the statement "six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died" 1.1 million includes victims of the Flucht, and certainly not ''after the Potsdam agreement''. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
the statement "six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died" 1.1 million includes victims of the Flucht, and certainly not ''after the Potsdam agreement''. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
'''This is the point Richard Xx put it clearly. Why you do not want see simple truth? It is amazing how you can.'''
:I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but solely because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details. Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
:I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but solely because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details. Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to put something in an article, you may be asked to provide supporting evidence from a verifiable and reliable source. If you do this and I don't believe you, then the onus is on me to obtain a copy of your source and determine whether you have accurately represented the source. Until you represent what the book says with a cogent bit of text that can be inserted into the article, the burden is on you to do the homework. --Richard07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the tone of the 219.66.235.103's rant against me offensive.
This is your feeling. I expressed mine, in my opinion you hardly accept facts and prefer believes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
I will accept your facts when you back them up with citations and quotes in English that I can read. Until then, your "facts" sound like opinions to me. --Richard07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not "increase numbers". I cite the numbers that others have put forth, putting them into context as appropriate.
The problem is you cite the ZgV numbers again and again. As already mentioned those numbers are biased and put by purpose in one sack with label “EXPULSION”. A few people attempted to point this organization is not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
When there is a dispute, it is not always clear that one side is more reliable than another. I still have not seen adequate evidence to indicate that Overmans and Haar are clearly more reliable than the ZgV except that Overmans and Haar are "historians". So what? Historians have biases, too.
I have asked for a more detailed explanation of how they came by their numbers. What was the response? Silence.
I have asked for some indication that their perspective is the majority mainstream viewpoint. What was the response? Silence.
If their viewpoint is the mainstream viewpoint, then there ought to be other historians that have cited their work. At the moment, I am not convinced that Overmans and Haar have done more than challenge the Statistiches Bundesamt/ZgV numbers. I am slowly being convinced but I want to see better support for the assertion that the work of Overmans and Haar has clearly discredited the numbers assembled by the Statistiches Bundesamt/ZgV. It is insufficient in my book to level the charge that numbers were compiled by the German government and a bunch of German conservative politicians. Those charges do not inherently discredit them as reliable sources. --Richard07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some people seem to think that the expulsions are justifiable revenge for the cruelty of the Nazis.
Expulsion was not a revenge, however was justifiable and sanctioned by Allies UK, USA and USSR. Furthermore was sanctioned by rest (at least unquestionable majority) of international community. For example I hardly noted atlases showing III Reich as the legal borders. Even Germany accepted the post war borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
Expulsion was determined with a concern for future. Large German minorities in borders of other countries had miserable effect for stabilization of Europe before WW II. Even presently when the German minority in Poland is only 300 000 the trouble is visible. Once again expulsion was not revenge. Revenge is offensive word; it was justified satisfaction for offended nations. Take for consideration that Germany did not pay Poland war reparation and Poland lost 20% of her area - Poland becomes smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
These points are mentioned in the article as purported justifications. I think it is arguable whether or not they are valid justifications but it is clear that they have been put forth as justifications and so they are in the article. What's your point?
I do not see it as appropriate to compare the cruelty of the expulsions against that of the Holocaust.
In this situation I do not see appropriate to name expulsion as cruelty. You put a scale of present day to the expulsion. You like to magnify a fragment and underline it how ugly it was. We must see whole object to judge it correctly. Do you like the reader to sack the “ugliness” and allow forget him the innocent blood of other nations? This is the effect of separating one from the other. You allow losing correct perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
One of the articles presented on this Talk Page discusses the need not to "decontextualize" the expulsions. You are making the same argument. I disagree with this argument. I am happy to put the argument in the article but I am not willing to present it as if it is the only way to view the expulsions. There are many conflicts which have long histories of wrongs perpetuated by one side or the other. I do not believe that "contextualizing" an action justifies it. --Richard07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as evil goes, I do not see them as being in the same class.
That is good. Thank you. Still the Flight and Expulsion has the Genocide of other nations in its background. They are inseparable. Take for consideration that Europe (excluding Germany) lost about 35 million people with nearly 30 million of these in Poland and the Soviet Union alone. There was a river of blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
That doesn't mean that evil was not wrought when the expulsions were implemented.
Of course the evil did not go to sleep after 8 May 1945. He was awaken by Nazis and all around paid for it. Why had the devil save Germans? And why reasonable Germans should look for the primary culprit somewhere else than between Nazis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
People chose to sanction the expulsions. You are arguing that evil was returned for evil and thus it was justified. If you can find sources that argue that this is the way things were and should have been, we can include that perspective. I have been wishing someone would find a Polish historian or even a Polish newspaper or magazine article that would present this side. None have been presented (at least not in English translation). Your opinion is no more acceptable than mine. Both constitute original research. If you believe you are right, then surely there is someone in Poland who agrees with you and has written an article or a book along those lines. Find it and tell us what they say. --Richard07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that the evil was not the primary intent of those who sanctioned and implemented the expulsions.
You mean what? UK, USA and Stalin are not the culprit but the simple Polish and Russians were, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
No, you are putting words in my mouth.
What I meant is that the Allies (US,UK and USSR) did not sanction the expulsions in order to punish the Germans per se and certainly did not intend to kill them although I'm sure they were aware that some would die.
What I meant is that one of the primary purposes of the expulsions was to avoid civil unrest. Let's say that 1-2 million Germans died as a result of the expulsions. How many would have died if they had not been ordered to leave? Considering the "wild" expulsions, is it possible that as many or more would have died due to open warfare? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that Germans and Poles would have learned to live together in postwar Poland? Yes, it's possible. Do any of us know what would have happened? No.
According to the Wikipedia article on population exchange, population exchange was "was considered as an acceptable solution to the problems of ethnic conflict, up until around World War II and even a little afterward, in certain cases. Transfer was considered a drastic but 'often necessary' means to end an ethnic conflict or ethnic civil war."
However...
The view of international law on population transfer underwent considerable evolution during the 20th century. Prior to World War II, a number of major population transfers were the result of bilateral treaties and had the support of international bodies such as the League of Nations. The tide started to turn when the Charter of the Nuremberg Trials of German Nazi leaders declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity, and this opinion was progressively adopted and extended through the remainder of the century. Underlying the change was the trend to assign rights to individuals, thereby limiting the rights of states to make agreements which adversely affect them.
There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law. (Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Spring 2001, p116). No legal distinction is made between one-way and two-transfers, since the rights of each individual are regarded as independent of the experience of others.
We should proably summarize the above in the article. Population exchanges were not considered crimes against humanity at the time that the expulsions were sanctioned but world opinion about them started to change shortly thereafter.
I will say you something. You can not stop avalanche. They who attempted to direct the disaster in reasonable stream are of course not the culprits. Simpletons who behaved as animals are second order criminals. But the first culprits are Nazi who released the evil avalanche. The evil which directed even ordinary people to act and contract with revenge. I can not allow push away the primary culprit from the scene when someone blame ordinary people as total (in this way a nation). You want blame somebody do it directly, as much personally as you can, prove as far you can. It is offence against a nation when you do the blame in other way.
I continue to reject this line of logic. However, if you can find a verifiable and reliable source who says this, then we can include it in the article. --Richard07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe that the ZgV believes that 2.2 million people died as a result of the expulsions.
Sorry it is to much believes.
I further believe that the 2.2 million deaths occurred during the evacuation, flight and expulsions.
That would be fine if you would proof few during the expulsion alone. As it was said: Only dead persons are as dead person, to count. The rest are [missing] people. When Soviets murdered our officers [1] we were looking for them for decades and finally we found the missing graves. Before the Communists were gone it had been impossible to prosecute the militias and investigate for graves. Presently when the governments are anticommunist and Poland is in EU this kind of crime of mass murdering would appear in media. The blame would go to Communist / pro-Soviets account anyway. So I do not believe on what you believe.
I do believe that it is difficult to determine how many were killed by Soviet troops, how many by Allied bombing, how many by Polish militia and how many by famine, disease and exposure.
This is the reason why I propose to change the article title to “Flight and Expulsion of Germans after World War II”. When you say “Expulsion” that suggest the act of removing Germans from Poland after 8 May 1945.
However, I doubt that any of these causes is responsible for less than 10% of the total deaths.
Unfortunately I do not accept you believe and further the believes need to be verified before placement in Wikipedia anyway.
Why is it that when I believe something that you believe, you are happy for it to be put into Wikipedia but when I believe something that you do not accept then you insist that it be "verified" before it is put into Wikipedia?
At the end of the day, every thing needs to be verified as coming from a reliable source before it is put into Wikipedia whether you accept it or not.
Moreover, I suspect that only a small fraction of the total deaths were as the result of mass killings or even direct, intentional killing.
Yes. This suggest lack of mass graves and reports of such. Still the Wikipedia edition requires formal and balanced expressions. Since that I would name the unknown causes as missing people. After that I would mention the causes killing by troops, bombing, famine, disease, exposure etc.
My proposition would be: -During the period of Flight and Expulsion many tragic event cost live of xxx Germans, which are the reported cases by relatives.(source). There are reported bombing, killing….so on. In some cases all families could vanish thus the number of deaths can be higher. Summarizing the total German population of (to mention areas....) in 1944? and subtracting the population of DDR and West Germany the German population decrease for yyy. This however include killed soldiers?, Germans who were not expelled …etc. In total yyy people are counted as missing and it includes the xxx reported deaths.
I think it is quite simple and objective since pure mathematical. Is not it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
It's hard to tell how this is different from what I've been proposing over the last week or so.
However, it's not mathematical until you put numbers to it. Where are the numbers?
Also, it's not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia until you put this line of logic into the words of a verifiable and reliable source. Where's the citation?
No citation = original research = can't be inserted into Wikipedia. Plain and simple. Sorry.
There was no census in Germany 1944/1945. All German data are speculations. That you prefer the German speculations that mine - it's your choice, but don't call the fantastic numbers reliable.
Xx23608:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable to put into the Demographic estimates... article these challenges to the methodology used by the Statistisches Bundesamt. And to summarize those challenges in a single sentence in this article. However, it is a historical fact that those estimates stood unchallenged for 30-40 years. Thus, the source is reliable even though the numbers may not be.
I know that's a hard concept to wrap one's mind around but the point here is that I'm coming to understand that the controversy about the expulsions is as important to document as the expulsions themselves. It is difficult to come to an objective understanding of the heated controversy of the present day unless one understands why there are differing perspectives on this historical event. There will always be different understandings of what happened and why. There will always be different understandings of whether the expulsions were justified or not. It is inappropriate for us to decide that one side is right and the other is not. It is far more desirable for us to present all sides and leave it to the reader to decide which side is right or that all sides are partly right and partly wrong.
At the moment, I am not convinced that Overmans and Haar have done more than challenge the Statistiches Bundesamt/ZgV numbers
I think you need to read the book yourself. I mean Haar 2005. Nobody will convince you to something what you do not want to be convinced. If you will not be in position to get a copy of it I would understand the questioning others. You expressed the wish to have Harr’s or Overmans’ text in English and I got it for you.
I want to clarify my comment here. The problem is that this is not the only article that I work on and the sheer volume of comments is such that I don't read everything posted here. Even the stuff that is addressed directly to me, I may not read as closely as I should. If you got me Haar's or Overman's text in English, I missed it. Did you provide an http link to it? I would very much like to see it. --Richard17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And so, your point is?
My point is:
a) the Flight and Expulsion has the Genocide of other nations in its background
b) They are inseparable as reason and consequence
c) Talking about expulsion you can not skip the reason of it
This is like showing an act of self-defense alone - without offence. The self-defense will look like pure crime. Do you understand?
I do understand. I have always understood this line of reasoning. However, I do not agree with it. To argue this way is to argue that the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe were responsible for the atrocities of the Nazi occupation. I do not accept this. It is easier for me to accept that the Allies had to give Stalin some territory and that they gave the Poles part of Eastern Germany in compensation. Whether the Germans needed to be expelled from those territories or not is debatable. I would say it wasn't necessary but I'm an idealist.
Now, if you want this line of reasoning in the article, you have your wish. It's already there. What you can't have is an insistence that this is a morally valid justification for the expulsions. It's not really our place to pass moral judgment anyway. If you want to cite some reliable source who makes this argument, we can put the citation in there. Maybe even a quotation if it seems appropriate. But I will resist any attempt to cast the expulsions as morally justified (and so too will a bunch of other editors). --Richard23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People chose to sanction the expulsions. You are arguing that evil was returned for evil and thus it was justified. If you can find sources that argue that this is the way things were and should have been, we can include that perspective.
There is a proverb: A person sowing/spreading/aroseing wind receives storm. That is the natural consequence. I do not say it is justified since the Christian way is to pay by good. However be honest with yourself how good Christian or in general ideal person would you be there in the Russian and Polish shoes. It needs a little imagination but you can do it.
As I stated above, this line of reasoning is in the article (or at least it used to be). Please be specific about what you want.
What I meant is that one of the primary purposes of the expulsions was to avoid civil unrest.
That was the reason to avoid future war and conflicts. I read Potsdam documents in original. I can not point it to the line but they explained the moving Germans by that reason.
Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that Germans and Poles would have learned to live together in postwar Poland? Yes, it's possible. Do any of us know what would have happened? No.
Sir! I am Polish I now the history of ages of German expansion to East and Polish defenses. I know the character of Germans. I know from first hand what happened in Death Camps what happened with my relatives and relatives of my neighbors. I see what at present day the new generation of Germans attitude is.
This is pretty offensive. I'm not German but it is a slur against Germans (or any other people) to argue that they have a uniformly sinister character. Are you telling me that the Poles and other Eastern Europeans were trying to get rid of the Germans in their midst for centuries. That they didn't live side-by-side in relative peace until the Nazis came along? Was there a record of civil strife before the Nazi era? Were there pogroms against the Germans in Poland? Did the Germans rise up in rebellion against Poland? Was Hitler right that the German minorities were being mistreated and persecuted? I suspect there was an element of truth in what he claimed but it seems to be generally accepted that most of it was fabrication and lies.
My personal belief is that, although some ethnic Germans actively supported the Nazis, most of them probably went on living their lives, enjoying of course the benefits of being Germans in a German occupation. If Poland and other countries had allowed them to stay, they would have gone back to living the way they had for hundreds of centuries. Pure speculation but that's what I believe. --Richard23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably summarize the above in the article. Population exchanges were not considered crimes against humanity at the time that the expulsions were sanctioned but world opinion about them started to change shortly thereafter.
What we should put in the article is that the expulsion was considered the best way to avoid future conflict, and in any circumstances had been considered a crime against humanity. It is only question of personal point of view if the expulsion fulfilled assumption.
I'm sorry but I don't fully understand the above. I do agree with the first part that "expulsion was considered by the Allies to be the best way to avoid future conflict". I think the article already says that. I don't understand the bit about any circumstances had been considered a crime against humanity. I think we can only say "under current international law, the expulsions like any other forced migration would be considered a crime against humanity". (Side note: And so too would the forced migrations that occurred at the partition of India and Pakistan) --Richard23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to reject this line of logic. However, if you can find a verifiable and reliable source who says this, then we can include it in the article.
What do you mean by that? You reject the: “You want blame somebody do it directly, as much personally as you can, prove as far you can. It is offence against a nation when you do the blame in other way.”
Well, are you going to accuse nation for a crime? That is something. And you want the same time hide the Nazi responsibility to start the conflict and cook the finale result. Are you?
Are you really need reliable source to know who was the primacy culprit of Genocide and all the results of WWII?
I reject that the Nazis are responsible for the expulsions. The Allies (US, UK, USSR and Poland) were responsible for the expulsions. It is claimed that the Allies chose not to punish Germany for WWII in the way that they punished Germany for WWI with the Treaty of Versailles. The accepted wisdom is that humiliating the vanquished leads to resentment and a desire for revenge. However, this principle apparently was not applied in Eastern Europe. --Richard23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that when I believe something that you believe, you are happy for it to be put into Wikipedia but when I believe something that you do not accept then you insist that it be "verified" before it is put into Wikipedia?
When I ask you to put something what I believe (and is not common knowledge) in to Wikipedia?
If you can support it with a citation from a reliable source, you can put it in. I'll work to convince the other editors to leave it in. However, it is best to say "According to reliable source A, X is true..." than to simply say "X is true". This leaves open the possibility that the opposing POV can be presented thus resulting in an NPOV treatment of the topic. --Richard23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell how this is different from what I've been proposing over the last week or so. However, it's not mathematical until you put numbers to it. Where are the numbers?
I think it is quite different, but I will not argue about this. I am ready to accept this is not my original idea. Regarding the numbers we need to agree. I did not put them by purpose since I knew you will option for others :).
No citation = original research = can't be inserted into Wikipedia. Plain and simple. Sorry.
Do not be sorry. When we will agree regarding the word expression we will start to fulfill the xxx and yyy and zzz. It will be much easier and constructive work already. I also agreed with Lysy option [2] with the exception of section [3].
I don't know what to make of these version links. What specifically did you like about the "Lysy option" and what did you not like about the "Poland" section? --Richard14:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say Richard? You skipped the point at “Review 30Jan07” part.
This thing is more or less unreadable for anyone seeking a trustworthy account. I gave up about halfway through; almost every sentence reads like it's been cut down, edited through, and wrangled over for POV countless times. The end result is a wreck. "B-grade" is generous for this piece of work. It's sad to understand, looking at the edits history, how much time has gone into this article and what's actually been accomplished in terms of presenting something useful and reliable. I don't get this endless patience for editors with an agenda - just block those who won't compromise and make a few reverts by someone without an emotional investment. P.S. Countries don't pay reparations because of what's on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.91.17 (talk • contribs)
Nice idea but that's not the way Wikipedia works. If you think you can write something more useful, reliable and neutral, you are welcome to create an account and write a draft in your userspace. You can then invite us to review and comment on your draft.
Otherwise, this back-and-forth pushing and pulling is the nature of collaborative Wikipedia. This isn't the best written article but I've seen worse. Heck, this article was much worse a year ago.
