Talk:History of German settlement in Central and Eastern Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Prussia  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Prussia.
 

German-speaking westward migration[edit]

"It is worth noting that the only detailed effort to count the casualties was made by ethnic Germans from Yugoslavia, who documented all their victims, resulting in a figure half the estimate of the Federal Statistics Bureau." Could this be footnoted? The Germans of the defunct Yugoslavia consisted of a number of groups that had little in common and eben after their "ethnic cleansing" did not cooperate much. There are separate Gottscheer, Danube Suebians, Unterkrainer, etc organizations. Because of this, I doubt it was Yugoslavia-wide. A footnote would be great.

The cultural diversity in those areas was enormous, as well as their different dialects. The loss of this century-old cultures would inflict great damage on Europe´s history and culture.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Concerning the "10.000 Poles massacred in Danzig"--even a webpage written from a Polish viewpoint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_takeover_of_Danzig notes that the massacred were likely mainly German burghers rooting for the Kashub nobility fighting for Waldemar of Prussia AGAINST the King of Poland.


It is really pity that this article presents only one side of the story - author e. g. does not mention slaughter of 10.000 Polish inhabitants of Danzig by the Teutonic Order in 1308 (condemned by pope) and many, many similar stories of genocides - true story was much more bitter. (Constantine Do you really want to back so far into history? Unfortunately this wasn´t the last slaughter and injustice towards people.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


From the article

The great bulk of ethnic Germans outside of the German-speaking countries have historically been concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe,

If you are going to start the article before 1000 A.D, then what about the Goths, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons, all of them came from Germany but migrated to the west. More recently over seven million Germans emegrated to the U.S.A as well as other places in the New World. (Gov site links toSeven Million Germans Were Once Foreigners). Many of the Boers in SA were of German origin, and there were other Germans who went to the German colonies in Africa. There were many German immigrants to Australia ( German Settlers in South Australia). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point that the section before 1000 A.D. is anemic. All I did was collect information that I could find in other Wikipedia articles. If you can expand this section, it would be much appreciated.
I am happy to consider modifying the sentence
The great bulk of ethnic Germans outside of the German-speaking countries have historically been concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe,

but we should think about it a bit before changing it.

The sentence came from the Ethnic Germans article. The key issue, as I see it, is that "the great bulk of ethnic Germans" have historically been concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe. However, after World War II, this is no longer true. We may need to reword the introduction to make this more clear.

As I see it, the real issue of "ethnic Germans" in Central and Eastern Europe is that they formed German communities, spoke German and otherwise set themselves apart rather than assimilating into the local culture. This tendency to form and maintain themselves as cultural enclaves is arguably what motivated the territorial claims of German nationalists and equally what motivated Poles and Czechs to expel them after World War II. (Ah, but that's a digression.)

People with high cultures never assimilate anywhere. Why should they? They very often form the upper class in their respective countries. Look at ancient Greece or Rome. This makes them an object of envy and hate. The Germans lived there very often for about 800 years. The Jews did not assimilate too. They were very creative.This was one of the reasons why the Nazis persecuted them.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the German emigrants to Africa, U.S., Australia and other parts of the world, the key distinction is that most of these (except for some German enclaves in South America) rapidly lost the use of the German language and other distinguishing features of German culture. In essence, unlike the ethnic Germans of Central and Eastern Europe, they assimilated into the culture to which they emigrated.
Besides, this is the "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe" article and not the Ethnic Germans article. These points should be discussed in that article.
--Richard 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should change the sentence, "The great bulk of ethnic Germans", because it is not true. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not wedded to this sentence since I copied it out of the Ethnic Germans article. However, I'd like to understand why it's not true and how you think we should change it.
Is it not the case that there have been more ethnic Germans (defined as speaking German and exhibiting German culture) in Central and Eastern Europe than anywhere else in the world?
Are you challenging the definition of ethnic German or the numbers? I figure that, if there were 12.5 million ethnic Germans expelled from Central and Eastern Europe after World War II, that is more than there were anywhere else in the world. (NB: I don't count someone of German-Irish or German-French descent to be German if they didn't speak German as a native language.)
7 million Germans may have emigrated to the U.S. but most of them rapidly lost their language and culture once they got there (within 2-3 generations) whereas the ethnic Germans in Central and Eastern Europe kept their culture across more than a thousand years.

