Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus Aervanath (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Expulsion of Germans after World War II → Flight and expulsion of Germans —

• Add "Flight": Although those who fled were expelled "in absentia" or upon returning, this was not foreseeable for the refugees, thus the flight/evacuations before the start of the actual expulsions which is covered in the article should be mentioned in the title as well. To seperately include "evacuation" in the title seems redundant as evacuation was no more than an (badly) organized flight which often enough turned into a spontaneous one.
• Remove WWII qualification: (1) "after WWII" is misleading, flight as well as actual expulsion started already during the war. (2) The WWII-related flight and expulsion was the only major flight and expulsion of Germans ever. Though there were other events when Germans fled or were expelled, the late and post-WWII events are those usually associated with the terms. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)'s rationale, we should have a title precise enough to identify the topic, but avoid unnecessary qualifications. Per Wikipedia:Dab#Is there a primary topic? other events could be dab-ed above the lead. — Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support (nominator) Skäpperöd (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I gave it some thought today, but as I mentioned in the discussion above, I not convinced a rename is necessary. In respect of the addition of the word "flight", populations all over the world fled from advancing armies during WWII - what is notable here about the flight of the Germans is that it was rendered permanent by the later expulsions - the focus of this article. Adding words such as flight or evacuation is unnecessary. As for the reference to WWII, I think the words "after World War II" are necessary and don't represent "over precision". The proposed title is way too ambiguous - it's not enough to say that the subject of the article represents the only major population transfers of Germans, because it isn't even clear from the proposed title that it deals with population transfers. This is actually the sort of ambiguity that WP:PRECISION suggests we avoid. Since this is not a DAB problem, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE isn't really relevant, nor are hatnotes the solution.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I don't have strong feelings on this issue. At the moment, like Skeezix1000 I don't see a need for a move and I also think that the qualifier "after WWII" is useful though not 100% accurate. If there's some strong arguments I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.radek (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support proposition 1 to add 'flight'; it is well documented that a tide of refugees preceded the Soviet advance westwards in 1944 and 1945, motivated by fear, of communism and also of reprisals. This amounts to flight, not expulsion or ethnic cleansing as was seen, for example, in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Let's be clear: there were many people who definitely fled, and expressed no desire to return; an 'expulsion' is not simply 'being denied the right to return to an area from which you have fled'. An expulsion is where either a) people bang on your door in the morning telling you that you'd better be on the road by midday or else; or b) populations get forcibly transferred by some kind of (quasi-)legal procedure. Undoubtedly there were also expulsions after the war, but this article does not solely describe an 'expulsion' when so many left in advance of those they feared (for whatever reason). Cautious oppose to proposition 2 to delete totally a time frame - I think the article needs a time reference in its title. I agree that 'after World War II' is factually incorrect, but I think some form of wording should replace it. Perhaps "Flight and expulsion of Germans 1944-50" would do, as that seems to be the period in question? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Would not object to qualify with a date. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The self-imposed evacuations are already covered by Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II, and to a lesser extent German exodus from Eastern Europe and Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. This article should deal solely with the forced expulsions. The date qualifier is quite necessary; the proposed title is far too ambiguous. Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The article has been moved several times. Wouldn't a summary of such moves be useful? Xx236 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Various German Civilian “Relocation” Statistics from Eastern Europe in Mid & Latter 1940s

High side figures: 12 to 16 million German civilians affected

Regarding Poland, German civilians were expelled by Soviet/Polish Communist authorities from the area within the 1937 borders of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the exception of northern East Prussia, which was subject only to repopulation by Soviet citizens as the original German population was expelled. Also regarding Poland, all ethnic Germans living within the Polish 1937 boundaries in the places redefined by the Nazis as the Wartheland; Westpreussen; Sued-Ostpreussen; Kreis Suwalki (Sudauen); & Bezirk Bialystok were subject to expulsion, regardless of whether the ethnic German civilians had lived in those areas in 1937, or had been transferred in by the Nazis after September, 1939.