I fear the anonymous editor is - at least partly - right. I recently tried to go through the article and had the same impression. For example the caption of the photo of the grave: Neglected German graveyard west of Warsaw (Note that the family of the deceased are free to arrange exhumation or organize other care)
What the heck?
I know, Richard, you have worked very hard on this article and surely for the better! But for some outsider the article might seem poorly written. Perhaps its an inevitable side affect for fiercly debated article like this one. --Splette :)How's my driving?11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard's edits are not that problem, he worked hardly and is open for other opinions. Problem why this is protected is because of numerous additional harmful notices (little but big). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't like the "neglected German graveyard" photo either. The caption is atrocious but that's just one POV pushing against the POV that put the photo there in the first place. I would argue for removing the photo and its caption.
I would agree with you Richard, although the original caption did not imply that the people are not allowed to come back and fix the graveyard, but I think more denotes how long it has been since the expulsion took place. I am all for removing the picture.
I have originally included the photo, as I thought it illustrates the situation and was a good example of what remained of German tradition in many places in Poland. It was not meant to imply that Poles are "bad" or similar. It would be easy to find a picture of graves in a worse (or better) state if I had any agenda. Unfortunately, after some time I've tried to compromise on the caption with the both ways pov-pushers but failed, hence the current form. I'm happy to remove the photo, as it obviously causes more controversy than needed, and its message and information value is apparently not clear. --Lysytalk15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm fine with giving the article a complete rewrite if someone wants to take it on. I did quite a dramatic restructuring of this article back in May 2006. I don't claim that what I wrote was the perfect, final version. However, I don't have the energy to take on another rewrite right now. If anyone wants to try it, be my guest.
The problem that we have to bear in mind is that there are a lot of editors (some who have hung around for over a year and some transitory) who have strong POVs on this topic.
This article, IMHO, should be as much about the controversy of the last two decades as it is about the actual events of 60 years ago.
I don't believe that POVs are inherently bad. As an inclusionist, my approach to POVs is that all POVs should be included although not all POVs should be given equal weight. It is difficult to craft and negotiate NPOV resolutions to each issue. In many instances where the facts are obscured by time and the absence of records, I do not believe there is a "single truth" that can be asserted as incontrovertible fact.
Thus, I don't believe this article should reflect only the German POV or the Polish POV but instead it should reflect both POVs so that the reader can come to an objective understanding of all sides of the controversy.
The discussion about the numbers isn't between Poles and Germans, but rather between German historians. Which of those two points of view is the German POV?
The discussion here isn't between Poles and Germans, but is caused by a Canadian Prussian.
There existed Communist propaganda, e.g. the Polish one in an academic way described in "Die fremde Stadt. Breslau 1945" by Gregor Thum. Communist isn't equal to Polish.
Germany doesn't have a collective mind Xx, so there is not one "German POV", in Germany, people are allowed to think freely, unlike in the communist regimes, that still have influences on the people of those nations today (just look at Putin's rule).
Wow, that could be such a huge insult and personal attack, especially since my ancestors are from Pfalz and not Prussia or any Hohenzollern lands, and they came to the New World before Prussia annexed the region (all of that information being available on my userpage). But I will be the bigger man here and not resort to personal attacks, this discussion page has become tit-for-tat and it is getting rather childish. So, I will turn the other cheek... any more racist insults you have for me Xx?
P.S. why did you delete half of your statement? biting your tongue? or maybe you realized the family might not visit the gravesite because they all died in the expulsion, answering that question perfectly. (see the edit history for what I am talking about in Xx's statement)
1) I don't know what to make of these version links. What specifically did you like about the "Lysy option" and what did you not like about the "Poland" section? --Richard 14:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The introduction fragment from version #101337649 looks for me OK. Is not offensive – there is no suggestion about none specific crimes against humanity. (Always and every time putting total blame or suggestions such kind of is offensive).
What I dislike in the version #101337649 is the fragment see: [4] This fragment needs complete rewriting from start to end.
Please use copy-and-paste to present text here on the Talk Page. It's very disconcerting to look at text via links because the whole article ispresented and I don't know what fragment you think needs "complete rewriting from start to end".
2) Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to. Please be more specific.
I mention that you did not perceived the fragment: “Regarding the introduction for the article – but only the introduction – proposed by Lysy [47] I agree it is quite OK. Nevertheless the section Poland [48] needs to be revised against provocative suggestions and switches. Mainly I refer to Naimark interpretations and interpretations of his interpretations.” in [5]
I confess that I have ignored the entire Naimark discussion because it was making my head hurt and I wanted to focus on the "number of deaths" controversy. I'll go back and read the discussion and form an opinion. --Richard00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was exactly the same subject as in point 1) anyway.
3) Thus, I don't believe this article should reflect only the German POV or the Polish POV but instead it should reflect both POVs so that the reader can come to an objective understanding of all sides of the controversy.
I think the article should be objective in first place. Also I think it should be as much uncomplicated as possible - just the essence. At least the introduction should be as short and simple as possible – providing only the most important and unquestionable points. If reader really needs considering controversies these controversies must not be fire up from start.
I only partly agree. The introduction should be short and simple but I have come to believe that it is not possible to divorce this topic from controversy. I think the intro should state (as it now does) that there are a number of controversies (without getting into the details of each controversy). --Richard00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
02Feb07 #2
Please use copy-and-paste to present text here on the Talk Page. It's very disconcerting to look at text via links because the whole article ispresented and I don't know what fragment you think needs "complete rewriting from start to end".
Starting from less important. I am against the fragment:
Polish enclave in Emsland
An enclave of Polish military existed in Emsland from 1945-1947 with the centre in Haren, called Maczków. A number of Germans were transferred to make room for the Poles. Polish-German marriages were quite popular among soldiers.
This was temporary settlement and has nothing to with the real expulsion on East. I believe also English and Americans did some expulsions to settle their military bases and military staff in Germany. I am not discussing the historical facts. It is just confusing inconsistent patch. I do not think there were some Germans murdered. On other hand, I imagine, it would not be fair to allow Poles from Labor camps (it should be probably Death Camps) and prisoner-of-war camps to live in field conditions for two years while the Germans could accommodate locally with their compatriots. Most probably no harm was done.
More important is the fragment:
”In 1945, the former German Silesian, Pommeranian and East-Prussian territories were occupied by Polish and Russian military forces. Early expulsions in Poland were undertaken by the Polish communist military authorities already before the Potsdam Conference. To ensure their incorporation to Poland, the Polish communists ordered that Germans were to be expelled by whatever means necessary. [6] Germans were defined as either Reichsdeutsche, people enlisted in 1st or 2nd Volksliste groups, and those of the 3rd group, who held German citizenship.
The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal. According to a Soviet report, the Polish military "related to German women as to free booty". [6] Historians disagree as to the number of Germans deported during this phase of expulsion. The estimates range from 300 thousand to 500 thousand people.[citations needed] Many Germans evacuated during the war weren't allowed to return to their homes.”
It has to be rewritten completely. But you see, I already agreed in past that it can done in second step. First is the introduction of the article to be accepted.
I confess that I have ignored the entire Naimark discussion because it was making my head hurt and I wanted to focus on the "number of deaths" controversy. I'll go back and read the discussion and form an opinion.
But the same time you overlook the introduction subject.
I only partly agree. The introduction should be short and simple but I have come to believe that it is not possible to divorce this topic from controversy.
It is almost impossible but we can be very close to that if we will sustain with pure mathematic and logic. I will look on the 2005 Haaar book for some numbers and justification. I agree with you that in introduction can/should be the sentence about controversies. However there can be a link(s) only to section where the controversies are discussed.
I think the intro should state (as it now does) that there are a number of controversies (without getting into the details of each controversy).
I agree. Now we have the problem about the frame for xxx, yyy, zzz, numbers. Will you revise the note as given on 01Feb07 for Richard #2? Next we all, I think, can look for the sources and x, y, z’s.
If you haven't realized already, no one takes heed of a known vandal who is evading his block. what are you planning on accomplishing here besides the extension of your block?
Yes, first assume good faith. Second, even if it is Serafin, is the current discussion the kind of disruptive behavior for which you would request a block? If not, then let us discuss the article in a way that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies, ignoring past offenses. If the discussion improves the article and/or improves an editor's understanding of Wikipedia policies, then it is worth having. --Richard17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do know it is Serafin, as check the edit history, the anon IP being used is his most commonly used one, and click on it to view the sockpuppet warning and some discussion on his vandalism. Also, as I have cited before, he has stated to users that he will do everything in his power to have this article protected again once it has been unprotected. I agree, if he starts compromising and stops calling people Nazis or deniers, then sure, I would listen to him.
when he stops making comments like this: "Sir! I am Polish I now the history of ages of German expansion to East and Polish defenses. I know the character of Germans." perhaps he could be taken more seriously, but claiming that all Germans have the same character, and indeed pretending that Germans have spent their history attacking Poland is totally unacceptable.
Another interesting piece of the Original Research could be to see what was the percentage of the civilian deaths in each of the regions. Than this could be compared to different activities that happened in different areas, to yield some correlation between the actions and the death toll. An Original Research, as I said. E.g. the "wild" expulsions prevailed in the areas near Oder, while the evacuation and flight could be a major factor in East Prussia. Yes, I know it's not that simple but that's the general idea. --Lysytalk07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cease and desist! There is no room for OR in Wikipedia. However, we should ask if there is no one who has done this sort of analysis. Instead of trying to do OR, we should go "hit the books" and find out what work has been done by reliable sources.
--Richard08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where are your sources Tulko? that is pure conjecture! I am referring to the "no one cared part", not questioning whether they were also expelled. And over all, what is the relevance? besides perhaps that if the Czechs were expelled before the war, then it shows intentional landgrabbing by the victors by giving the czechs land they had been forced out of and none of them lived in. One could use that same reasoning to justify Germany taking back the "recovered territories" now, they were forced out a number of years before, so why not give it back to them now? that's the same reasoning.
Ugh. I don't want to even touch Jadger's response with a 10-foot pole. However, I do think Tulkolahten's comment is hyperbolic. It's clear that the Allies didn't want to give the Sudetenland to the Nazis. If my recollection is correct, this bit of appeasement diplomacy was the result of Chamberlain going to Munich and coming back saying that he had achieved "peace in our time" by giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. Of course, he had achieved no such thing and now everyone evokes the memory of Munich as an example of "appeasement does not work". (Unfortunately, the most recent use of this metaphor was the neocons in the U.S. casting Saddam Hussein as Hitler.)
Thus, I think it is extreme to say that "no one cared". I think there was a deliberate calculus that said "Better to impose suffering on a few Czechs than to risk a world war". Similarly, I think the Allies said "Better to impose suffering on 16 million Germans than to risk continuing civil unrest between ethnic minorities with unsettled scores from World War II."
Thus, I gather that, as a result of the expulsions, Poland is more or less homegeneously Polish as presumably the Czech Republic and Slovakia. (Question: What percent of the Czech Republic is Slovak and what percent of Slovakia is Czech?). For better or worse, this kind of ethnic homogeneity has probably allowed these nations to avoid confronting the difficulties of a multi-ethnic society.
Only wanted to note that asking what percent of Slovakia is Czech or vice versa may be not of much relevance here, as there are no serious frictions between the two nations. --Lysytalk07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be an offensive comment, see that smile. Just a note, because I think a few people know about that. Richard that's not possible to check, our languages are almost same with very little differences only so it's very easy for czech to live in slovakia and vice versa. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not meaning to vindicate the Nazi expulsions of Czechs, but simply stating two wrongs don't make a right. also Tulko, when I talk about people being expelled from their homes, raped, murdered and committing suicide, I don't usually smile or laugh, I guess I'm just lacking the same amount of Schadenfreude that you have :)
I think you misunderstood Tulkolahten. He was referring to Czech/Slovak relationships and I don't think that Slovaks raped and murdered Czechs or the other way round. This is getting way off topic, anyway. --Lysytalk19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note :) In 1938 hundreds thousands czech people were forced to leave Sudetenland, nobody took care about their property or life. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is interesting. If the ZgV in so called Center against Expulsion found a place for the forced expulsion of Czechs from Sudetenland in 1938. The ZgV pretends to be a voice of world conscience regarding all expulsions.
Thus, I gather that, as a result of the expulsions, Poland is more or less homegeneously Polish as presumably the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Richard 04:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This is right. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and other countries become much more nationally homogeneous as a result of expulsions. The idea of expulsion appeared because the so called “Fifth Column” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column see: “Usage”.
Jadger, you are going too far in your comments I must agree with Xx236. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
| :))))) I obviously agree with Xx236 and Tulkolahten.
So I'm the one that doesn't smile when talking about people being murdered, and I'm the one out of line? Not to mention this is totally off-topic discussion.
P.S. well, the title being Sudetenland, and the year given being 1938, I assumed he meant the Nazis expelled them after the Munich Agreement. how did this get about Czech-Slovak relations?
And in what way do you agree with Xx? you agree with his personal attack upon me that I am a "Canadian Prussian" or do you agree that it is strategic for him to call foul on me after he personally attacks me? And FYI 131, when you throw your support behind someone else, your record automatically hurts there credibility.
Jadger, let me remind you that you are the only one who did not provide any source. When we requested one you told us "oh, I don't remember where that book is etc. etc." I don't buy this. We all provided sources to support our statements, but you did not. I think this is the point of credibility... I am concerned by rising revisionism I think it is not good ... aggressors are becoming to be a victims and victims are becoming to be an evil cruel aggressors ... Such amount of cruelty scares me. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you will read again, I said I could not cite it specifically as I do not have the book in my possession, but gave you a link to the wikipedia article which references it and gives its ISBN number. and then I paraphrased of what it stated. It's funny that you call ME revisionist, when I am the one sticking to the actual estimates already cited in the article.
Do I have to write in bolded letters so you can read what I type now? as you seem to skip over a lot? I will help you out and copy the reference from the wikipedia article I had linked to before. The Blond Knight of Germany by Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable, McGraw-Hill, 1986. ISBN 0-8306-8189-2 Both the authors are US airforce veterans, and are very experienced and knowledgeable people on the subject.
It's my fault for introducing the question about Czech and Slovak relations by asking about percentages in each country.
I recognize that it is a digression from the main topic but as I was writing about Poland and Czechoslovakia being ethnically homogeneous after the expulsions, I started wondering if there was a "population transfer" after the splitup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. To the extent that there was any, it must have been relatively peaceful.
While we are here: I doubt if there were any significant expulsions of Germans from Slovakia. As for the splitup it was peaceful and as far as I know the two nations are in very close and friendly relations. As for its homogeneity, Slovakia has significant Hungarian and Roma minorities and there have been concerns about mistreatment of these. --Lysytalk08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the Ingo Haar (2005) "German Scholars and Ethnic Cleansing 1920-1945." Unfortunately here is practically nothing about Flight and Expulsion. The book is about some "scientists" supporting Nazis and the racist theories in the time 1920-1945.
I could possibly get the other books of Haar and Overmans if they are on the N America continent somewhere, however I need to know the effort will be fruitful. Are you sure there would be some table with expulsion numbers? My German and time does not allow me to read whole book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs)
No, I am not sure there will be a table with expulsion numbers. However, without such a table, the total numbers are suspect even if they do come from such reliable sources as Haar and Overmans. If we are to use them to cast doubt on the Statistisches Bundesamt/ZgV numbers, we need to be sure that we are comparing apples to apples. Just at a very high level, there is the question of whether we should compare 400,000-500,000 against 2.2 million or whether the arithmetic is (500,000 + 600,000 = 1.1million). I believe this latter calculus is the one proposed by Overmans. But where's the citation?
I have to believe that one or both of these scholars have published data to support their assertions even if they are data collected and tabulated by other researchers.
The reason the Wikipedia articles currently use the Statistisches Bundesamt/ZgV tables is because those tables were the most comprehensive data that was readily available on the Web. If someone can provide similar tables from another reliable source (e.g. Haar and/or Overmans), we would be glad to include them. With sufficient support, we can even cast the ZgV tables as based on an obsolete and discredited analysis by the Statistisches Bundesamt. But we need sources that say this. Some of the magazine articles that have been presented on this Talk Page are a good start but it would be far better to cite a scholarly work by Haar or Overmans directly. Even without tabular data, a direct quote from or a good summary of the scholarly article would be the ideal thing to make the point.--Richard06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I perceive, the discussion leads to nothing. Nobody even Richard accepted the Lysy proposal for version #101337649. What about the simplified "mathematical" introduction on other hand? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs)
No. While I agree that this calculus is probably correct, we cannot include it if it has sprung from the minds of any of us or even all of us. It MUST be sourced to a verifiable and reliable source. Those are Wikipedia policies. --Richard06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naimark
If anyone has the time to go to the library, I expect this book should offer some insights.
The book offers also the insight into author's bias - the selection of the cleansings. BTW - why economic and religious victims are generally ignored? It's POV.
Xx23611:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xx236 , when you sport a scholarly degree in history, then I’ll take your allegations that Naimarks work is POV seriously. Especially if you then also show any kind of evidence of actually seriously having tried looked into the subject matter. Had you done so you’d known that the book is based on five case studies, and is NOT an attempt to describe all expulsions --minor and greater-- that took place in the 20th century.
In the meanwhile I’ll rely on reliable scholarly review-sources to gain an insight of the value of Naimarks work.
I'm criticizing Naimark's attitude toward the expulsion Germans from Poland (and probably other Communist countries), because he applies his theory ignoring basic facts:
From the H-net text:
"Naimark directs attention to the role of political elites in instigating ethnic cleansing, and of bureaucrats and technical professionals in organizing its implementation". The problem is that the majority of the Polish elites, bureaucrats and technical professionals died or were forced to emigrate during the war or didn't have any impact on the politics. The expulsion was a part of the social revolution. Polish landlords were also expelled, inside Poland. Even withouth the expulsion, all German landlords, almost all farmers and company owners would have been robbed and maybe transferred, frequently imprisoned after 1948.