Many German settlers in Central and Eastern Europe were called into the country by the rulers there to cultivate the land. The influence of ancient Rome was strongest in the West and the development there advanced.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

--Richard 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the English did not intergrate themselves into the celtic culture they found in Britain. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry for being dense but what's the point that you are trying to make? I figure you are responding to my comment about ethnic Germans not integrating with the surrounding culture in Eastern Europe but I think the difference is that the Anglo-Saxons dominated the Celts in Britain whereas the Germans did not dominate the local cultures in Eastern Europe quite so effectively. Thus, the Celts pretty much faded away in Britain or inter-married or whatever whereas the Germans and other peoples in Eastern Europe remained distinctly different cultures. And, so..., the point is - what?
--Richard 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that to write that "The great bulk of ethnic Germans outside of the German-speaking countries have historically been concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe, " is not factually accurate. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I got the sentence as a copy-paste from Ethnic Germans. Accordingly, I have put a citation needed tag on the same text in that article. Hopefully, someone will come up with a citation or a convincing argument. I would suggest though that you conduct this discussion there as you will probably get a more informed explanation from the editors there than you will from me. --Richard 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I finally got your point. Sorry for being dense but you didn't make a clear case using numbers so I had to go find them myself in the Ethnic Germans article. See the discussion on that Talk Page. --Richard 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

German East Migration'


First it is right to start the german Migration after the year 1000. The German East Migration was part of the Christian colonisation of the east a lot of it was done because it was the fight against pagan societies. In the Beginning the Danish and Polish had an equal share but probably thrue the force of the hanseatic leag the Germans ( witch in the middle age the Dutch where part of it actualy a German - Dutch Eastmigration) got the upper hand and around 1400 the most was part of the holy German empire The whole Balticum and the German east with a bigger Slesia the border was going up to Auschwitz was part of the empire. So the settlers came into terretories witch where for a while part of a Germanic state this is valid too for Austria witch till 1848 was a Germanic state and German between 1790 and 1867 was the main language, but the others allways tolerated and after that official Languages in the Austrian part state by state ( Crownlands like federal stated with own parliments and laws -- a little bit like an early EU- called the prison of peoples by the allies ) So it was often not a setteling in a foreign countries it was a German settlement in German controlled terretorie and it was mostly peacefully- only not in Eastprussia.


           Waves of migration

By the way the maps are horrible bad about the German east migration witch was existing in 3 waves all over eastern Europe till Sibiria ( 1944 - 1945 was a new migration to the east in the way because the Germans where resettelt in Kazachstan where they where holding 7 % of the Population in 159. In one area around Eger(Bohemia) the Germans where probably allways there and did not migrate to there.

Johann

1. Wave: middle age ( The whole east)

Saxonians and Eastern Migration ( German and Dutch) East West Prussia Schlesia Pommerania what is East germany now Rumania and what is forgotten the whole Balkan even in Kosovo (silver miners )

2. wave: russia

Southern Ukrainia and Krim Volga and Besserabia ( Parent of Todays German President) religious Migration Brethren to Russia and from there to the states

3. Austria - Hungary after the Turish where defeated: Svabian migration

4. wave forced Migration to Siberia and Kazachstan Kirgisia mostly ended with German unification

Oversee

The Germans wich whent to the colonies counting in some thausends but are still in Namibia

IN Brasilia an Austrian Oueen was ruling when the often Austrian migration started she asked the Austrians mostly from Tyrol to come.

Importend too Argentine Chile Paraguay and some in Peru

In The USA the where part of the religiouse migration ore migration after the wars in Germany 1848 1918 and 1945

Dont forget it where German Kings witch ruled the British empire even Queen Victorias motherlanguage was German and not English. That was in the spirit of the Germans of this time importend as they where used to be loyal to the ruler not so to the country as germany was never a centralised country only in the time of Hitler 12 years in 1000 years. Victorias son was the first Antigerman King with whoom the hostilities started. For a long time the British had a kind of symbiosis with the Germans and the empire was fed with loyal ( see up) German migration and lifed largly from it, that is now over and I would say that is the beginning of the End.

The German where an importend element od stability ín the English countries even in the first and II WW the revolted not against the harsh treatment witch Wilson but on them much worse as the one against the Japan people in the II WW

Johann 15 million Germans were expelled after World War 2 , mainly from Poland and the Czechoslovakian Republic, many of them children and old people. The expulsion of people was an unprecedented fact in history in the 20th century. In times before the rulers changed, but the people were allowed to stay in their home countries. The basis of this expulsion was the notion of a collective guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wurzeln und Flügel (talkcontribs) 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Only one side of the story[edit]

It is really pity that this article presents only one side of the story - author e. g. does not mention slaughter of 10.000 Polish inhabitants of Danzig by the Teutonic Order in 1308 (condemned by pope) and many, many similar stories of genocides - true story was much more bitter. (Constantine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.247.146 (talkcontribs)