Regarding events in Poland, some sources claim 2 million ethnic German Civilian deaths, including deaths during the “run away” time (in areas that were (1) within 1937 German boundaries, and (2) in areas within 1937 Polish boundaries); deaths directly caused by enemy action; and, deaths during forced expulsions. (Note: the “run away time” is loosely defined as German civilians fleeing the approaching Soviet Army during the war.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, let's do our best to make Wikipedia the home page of the lunatic fringe who a) don't even have the decency to sign up b) don't bring any sources c) don't have the slightest interest in atrocities committed by, under or during the 3rd Reich d) probably have a personal Nazi memorabilia museum/drawer at home. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is much vandalism at times, but most is caught within a short time by the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to Robert Trana, some two million Germans died in the process of Soviet occupation, Polish occupation, and forced deportation--most in the Western territories--of violence, hunger and disease. Robert Trana, 'Wysiedlenia Niemcow a Polski--refleksje na marginesie literatury najnowszej,' in Elzbiety Traba and Roberta Traba, eds., TEMATY POLSKO-NIEMIECKIE (Olsztyn: Wspolnota Kulturowa, 1997), pp. 28-29." Source: Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe, by Norman M. Naimark. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001, in n.111 on Page 228. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Allied Crimes against the Germans

Peter... the problem is that the Germans started this terrible war and they were the perpetrators not the victims. Ordinary Germans at the time were the perpetrators of the Holocaust. They were Hitler's willing executioners and had judged that the mass annihilation of Jews and mass murder of Poles was right. German civilian suffering at the end of the war was huge but blaming the victims for their suffering as you do above (Poles, Czechs ..) is not going to win you much sympathy, sorry...--Jacurek (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

one more thing, your comment contains many OBVIOUS historical inaccuracies. I don't want to go into details, maybe somebody else will.--Jacurek (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

re "Ordinary Germans at the time were the perpetrators of the Holocaust. They were Hitler's willing executioners ..." :This is an expansive statement which doesn't present much of a context, but implies a link to Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners". The Wilipedia article on "Hitler's Willing Executioners" has a section titled, "Critical Reception of Work":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Willing_Executioners ANNRC (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, these kinds of rants, reposted from Facebook (!!!) do not belong on the talk page anymore than they do in the article. Wikipedia is not a version of free bloging software. And that's even ignoring the extremist nature of these posts. This should be just deleted.radek (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@Brenton: It is not really helpful to copypaste blogs / oppinions of someone. WP:NOTAFORUM. It would be much more helpful if you precisely adressed the issues which in your view are missing / ought to be included into the article, and reasonably back that up per WP:V. How exactly do you want to expand/alter which sections/paragraphs? Sidenote: It was not a "German holocaust". The term holocaust should only be applied to the industrialized extermination of the European Jews, which has no cognate whatsoever in history. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jacurek: (now a little violating WP:NOTAFORUM myself...) You fully apply the principle of collective guilt. "The Germans" were perpetrators, "the Poles" were victims. Be aware that this is a strong personal view of yours and just imagine what would happen if you applied this on issues other than the expulsion of Germans. I am glad that I do not live in a country where the wrongdoings of a clanmember of mine enable the member of another clan to cut off my hands. And I think the law system you are subject to also follows the principle of individual guilt, qualified with "innocent until proven guilty", and that someone even if found guilty of one crime is not civilly dead meaning everyone is free to commit whatever crime they want on them. You would do good stepping back and thinking of the merits of this approach, which is common law and moral standard in all the "first" world. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd... this is not only my view and no, I do not apply a principle of collective guilt and I acknowledge that the German civilians suffered terribly after the war. They suffered however ONLY because of the insane policies of their nuts Nazi leaders THEY ELECTED and the war Germany started. Now....Let me ask you a question... What would have happen to the Poles or to the rest of the barely surviving Jews if Hitler have won the war?? I'm sure I would not be able to talk to you right now because I would not exist. Well...Hitler lost and as a result the German population suffered, but I and you, assuming you are German, are able to talk to each other.....and this is the difference.--Jacurek (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Consequence of the war Germany started: Absolutely correct. But not the necessary or only possible one.
• "ONLY because of the insane policies of their nuts Nazi leaders": This however is very speculative. The motor of the expulsions were Stalin and his (international) crew. As outlined in the article, punishment for Nazi crimes were one argument, though not really the argument of those who planned the expulsions, but rather of some of those who pursued them. When the truncation of Germany and the expulsions were planned however, rarely anyone knew what the Nazis really did in Central and Eastern Europe. But Stalin and Churchill knew what they wanted, and did not hesitate.
• "insane policies of their nuts Nazi leaders THEY ELECTED": The Nazis did not get 100% of the votes, and the Nazis were elected eleven years earlier when only very few could foresee what they were up to. I cannot go into detail here regarding the political, economic and social situation in Weimar Germany that led to the Nazi victory. But the majority of the votes the Nazis got not for their extermination plans, which took shape only later.
• "What would have happen to the Poles or to the rest of the barely surviving Jews if Hitler have won the war?" This is already the right question, but the wrong implementation. Yes, the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Poles and the Jews. Yes, that was evil. No, that does not mean that if the Nazis judge others solely based on racial criteria, that we do so too in respect to the Germans.