From Naimark:
"Ethnic cleansing, driven by the ideology of integral nationalism" - sure, of the one of the Lublin puppet government. Stalin might have been using some Polish nationalists before they became imprisoned, but his ideology wasn't certainly nationalistic, maybe pragmatic.
The Communist state robbed the Germans to construct the Communism - mostly the war industry.
"ethnic cleansing is deeply misogynistic" - certainly yes, but many Polish women were also the victims. Many German women married Polish men, mostly under Roman-Catholic law. Was it possible in a "deeply misogynistic" situation?
So let me get this straight Xx, a German politician's criticism about a historian according to you is not admissable because he is a politician and not a expert historian. But a Czech politician's criticism of another historian is? isn't that a little hypocritical?
I quote here that he quotes historian Tomáš Staněk. You may read works by Tomáš Staněk, to have your own opinion. I even give the title of Naimark's antipolish article. I call it cooperation rather than hypocrisy. Xx23616:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naimark - let's start with a clean slate
Can someone try to state what the controversy is over Naimark? What is the text in the article that is objectionable and why? --Richard21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Because I was focusing earlier on the "number of deaths" controversy with 131, I didn't focus on the discussion about Naimark when it started a few weeks ago and I still don't completely understand what it's about. I think it's about a phrase "by any means necessary". Presumably some people want to remove it and others want it kept.
1) Can someone direct me to the place in the article where this phrase is used?
2) Can we define this debate as a choice between two revisions: one with text A and the other with text B?
This article has been protected for an excessively long time and I think we should work towards a consensus rather than continuing to throw arguments and references back and forth at teach other.
Perhaps some of you prefer arguing to editing. I don't.
In my opinion there are some arbitrary interpretations of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Potsdam Conference (Potsdam Protocol) - i.e. the paper where you can read the decisions the Allies made in Potsdam 17 July to 2 August 1945:
The Allies didn't establish the border between Poland and Germany. Several times they emphasized in Potsdam that an oncoming peace conference would have to decide definitely on this subject. Furthermore Truman (USA) stated on 25 July 1945 that all decisions made in Potsdam have to be agreed by the U.S. Senate.
In principle, the Potsdam Conference didn't approve of the expulsions of the Germans but wanted to bring it under the control of the Allied Control Council. So the Potsdam Protocol places emphasis on stopping the expulsions:
"The Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary are at the same time being informed of the above and are being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions pending an examination by the Governments concerned of the report from their representatives on the Control Council." (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade17.htm)
Well, creating "ethnically homogeneous nation states" by "removing the ethnic minorities that were viewed as troublesome" was an idea in that time to solve ethnically problems.
But Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia had been integral parts of Germany and the population there was overwhelmingly German. Poles had definitely been a minority group.
If acting on the maxim of “creating “ethnically homogeneous nation states” had really been decisive for what was implemented after the war – as often asserted, not the Germans of Silesia, Pomerania or East Prussia ought to have been transferred.
It would have been sufficient to exchange German minority in Poland and Polish minority in Germany.
I think this is much more what the (Western) Allies had in mind in Potsdam.
The facts are: The occupation of the concerning German territory and pegging out the Oder-Neisse line had already been done before the Potsdam Conference – by Soviet and Polish authorities.
So, the expulsion of German population was just means to an end to create accomplished facts: The intention for the expulsion of the East Germans was mainly making irreversible the annexation of German territory.
Pretty the same what German Nazis intended to do on Poland…
Pretty the same what German Nazis intended to do on Poland… - they didn't only intend, they did do quite much of it.
You method is a classical one - to take a fact from the historical context. The Potsdam Conference was the third one. I don't care much what the US presidents gave to Stalin and what they neglected - the result was as it was - 45 years of Soviet occupation of Poland.
Xx23612:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard 09Feb07
No. While I agree that this calculus is probably correct, we cannot include it if it has sprung from the minds of any of us or even all of us. It MUST be sourced to a verifiable and reliable source. Those are Wikipedia policies.
Yes I absolutely agree with this. It must be sourced. Every number of it, however we need to know for what kind of number we should look for. Some start had been done at “Demographic estimates” [6]
believe this latter calculus is the one proposed by Overmans. But where's the citation?
Rűdiger Overmans. “Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg.” Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 – [This book I will have]
The reason the Wikipedia articles currently use the Statistisches Bundesamt/ZgV tables is because those tables were the most comprehensive data that was readily available on the Web.
Yes the ZgV obviously take care to spread their staff. This is their invocation to do so.
Even without tabular data, a direct quote from or a good summary of the scholarly article would be the ideal thing to make the point.
I could not found a Haar’s book. Can somebody help with the title and year id edition. Only what I found is: “In November 2006, Deutschlandfunk published an interview with Ingo Haar, entitled "Historian: Federation of expellees names wrong numbers of victims" [9]. The article is some source also but it is not the expected book.
Naimark?
The Atlantic review by Benjamin Schwarz is good. :) : “A lot is wrong with the book: …”
I agree, good review :-) "Revealing,....,deserves a wider readership". "But Naimark's book is significant because it contains the most easily accessible detailed account of the worst instance of ethnic cleansing in postwar Europe: the expulsion of about 11.5 million ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, which claimed the lives of as many as 2.5 million."--Stor stark7Talk11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Because I was focusing earlier on the "number of deaths" controversy with 131, I didn't focus on the discussion about Naimark when it started a few weeks ago and I still don't completely understand what it's about. I think it's about a phrase "by any means necessary". Presumably some people want to remove it and others want it kept. 1) Can someone direct me to the place in the article where this phrase is used?
Here you are [10] It is also: “The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal.” – this is even Ninmark’s words anyway. “According to a Soviet report, the Polish military "related to German women as to free booty". – this need to be considered with original text and with Naimark biased attempts. Exact copy of the half page “source” you have here:
“The desperate situation for German women in Silesia was in general exacerbated by the Poles, whose "desire for retribution" was often as intense--for very understandable reasons--as that of the Russians. More often than not, the incoming Polish authorities were even less concerned about the safety of German women than were the Russian officers, to whom the German population turned for protection. After all the Silesian territories had been turned over by the Allies to Polish occupation, but not yet to incorporation into the new Poland. Orders went out from the Polish communists to expel Germans by whatever means necessary, to ensure incorporation as well as occupation.(31) As a result, the Polish administration of the new territories made little effort to protect local Germans from the deprivations of Polish or Russian rapists and thieves.(32) In a city like Breslau, the Germans fear of the Russians was quickly replaced by fear of the Poles. In fact, it was almost too much for the Germans to survive the Russian attacks only to have the Poles persecute them once again. "The Germans in Breslau," wrote the city’s antifascist group, "are steadily being spiritually being driven into the ground [gehen langsam seelisch zu Grunde]."(33) Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behavior. Polish soldiers stated one report, "relate to German women as to free booty."(34)
2) Can we define this debate as a choice between two revisions: one with text A and the other with text B?
But Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia had been integral parts of Germany and the population there was overwhelmingly German. Poles had definitely been a minority group.
Take for consideration:
1) This territories were originally part Old Polish Kingdom. German Empire systematically offended Poland by ages.
2) Poland was attacked by Germany on 1 Sep1939 and lost enormous number of people and economy
3) The East Polish territories were sized by Russian, in fact Poland become 20% smaller after WW II
4) For ages the Germans proved that peaceful coexistence with Polish population is impossible
5) Finally, the final border agreement between Poland and post World War II Germany was signed on 14 November 1990 and ended the German territorial claims.
It would have been sufficient to exchange German minority in Poland and Polish minority in Germany. I think this is much more what the (Western) Allies had in mind in Potsdam.
Yes and left aggressor untouched and victim with 1/3 of the original size. GOOD idea.
The facts are: The occupation of the concerning German territory and pegging out the Oder-Neisse line had already been done before the Potsdam Conference – by Soviet and Polish authorities.
Yes, according to the Yalta Conference direction. You should read the original Potsdam documents: [11]. And we do not discuss here Potsdam conference or if the Expulsion had sense etc. We discuss here the Flight and Expulsion as historical fact – the results of these events.
To anonymous writer
This territories were originally part Old Polish Kingdom.
Well, in the Middle Ages, around 800 years ago - and just because Poland conquered it by brute force.
Can you explain what you taking about. Since I think you have no idea about history. Brutal force against whom? From II century the territories was most probably empty. How Slavic tribes were consolidate is actually supposition and not German business the 1000 years after.
Well, let us speak just about Silesia. Silesia originally (10th century) belonged to Bohemia - Přemyslid dynasty when Polish rulers conquered Silesia by brute force. Silesia remained for some time an "apple of discord" between "Poland" and Bohemia - until it found its feet (around 13th). At the end of the 13th century Silesia was considered as "German territory" after Saint Hedwig of Andechs (Hedwig of Silesia), which was married to Henry I the Bearded, (not to confuse with Saint Jadwiga of Poland) had called German settlers to (Lower) Silesia - which was - as you have mentioned - "most probably empty". (Not to ignore: Until the 13th century there was scarcely a sense of togetherness within "Polish people".) - So German people were the first people who settled definitely in Silesia. This was a peaceful settling. This German people (and their offspring respectively) remained there until 20th century when Poland/Stalin expelled them from there by brute force.
German people instead had settled there peacefully.
Teutonic knights and Prussian aggression as a example :))) be serious I will die laughing.
Around 700 years Silesia for example hadn't belonged to Poland. It was one of the most stable borders in Europe!
Ye :)) up to 1 Sept 1939. Why Germans broke the border and the peace everybody know.
Poland was attacked by Germany on 1 Sep1939 and lost enormous number of people and economy
Because of this obvious injustice it was right to do another injustice? - Please catch up on the human rights.
Injustice is when criminal do not pay for his crime.
The Potsdam Conference decided that Poland has to get reparation from Germany - "The U. S. S. R. undertakes to settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations." (cf. Potsdam Conference)
The East Polish territories were sized by Russian, in fact Poland become 20% smaller after WW II
This East Polish had been occupied by Poland after World War I - contrary to the "Curzon-Line" - defined by the Allies then.
Look for definition of "Curzon-Line". This was only demarcation line. Borders of Polish-Lithuanian Union (very peacefully made) were fare more even than Polish border before WW II. Beside territories of present Ukraine and Belarus never belonged to Russia before were sized from Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenians Union. All is OK to make Poland smaller, yes? :)) Take you a balance. Do not argue in this way. You show no concern about justice at all. All you want is make Germany bigger.
The Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenians Union was a confederation - which means it wasn't "just Polish", and so Poland hadn't the right to conquer it by brute force after World War I - to make Poland bigger.
To the rest: Yes, of course, all Polish people had been and always will be just victims and no Pole has ever been a perpetrator.
Most of the time Poland was a victim for at least two reason: 1) It was smaller nation between two super powers. 2) In general Polish (generally Slavs) people show much less aggression then Germans for example. [Saying Slavs I do not mean Tsars - who they were by blood you should know]
I am not leaving in you dream. Wake up and study history.
To Wikiferdi
Well, in the Middle Ages, around 800 years ago - and just because Poland conquered it by brute force. German people instead had settled there peacefully. Around 700 years Silesia for example hadn't belonged to Poland. It was one of the most stable borders in Europe!
Some info that might merit inclusion in the article, especially since it comes from Poland and thus is less susceptible to Polish accusations of "bias".
Bernadetta Nitschke[12]. Vertreibung und Aussiedlung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus Polen 1945 bis 1949. Translated from Polish by Stephan Niedermeier. HNET-review
Intresting datums that should be included in the article:
3 phases to the expulsion, 1. Wild 2. After Potsdam 3. “organised transfer”.
Germans forced to wear special armbands. (similar to yellow stars?)
Germans used as forced labor by Poland.
Up to 1.1 Million died in the expulsions from what became the territory of “post war” Poland.
Extracts.
Chapter Two also sketches the conditions facing the five million Germans remaining in reconstituted Poland in 1945. Though the degree of mistreatment varied widely, Germans were often humiliated, forced to wear special armbands, denied access to public transportation, and sent off to camps and forced labor.
During a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945, the Polish military drove up to 400,000 Germans across Poland's new western border. Though apparently inspired by a similar expulsion frenzy in Czechoslovakia, Poles were neither as brutal nor as thorough as their Czech counterparts.
The second wave of expulsions came after the Potsdam conference, but before the "organized transfer" of remaining Germans began in early 1946. From August to December, 1945, Poles expelled close to 600,000 more Germans in poorly organized transports. Thousands starved and froze to death in slow and ill-equipped trains. (picture from another site) The final phase involved the transfer of 2.25 million Germans in a process coordinated with British and Soviet authorities in occupied Germany in 1946 and 1947. Many still died on route, but conditions were far better than those in 1945.
Nitschke is particularly interested in establishing the numbers of expellees, and her conclusions (drawing from a wealth of regional studies) confirm the estimates of leading German scholars.[2] Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died.
…coming from the Polish side of the discussion on the expulsions, it is an important contribution towards finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath.
Extract from a review of another intresting book, this time German in origins but drawing on Polish sources HNET review
“The editors also show some concern, probably misplaced, that readers might take the language of Polish officials too much at face value. One introduction, for example, takes pains to emphasize the deplorable conditions in labor and transit camps, even including one expellee's rather overwrought equating of the camp at Sikawa with Auschwitz (p. 56)”
Thank you Stor stark7 for this reference. It's good to appreciate all efforts for finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath.
But as the title already foreshadows you can find the same usual stuff about the expulsion of East Germans in this book, too.
"Vertreibung aus Polen" means "Expulsion from Poland" - this is the thread in the whole book.
Well, Nitschke doesn't take great pains to clarify this item academically. She accepts this term without raising an objection.
As mentioned above ("Read the Potsdam Protocol"), East Germany remained in the sovereignty of Germany after World War II. Poland only got the right to administrate that German regions ("so that it is not part of the Soviet occupation zone", cf. Potsdam Protocol) until a peace conference where the borders should be established. In spite of everything what Poland/Stalin did to incorporate definitely this regions into Poland (and eventually in the Soviet hemisphere) - actually this was against law of nations.
Nitschke more or less ignores this sticking point of the expulsions of the East Germans - in my opinion this is inexcusable for an author who is pretending to be a scholar.
Wikiferdi19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the reasons for the expulsions
Is to be found here
"Anglo-American Responsibility for the Expulsion of the Germans, 1944-48" by ALFRED DE ZAYAS
On 18 October 1945 General Eisenhower sent a telegram to Washington:
"In Silesia Polish administration and methods are causing a mass exodus westward of German inhabitants.... Many unable to move are placed in camps on meagre rations and under poor sanitary conditions. Death and disease rate in camps extremely high. Germans who attempt to hold onto homes and land are terrorized into "voluntary" evacuation. Methods used by Poles definitely do not conform to Potsdam agreement.... Due to mass migration into Brandenburg and Saxony, health conditions in these regions tragically low.... Reasonable estimates predict between 2 1/2 and 3 million victims of malnutrition and disease between Oder and Elbe by next spring. Breslau death rate increased ten fold, and death rate reported to be 75% of all births. Typhoid, typhus, dysentery and diphtheria are spreading.... Attention is invited in this connection to serious danger of epidemic of such great proportion as to menace all Europe, including our troops, and to probability of mass starvation of unprecedented scale."
--Stor stark7Talk13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More info on Polish-Communist concentration camps and forced labor
The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of germans that were killed.
HNET review ...hundreds of thousands of Germans either ended up in internment facilities, performed forced labor on farms, or were deported to distant parts of the Soviet Union, where they worked in labor camps. In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed... ...six main facilities: Glaz, Milecin, Potulitz, Gronowo, Jaworzno, and Sikawa. Generally by 1950, these Germans were placed on transports that brought them to facilities near the German-Polish border,
Martha Kent described her experiences as an ethnic German child interned in the camp Potulitz/Potulice near Bromberg (now Bydgoszsc in Poland). In March 1945, when Kent was five years old, the family was taken into captivity near the city of Bromberg. Despite difficulties, the parents and children were able to remain together as forced laborers on a farm. Then two years later, they were separated and moved to different locations and labor camps; at this time, at the age of seven, Kent moved to Potulitz.
She describes in a very open, child-like fashion, and without even a hint of bitterness, the lice, diseases, living conditions, interactions with other prisoners and guards, and the fact that death was such a common experience in the camp that when her mother was sent away for several months to perform hard labor at a prison, Kent was certain she had died and would never be seen again. She describes her perception at the time: "If people disappeared, then they were dead. Whoever was dead, never came back" (p. 73). Remarkably, despite the living and working conditions, the separation of almost all family members, and the efforts of local authorities to claim the children as Polish, Kent's immediate family not only survived the experience, but even managed to stay in contact and leave Poland together in summer 1949.
Documentary
The few sources that are now coming to light are showing that until the dissolving of the camps in 1950, more than 100,000 Germans, mostly in Upper Silesia, West Prussia and close to Lodz, were imprisoned. Most of them were women and children, as the men had retreated with the military to the west, or were already in prisoner-of-war camps. At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger.
The Telegraph.co.uk
Czeslaw Geborski, the accused, is said to have systematically raped, tortured and murdered German civilians while serving as commandant at the Lambinowice concentration camp in Silesia, where Germans living in the region were interned after the war.
A museum at the Lambinowice concentration camp commemorates the many Poles and Allied PoWs who died there at the hands of the Nazis, but makes scant mention of the thousands of Germans who subsequently suffered the same fate.
In many cases German farms were taken over by Poles and previous owners were either killed or kept on as slave labour.
In all, around 10 million Germans were expelled from their homes in the region, and it is estimated that in Poland alone, between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labour, transportation, or in concentration camps.
--Stor stark7Talk03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know he mean like "death camp" but he put 6 dots in a place where was comfortable for him. The real citation is: “In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed for the purposes of housing Eastern Germans. Gradually the Polish authorities centralized the interned Germans in six main facilities: Glaz, Milecin, Potulitz, Gronowo, Jaworzno, and Sikawa.” Just small faux-pas :)
in Poland alone, between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed - After months of discussion a new expert has come with 1.2 million story. If exaggerate - why only 1.2, maybe 2.5? Would you please read thousands of lines of the discussions and referred articles, before you start to teach?
