persecution"

"citizenship revocations" again - the decree No. 33/1945 in absolute most of causes only had confirmed the German and Hungarian citizenship the people obtained after 1938. Only several hundreds or thousands cases the citizenship was removed. The "involuntary changes of nationality" were rare and I don't know any case like this. The official policy was Germans must go! - including the Czech members of families.

military command "Alex" was only one organisation of resistance and uprising amd has no broad influence. Honzula 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postoloprty

Twice the same.Xx236 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed--Richard 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estimates of casualties range between 15,000 and 270,000 people, depending on source

Total idiocy. There is a German-Czech agreement. Who knows better than Czech and Germans? Xx236 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This verbiage should be cleaned up to reflect that the Joint Commission of Czech and German historians is more recent and arguably more reliable. It may take me a while to get to it. Remind me if I forget. --Richard 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Hungarians should be mentioned

The same the arrival of Czechs from Silesia. Xx236 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I had given this some thought and deliberately decided to omit the mention of other ethnic groups because the title of the article is "Expulsion of Germans...". Can you make a case that we should expand the scope to discuss other movements of people within Czechoslovakia? I think it would change the title of the article. Perhaps a better solution would be to start another article to cover the history of Czechoslovakia during this time period. --Richard 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is really a difficult subject. I think that the article has been started well. Should we also talk here about the expulsion of Czechs from Slovakia? Cepek 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The background behind the creation of this article is that it is a subsidiary article of Expulsion of Germans after World War II. In fact, the text of the first revision of this article was lifted from Expulsion of Germans after World War II. There are "sister" articles Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II. The point is that the focus of these articles is on expulsion of Germans as opposed to any other ethnic group. I think the rationale here is that these expulsions are controversial because of public attention focused on them by the Federation of Expellees and historians such as de Zayas, Overmans and Nitschke.
For this reason, I would oppose a widening of scope to cover all migrations of peoples in Czechoslovakia at the end of World War II. However, I can imagine creating an article titled Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II. The new article would reference this one and also cover the expulsion of Hungarians and the expulsion of Czechs from Slovakia. Does this approach make sense to you? --Richard 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely! Cepek 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unprecize. I believe that the expulsion of Hungarians should be mentioned/linked, eg. in "See also", not described here. The arrival of Czechs from Silesia should be described here, because they partially replaced expelled Germans.Xx236 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic homogenization is a little klunky, and although after has been used on other articles, wouldn't that include any ethnic homogenization since 1945? How about Forced emigrations from Czechoslovakia following World War II or Forced emigrations from post-war Czechoslovakia? TheMightyQuill 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a step in the right direction. I like "forced migrations" but not "forced emigration" because the the transfer of the Silesian Czechs was a forced internal migration within Czechoslovakia. I'm now thinking that the new article should be titled Forced migrations in Czechoslovakia after World War II. --Richard 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean the transfer of Czechs from Lower Silesia, formerly German, later Polish. Eg. from Kłodzko region.Xx236 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Forced migration" is a statndard term. See also "population transfer". `'mikka 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation

The first sentence of this section reads...

Since the Czechoslovak government-in-exile decided that population transfer was the only solution of the "German question", the problem of reparation (war indemnity) was closely associated.

This matches pretty closely what User:Honzula wrote. I didn't understand the point he was making when I put it in and I still don't understand it. Honzula, can you clarify what this is trying to say?

--Richard 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited sentence says: Already the first plan of transfer (which Čs. gov. in London consulted with Allies in 1943) includes the plan for settlement of reparation from the propertyof transfered Germans (among others). --Honzula 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence in this issue which was totally incorrect and not based on a reliable source. Even orthographically it was incorrect. (cf. Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II). Money which Germany paid according to 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 (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. - Wikiferdi 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't told that the compensation paid by Germany was given only to Sudetengermans!! And can you provide better info and more "reliable source" about the total or average amount of compensations paid to expelees and Sudetengermans especially? Honzula 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The total amount of money given to Sudetengermans by German state is uncertain.
I am sorry, I don't know how much money each Sudetengerman expellee received either but I am sure that it wasn't much. To put the whole amount of "burden sharing" in relation to the number of the benificiaries you should first know how many they were/are. - Wikiferdi 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What does it mean "it wasn't much" ? Less than the surviving slaves in concentration camps working for German companies for several years? You can start with the number 10 millions and then go lower and lower... However, I agree that the section concerning the compensation to Sudetengermans needs some changes and completion. --Honzula 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

what is the relevance of concentration camp workers to those expelled? Their is no connection between the two. --Jadger 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

even the amount of compensation paid by Germany... Honzula 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So? and why should Germany pay them both the same? they didn't both go through the same experiences. The money given to Germans that were expelled, stays in Germany and gets invested; the money given to foreigners goes *poof* and is never seen again, it doesn't get invested back into the German economy.