You said you don't apply the collective guilt principle, but in the same post you did again. "They" - the Germans. We are able to talk to each other because those who committed murder during and after the war, based solely on ethnic reasons, spared our (grand-)parents. This should prevent us from judging others based on their ethnicity, don't you think? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the term "they the Germans" to underline the "fact" and not to blame the whole Germans for it. I partly agree with you that there was more to it and there was another "evil idiot" in the East, Stalin, but facts are as they are. Germany started the war, they were the initiators of this conflict which led to the enormous suffering and destruction unseen in Europe until then. Now...who is there to blame for the eventual German suffering after the war, in most cases of innocent civilians, Wolf kids, raped woman and helplessness? "Three stooges" in Yalta, Teheran and Potsdam and their idiotic decisions to please Stalin? The Soviet Army? Poles and Czechs? Jews? ... or perhaps the Germans themselves? The German suffering after the war is indisputable but blaming the Poles as Peter did or even better, Polish Jews, who are also Poles, is simply disgusting...--Jacurek (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all let me assure you that we are not that far away in our views. If you'd replace "the Germans" and "the Poles" with "Germany" and "Poland", we would not have a big argument. Of course (Nazi) "Germany" and "Poland" are virtual bodies, maintained and able to act only via physical Germans and Poles, but not the Germans and the Poles. If Poland had tried/detained/expelled only those Germans who had actually ordered/supervised/committed atrocities, even if broadly defined and if executed with a "fair" amount of "collateral damage", the retrospect debate would be much different. But the expulsions/murders/atrocities were to a large degree indifferent to individual guilt and based on ethnicity only. They were not even limited to members of NS-organizations, and even those were not all guilty/supportive/aware of the Nazi crimes. In fact, the actual perpetrators were for the most part absent, like most adult males, when the flight and expulsion took place.

Both Polish governments, the exiled and the Communist ones, wanted German territory and they wanted the new Poland to be ethnically cleansed of Germans. The Polish vote in 1946 explicitly asked the Oder-Neisse question, and although this vote was held under somewhat dubious circumstances and the presented outcome cannot be taken for granted, it is undisputed that a significant proportion of the Polish populace supported the westward expansion and the ethnic cleansing evidently tied to it. It is also undisputed that it was not just Gomulka who cleansed, just like it was not only Hitler who engaged in mass murder and ethnic cleansing before, but that the orders of Gomulka and Co were willingly executed by other Poles, and that there were Poles who in this respect did not just do their "duty", but a lot more to Germans they encountered or detained in their camps and cellars. This is the undeniable Polish responsibility. But this does not mean that the Poles were responsible and/or guilty. It means that distinct Poles were perpetrators in this respect, and it does not mean that these Poles could not have been victims in another respect. In fact, all Poles were at least potentially victims of Nazi crimes, even those who were dubbed "racial Germans" by the respective SS bureaus, and many were not only potential but actual victims in this respect. That however does not make them victims in every respect.

Now what has all this to do with the article. I feel many editors dropped in here motivated by a desire to settle national scores, i.e. compare/equal one set of crimes with another and assign some sorts of ethnic guilt. This is not acceptable.