The German estimate is that 60 000 - 80 000 died in 1255 camps. There are two questions -
how many did die. German data for Lamsdorf are exaggerated, so what is the quality of the data for other camps?
how many of those people died in Soviet camps in Poland? Polish communists weren't responsible for the Soviet camps.
Tulko said:Here, death camps are called concentration camps (koncentrační tábor or koncentrák shortly) so the difference is not clear. The difference is clear, I think you are the only one that confuses the two.
German data for Lamsdorf are exaggerated proof that it is exaggerated?
how many of those people died in Soviet camps in Poland? Polish communists weren't responsible for the Soviet camps. many of the camps were Polish run, we are not here to assess blame or deflect blame.
We are here to write about facts, not bashing the Poles manipulating facts.
Jadger, when I need informations I write www.google.com or www.google.de and I write, what I'm looking for. It works frequently. Why don't you cooperate but continuosly demand from me basic data available for you too?
Germans claimed that 6488 people died in the Lamsdorf camp. Director of the Museum has verified the data and reduced the number to about 1000. The German Wiki gives the number 1000, not any more 6488. What is the quality of the 60.000-80.000 estimate if the LAmsdorf estimate was so wrong? Xx23614:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could you please site a source Xx, as there are many differing sources on google, some more reliable than others. Also, when we are going to add information into an article, we need a source, you can't just provide a link to google in the references section.
"We are here to write about facts, not bashing the Poles manipulating facts." so did you just admit to manipulating facts? because I would bash anyone that manipulates facts, not just Poles and not just on wikipedia. And you seem to think I have been bashing you...
still not going to cite a source Xx? one must assume then that a source to back up your claims doesn't exist, and to use my father's favourite expression "you're just blowing smoke out your ass"
Put attention on the cite from [13] Bernadetta Nitschke “Though estimates of the dead range widely, as many as a million Germans perished during flight and expulsion from Poland in 1944-45.”
1944-1945 it was rather flight – the war was not over until 8 May 1945. It is interesting 1 million in the time
I do not see how you can draw such farfetched conclusions from that scanty sentence. But yes it is intresting. Lets follow up on that shall we. When did the Poles start the process of ethnic cleansing? I just saw that Zgoda labour camp was run by the Poles already from February 1945, well before the German surender. Then we have the surender in May 1945 (3 months later), leaving at least another 7 months for violent expulsions until the end of 1945. Since Nitschke later estimates the total dead as up to 1.1 Million, that would mean that in the years 1946-1950 100,000 were killed. Not so farfetched, but I suggest we read the actual book to see what she means. --Stor stark7Talk20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next cite from Bernadetta Nitschke :“and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280).”
This 1.1 million is – in my modest perception total casualties of the period 1944 – 47. It means 1945-47 is 100 thou.
Cite from Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe" [14]: “German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe”
Question: Are you going to blame Polish people for the 2.5 - 3 million Germans between Odder and Elbe? I am not sure if the suppositions of German observers means the numbers of deaths in fact happened. I know that in Germany and in Poland after the end of war was common starvation. I know that Americans helped West Germany in the trouble. What happened in Soviet zone - if Americans could help there I do not know. I know that for Poland was no help.
I said it was an intresting quote, and it is especially about Polish behaiviour. It is "faux pas" to lift out that single sentence and pretend that was the whole of the quote! Besides, many of the expelees had been so weakened by the expulsion that they kept on dying while in the new "stump" Germany.--Stor stark7Talk20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of Germans that were killed.
It seems to be only you opinion Stor stark7. Until now nobody says so and evidently you have no proof.
Please,l you're really trying my patience here. And the sources we have been discussing? [15] "deplorable conditions in labor and transit camps". [16] "sent off to camps and forced labor." [17] "death was such a common experience in the camp.." [18] "At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger." [19] "between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labour, transportation, or in concentration camps."
Or how about the fact that a minor concentration camp such as Łambinowice, not even worthy of mentioning in the list above, manages to rack up a kill number of at least 1,000 and possibly more than 1,500 German civilians through mistreatment and diseases.[20],[21]
Or how about Zgoda labour camp, another Polish run concentration camp so small it was not mentioned in the above list. The article states that out of 6000 prisoners, of whom many were children, at least 1,855 lost their lives in this camp from February until November 1945, many because of a typhus epidemic, over 600 in August alone. The inmates were systematically maltreated and tortured.--Stor stark7Talk20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed...
I do not know you mean like "death camp" but you put 6 dots in a place where was comfortable for you. The real citation is: “In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed for the purposes of housing Eastern Germans. Gradually the Polish authorities centralized the interned Germans in six main facilities: Glaz, Milecin, Potulitz, Gronowo, Jaworzno, and Sikawa.” Just small faux-pas?
At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger.
Seems to me the same result as in between the Oder and Elbe. Though it was probably longer time 1945-1950?
Regarding the The Telegraph.co.uk [22] and Czeslaw Gemborski.
Cite: “The main charge we are bringing against him is that he ordered a building in the camp to be burned down, killing 48 people. As people tried to escape the flames, he personally shot them or had them flung back inside."
This case started in 2001. Unfortunately the accused died before the court announced sentence. I say unfortunately because there was a good change to discharge the man. He was proofing successfully that the barrack was set to fire by the prisoners for the issue of escape.
In many cases German farms were taken over by Poles and previous owners were either killed or kept on as slave labour.
My humble sugestion is to calm down and do not repead a newspapar sensations. We need to consider informations from many sources and do not make harm for inocent. Do not we? Do you want to be prosecutor or editor? You forgot the cytat: “In one instance a man was sealed in a barrel in which nails had been hammered through the side.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In my opinion the source is a reputable one. Besides, If a polish magazine can be used as source for the allegation that the Nazis made soap out of Jews in Stutthof concentration camp, then I see no problem with using a reputable english language source here. --Stor stark7Talk20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gazeta Wyborcza quotes IPN results. not its own reasearch. Probably any Polish newspaper quoted the same results, one can crosscheck the articles if he/she doesn't believe.
here is one of many English language summaries of the same text: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=286046&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/ Is it good enough? If you put human soap into Google, you become may of them. But you prefer to complain.
BTW - your summary is your own creation. The Stutthof victims of winter 1944/1945 weren't Jewish only.Xx236 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"were either killed" - how many such cases have been documented? Xx23612:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(#2) 11Feb207 Stor stark7
Fine, 0. Flight. But refugees who are refused to return to their homeland are also counted as expelees, in case you had forgotten.—
I am not interested in number of refuges. I am interested in unfair magnification and manipulation of number of deaths, and who is accused for them.
Since Nitschke later estimates the total dead as up to 1.1 Million, that would mean that in the years 1946-1950 100,000 were killed. Not so farfetched, but I suggest we read the actual book to see what she means.
You understood, I think, the conclusion is directly from the webpage which you provided. It is from summary of the book. You can look on [23] - this link is from other discussion at “Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe” [24]
My conclusion there is that Expulsion (do not mix with Flight) is 200.000. The point is I know directly from witnesses how the Flight looked like. Relation Flight/Expulsion is not for me surpassing.
According to the lexicon link that you provided, from a starting number of 16,6 Million, with aproximately 2,5 Million of those allowed to remain, 1.6 Million were killed all over eastern europe (if you do the math using the figures given (I’m assuming the 200,000 discrepancy is due to those who were expelled to Austria etc). The link states that the 1950’s numbers of 2.1 Million killed have been revised, although not by how much. This in in conflict with the review of Nitschkes research with states that her estimate of 1.1 Million killed within what was to become modern Poland is in agreement with the 1950’s work. Maybe the revision if for the rest of Eastern Europe. Anyway, if Nitschke is right, and this article is right despite that contradiction, 500,000 were killed in what became modern Czhecoslovakia, Kaliningrad, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary etc and 1.1 Million in what became Poland.
It does not state how they were killed, in which phase. It does however state that beginning already in November 4, 1944, Poland started collecting all Germans into forced labour camps.
Your conclusion makes no sence to me.Expulsion (do not mix with Flight) is 200.000. The point is I know directly from witnesses how the Flight looked like. Relation Flight/Expulsion is not for me surpassing.
Aside from your OR based on “know directly” That conclusion can not be derived from the lexicon text. Netiher can it be derived from the review of Nitschkes book. All that can be derived from her book is that in what became poland up to 1.1 Million died total. Of those it might be deduced, based on one sentence that may or may not be correct in the review, that in 1944 and 1945 1,0 Million of those died, and in 1946 onwards (to 1950?) 100,000 died. Of those 100,000 deaths caused 1946 onwards I deduce that the deaths were caused mainly by starving/freesing to death during the “organised transfer”, forced labor, and maltreatment in the Polish concentration camps. Of the 1,000,000 German civilian deaths in what was to become modern Poland who died in 1944 and 1945 I assume that those killed died in Polish revenge attacks, concentration/forced labor camps, starved/froze to death in the wild expulsion/potsdam expulsion, and also during the flight away from the Red army.
There are no numbers given in the text on how many died during the flight away from the Red army. This would be intresting to know I agree. I’ve seen numbers showing that of the 2,000,000 German women in eastern Germany/Poland that were raped by the Soviet soldiers, 200,000 died, either from injuries, killed outright after a rape, or through suicide. Note however that we’re talking about women in territoty that became East Germany as well, not only “expulsion territoty”. And also, based on what Naimark wrote about Polish rapists, I supose that some women must have died that way at Polish hands as well.
I said it was an interesting quote, and it is especially about Polish behavior. It is "faux pas" to lift out that single sentence and pretend that was the whole of the quote! Besides, many of the expellees had been so weakened by the expulsion that they kept on dying while in the new "stump" Germany
Just a moment. We do not looking for interesting quote we look for facts. Any way, I ask you a question only. However, seems to me it was not without foundation - you blame Polish for some deaths in this case. First it was a German report for Americans and ask for help. This is no actual number of deaths, is it? I do not like if somebody put big numbers to scare public. It would be appropriate to see that Germans were much much better treated than they treated Polish people – do not forgot it. See [25] last sentence of the fragment. I will appreciate if you would temper you assumption. All nations were exhausted and had big problems because German Nazis. Do you expect that victims will take all their resource to provide comfort for aggressors? You have zero idea what the condition there were at that time, I am sure. If you would, you would not blame Polish people so easy.
So General Eisenhowers report to his government that ""In Silesia Polish administration and methods are causing a mass exodus westward of German inhabitants.... Many unable to move are placed in camps on meagre rations and under poor sanitary conditions. Death and disease rate in camps extremely high. Germans who attempt to hold onto homes and land are terrorized into "voluntary" evacuation. Methods used by Poles definitely do not conform to Potsdam agreement..." Is not relevant for the article`? I hapen to strongly disagree with that conclusion. But I guess you'd rather no-one knew about the camps?
At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger." [19] "between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labor, transportation, or in concentration camps."
You need read the discussion from the beginning. This is you who challenge patience. The big numbers over 400. thou have no proof. And the unreasonable magnification is what we discuss here. ‘’’First above all, you mix again flight with expulsion.’’’ Additionally you found some concentrations camps to put it as standard. The best is for you to say 3 million Germans were brutally murdered in concentrations camp - (the 3 millions until now is the biggest number) Oh. Plus 3.5 millions deaths by starvation between Odder and Elba because there were expelled and exhausted.
Calm down, you're getting incoherent. First, a bit more of the sentence. " it is estimated that in Poland alone, between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labour, transportation, or in concentration camps." The intresting thing here is that those killed during the "Flight" are not mentioned at all here, so even the lowest estimate of 400,000 from "Poland" (to which you seem to agree to) refers to death at Polish hands.
Additionally you found some concentrations camps to put it as standard.
As you well know, but conveniently sem to have forgotten, is that the list of concentration camps were in responce to one of your allegations. I said that The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of Germans that were killed. To which you responded It seems to be only you opinion Stor stark7. Until now nobody says so and evidently you have no proof.. As a responce to that provocation I showed extensively with examples how wrong you are, including giving some of the concentration camps as example. I'm glad you no longer pretend there were no concentration camps however. Every litle bit counts.
Or how about the fact that a minor concentration camp such as Łambinowice, not even worthy of mentioning in the list above, manages to rack up a kill number of at least 1,000 and possibly more than 1,500 German civilians through mistreatment and diseases.
You know what, count all the few concentration camps and count all the deaths, you will make a good job. Do not forgot about reliable sources, I will check it. You understand that popular newspapers are no reliable sources. I think you should read Overmans or Haar. They count real deaths and they looking for facts not for sensations.
Why on earth would I bother doing that? It is enough to know that the concentration camps existed and that large numbers died in them. I saw that some of the camp articles were based exclusively on Polish sources, which I asume means that your Polish compatriots have written the articles and believe them to be accurate. If Overmans or Haar completely fail to mention the camps then that only means that their work may not be up to the expected standards of scholars and maybe their texts should not be used in this article because of that.
Again, you're trying my patience here...—
This is you problem not mine. What will you do for me. Hmm?
????
Meaning?—
It is for you personal conclusion.
Oh goodie.
Do you have any evidence for that hypothesis of yours? Czesław Gęborski got away because he was to ill, and then too dead, to face sentence.
I read popular newspapers as you do. Any way, there is no court sentence that means it is zero to discuss. Most above all, Wkipedia is not a place to spread cheep news.
Again, evidence???, since you obviously do not regard newspapers as reliable sources. And cheap news? The dead guy is noteworthy enough to have his own wikipedia article.
In my opinion the source is a reputable one.
Means the [The Telegraph.co.uk] :)) is this some historical journal and the author a scholar? None of that. Marginally even in “Newsweek” a stinking journalist named Auschwitz „Polish concentration camp”. We will see if the texts you provide will link to some reasonable researches and will be accepted by others Wiki users.
Excellent, I look forward to seing you dig up more material on the subject. I see that many of the mayor forced labor/concentration/internment-camps lack articles at the moment. And since you speak Polish maybe you can find the original PAP article?
Besides, If a Polish magazine can be used as source for the allegation that the Nazis made soap out of Jews in Stutthof concentration camp, then I see no problem with using a reputable English language source here.
Do you read Polish? The article provide information about investigation and research done by Institute of National Memory (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej). IPN is a historical institute and the head of it is designed directly by Polish parliament. The result of the investigation is strictly scientific and certainly for international verification if requested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nope, I dont know Polish. But let me quote you "do not repead a newspapar sensations". It is still in a newspaper. Besides, since this is english Wikipedia whoever provided it should have provided a translation in the article of the salient points. Nevertheless, I thought it was yeat another propaganda spinoff such as the alledged RJF soap label, but it apears to be legitimate based on english language articles. Any way, magazine articles are allowed as sources in Wikipedia. --Stor stark7Talk03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO, the "Institute of National Memory" is a revanchist witchhunt organization, not unlike Simon Wiesenthal's tactics. [26] Much of what it claims are pure fabrications, not just in this area, but in many many others.
The IPN is the IPN, not any Simon Wiesenthal's organization. With the same level of precision I see strong resemblance of your argumentation and the revisionistic neo-Nazi one. I find it O.K. that you have declared your position - the IHR against Polish academic historians.
Xx23615:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Wait! is this what you warned me for on my userpage? You warned me not to personally attack who? I never personally attacked a user. I called into question the credibility of the IPN, I don't see how that is a personal attack, especially since you have done the same to the Federation of Expellees. shall I post a personal attack notice every time a source is questioned?
I would also like to point out that lumping me in with Neo-Nazi revisionists is a personal attack. I also like how you assume I am a part of the IHR, just shows further bad faith editing on your behalf.
The IPN (The Institute of National Remembrance - Commission of the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation) has a very nice homepage, but what I would like to know, is, wether there is also a institute in Poland, which investigates crimes done against other nations by the Polish (communist...) State.
"The lands lying between Poland and its eastern neighbours were inhabited by a mixed population of Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, with no group being a majority."
My question is: Given this no-win situation, why claimed Poland after World War I that this region should became Polish?
In the same article, which from my point of view is quite biased, the answer is given:
"The area around Wilno, called Central Lithuania, was the subject of a referendum in 1922, followed by incorporation to Poland according to the wish of 65% of the voters."
Well, let's have a look to the history of Silesia:
"After the referendum, there were three Silesian Insurrections instigated by Polish inhabitants of the area, as a result of which the League of Nations decided that the province should be split again and that the eastern-most Upper Silesian areas, even though a majority there had voted to remain inside Germany."
Thus the result of the referendum 1921 was, that in spite of strong anti-German postwar pressure - especially for this referendum - around 60% of the inhabitants of Upper Silesian voted for remaining with Germany. Well, what reason then Polish people and Poland respectively had to insurge against this votum? - Why were the territories eastern of Poland incorporated into Poland, because around 60% decided in favor of it, but Upper Silesia was divided despite of a similar vote in favor of Germany?
Xx236, when you just admit words like "Expulsion", "Germans" and "World War II" here, why do we then discuss at all?
In my opinion all this topics are linked together. We can split the articles of Wikipedia but we don't have to do it necessarily so strictly here at the discussion board. Or do you want to choke off a discussion about an issue you would prefer to sweep under the carpet?
My remarks here about Polish behaviour against Germany after WW I can help to understand similar Polish behaviour against Germany after WW II. In both cases Polish people (after the wars) strived for an expansion of Poland and a diminishment of Germany. For me this sticking point is important, because it shows that Germans weren't expelled from Poland to create a homogenous Polish state but rather for pegging the annexations Poland de facto made.
--Wikiferdi17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xx236, following statement of the article we are discussing is wrong, and this is what I want to show with my remarks.
Citation:
"The following deportations of those who remained or returned after active warfare, which in most areas coincided with Soviet occupation, were purportedly intended to create ethnically homogeneous nation states."