There is no link between the two, except that they both received a hand-out from the German gov't. but if that's the case, why don't we compare it to the unemployment cheques German citizens receive when they aren't working?

--Jadger 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

perfect argument Honzula 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispelling the myths about Sudeten Germans

(cf. [1])

“ Germanic tribes actually lived on modern-day Czech territory well before Slavic tribes arrived around 500 AD. However, neither the Germanic nor the Slavic populations of the fifth century would have qualified as German or Czech in the modern sense. While from the second to the fifth century the population was probably mainly Germanic and Celtic tribes, it is generally acknowledged that Slavic settlers became the majority by the seventh century. Most of the remaining populations assimilated with the newly arrived Slavs, although west and northwest Bohemia remained mostly Germanic due to strong Frankish influence. German and Latin remained the prevalent language of the Royal House and the aristocracy, even among the Přemyslid dynasty. ”

- Wikiferdi 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can tell me once more about the myths :-)) The Sudetengermans weren't descendants of Germanic tribes lived in current Czech territory (though they desired to be). The regions where they lived were mostly unsettled till Middle Age. --Honzula 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are right that the Sudetengerman settlers in Bohemia weren't descendants of those Germanic and Celtic tribes living there before but actually this doesn't change the fact that Germanic tribes lived in these territories before Slavic tribes. - Wikiferdi 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Germanic tribes lived in these territories before Slavic tribes"
Somebody claims something different? --Honzula 13:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
“ Sudeten Germans supposedly all voted for the Nazi puppet Sudeten German Party (SdP) of Konrad Henlein with the sole purpose of destroying Czechoslovakia, Central Europe's last island of freedom and democracy at the time.

These accusations are based on the theory of collective guilt, or, as the Constitutional Court argued in defense of the Beneš Decrees, the principle of collective responsibility. The current state uses historic events like the 1935 election to defend and justify the forced expulsion of one-third of the country's historic population and the resulting disappearance of one of the country's historic languages.

Although much literature contains detailed analyses of these elections, few facts have become public. A close look reveals that a substantial part of the Sudeten Germans did not vote for the SdP, despite the enormous anti-Czech propaganda coming from Nazi Germany. Henlein received around two-thirds of the votes of the four main German parties but a strong communist vote also marked the highly industrialized north Bohemia.

Also, some Sudeten Germans did not vote, while others supported Czech or Hungarian parties. The SdP is likely to have received 50 percent to 55 percent of the Sudeten German vote. Among all the German-speaking population, Henlein received only 35 percent. And those who voted SdP voted for an official party program calling for Sudeten German autonomy within a democratic Czechoslovakia. (cf. [2])

 ”
- Wikiferdi 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikiferdi, please, stop directing the discussion this way, before you blame yourself completely. You want to fight against "myths about Sudeten Germans" but you are presenting only the sudetengerman mythology instead. There is no mention about "1935 election" in the judgement of Constitutional Court.[3] And almost nobody critizes Germans for their option in the normal democratic election.
The criticism is concerning the communal election in 1938 - after the Anschluss thousands of refugees fled to Czechoslovakia, almost everybody saw the results of Nazi agression, but though at least 89.57% of German electors voted for SdP in communal elections (they concerned only 60% of municipalities). Elections were in several waves, not everything was included to statistic (this is, why estimates oscillate between 89.57% and 91.43%). The final results in some big cities were as follows: Liberec 90.8% for SdP, Ústí nad Labem 82% for SdP, Litoměřice 93.8% for SdP etc. And second frequently critized is the result of elections to the Reichstag on 4.12.1938 (one month after Kristallnacht): From 2,535,924 of adult (and non-Jewish) inhabitants in Sudetenland 2,500,961 came to elections (98.62%) and 2,467,936 (97.32%) voted for NSDAP - against voted almost exclusively Czechs. (see the often mentioned book of V.Zimmermann)
Back to the arguments of Constitutional Court:
"The division consists in this, who was on which side; because of this is not considered as the enemy the man of German ethnicity actively defending democracy or persecuted by totalitarian regime; on the other hand is -regardless the ethnicity- considered as the enemy the man who actively fought against democracy."
"The fact that the decree No.108/1945Sb. presumes the responsibility of the persons of German ethnicity has, with the redard to mentioned facts, discriminating character, it is not any national revenge, but it is only adequate reaction to the agression of Nazi Germany, reaction, which should to reduce the political and economical consequences of the occupation."
"Without strong support of decisive majority of the German people would be Hitler and his Nazi party only marginal phenomenon. His dangerous character endangering the fate of all mankind on the Earth is the reason, why the effort to destroy all sources of totalitarianism needs also extraordinary legislative measures." Honzula 13:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I confer to free elections and not to elections influenced by Nazi force and Nazi propaganda. Such results of polls which you mention (that obviously took place after the Anschluss of the Sudetenland) are common to dictatorships.