So fix it!. Write the part of the story that you think is missing. Try to maintain a NPOV stance and provide sources for your assertions.
Also, please add new messages to the bottom of Talk Pages, not to the top.
--Richard 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Size[edit]

This article is over twice the size that is recommended for a Wikipedia article. I think it needs to become an overview article with more summary sections with less details and links to main articles that contain the more detailed information. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The parts that need the most trimming are the ones on the Hanseatic League and the post World War II era. So fix it! --Richard 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

German minority in Poland[edit]

The text misinformed, the minority has had special rights since 1990. Xx236 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where it says something different. When was the "German-Polish" treaty? --Richard 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph yesterday. Xx236 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is "Eastern Europe"?[edit]

CIA Factbook classification:
  Eastern Europe
  Russia, in both Asia and Europe

See Eastern Europe and Central Europe for definitions. Considereing that the majority of German settlement was in Central Europe, I'd say this article should be at History of German settlement in Central Europe. East Prussia, when part of Germany, surely was considered Central Europe, while Kaliningrad Oblast and former Memelland are now, as parts of Russia and Lithuania, considered East Europe. Of course, some settlements were much further to the East, e.g. at the Volga, but then this article covers even Stettin, located West of the Oder. -- Matthead  DisOuß   15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses United Nations definition in regards to regional definitions:

File:Location-Europe-UNsubregions.png
Eastern Europe as defined by the United Nations (marked red):
  Eastern Europe

And of course Szczecin is in Eastern Europe as Poland is in Eastern Europe according to that definition. --Molobo (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the Wikipedia policy covering this, I can not find it e.g. at WP:NCGN. You may want to update the article "Poland ... is a country in Central Europe on the boundary between Eastern and Western European continental masses, and is considered by the United Nations a part of Eastern Europe." It's a little odd that according to UN, there is no Central Europe at all. How about the Central European Time zone, shouldn't countries adhereing to it be considered Central European by their own will? And there is the Western European Union, too, with Associate member countries. -- Matthead  DisOuß   16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentions of Arabic migration into Europe have nothing to do with the article. I am removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.128.34 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

==Rename - proposal==

What about renaming the article into "(Historical) German settlement (areas) in/of Europe" Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I created this article, let me share with you why I named it the way I did. By "Eastern Europe", I meant everything east of Germany including Poland. Being a child of the Cold War, my concept of "Eastern Europe" started with East Germany and extended east to include all of the Warsaw Pact countries occupied by the Soviet Union.

Now, I accept that this is an outdated definition of Eastern Europe and that there is an emerging definition of Central Europe which includes Poland and thus makes the title of this article a bit imprecise. I am amenable to proposals to change it but I think calling it History of German settlement in Central and Eastern Europe would suggest an expanded scope describing how the Germans got to live in Germany itself. That wasn't my original intent. My original motivation was to have an article that explained how there got to be so many Germans living east of Bismarck's Germany and thus provided the historical context to German expansionism in World War II and the subsequent expulsion of ethnic Germans from Poland and other Eastern European countries. If you can propose an article title that conveys this meaning without getting caught up in the definiton of Central and Eastern Europe, I would be glad to hear it.

--Richard (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Allied terrorist attacks on Germany"-what kind of source is it ? Seems terrible POV[edit]

"Pit Pietersen, Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte: Terroristische Bombenangriffe auf Deutschland und Europa 1939-1945, 2006, p.572 ISBN 3833450452, 9783833450457"

Who is Pit Pietersen ? What are his credentials ? The title of the books indicates a terrible POV.--Molobo (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

203.211.72.46[edit]

A series of German POV statements.Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte biased[edit]

Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte is abook written by an architect, with strong anti-allied bias. The quotes should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC) The book is unreliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As it is not a reliable source I've removed it and the associated text (which of course can be restored provided actual reliable sources are found).radek (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The bombing of cities and the expulsion of 15 million Germans from Central and Eastern Europe was definitely not fair, to say the least. It did not correspond to the hight ideals the Allied Forces fought for against Hitler.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazic Jews and Yiddish[edit]

The Yiddish language is relevant to this topic, as are Ashkenazi Jews ("Ashkenaz" is often a name referring to Germany). Yiddish itself is essentially medieval German with a Jewish twist, and Ashkenazi Jewry began in the Rhineland and came to have its largest population in Poland. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Resettlement of Germans from Italy[edit]

There is reference to German speakers from the Sud Tirol being moved under a treaty with Mussolini to areas of Bavaria. I had long understood that they were moved to Pomerania and East Prussia - a vastly different landscape from their homeland! Unfortunately, they had hardly established themselves when they had to flee West, ahead of the advancing Russian armies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDRG (talkcontribs) 15:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)