Actually, Xx236 is wrong in telling Wikiferdi to move this discussion to Talk:Curzon line. This line of discussion doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia because it is polemic and advocacy. It is NOT our job to pass judgment on right and wrong nor is it even our job to determine what caused a particular phenomenon or event. It is our job to summarize concisely knowledge of the "real world". Thus, we should not waste one breath arguing about the point that Wikiferdi is making. The NPOV approach, IMHO, is to mention both lines of reasoning in the "Purported Justifications" section and BE DONE WITH IT! I believe that, among the several purported justifications in the "Purported Justifications" section, there is mention of both of the justification arguments discussed by Wikiferdi above. If not, we should fix it but we should not attempt to pick one as "THE" reason for the expulsions.
We can argue until the next millenium about this and it would still be original research. If there are multiple opinions in the "real world", then those multiple opinions should be represented here. It is not for us to decide among them. It is for the reader to decide for himself/herself. Our job is to help him/her in the most NPOV and encyclopedic way that we can.
NB: I'm not just siding with Xx236 against Wikiferdi. Xx236 and others have been guilty in the past of similar confusion about our role and the purpose of Talk Pages.
ALSO: I'm not saying Wikiferdi is wrong. Some of his points make sense to me. I just don't think we need to arrive at a single, definitive answer to a question that is and always will be open to debate and interpretation.
FINALLY: It is critical that opinions like Wikiferdi's be backed up with a citation to a reliable source so that we can deflect any charges of original research.
To conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, the article cannot adopt any single POV. de Zayas is one POV. We can state his POV but we cannot state it as "THE TRUTH". We can say, "According to de Zayas, X is true" preferably with a citation. However, if we have a WP:RS who challenges de Zayas' POV (such as Haar), then we can say "According to Haar, X is not true but Y is true" also with a citation.
Yet another note (post conflict). The key point here, Wikiferdi and 219, is that we are NOT saying "The Polish expelled the Germans solely because of a desire for revenge or to create a homogeneous state or to get compensation for lands lost to the Soviet Union. What we ARE saying is that ALL of these reasons and more have been put forth as possible reasons and WE do not attempt to decide which reasons are REAL reasons versus which ones are SPURIOUS reasons that just sounded good. Nor do we attempt to decide which reasons are morally justified versus which ones are morally unjustified. This is NOT OUR JOB. This is the reader's job.
--Richard17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say, that expelling the East Germans from their ancestral homeland was just motivated by the wish to annex their homeland, but it was the main reason. And this is absolute obvious if you investigate the history. An example I have given above. But in the Wikipedia article this isn't mentioned at all. Instead is mentioned a motivation for which "the Allies" can be blamed for what Poland did. In my book, this is sleazy. Wikiferdi13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is "How do you know it was the main reason?" If it is "obvious if you investigate history", then this is argumentative and original research. Put this idea in the mouth of a reliable source and provide a citation.
Even if it was a revenge for millions killed people, killed families, children, destroyed polish cities, burned Warsaw to down, cruelties of the war, who cares, it is obvious it was a revenge. Of course there were murders, what a surprise. Your german neighbour sneaks you to Gestapo, you must hail to Nazi, live in fear for years, eat odds and ends, you are called untermenschen, many of your friends are killed, what would you do after the war with your neighbour ? You say "no problem Fritz" ? I am disgusted with this talk. Poland was not the aggressor ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not revenge, it was vendetta. The German elderly, women and children (the soldiers which fought in the war and did the cruelties against Poles, Russians, Czechs etc. were brought to POW camps, were they suffered revenge - indiscriminately if guilty for war crimes or not (so it was also partly a kind of vendetta). Well, this just "in the East", especially in Siberia. In the West the Americans, French or Englishmen made difference between war criminals and just "followers". - Well, do we return to the German elderly, women and children in Silesia etc. Poles... put them in a lot of internment camps like Łambinowice where people like Czesław Gęborski murdered them in the most cruel way you can imagine. I think it should be the job of a Polish institute like the IPN to investigate exactly (!) what happened in such camps... Wikiferdi13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If 10 lines of the article will put the blame on Poles in 1920, than 100 lines should put the blame on Prussians/Germans who partitioned Poland and 1000 lines should put the blame on Germans 1939-1945 (such is the ratio of victims) and we won't become an article but a whole book. Are we writing a book?
Xx23611:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be enough that Poland (and here especially this Wikipedia article) admits what atrocities Polish people have done, admits that there were also Polish (war) criminals. (Well, Poland has passed up the chance to charge Czesław Gęborski - and this shows that Poland isn't very interested to come to terms with its past. - Maybe this article is going to make a difference?) Wikiferdi13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, your story is about rationalizations or individual opinions. Poeple's viewws are intweresting, but the expulsion of Germans and forced labor of Germans were decided in Yalta, without any Polish participation, so the Poles (and Naimark and you) can discuss even 1000 years, the facts won't be changed.
Xx23612:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember previous discussions on this page correctly, the Polish government in exile had its opinions and expressed them. Yes, the opinions were ignored but they were expressed and then ignored. This story should be synopsized somewhere in this article but in no more than a few sentences. --Richard15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you can't think that if you invite 10 people to your house that they will kick you out and they will live in that house. And if someone makes justice those 10 poeple will blame you that you were horrible inviter because you wanted your kitchen all the time. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Were decided in Yalta..." - blaming the Allies for what Poles did? Don't make me laugh (weep)! - So, then cite what Yalta concluded! - I can help you: Yalta decided that the determination of the western frontier of Poland should be postponed to a peace conference. The same concluded the Potsdam Conference ("In conformity with the agreement on Poland reached at the Crimea Conference..."). And Potsdam concluded: "The Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary are at the same time being informed of the above and are being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions pending an examination by the Governments concerned of the report from their representatives on the Control Council." - Aren't this reliable sources? And you are not poised to change the article? You are making me so miserable! Wikiferdi13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Polish and Czechoslovak people did it and what ? What's the point ? How do you think that two nations should live together when one of them thought the second one are untermenschen and tried to annihilate them and move it to Siberia to die in the snow ? You tell me.≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulkolahten, vave you read, what I have writen? - Poland and so on didn't act on decisions the Allies made. So they can't blame the Allies for what they did. German people behaved like undermenschen and Polish and Czechoslovak people behaved as undermenschen, too. Germany has apologized officially. Poland and Czechia have not. (Slovakia has, Romania has, Hungaria has, Estonia has etc.) Unless Poland and Czechia will do it, too, there won't be real peace. Wikiferdi14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation goes round and round discussing points which cannot be resolved. The NPOV way is to mention all "purported" reasons for the expulsions, ideally with citations to reliable sources. If you cannot agree on that, you will go round and round for many more hundreds of kilobytes and not reach a resolution.
And, in the meantime, this article stays protected. Apparently, you prefer debating to editing. So be it.
You must realize that neither of you can "win". The only solution is to find an NPOV way to mention both POVs with citations to reliable sources. When you are ready to find a resolution, consider asking for a mediator. WP:MEDCABAL or WP:MEDCOM
There was no "Polish" government in Poland 1944-1956. An average Pole wasn't responsible that there was no real police in Poland, as it existed in any Western country. There has been no war in New Orleans recently, but many people there behave exactly like many Poles after WWII did.
The Poles did what they did, I have never claimed that Polish criminals didn't kill and rape. However a US criminal is a product of the US society, a Polish criminal in 1945 had frequently studied before in a German or Soviet school of life. It's simple to be rich and healthy and criticize people in Sudan they are dirty and kill each other. The only moment when a big number of US citizens had to live in average human condition was the Vietnam war, the subject of hundreds movies and books. Millions of Polish civilians and soldiers survived more terrible events than the Vietnam war, is it strange that those people organized a number of My Lais?
There is no symmetry between the German occupation of Poland and the Expulsion. If you prefer call it no real peace you may be right, that many Germans should learn what their ancestors did in Poland 1939-1945, before they start to judge the Poles.
I'm not going to apologize for the death of about 30% of my family, imprizonement in Soviet or German camps or in Siberia of the other 20%, expulsion of my family from today Belarus, 45 years of Soviet occupation. I'm not going to apologize for freedom of Western Germany brought also by soldiers from my family, for the economic help for Western Germany and war industry in Communist Poland. I'm not going to apologize for millions of Germams who don't know that their ancestors destroied Warsaw in 1944. Xx23616:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not required to apologize for any action against the aggressor and for the World War Two, that's ridiculous. It's like to apologize to the thief who robbed you that you did not give him your wallet kindly. We do not need to do this, Poland doesn't need to apologize too ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that we Polish people need not apologize to Germans. Particularly to such who do not know basic ABC of history. Those Germans who knows a bit of the ABC do not request the apology from Poles, that would be obvious upside-down request. Poland did not extract the apology from Germany and this can be a mistake. It would be probably better to do as Jews doing. This was proposed from start in first sentence: Without Hitler's Germany aggression, savagely and immeasurable sufferings of other nations, there would not be the expulsion and this article. This is obvious truth but was the start of edit war and finally lockout of the article.
Yes, go to ask Russians or Ukrainians if they will apologize to you for what they did to von Paulus's army in Stalingrad and burned Ukraine. Try it but buy pretty fine shoes you will need to run pretty fast. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is our job to summarize concisely knowledge of the "real world".
I thought that our job is to write a reasonable article.
NO, that is precisely the error that many Wikipedians make when they start getting into an edit war. The problem would be to define "reasonable". What seems reasonable to you obviously does not seem reasonable to other editors and vice versa. The only way we can resolve this is to rely on reliable sources and NPOV stance. If there is more than one opinion in "the real world", our job is NOT to adjudicate among the opinions but rather to report them in an NPOV way although we are not obligated to give equal weight to all POVs. Thus, we are not obligated to give Congressman Reece's estimate of 3 million deaths the same weight as the other estimates.
If not, we should fix it but we should not attempt to pick one as "THE" reason for the expulsions.
I will say you what was the reason of the expulsion. The reason for the expulsion was to make reasonable space for leaving to such nations like Czechs and Polish - for those few nations which were perturbed by German aggressions for ages. This very simple, but as you know there are some who refuse the nations the right to live in peace. There are some who believe that after 60 years the victim offender order can be cheated.
This is your POV. I believe it's already in the article. If you do not agree, please explain what more can be done to present your POV in an NPOV way. --Richard22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can argue until the next millenium about this and it would still be original research. If there are multiple opinions in the "real world", then those multiple opinions should be represented here. It is not for us to decide among them.
You will argue about freedom of speech I think. No freedom is absolute, every one has its limitation. Believing that the majority is always right – I do not privately believe on this, we should put only the point which is acceptable. It is a nonsense to put something which is illogical only because it is other/unique point of view.
Sorry, but this is, in fact, a primary principle of Wikipedia. If it is a substantial point of view, it should be presented. It can be qualified as a minority POV. However, all substantial POVs should be presented. Do we present either atheism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism as "THE TRUTH"? No, we do not. We present all of them in as NPOV a way as we can (given the human weaknesses of the various editors of those articles). --Richard22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any way, Richard I do not think you really free from prejudice.
Perhaps I am not but I try to remain open to being challenged when I am not. That's the best I or anyone else can do.
To conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, the article cannot adopt any single POV. de Zayas is one POV. We can state his POV but we cannot state it as "THE TRUTH". We can say, "According to de Zayas, X is true" preferably with a citation. However, if we have a reliable source who challenges de Zayas' POV (such as Haar), then we can say According to Haar, X is not true but Y is true" also with a citation.
That format is right. However most of those guys whose point we will cite are more or less scientists. Who at least pretend to make some research in archives or something like that. We can not cite according to ‘’’Wikiferdi’’’ is this or that because it seems that ‘’’Wikiferdi’’’ did no research at all. He has only his ‘’’unique’’’ POV. Well at least we should not do such experiment to be considered as serious people.
I mostly agree with the above but I would go further. Even if Wikiferdi or you or I did substantial research, our opinions would still not be admissible in Wikipedia because it would be original research. If you want to contradict deZayas, find another source like Haar or Overmans or Nitschke and cite what they say. --Richard22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do we attempt to decide which reasons are morally justified versus which ones are morally unjustified.
About what is moral or unmoral. I hope we can agree. What is justified or what is not we argue because we do not know all facts.
No, I'm sorry but some people will argue that it is moral to expel people without regard to individual culpability. Others will argue that the need for "living space (lebensraum)" is a justification for aggression and expulsion. In fact, the concept of population transfer was generally accepted as moral and desirable in the first half of the 20th century. I could go on but these examples should be enough to suggest that there is not a single globally accepted standard of morality. Thus, we can say "According to reliable source A, X is considered immoral." But we should not say "X is immoral". Surely you can see that even value judgments such as "The early part of the Polish expulsions were extremely brutal" leads to endless POV wrangling. --Richard22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must realize that neither of you can "win". The only solution is to find an NPOV way to mention both POVs with citations to reliable sources. When you are ready to find a resolution, consider asking for a mediator. WP:MEDCABAL or WP:MEDCOM
Richard I extracted already some numbers and make some “math” around why do not start discuss around the numbers from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon. for example. I propose to make some table here on discussion page and start enter the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, please do. However, please be careful to report only the numbers and not mix numbers from multiple sources in the same table or in a calculation. This would constitute original research. It would be better to present the numbers from each source separately and let the reader do any aggregation or calculation themselves. --Richard22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foe Wikiferdi 14Feb07
Silesia originally (10th century) belonged to Bohemia Přemyslid dynasty when Polish rulers conquered Silesia by brute force.
From the earliest notes 880 to 906 Silesia was incorporated to Moravia. After break-up of Moravia form around 950 with intermissions the Silesia was territory of rivalry between Přemyslids and Piast. In 990 Silesia was connected to Poland up to XIV century. I would suggest you to stop the propaganda of brute force. I do not believe you leave over 1000 years to know what was brute and when. Anyway, you are not to judge those Princes by modern standard, do you? : ))). Above all This is not German business judge the relations between Czechs and Poles.
At the end of the 13th century Silesia was considered as "German territory"
Do not say! In years 1327 – 1335 Silesian Dukes pay homage to Bohemia. In years 1469-1490 all Silesia belonged to Hungary. The problem is that all the time uneducated villagers (autochthons) spoke Polish. In the same way after 500 years of Polish-Lithuanian Union and 300 years of Russian occupations we have Lithuanian nation and country.
Silesia - which was - as you have mentioned - "most probably empty".
I was referred to the II to VI century period :))))))))
So German people were the first people who settled definitely in Silesia.
| :))))))))))))))))))))))))
This was a peaceful settling.
| :D :D :D let me recover.
This German people (and their offspring respectively) remained there until 20th century when Poland/Stalin expelled them from there by brute force.
You forgot underlined peacefully :D , well maybe they waited for 1 Sep 1939 :D :D :D
The Potsdam Conference decided that Poland has to get reparation from Germany - "The U. S. S. R. undertakes to settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations." (cf. Potsdam Conference)
|:D Ye? And what happened?
The Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenians Union was a confederation - which means it wasn't "just Polish", and so Poland hadn't the right to conquer it by brute force after World War I - to make Poland bigger.
Yes, after over 500 years practically all nobles and educated inhabitants Polonaised freely. Any way, let us Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenians and Ukrainians solve our problems ourselves. We need not mediators and teachers, particularly Germans mediators and teachers. The idea of Piłsudski[30] was a federation of nations - for you information.
In my opinion all this topics are linked together.
Yes. Everything is connected to everything. Problem is that Encyclopedia is a specific edition which partitioning the everything into reasonable pieces to be understandable.
In both cases Polish people (after the wars) strived for an expansion of Poland and a diminishment of Germany.
If Germany would not expand in all other cases there would not be necessity to diminish Germany in the two WW. If there would be left for Germany what she seized there would be Poland at all. This is you idea expansionist?
Well, I didn't say, that expelling the East Germans from their ancestral homeland was just motivated by the wish to annex their homeland, but it was the main reason.
If a guest in somebody’s home can be a host? If Germans entering Polish Kingdom can become the hosts? At any moment the right host can show the door to them. And this actually happen in 1945. Living in somebody’s home for 500 years does not make the home yours.
put them in a lot of internment camps like Łambinowice where people like Czesław Gęborski murdered them in the most cruel way you can imagine. I think it should be the job of a Polish institute like the IPN to investigate exactly (!) what happened in such camps...
Why did you stick to the Gemborski? Do not you know anybody else? Even he would be found guilty in comparison with such Germans like Josef Mengele [31] he was a small puppy. And Mengele was there in Auschwitz the tormenter, Gemborsk was a prisoner there.
It would be enough that Poland (and here especially this Wikipedia article) admits what atrocities Polish people have done, admits that there were also Polish (war) criminals.
Big deal. How many and what class. As usually Germans were the “best” in this class also. After all what was done everybody should momentarily forgot and say as Tulko propose: Ja, ja Josef (or Fritz) kein Problem. Lassen Sie gehen für Bier.
German people behaved like undermenschen and Polish and Czechoslovak people behaved as undermenschen, too.
That is what you want most - equalize Nazi German with Polish and Czechs. - Of course if both are equal bad we can start the play again from start. What play? Obviously the expansion to East.
Slovakia has, Romania has, Hungaria has, Estonia has etc.
This some difference between cooperation with Nazi Germany and removing aggressor from own country.
Unless Poland and Czechia will do it, too, there won't be real peace.
Thanks the God a people like you do not decide about the peace. There would be war for sure.
PS. I am always surprise how people implement their problematic ideology on other. Brutal, make bigger, conquered etc. Why not unite, make safe, and defend. Somebody wants display others equally bad as he is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
For Stor stark7 14Feb07
1.6 Million were killed all over Eastern Europe (if you do the math using the figures given (I’m assuming the 200,000 discrepancy is due to those who were expelled to Austria etc).
I believe could be the total 1.6. Also I believe that most of them perished or were killed in the main theatre of war on present Poland territories. I.e. I would agree that the 1.1 million from Nitschke’s research can be correct number, but as I said ‘’’majority about 1 million were death because flight and front warfare ’’’. There rest 100.000 in years 1945 -1948 (or 1950 if so extend), would be the expulsion mortality. Of course it includes natural deaths which had nothing to do with post war harsh conditions and some like Morel activities.