Concerning the time before 1938 the situation in the Sudetenland is described by Prof. de Zayas:

“ It has been frequently suggested that Henlein was a sinister schemer and his SdP nothing more than a subversive Nazi organization bent on the destruction of Czechoslvak independence. It is easy to understand how these notions arose, yet neither Henlein at the outset of his political career nor the SdP for many years of its development had anything to do with the National Socialist movement in Germany. Both were originally dedicated to a democratic settlement of the Sudeten German question, which was to be achieved by peaceful negotiations in the Czech parliament. All attemps to reach an acceptable settlement, however, failed, and the gradual escalation of the Czech-Sudten confrontation resulted in forcing Henlein into the arms of Adolf Hitler, who promised to provide an international sounding board for the Sudeten case. […] Hitler of course, more than welcomed the opportunity of making the Sudeten case his own and did not hesitate to misuse the principle of self-determination as a weapon to further his own Lebensraum policy. (cf. Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN 0710084684, pp. 28f) ”

- Wikiferdi 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You (and evidently also Mr. Zayas) need to remind the circumstances of SdP establishment. There was few democratic in this party since beginning under the name SHF (1933 - accidental coincidence?). And its direct predecessors, DNSAP and DNP, always refused the cooperation with (in) Czechoslovak government. This is why they both were called "negativist". It seems that your favourite source Zayas know not too much the historical facts. --Honzula 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
An here you have the "peaceful negotiations in the Czech parliament" - an explanation between the Polish deputy (Śliwka), Slovak deputy (Široký) and SdP deputies (Neuwirth, Eichholz) in parliament of ČSR:
“ Posl. Śliwka: Autonomja jest pierwsze dopiero hasło, które wyjął pan poseł Wolf z programu wyraźnie henleinowskiego i zagranicznego. To jest pretekst do faszyzacji, pretekst do nowej Malhommiady. (Posl. dr Eichholz: Sie haben ja noch das Selbstbestimmungsrecht vor ein paar Jahren verlangt!) Schauen Sie, mein lieber Herr, wenn Sie über die polnische Minderheit, über die Polen sprechen . . . (Posl. dr Neuwirth: Sie Asiate!)

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Wenn Sie über die polnischen Minderheiten sprechen wollen . . . (Posl. dr Neuwirth: Abtreten, Asien abtreten! Abtreten!)

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Sie haben kein Recht hier über Polen zu sprechen! (Výkřiky posl. Širokého.)

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Široký, das hat doch keinen Sinn.

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Lieber Herr, schauen Sie, die Sache ist klar. Wenn Sie unsere polnischen Minderheiten verteidigen wollen, geben Sie in Deutschland den Polen wenigstens das, was wir hier in der Republik haben. (Potlesk komunistických poslanců.) Wir haben hier in der Čechoslovakischen Republik auf hundertdreißigtausend Polen 84 Volksschulen und in Deutschland kommen auf 1,500.000 Polen nur 24 Schulen. (Posl. Dr. Neuwirth: Das überlassen Sie dem Beck.) Das ist Ihre Arbeit. Wenn Sie Ordnung und Rechte für Deutsche wollen, dann schauen Sie, daß Ordnung und Rechte für Polen auch in Deutschland werden.

 ”
If somebody calls his opponent "You Asiatic!" isn't this a display of racism? --Honzula 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't understand your comment but I think we don't dispute here some idiotic remarks of racists but the evolution of a party towards nationalism and the influence of Czech politic on this phenomenon. (You have forgotten to mention the predecessors of the SdP which had been forbidden by the Czech parliament...) Do you really stick to the allegation that Czech politic did nothing to bar the Sudetengermans from following their right on self-determination? - Wikiferdi 00:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principals of this massacre were arrested and imprisoned.

This is mentioned about the Usti massacre. Is it true? Does the referenced source (Z. Beneš, Rozumět dějinám) really confirm it or is it only referencing to the massacre in general? Irwing 10:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the reference to this fact in on-line sources, so I removed the statement. Please, if anyone wants to return it, cite the exact part of referred book. Irwing (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)