And I refer to the sentence: “Bis 1950 sind etwa 12,5 Mio. Deutsche vertrieben worden, davon etwa 7,9 Mio nach Westdeutschland und 4,4 Mio. in die SBZ/DDR.“ The numbers are approximations but simple mathematics say 200.000 perished in expulsion from all East Europe countries.
The link states that the 1950’s numbers of 2.1 Million killed have been revised, although not by how much.
That is our research.
This in conflict with the review of Nitschkes research with states that her estimate of 1.1 Million killed within what was to become modern Poland is in agreement with the 1950’s work.
Again the 2.1 or 1.1 is a total of Flay + Expulsion. They differ because the 2.1 was in my opinion the earliest number overstated as much as possible – sorry to say for propaganda reasons in Cold War. Now the high numbers are conserved and rehash by revengest and “inheritance” hunters.
Maybe the revision if for the rest of Eastern Europe. Anyway, if Nitschke is right, and this article is right despite that contradiction, 500,000 were killed in what became modern Czhecoslovakia, Kaliningrad, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary etc and 1.1 Million in what became Poland.
Who knows the major offensive was there in Poland. Most of Germans of East Europe were there. The terrain is open flat; even the winter could more severe little up North.
It does not state how they were killed, in which phase. It does however state that beginning already in November 4, 1944, Poland started collecting all Germans into forced labour camps.
Possibly on territories East of Vistula, what were any way pro WW II integral Polish territories. Also in East Prussia, which destiny was decided in Yalta already.
Your conclusion makes no sence to me.Expulsion (do not mix with Flight) is 200.000. The point is I know directly from witnesses how the Flight looked like. Relation Flight/Expulsion is not for me surpassing.
What conclusion does not have sense? The number 200.000 or that I know how looked the flight from direct witnesses?
All that can be derived from her book is that in what became poland up to 1.1 Million died total.
I can deduct from people who saw thousand of death on side of roads and those who mentioned how Germans thank for single raw potato. PS. Poland, England etc. should be written from capital letters.
Of those 100,000 deaths caused 1946 onwards I deduce that the deaths were caused mainly by starving/freesing to death during the “organized transfer”.
Right, this ‘’’mainly by starving/freesing to death’’’ during the organised transfer is only ‘’’deduction’’’ i.e. you imagination without support. But it also includes those who would die natural way because their age.
Of the 1,000,000 German civilian deaths in what was to become modern Poland who died in 1944 and 1945 I assume that those killed died in Polish revenge attacks, concentration/forced labor camps,
Bad assumption and bad will. You should not enter Wikipedia with such character. Encyclopedist should present objective scientific approach. If you will continue such provocative statements I will not discuss with you. Before you make any ‘’’assumption’’’ you should make a research.
starved/froze to death in the wild expulsion/potsdam expulsion,
Wild expulsion as I understood was, - cite from your previous statement: “a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945” – One month is too short to freeze in May. We will see if you can proof all you accusation. Take for consideration that a person (nation also) is innocent until proof guilty.
and also during the flight away from the Red army.
This will be probably easy to find for you this is widely described here and there. There was given some link on other page [32]
And also, based on what Naimark wrote about Polish rapists,
About Naimark statements and him – here was already discussion before you arrived. I have his book and better do not name him a profound scientist. However as you know even in peace time in most cultural societies you have criminals and rapists. The question is how many.
So General Eisenhower’s report to his government that..
If Eisenhower was there or he sent the telegram on fundation of some observers or maybe spays only? Anyway “poor sanitary conditions”, “Death and disease rate in camps extremely high” cold be judged irrelevantly by person who do not estimate general destruction of East Europe territories.
The E. citation is similar to “And the By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe." From Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, Office of the Deputy Military Governor to John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, War Department, 5 October.
The interesting thing here is that those killed during the "Flight" are not mentioned at all here, so even the lowest estimate of 400,000 from "Poland" (to which you seem to agree to) refers to death at Polish hands.
That is already insolent. I said the maximum of expulsion losses (all countries) could be twice as 200.000 but unlikely 2.1. I doubt even on 400thou.
As you well know, but conveniently seem to have forgotten, is that the list of concentration camps were in response to one of your allegations.
Yes, I requested to search and summarize the question. I did not ask to standard use words “concentration camps” as accusing faze everywhere. A list is not good enough. Everybody can found hundreds of names and call it concentrations camps. All listed need to have source of statement mentioned.
I said that The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of Germans that were killed.
It only “seems to you” you must provide proof it is worth mentioning.
I'm glad you no longer pretend there were no concentration camps however. Every little bit counts.
I still protest using the name concentration camp name. After we will review you proofs we will see if the name “concentration camps” can be hold.
Why on earth would I bother doing that?
Because in other hand you will be considered insolent man. Nobody can rattle accusations and go away with good name.
It is enough to know that the concentration camps existed and that large numbers died in them.
No reliable source - no talk. You become use method of Dr. G. “Lie repeated many time becomes “truth””.
If in total would be 6 or 20 thou from 7 million expelled is this LARGE number?
I saw that some of the camp articles were based exclusively on Polish sources, which I assume means that your Polish compatriots have written the articles and believe them to be accurate.
First read the article you pointed about Czeslaw Geborski [33] on Wikipedia. It is in English, if you consider he is a worth mentioning as war criminal I will ask you about how many Germans should prosecuted yet. Put attention that he was investigated in October 1945, so even the pro-Soviet, communist government was moral enough to suspected him. My Polish compatriots and I show something what is alien for many West “civilizations” we believe that the black sheep from our family must be exposed. We believe that justices and truth is universal, and they (not me) believe that the public cleaning of sheep-fold will be sought as accent of high ethic. I do not believe on it since I know the West. I know that here is many people who such cleaning will consider as naïve and use the naivety for their immoral business.
And since you speak Polish maybe you can find the original PAP article?
This is you who is prosecutor. I am defender, why should I help you to charge Polish people.
Nope, I don’t know Polish. But let me quote you "do not repead a newspapar sensations". It is still in a newspaper.
Yes. But the Polish paper provide link to reliable source. The difference between “Telegraph.uk” and the Polish article is that the “Telegraph” cites SOME “witnesses” (no names) and Polish newspaper cites IPN.
Besides, since this is english Wikipedia whoever provided it should have provided a translation in the article of the salient points.
Unnecessary. The English Wikipedia is read by Polish people too.
Any way, magazine articles are allowed as sources in Wikipedia.
Not as primary reliable source. As an end of each path in any Encyclopedia you will find a resaerch or solid museum item or something like that. Article in daily newspaper is only a hint.
PS. Are you the person responsible for Naimark entries in the article?
Curzon line
Would someone explain me the Curzon line theory in the article? The Polish-Soviet treaty was legal, signed by Poland and the SU. Millions of POles were to be expelled from the East. It wasn't possible to mistreat the Poles the Nazi way in 1945, sending the to destroyed Warsaw, Poznań and other piles of brics.
I am advocating for renaming this article in "Expulsions of Germans", because this expulsions were started already after World War I when Poland reappears on the world map. Poland annexed parts of East Germany although the majority of the (German) population there voted for remaining with Germany. Poles... can't blame the German Nazi's for this because it was long before that time (1921).
(Not to discuss here but just food for thought: Why decided the countries (not just Prussia, Austria and Russia) congregatet at the Congress of Vienna 1815 that it would be better that Poland kept disappeared from the world map?)
Wikiferdi, what about the article about some pre-war and during-war Prussian proposals for solving Polish question after WWI? Szopen17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To wikiferdi #2
So you are telling us that you want to Poland never existed ? Do you think that others have right to make decision about Poland ? Do you think that Austria, Russa and Prussia were rullers of the world or gods ? I must say that you behave like a Nazi, this is my first personal attack and I mean it seriously ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wikiferdi quotes old German ideology, presented eg. by the Center against Expulsions. It's nice to have here a living example of a radical nationalist. Xx23613:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulko, you said, Do you think that others have right to make decision about Poland ? but what about Germany? do you think others have the right to make decisions about Germany? after all, this article is about Germans, not Poles.
lol, do you actually think that viewpoint is supportable? what about the millions of German men, women and children that were killed? when will they get their "payback"? maybe Germany should invade Poland right now and take it back! how would you like that? to quote Ghandi "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Who cares about real nature?.... Mine, yours or anyones? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about objective and informative articles for everyone?...--Agrofe21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! I was not stating that they should invade Poland now, only using an example of your logic. I was simply using the same logic as you Tulko, as It was a payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children. so, by using the same logic as you as an example, but for another nationality, who's nature does it really reveal Tulko? in case you misinterpret my rhetorical questions again Tulko, the answer is yours.
lol, I'm not twisting your words, I simply stated the exact same thing you did, but said German instead of Polish.
Let's put this simpler for you Tulko, you said:
Do you think that others have right to make decision about Poland ?
and I simply asked you Do you think that others have right to make decision about Germany?
you replied: It was a payback for the millions of killed polish men, women and children.
and I asked you if you would support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.
and you changed the subject to ad hominem attacks. so I ask you again, would you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.?
So you are giving equality between the Nazi cruelties and crimes and Poland, huh ? So you are saying that polish nation behave worse then Nazis ? Is that what you are saying ? I don't know what did you learn or heard but I've never heard about some third world war caused by Poland, have you ? I also did not hear that Poland destroyed half of the world and whole Europe. Hmmm maybe I did not read newspapers. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that, I am simply asking you do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.? now answer the question please.
There were no killed millions Germans by polish and czechoslovaks, where did you get that ? During the expulsion in Czechoslovakia there was killed violently 14 000 people from the number over 2 500 000. Where did you get these nonsense-numbers ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably do not understand that these numbers provided by the centre against expulsion are simple propaganda for obtain political support. You want to blame polish and czechoslovaks for something that did not happen just to support your historical point of view. Do you think that would be justice for you if Poland gives former Prussia and Czechoslovakia gives Sudetenland to Germany ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the whole war, as you were (as millions of Poles weren't killed in the expulsion of Germans). and I am not just talking about deaths, what about the millions of Germans who lost their homes, do they not deserve payback?
now please, answer the question, you have been asked it numerous times now. Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.? why do you keep avoiding answering it?
Do you mean german civilians killed during the world war two by the allies bombraids or drowned in the Berlin subway by Hitler ? So do you think that if you start a war then your homeland is in safe ? Nobody will touch ? Do you think that anyone should apologize ? For what ? I do not understand what do you mean and want ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stop giving me the run-around and answer the question. Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.? or perhaps you would be more comfortable if I separate it into separate questions:
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German children?
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German women?
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men?
I don't care what happen to Germany during the World War Two. They wanted to annihilatte my nation, clear us from the Earth, sent us to Siberia until we die, final solution - do you remember ? I would not be here if they had won. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jadger, I am highly disgusted by you, you are far away from the reality and discussion with you is demagogic. You are not open to accept that during the expulsion did not die 3 millions germans. Discussion with you is worthless. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so that is a no? you do not support payback for the millions of killed German children. you do not support payback for the millions of killed German women. you do not support payback for the millions of killed German men.
What do you follow with this question ? This what you show is the principle of the prison investigation, you ask questions far away from the context. It is the same like this:
Do you think that the president should be honoured war hero ? no
Do you think that the president should not eat meat ? no
Do you think that the president should not smoke a and drink beer just few times ? no
Do you think that the president should not have love affairs ? no
You must answer yes to all questions, but you have just picked Hitler for the president.
this is 60 years later Tulko, we all are far away from the actions that stain our past. just because you do not like the way the answer you support looks, does not mean you can characterize others as Nazis, or demagogic, or offensive.
and FYI, the final solution is a short form for Final Solution to the Jewish Question, which was the title given it at the Wannsee Conference. Jewish is not a nation, it is a religion, you are referring to Polish, which was not attacked in the deliberate way the Jews were.
"Final solution" entailed the subjugation of the Slavic people. You should know that. So-called "Lebensraum" was a widely used term, Slavic people would be slaves or killed in the Siberia. Read some books. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that is often lumped in with the actual final solution. and as you said, it involved moving the Slavs east to make room for Germans. I am not saying it was right, just telling you to stop playing the victim more than 60 years later.--Jadger22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing victim, becaus in your point of view the cruel Poland attacked Germany and Czechoslovak troops marched to Germany to occupy borders after the Munich agreement. And those french ... those cruel french attacked you from the west so you needed to defend ... go back to school and read some books and kick out nationalism from your head, not good for brain. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the the note below the photo about "the family of the deceased are free to arrange exhumation or organize other care" is appropriate here. This article is turning into a who is right and who is wrong issue of something that none of us had anything to do with . We do have a chance to change what happens tomorrow. There is still German graveyard destruction activity going on in Poland as recent as Oct 2005 and I doubt the families of the deceased have much of a say about it. We travelled in October of 2005 to Kamienna Góra (formerly Landeshut) and have photos of recent headstone destruction. This was not isolated and two of the graveyards we visited were piling up quite a number of headstones around and trying to bury them (filling German crypts in the churchyard with them). They were filling hole with the headstones along with trash and yard debris. This was happening in the churchyards as well so if there was not involvement from the church they were certainly well aware of it. I bring this up not to cause more controversy in this unfortunately very controversial issue, but to get one more thing on the table for discussion. This is clearly not a simple issue but is clearly very important to many.--Agrofe19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunately happening with a lot of abanonded graveyards no matter whose they are. I read an article in the newspapers that it is a problem of nowadays in the former eastern europe. In case of lack of money everywhere you should not expect anybody will take care about that. For many older people remembering these times giving money to this purpose is simply unacceptable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. You missed my point. People were actually spending money trying to remove headstones (not to use and new gravesite) and hide the older German graves. This is not about maintaining but more about deliberate destruction.--Agrofe22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I hit the point. The same is happening with the other old graves. They are sold and bought and sold again. It became a big bussiness :( But of course vandals exist and I will not defend them. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would support your grave, and the grave of your loved ones, being turned into landfill?
lol, how is that? I simply asked you if you would like the graves of you and your loved ones turned into a landfill, as others have had theirs done. empathy is a characteristic unique to humans, I was just wondering if you have any?
My point is this: The stones were being buried to get rid of them. Not to use the sites to bury again. Not from grave robbers nor vandals. This was crystal clear. In the church yard in Chełmsko Śląskie (formerly Schomberg) (in the chucrch yard of the very active and walled in Catholic Church) they were burying stones in the old German crypts to simply dispose of them. Get them out of sight. This was not intended to create another controversy, nor to paint anyone evel (or good); I am simply stating facts. They were moving the headstones to remove traces of them, to erase the memory of them, nothing more, nothing less.--Agrofe22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Agrofe, that was the point that Tulko was trying to avoid.
There existed thousands of German cemeteries in the East, at least half of them outside Poland. You are welcome to write about the destruction of the cemeteries, but not only in Poland. This is a Wikipedia, not BashthePoles-pedia. It should be compared also with the situation of Polish graves in Poland, massively destroied after the expiration of the term (25 years ?).
How many gravestones older than 60 years are preserved in an average German cemetery?
I wouldn't start an "erasing memory" discussion after the Germans tried to erase Poland. There are sometimes bigger problems than destruction of tombstones, eg. killing people and burning their bodies in pits during WWII.Xx23611:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to graveyard destruction we should definately be discussing all of eastern Europe (this was not my intention and my only experience includes Silesia). Maybe we should start a article? My fear is that it appears we are having a hard time subordinating our agendas to a common ground so it will quickly degenerate into a evil vs good piece.
It is human nature for people to feel humiliation, regret, horror, anger and resentment (American, German, Japanese, Pole, Russian, Chinese, whomever) about the unbelievable things our ancestors have done (and in some cases continue to do) to each other.
There is clearly an anxiety with the Poles in Kamienna Góra and Lower Silesia (transplants and descendents of transplants from the Ukraine) about the part of history the Germans have played in that area. They live primarily in Polish government owned former homes of German speaking Silesians. To put my self in the shoes of the folks in Kamienna Góra, it is completely understandable to try "erase" the memory of German history in there.
I apologize if my prior edits offended or indicated I was trying to compare WWII with 2007 or Poles with Germans in any way. Moreover, the last thing I was trying to do was bash anyone, let along the Poles whom have stuggled immensly in recent history. I was mearly attempting to state facts.--Agrofe14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is going on in Kamienna Góra, but generally in Poland you have to pay for a grave any 20 or 25 years. Some German graves are perfectly preserved, one has to pay someone to clean the grave. There are many small businesses of this type recently.
People have to care about their family graves themselves. Many Polish gravestones decay. Especially metallic parts are robbed and sold as scrap.Xx23616:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, yet again Xx changes the discussion from the topic at hand to the injustices suffered by Poles under the Nazi regime. This is not about the poor old Poles Xx, can you stay on topic for atleast a couple of discussions? We all know what happened to Poles, XX, you have told us a million times on wikipedia, we need you to say it over again about as much as we need a bullet in the head.
Thanks for the feedback, Xx236. It makes sense what you are saying and I have heard about the paid grave maintainence thing in other part of Western Europe. I was not aware of it in Poland too.
I want to be sure I have been clear, however, as I am not the most articulate person :-). This had nothing to do with lack of familial care or attention to the gravesite/gravestones. Regarding the graveyards I am talking about the issue was not decay or deterioration but deliberate destruction of gravesites/gravestones to remove them from sight. Thievery was not invloved either as they were not removing them but smashing and burying the crypts and stones. I am simply stating a fact about about what I saw in a very minute part of Eastern Europe. I again apologize if I had not been clear.--Agrofe16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agrofe, was this a more general pattern or an individual incident you're talking about ? Who was responsible for that ? What were his motives ? Any references would be helpful, too, as I've not heard about this (not a surprise). Thanks. --Lysytalk20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Pius XII.
In a letter to the German bishops on 1.03.1948 Pope Pius XII. wrote:
“Special consideration will always deserve the east refugees, which were expelled from their homeland in the east by force and under expropriation without compensation…
If we come to speak on them, Us does not occupy here so much the juridical, economic and political point of view of that in the past of Europe unprecedented action. About the called points of view the history will judge. We fear, admittedly, that her judgment will be severe. We believe to know what has happened during the years of war in the wide rooms of the Vistula up to the Volga.
But was it allowed as counterstrike to expel twelve million people of house and court and to abandon to impoverishment? Are the victims of that counterstrike not in the quite prevailing majority people which were uninvolved in the indicated events and misdeeds, which had been without influence on them?
[…]”
Of course Poland has the right to exist, to reappear on the world map. Also the Jewish people had the right to reappear on the world map. Also the Silesians, East Prussians and so on... would have the right to reappear on the world map...
This is not the point. The sticking point is h o w Poland reappeared on the world map. By breaking International Laws (annexing other people's ancestral homeland, expelling people from their ancestral homeland, disregarding votes of people, their right of self-determination and so on...).
How do you call people which act like this?
Well, all this has unveiled especially Alfred de Zayas who is employed at the U.N. in Geneva. If you read his books maybe you would understand better what I mean here.
In my opinion with my statements above I supplied evidence for what I am maintaining here. If you don't agree with me you should disprove it. You shouldn't just say: "It's ridiculous", you should argue w h y it be ridiculous. Wikiferdi23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under "History" (Poland) is written that "all the Allies agreed on the restitution of Poland". Well, let's take a look to the German Wikipedia site to Polish history: de:Geschichte Polens. It's flashy that this article is much longer than the English counterpart: History of Poland. In the German article is stated that William II, German Emperor proclaimed a "Polish Kingdom" on the 5 November 1916. - I don't want to discuss here Polish history and I am not holding that this act was motivated by an altruistic German attitude but I am thinking in that time did exist a certain sympathy for Polish people and their wish for (democratic) independence. A proof could be the Hambacher Fest (1832) - a step forward for democracy in Germany. - This is linked to the November Uprising in Poland (1830/31). Wikiferdi00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poland existed sinde 9th century, Germany lost the war and that was term of surrender. It is more then 60 years after the war, nobody blame today's Germany of course for what happened so far in the history. But if you still insist that you want to align with your history then shut up and keep your mouth in silence. Do not try to blame polish, russian or czechoslovak people and do not try to force them to apologize arguing with Nazi propaganda from 1938. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children, Tulko? After all, if Poland wasn't to blame as you pretend, then you wouldn't have a reason to be here defending your ancestor's actions in the expulsions
Potsdam Conference and the Western Frontier of Poland
(cf. Read the "Potsdam Protocol", above)
The Potsdam Protocol from "The Avalon Project at Yale Law School" (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade17.htm) has the wrong numeration. The article of that document about the Western Frontier of Poland which refers to as Article VIII. actually is Article IX. Well, it's just the numeration, the proposition is the same:
"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."
This means that until this peace settlement the contemplable German territories still remained in Germany after WWII.
So this sentence in our discussed Wikipedia article is wrong:
"The majority of the deportations occurred in areas belonging to Czech Republic, Poland and Russia after the war."
Correct would be: The majority of the deportations occured in areas belonging to Germany and were executed for creating accomplished facts in anticipation of the "final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland which should await the peace settlement".
Wikiferdi07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot take the Potsdam Protocol, without the Teheran and Yalta ones and without Soviet point of view, maybe still classified. Stalin imposed his rules, he occupied East Germany and designed the Polish-German border. It's American problem, that the USA didn't sign the "peace settlement". Stalin imposed his own settlement creating the GDR and making Poland ang GDR signing the Zgorzelec agreement. Xx23613:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.
Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:
"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."
Under item VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write: "The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."
Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."
In this way it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli.
Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration.
(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too. Alfred de Zayas has described this very exactly in his books. E. g. "Nemesis at Potsdam" or "The German Expellees.")
Well, Xx236, we have to write the history as it was and not as Stalin would like it. Here a official U.S. American site which is very enlightening about U. S. POV on postwar Germany: usinfo.state.gov
-- Wikiferdi14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following thoughts I take for the most part from a reading of Dr. de Zayas in Pittsburgh [34]
There he quotes from Victor Gollancz's (an English Jew) book “Our Threatened Values” (page 96):
"If the conscience of men ever again becomes sensitive, these expulsions will be remembered to the undying shame of all who committed or connived them... The Germans were expelled, not just with an absence of over-nice consideration, but with the very maximum of brutality."
Dr. de Zayas pronounces: “Some critical voices might say they have an axe to grind, that they are just trying to excuse themselves. But you have extensive documentation -- American, British, French documentation that prove the nature of the expulsions as an exceedingly cruel and brutal expulsion.”
In August of 1941 President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill had agreed in the middle of the Atlantic on the ship Augusta on the so-called Atlantic Charter. This Atlantic Charter provided that neither would seek territorial or other aggrandizement, and they both undertook a commitment to oppose "territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."
Mr. de Zayas asserts that Robert Murphy, the political advisor of General Eisenhower, and later the political advisor of Clay during the occupation in Germany, had been one of the first official voices in the American government that opposed the Expulsion, and to criticize the manner in which the Expulsion was being carried out.
So, as a result of this and all the memoranda of Murphy, the American government had repeatedly protested at Warsaw and at Prague and had tried to get some cooperation from the Czechoslovak government and from the Polish government.
“But unfortunately the Soviet occupation forces in those areas encouraged both the Polish and the Czechoslovak governments in the Expulsion, so there was no way for the U.S. to effectively stop it.” (cf. Dr. de Zayas)
"but with the very maximum of brutality." really ? Provide sources. In 1938 Germans was the first who expelled Czechs from Sudetes and later they decided to expell Czechs to Siberia and capture whole Czechoslovakia. What do you expect that should happen after the war ? Cry as much as you want we don't care. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
any sources Xx/Tulko? Wikiferdi provided his. I would love to believe you Xx, but we need sources to add your POV into the article, wikiferdi has cited sources, if you want any shred of credibility, you must start citing some.
There are sources out there. A great source for the events that occurred after the Potsdam agreement can be found in; The Tragedy of Silesia 1945-46: a Documentary Account with a Special Survey of the Archdiocese of Breslau by Johannes (ed.) Kaps.
In www.amazon.com there is a review of the book. I think it is very accurate and I hope it is ok to post it here;
The German Expellees Replaced by the Polish Expellees, and a Nuanced View of Postwar Interethnic Relations, January 26, 2007, Reviewer: Jan Peczkis (Chicago IL, USA)
By way of introduction to this subject, the German expellees have been in the news recently, owing to the building of a museum in Germany to commemorate them, and owing to German-revanchist attempts to acquire financial compensation from Poland (To which the Poles retaliated by reminding everyone that it was the Germans who were the aggressors in WWII, and by drawing up a mock financial counterclaim against Germany for such things as the nearly-total destruction of Warsaw).
Kaps provides an anthology of German accounts of their experiences prior to and during the expulsions. In my opinion, his work on this subject is far superior to those of Alfred Maurice de Zayas. There is no hint, in Kaps, of the canard that accuses the Russians and Poles of killing 2 million Germans during the forced resettlement.
Interestingly, there was often a transitional period during which both the German owners and the recently-arrived Poles lived on the same farmsteads. Friendships sometimes developed. Kaps includes German accounts that mention Poles describing their recent sufferings at the hands of the Russians and the Ukrainian fascists. Pointedly, the German expellees also recognized the fact that the arriving Poles THEMSELVES were expellees (The population transfer had been caused by the giveaway of the Kresy (prewar eastern half of Poland) to the Soviet Union by Churchill and Roosevelt, for which Poland acquired prewar German territories up to the Oder-Neisse (Odra-Nysa) rivers). Despite the fact that Poles had been the first victims of German aggression, and Poland was supposed to be on the winning side of the war, the Poles, no less than the Germans, had nothing to say about their fate. Instead, both Poles and Germans were forced to abandon their centuries-old domiciles without their consent, and without compensation, and to start a new life on a new land. (Taking a chapter from American history, some Poles facetiously called these recovered territories the "Wild West".)
The atrocities of the Russians (against Germans and--not mentioned--also against Poles) included murder, rape, and vandalism. As an example of the latter, Soviet soldiers looted a church and then used its interior as a latrine. Polish cruelties against Germans consisted mostly of beatings (especially when inebriated) and thefts. For instance, gangs of Polish orphans would frequent the trains and waylay the German passengers.
Although Communism is supposed to scorn "bourgeoisie nationalism", its members were not above inciting nationalistic hatreds when it served their purposes. In particular, the newly-imposed Soviet puppet state, having virtually no indigenous support among the ethnic Polish population, attempted to gain an air of legitimacy by fanning the flames of anti-German sentiment. Kaps includes one account in which a newly-arrived Polish Communist official said in a public address: "You German swine are going to work until you are dead, and, if I have my way, you will have nothing to eat!"
Some of the German expellees obviously learned nothing from the war, and continued to repeat pre-Nazi and Nazi-era racist statements against Slavs. Kaps includes several such accounts. Germans repeatedly spoke of the Poles as being incompetent (a forerunner of the concept of Polnische Wirtschaft), and some Germans even accused the Slavs of being exceptionally creative in their sadism. (Look who is talking)!
Although many millions of Poles and Soviet citizens had been murdered by the Germans in the just-concluded war, not all Poles or Russians were thirsty for revenge. Far from it: Kaps includes accounts of Germans calling on Poles to protect them from Russians, while still other accounts mention the vice-versa. Kaps even includes accounts of Germans testifying of Poles and Russians being "wonderfully kind to us".--Agrofe21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Agrofe, that reinforces my point, I was asking for Xx and/or Tulko to prove that it was more humane or that "the Germans were lucky". As for Agrofe's last paragraph, I understand their were exceptions to the rule, I never said that all Poles tried to kill/expel all Germans.
So, so far we have two references stating that it was an incredibly cruel expulsion, and no credible sources claiming opposite.
The text doesn't describe an incredibly cruel expulsion. Jadger deosn't have any idea what incredible cruelty is, because he wasn't a Jew in Nazi Germany or a Ukrainian peasant in the SU.
The Germans who got to Western Germany were extremely lucky to ride BMW and Mercedes cars in the 1960, when the Polish winners were living under Soviet occupation.
not surprising, Xx goes off-topic again. I'll tell you what Xx, when this article gets moved to Polish cars during the Cold War, then we can talk about this again. but otherwise, we should get back on topic (Xx willing of course). and incredible cruelty comes from the sources already provided. perhaps you can cite a source Xx that says it was "a walk in the park" as you claim. Sources have been cited that shows that it was incredibly cruel, where are your sources?
Jadger mistakenly dismisses the above link as "just one source". I note that we've seen this link before (last year). It is, I believe, from a joint commission of Czech-German historians and, while there is a lot of useful information in it, the key point for us to take away is that this joint commission, working relatively recently, concluded that the "number of 220,000 victims of the transfer" should not be used in academic or political discourse.
In order to maintain an NPOV, this conclusion should be included in the article as a viewpoint that opposes at least part of the computation of the 2 million deaths. Specifically, both the Statistisches Bundesamt and the ZgV cite 238,000 deaths resulting from the Czech expulsions of Germans. If this number should really be estimated much lower as the joint commission recommends, then the 2 million deaths number should also be about 200,000 lower.
HOWEVER, we cannot use this one report to throw out the conclusions of the Statistisches Bundesamt. We can say that newer studies have tended to propose lower figures. We can also say (if it can be backed up by verifibale attributions to reliable sources) that the emerging consensus is to accept these newer downward revisions.
MOREOVER, based on the evidence we have seen so far, we can only cite the joint commission's work relative to the expulsions in Czechoslovakia. Has anyone done a similar study in Poland or any other Eastern European countries?
I still haven't seen a convincing exposition of what Haar and Overmans have written on this subject (my lack of German skills is a major reason for this). We know that they are saying 400,000-500,000 deaths but we don't know how to match this total number against the detailed country-by-country table from the ZgV. The only "country-level" number that we have is for Czechoslovakia.
I confess that I don't know what Nitschke has to say on this subject.
My point is: It may be the case that the recent trend is moving towards revising the numbers of the Statistisches Bundesamt and the ZgV downwards. It is reasonable for us to include this information in the article. However, we need to do it in an NPOV way with ample citations of reliable sources. --Richard17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wow, one source that doesn't even have an author, that doesn't mean we should just throw out multiple more reliable sources. Although I must point out that your reference just reinforces my point: The appalling experiences they had been through during the war led to callousness and and cruelty on the part of the Czech population too. or perhaps you should read your own source, because you claim the expellation wasn't cruel, but in the very source you cite, there is the section title homicidal excesses of the transfer or perhaps you didn't read the sentence Nevertheless, the psychological situation of the totally exhausted Germans could not have been more traumatic.
But, I think the best proof comes from the Red Army. KILL! KILL! In the German race there is nothing but evil. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill! You gallant soldiers of the Red army (Ilya Ehrenburg)
Tulkolahten, the Czechoslovakian state was created after WWI (1918). Before, the Czechs and the Slovaks were parts of Austria-Hungary. The territory where the Czechoslovakian state was built was the historic Bohemia.
Well and now comes what I don’t understand: German population had existed in Bohemia for hundreds of years. They felt there at home. But when the Czechoslovakian state was built the Germans didn’t become integrated in the name of this new country – although the German population was the second largest in Bohemia, after the Czechs, definitely larger than the Slovaks. (According to the February 1921 census 3,123,000 Germans lived in all Czechoslovakia - 23.4% of the total population. cf. Sudetenland.)
Well in my humble opinion the country name C z e c h o s l o v a k i a was symptomatic: President Edvard Beneš who was a leader of the Czechoslovak independence movement didn’t let the Bohemian Germans exercise their right of self-determination. He wanted the whole Bohemia but actually without the Germans (first of all in the country name). So there were some thoughts about a population transfer of Germans quite before WWII. In the interwar time the German population was disadvantaged, kept inferior, deprived – with the result that the Bohemian Germans were “driven into the arms” of Hitler. Could this Germans really forecast that Hitler (an Austrian) was going to get too big for his boots and conquering the whole Bohemia (Czechoslovakia) – and the rest of the world?
Wikiferdi read something about the history, Bohemia existed in these territory since Premyslid dynasty. Germans were invited in 13th and 14th century. You are impeaching existence of two states (Czechoslovakia and Poland), that's ridiculous. And about Austria-Hungary, at first Austria is not Germany (even if maybe you agree with german occupation of austria in 1938), at second read something about the battle on White Mountain in 1620. Hey Wikiferdi, I heard that in Moscow on the square some tourist spoke german, maybe Moscow is a german homeland ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tulkolahten, thanks for the reading. Can you tell us the source? Also, unfortunately for the article's credibility, it does not site any of it's sources. Lastly, statements like "The vast majority of them remained faithful to the Nazi ideology -either out of conviction or simply from force of habit" seam a bit unreasonable and further erode credibility. --Agrofe02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulkolahten, I am under the impression that in your replies you often miss the point of what I mention here. I don't think that you are dull-witted. So, please read first very calmly the postings here (as you demand from us) before you answer. (Answering my viewpoints of more than 30 lines only 3 minutes after I have posted them is too quick, isn't it?) Wikiferdi16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wow, first personal attacks, now incivility and assuming bad faith, are you trying to break all tenements of wikipedia this month? or are you just on a war path like 131, where you want to get banned then keep evading your block? I ask you to stop insulting me, before I report you to admin, I have been very lenient so far.
In case you are mistaken or delusional, I have never stated that a source cannot be used or is not reliable because it is from a Czech or Polish source.
I also notice that it was published for the Czech Government, which makes me think along the lines of "recovered territories". After all, they still haven't rescinded the Benes decree, and they still claim it was legal to kill Germans under those decrees, so refuse to charge anyone. Not saying it wouldn't be a good source for some basic information, but I also remember how detailed and accurate my highschool history books were.
Hi again, Tulkolhaten. Thanks for the rest of the material. Chapter VIII contains the bilbiography (starting on page 291) and is not inlcuded here. Can you please link it? Sorry to be persistent but I think everyone is very interested. Regards,--Agrofe15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the URL is http://www.mkcr.cz/download.php?id=1242 to change the chapter, just copy and paste the URL into your webbrowser and change the last two digits on the end of it 1242 being the bibliography,
To Jadger: I was searching for the translation of "Rozumet dejinam" for Richard and I've found official translation on the ministry of culture web pages. Also I think you've never read Benes decrees and you have no idea what is it and what was and is their purpose. Try to find all Benes decrees and read them, you will find the reason and some lawyer will explain it to you. Benes decrees were created for law continuity and it is a whole complex of laws. You cannot imagine the consequences of their cancellation. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[58]] Article 1 of the Benes Decree (Law of May 8th, 1946) states: Any act committed between September 30th, 1938, and October 28th, 1945, the object of which was to aid the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks or which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accoMplices, is not illegal, even when such actions may otherwise be punishable by law. Yes, imagine a world where there is no state sanctioned murder or robbery, I wonder what that world would be like? oh wait, we have that in the Western World, it's called civilization.
It covers the war, as you know there were werewolfs and borders were not safe, some germans did not accept capitulation as you should know. Any action to enemy during the war is acceptable and not illegal, that's logical. I can't imagine that anyone would be persecuted and judged for action against enemy in the war. I wonder if you know what the war is. What the hell do you expect Jadger, you occupy country, you mass killing its people, you kill whole families and you think that nothing happens to you ? That's absolutely arrogant, that's how you play a victim. I am fed up with your revisionism and revanchism, you expect humble apologies for war we did not cause and the only thing you regret is that Nazi lost the war - I know about your vandalism of Polish articles about WW2 battles. After the worst mass killing and bestial behavior all over the menkind history you expect highly civilised and humble behavior and response. I am absolutely fed up with you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let's break down your argument, shall we?
Any action to enemy during the war is acceptable and not illegal, that's logical. Actually NO, see Geneva convention for example. Just because you are at war does not mean you can murder civilians of a different nationality.
I can't imagine that anyone would be persecuted and judged for action against enemy in the war. Have you never heard of the Nuremburg Trials, or Dachau Massacre(the GIs were court-martialled) or Malmedy?
I wonder if you know what the war is. What the hell do you expect Jadger, you occupy country, you mass killing its people, you kill whole families and you think that nothing happens to you? well, according to you it shouldn't, because you said Any action to enemy during the war is acceptable and not illegal, that's logical. WWII was total war as first thought of by Clausewitz, that means you attack all things that may allow the enemy to wage war, including populace (terror bombings come to mind).
I would however like to know, you stateI wonder if you know what the war is. What the hell do you expect Jadger, you occupy country, you mass killing its people, you kill whole families and you think that nothing happens to you? and what of after the war? that Benes decree includes time after the war. so, in war your not allowed to mass kill people, or kill whole families, but after the war you can enact special laws like the Benes decree to allow that to happen? HYPOCRISY
I would like to ask for an apology Tulko, I have ignored your personal attacks long enough, and it is starting to get on my nerves. consider this your final warning before I report you, now please apologize.
End of discussion - this dispution was and still is about the numbers and POV of the article, not about the WW2 results
Discussion is long and conclusion seems to be far.
I've found this: [59] where is this:
According to an article in Der Spiegel (4/1999), the casualties in the World War Two follows (in millions):
Country / Military / Civilian
USSR / 13.6 / 7.0
Germany / 4.8 / 0.5
Japan / 1.2 / 0.6
Yugoslavia / 0.4 / 1.3
USA / 0.3 / 0.006
Poland / 0.3 / 4.2
So, Germany lost 500.000 civilians, where are these 3 millions ?
Some sources refers to 1,840,000 civilian deaths on the Germany side
Some other sources refers to 3,600,000 civilian deaths on the Germany side.
If you take any of them, try to think about it. Do you think there was a mass killing in a few months after the war that would kill 3.000.000 germans ? But take care about the higher numbers - they of course must include Nazi persecution on the own people (there were Jews in Germany too). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈11:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The expulsions are not included because they were not a part of WWII, but a consequence. to use a metaphor: Should we blame my frostbite on the fact that I went skiing, or the fact that I didn't wear adequate clothing when skiing. or, to put it simply, you are pretending to use stats from a related subject to misconstrue what happened in this subject.
I think you have never been in the Central Europe and you are not able to imagine how high number is 3000000. If you were and if you can you would understand that it is impossible. There are sources rebuting that but you still ignore them. You ignore czech sources because they do not provide so high numbers or do you think they are written by someone you do not trust and that's why they are not credible ? Or why do you ignore czech sources ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people can imagine anything. However, looks that somebody already separated the expulsion casualties from WWII. Somebody did which we all could not imagine. Hmm. Actually nobody could. We attempted some estimation, and some genius did the impossible. Hurray! - 3 millions for sure. --131.104.218.4600:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since block evading vandal likes to not discuss in chronological order and insert random comments in the middle of a discussion, I will reply to her here. We were not saying you couldn't separate them from WWII deaths, we said you can't separate expulsion and flight/evacuations deaths from each other. Do you ever pay attention to discussion? or just like being disruptive?--Jadger00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been in Central Europe, but I understand what 3 million is. that is 400 times the size of my hometown, or the population of Toronto, Canada's largest city. If 3 million is impossible, than surely the 6 million jews killed in the holocaust is a lie also right? I am not saying that, that is your reasoning. I could ask you the same question about German sources Tulko, but the reason I don't trust these czech "sources" is because they have not been peer reviewed, all good sources must be peer-reviewed.
Don't twist my words, it doesn't imply that Nazi did not kill 6000000 Jews. It is a holocaust denier logic ! Germans killed 6000000 in tens of death camps, killing was massive and organized. So you are saying that you don't trust czech sources now, if I provide any czech source you will not trust and you will ignore. I will tell you why you don't trust czech sources, because you think czech historicians are not well educated men from the east, it smells with racism. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jadger, you have never been in Germany and you play an expert in German matters. Hard to believe, this must be a joke.Xx23612:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO, more personal attacks and incivility!!! when will they get back to the topic instead of obsessing over me? just because I do not live in Germany, or have not stepped on soil taken from Germans, does not mean I have no idea what I am talking about. I would actually dare to say I have a more abstract view, as I'm not worried about defending the horrendous actions of my ancestors.
It is a holocaust denier logic ! well, it was your logic. So let me get this straight, whenever you ask a question or state something, then I repeat it, and all of a sudden it has become "demagogic" or "holocaust denial"?
I will tell you why you don't trust czech sources, because you think czech historicians are not well educated men from the east, it smells with racism. wow, more bad faith, now who's putting words in other people's mouths, your now telling me what to think!
And Tulko, let's "take the ball and run" on your blatantly false accusations. perhaps you can cite another source, since you have only ever cited one gov't history book. I don't care, let it be Czech. But your reliance on only one Czech source is pretty evident, it looks like there are no other books published by more reputable publishers that support your viewpoint.
Jadger, you have behaved many times as a stocker. You have even studied the history of my edits, instead to comment the text after editing. I believe that knowledge of language and of the country helps to understand its history and you prove that I'm right. I find some of your statements belonging to mild Holocaust revisionism.
The goal of the III Reich was to kill and this goal was implemented with perfection, scientifically. The Soviet Union has never started to exterminate Germans the way it did exterminate Chechens, Ukrainians, Soviet Poles, educated Poles. Some Germans pretend to be main victims of the 20th century, to remove the memory of victims of Germans. Xx23615:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Xx, talk about a victim complex!!! do you really think that someone would bother to follow you around? you are delusional.
The goal of the III Reich was to kill and this goal was implemented with perfection, scientifically. The Soviet Union has never started to exterminate Germans the way it did exterminate Chechens, Ukrainians, Soviet Poles, educated Poles. Some Germans pretend to be main victims of the 20th century, to remove the memory of victims of Germans. This is not only totally off-topic, but also incredibly delusional, so I have no comment on this.
The truth is, Some Poles pretend to be main victims of the 20th century, to remove the memory of victims of Poles. after all, that's what you keep trying, every time someone tries to talk about Germans killed, you have always changed it to either the holocaust or the Nazi atrocities.
The Wikipedia article German minority in Poland states: “The vast majority of Germans were expelled, but some remained.” As I know, some of this Germans had to do forced labor... Now, since the beginning of the nineties - after the cold war - is it possible for this Germans in Poland to avow that they are Germans. They have founded some registered associatons like the VDG - But I have heard that there would still be discrimination against them in Poland: E. g. there would be a law which makes forced labor and war captivity creditable for annuity computation – but just for Poles which “always” had been Poles, i. e. not for Poles with German origin. For them this law would define that such time in the annuity computation is counted as “inactive time”.
Xx236, I am struck dumb with astonishment. You of all people are making this suggestion. Well as I am informed the Prussian Trusteeship is doing something near it. I am surprised that you agree on this option. Wikiferdi20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lysy, I heard this from Polish friends some years ago - well I could call them to verify if this law is already amended, but maybe Tulkolahten or Xx236 could investigate it because they are able to speak Polish and so they can look for such laws (in the Internet...). Wikiferdi16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Richard 20Feb07
Unfortunately Haar 2005 – reviewed the book this is not about explsion 1944-1948(1950) it is about ethnic cleanings before 1945 done by Germans and scientists who supported this ideas.
Overmans book 2000, “Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg.” Is strictly about German military losses nothing more – nothing there about expulsion?
I confess that I don't know what Nitschke has to say on this subject.
She says: “Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280).”
Thus that means TOTAL: 1.1 millions deaths.
She also says: “Though estimates of the dead range widely, as many as ‘’’a million Germans’’’ perished during flight and expulsion from Poland in 1944-45.”
It means in years 1946 - 1950? 100.000. Take for consideration that so call wild expulsion started on May 1945 and the 1944 and first part of 1945 was actually the flight.
Next she says: “In the long fourth chapter, Nitschke turns to the expulsions, which came in three waves. During a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945, the Polish military drove up to 400,000 Germans across Poland's new western border.”
“The second wave of expulsions came after the Potsdam conference, but before the "organized transfer" of remaining Germans began in early 1946. From August to December, 1945, Poles expelled close to 600,000 more Germans in poorly organized transports.”
“The final phase involved the transfer of 2.25 million Germans in a process coordinated with British and Soviet authorities in occupied Germany in 1946 and 1947.”--Serafin19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so the problem as I see it, is that we still don't have a good number for how many Germans died in Poland except that maybe (according to Nitschke), the max is 1 million (a number that is a little too "round" for my liking).
In any event, if you look at the numbers provided in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe, you see 1,225,000 deaths in the "Eastern German territories" and 263,000 in Poland for a total of 1,488,000 deaths which differs from Nitschke's estimates by about 500,000. If you take this downward revision of 500,000 and add it to the downward revision of 150,000 or so that the joint commission of Czech and German historians proposed, you can see how the ZgV's numbers of 2 million could be revised downards to 1 - 1.2 million which is what I believe Overmans is proposing. I don't understand the 500,000 figure yet.
What I'm still looking for is some indication of whether Nitschke, Haar and Overmans are widely accepted as right or if they are still the minority challenging the established majority opinion. It would help if we could get some quotes that evaluate the work of these historians and puts them in context of the overall consensus of academic opinion.
Yeah, so the problem as I see it, is that we still don't have a good number for how many Germans died in Poland except that maybe (according to http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=260621074909720), the max is 1 million (a number that is a little too "round" for my liking).
Richard, you reading very carelessly. This is 1.1 in total not round million. Or do you ridicule the estimations at start? The "a million" is because more easy was to estimate the total and the 1946-1950 loses from obvious reasons. Nobody can know exact number of deaths during flight, there was complete chaos. Who died was just buried on spot at road. Some graves disappeared just because were provisionally marked only. I remember some graves of even Polish soldiers on an edge of forest which disappeared in time. The wooden crosses just disintegrated. You do not believe because you are too young.
I am familiar with the 1.1 million number. I was just commenting on the 1 million number being too "round".
No, I am not ridiculing the estimations. It's just that we need to talk as precisely as possible even though we know that true precision is impossible. As for the rest of the lecture, I am in full agreement with all that. I don't think my lack of belief is simply because I am "too young". In fact, I don't know what you think I don't believe. I am the one who is being criticized for being too willing to believe the 2 million number from the ZgV. --Richard05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, if you look at the numbers provided in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe, you see 1,225,000 deaths in the "Eastern German territories" and 263,000 in Poland for a total of 1,488,000 deaths which differs from Nitschke's estimates by about 500,000.
The 500.000 is big number, too big. I would believe in accuracy if the difference would be 100.000. But Nitschke could not count the East lost Polish teritories KresyPoland's old and new borders, 1945 - "Recovered Territories" marked in yellow, "Lost Territories" marked in blue.. Any way my goal is to separate the Flight number from Expulsion number.
If you take this downward revision of 500,000 and add it to the downward revision of 150,000 or so that the joint commission of Czech and German historians proposed, you can see how the ZgV's numbers of 2 million could be revised downards to 1 - 1.2 million which is what I believe Overmans is proposing. I don't understand the 500,000 figure yet.
This counting I do not understand. You want see the most exact total number of deaths I suppose. What I attempt is to prevent such quacking like “Poland,…murdered millions of Germans.”. We have to assume that same individuals can be handicapped and can not read and write correctly and the info should be VERY simple.
And this complaining about "Poland murdered millions" is something I don't understand. I think the truth is Poland and the Soviet Union set up the conditions in which 1-2 million Germans died under the sanction of the Potsdam agreement which was sanctioned by the U.S. and U.K. Was it murder? I don't know. Was it inhumane? Yes but there was a lot of inhumanity occurring in those days. --Richard05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that one million civilians didn't die after the Potsdam conference, it didn't even die after the war. Almost any source writes "Flucht und Vertreibung". If you include German POVs in Siberia, they didn't die in Poland. And Koenigsberg wasn't in Poland but the majority of estimates don't make any difference. Don't move the responsibility for the US bombs and Soviet torpedoes on "Poland".
the statement "six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died" 1.1 million includes victims of the Flucht, and certainly not after the Potsdam agreement. Xx23610:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point Richard Xx put it clearly. Why you do not want see simple truth? It is amazing how you can.
I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but solely because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details. Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
No, I haven't written what you believe I have. I'm arguing that your usage of the word Poland is unprecize. There existed two governments of Poland, one imposed to Poland by the SU and USA and supported by only a minority of Poles and the one in London. There was a civil war between Polish guerilla units and Soviet Army plus NKVD, later partially replaced by Polish Communist forces surveilled by Soviet advisors and controlled directly by Moscow till 1956. You single out a fraction of the society and call it Poland.
The situation in whole Poland 1944/1945 was of Wild West type, except that local communities weren't allowed to organize themselves to keep order. The Blue Police was dissolved and replaced by the MO, a bunch of Communist guerilla soldiers and criminals, without any police experience. The situation in the West was even worse than that, because no Polish social structures existed there. Xx23614:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it unreasonable to saddle Poles and Czechs with all the responsibility for the evil that was perpetrated deliberately or unwittingly during the expulsions. However, I also think it is unreasonable to absolve them of all blame for complicity and collaboration in the affair. As the report of the joint commission of German and Czech historians indicates, some very nasty things were done and some very virtuous things were done. Let us report what happened, not what we would like to have been the case.
Czechoslovakia existed in 1945 as an independent state, ruled by democratically elected president Benes. Czech people weren't transported in terrible conditions from Siberia or Ukraine to Sudetenland and didn't starve under open air by -20C, without food. The cruelty of German occupation (toward non-Jews) was more than 10 times higher in Poland than in the Protectorate (eg. ratio of dead Poles/ratio of dead Czech people). The level of life of Czech workers was sometimes higher than in Germany, the Poles weren't allowed to learn, were hungry and under every-day terror. The superpowers should have prevented the revange in Poland, like they do in Kosovo now. There is also the problem of Jewish revange. The majority of the participants of it has left Poland, you shouldn't call them Poland. The best known Shlomo Morel equally mistreated Germans and Poles.
It's not my task to report anything. There are hundreds of academic texts - read them. I oppose unprecize or biased statements. I'm not the IPN or Polish Academy of Sciences.Xx23614:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please don't write statements like "Poland and the Soviet Union"? The same "the USA and the SU enslaved Poland after the war" or "Slovakia and Germany invided the SU in 1941".
There existed two Polish governments, which one of them do you call "Poland"? Who gives you the right to decide, what was Poland in 1945? I don't. Xx23610:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should make a distinction between the two Polish governments and the Polish people.
I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details.
Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
I think it unreasonable to saddle Poles and Czechs with all the responsibility for the evil that was perpetrated deliberately or unwittingly during the expulsions. However, I also think it is unreasonable to absolve them of all blame for complicity and collaboration in the affair. As the report of the joint commission of German and Czech historians indicates, some very nasty things were done and some very virtuous things were done. Let us report what happened, not what we would like to have been the case.
"Poland and the Soviet Union" set up the conditions in which thousands of Poles died under the sanctions of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam agreements. It sounds quite absurd to me, but you write this way.
Xx23610:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are American conservatives who, to this day, still blame Roosevelt for "giving away Eastern Europe to the Commies at Yalta". In this way of thinking, Roosevelt is complicit in the deaths of those Poles. I don't quite agree with this assessment because I personally don't think Roosevelt gave away anything that he could have kept.
So perhaps you wish to exonerate both Polish governments for agreeing to expulsions that they could not have stopped even if they wanted to? Perhaps it is true that they could not have stopped it. However, I am not convinced that they wanted to stop it or objected to it in principle.
Watch the 1939 map - could Poland exist in the middle of Germany? WWII proved it couldn't. So the majority of Poles demanded East Prussia, Danzig, whole Upper Silesia (I don't know how far - with or without Oppeln) and some other areas with Slavic minorities. No mainstream politician wanted Breslau and Stettin.
Poland lost more than 45% of its territory. Should it have been the only victim of WWII? Really?
The London government didn't have any impact on administration and mob in annexed lands.
Roosevelt went to Yalta ill, poorly prepared. Any rational man would have demanded Stalin to come in a neutral land, rather than be controlled by NKVD, night and day.
Xx23614:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm still looking for is some indication of whether Nitschke, Haar and Overmans are widely accepted as right or if they are still the minority challenging the established majority opinion.
In my opinion you contradict yourself. You always propagated multipoint POV. I always propagate logic and comparison. We can come closer to truth only by deduction and investigation. There will be always “minority challenging the established majority opinion” as you say. Beside not always majority is right, as you know Hitler was elected and supported by majority.
I didn't say the majority is always right. However, it is not our job to determine who is right. It is our job to "describe the real world". If the consensus in the real world is X, then we should say "the consensus is X". If there is a challenge to X, then we should say "there is a minority opinion who challenge X". --Richard05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if we could get some quotes that evaluate the work of these historians and puts them in context of the overall consensus of academic opinion.
If you have some idea how to do it I would try. From my experience in my professional field it is really difficult to get clue who of the researches is good and who barely satisfactory. You need to be professional yourself. Regularly scientific authors do not attack openly the opponent in scientific journals. They rather systematically attack opponent theories in extend period of time. In historical journals can be the same. Maybe you understand in this context that the academic opinion is not easy to grasp. Beside, quite often you need to know the scientists personal animosities. Some Wiki editor can be smarter then me and get multi pro and contra from popular press article on internet. Personally I do not trust popular newspapers there is too many errors and politic manipulations. I would consider “Google” type search in this point as waist of time.--Serafin01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. At this point in time, we can only say Statistisches Bundesamt says A, deZayas says B, Nitschke says C, Overmans says D and Haar says E. (Even now, it's not completely clear to me what each of these people say.) It may very well be the case that there are two camps with neither of them being the consensus opinion. If that's true, then we should say that.
Nitschke quotes Overmans, doesn't estimate any number of post-war victims herself. I don't know however other editions of the book (one German and one Polish).Xx23610:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.png)