• We must present data and not own conclusions, phrase everything carefully without weaseling and without an underlying personal interpretation.
• We must carefully avoid generalization, especially by wordings such as "the Germans" and "the Poles" in cases where not all Germans or all Poles or whatever nationals were involved. Instead we have to properly attribute who said and did what exactly to whom exactly.
• We must show the ties the expulsions have with the preceding war including the Nazi crimes, but we must limit this to where these ties actually are. The place for the preceding Nazi crimes is the "punishment" section, which should focus on elaborating on the ties, i.e. published ties and not felt ties. WWII events and Nazi crimes have numerous own articles and should be mentioned and linked instead of getting boosted to make a point; expellee=German=Nazi=guilty=civilly dead is a prime example for a synthesis.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Such comparisions as abover are not really appropriate as huge differences are in two situations which need to be pointed out

• -German removal was all there was to the action/The removal of Poles and Jews was part of far wider program of extermination which the Germans were not target of
• -The Poles and Jews were targetted as creatures on lower scale to be exterminated by German state with appropriate legislation included/the Germans were to be moved to new German homeland in order to prevent violence.
• -the German state during the war was based on ideology of racial genocide seeking to mass murder others as motive for its existance, no possibility of co-existance with Poles or Jews was possible or relations with Polish state/countries removing Germans had nothing against German state’s existance is some shape, and pursued relations either with West Germany or East Germany
• -the exact stated reason for removing the Germans was among others the persistant nationalist orientation of the Germans in eastern territories, in part due to frontier nature of them. The area politically speaking has always been the primary nationalist region, dating back even to German Empire. They are many factors in this, too detailed to describe, but for example nationalist organizations were awarded money and membership was finanacially rewarded by German state in the region. The removal was seen as defence against German agression. On the other hand removing of Poles and Jews was quite openly justified by racist goals of German state during the war and quite openly described by German officials as agressive(which was in line with Nazi ideology of constant warfare)
• -comparing Gomulka to Hitler ? That’s really uncalled for. You have a ideologist activist for workers who became authoritiarian ruler and used state police against dissent to man who openly called for world war and exterminated tens of milions of people in the name of racial genocide while destroying Central Europe and creating a totalitarian state.
• -the territorial aspect is of course yet another matter-Germans were removed from border regions that were Germanised in the course of centuries from the native inhabitants. Poles were being removed from core Polish areas such as Poznań where the first Polish state was established, or even areas with no previous German presence such as Zamojszczyzna. Again this shows that the extent and scope of German actions was different.
• -The expulsion and extermination of Poles and Jews had background in expansionism of former German Empire’s attempts to win control over Central Europe(see Polish Border Strip Plan), of course Nazis greatly changed the former plans changing their scope and methods/the removal of Germans had background in the populations seeking the removal being subject to German made mass murder and racist policists and hoping to end this ordeal or any possibility of its return
• -finally legal matters-German law in Third Reich included such legal conditions as higher status of househeld animals then Poles and Jews, I don’t think this was common in the international or any law at the time or now and things like injecting children of subhumans with poison don’t have any legal basis likewise putting people in gas chambers/The re-settlement of Germans to Germany had basis in already existing events such as population exchange of Greece and Turkey for example
• -as to resistance, sadly the available research shows that real resistance was a very tiny majority, we have to remember that around 51% of Germans voted for NSDAP and their political allies DNVP in elections. Even the most widespread resistance symbolised by Stauffenberg was influenced by fascism and nationalist ideas(for example while Stauffenberg did not want to exterminate Poles, he was quite in agreement that they are to be enslaved). True democratic resistance while it existed was very rare. Additionally the areas from which Germans were resettled were as mentioned before the centre of German nationalism.

As to support for extermination-it was very high above 30% after the war according to available Allied data, needless to say we can expect it to be higher in the effect nationalist regions just as the votes for Nazis were higher.

• To sum up-even a brief comparision between treatment of non-Germans by Nazi Germany and post-war treatment of Germans shows that the two are light years away and can’t be considered similiar. Where German state during Second World War engaged in industrial genocide aiming at extermination of whole nations, based on its core ideology of the time, the post-war resettlement of Germans was a population transfer based on previous similiar processes that were legal by current international law. One would need to really cut off several aspects of German made situation regarding Non-Germans.

However I might mention that the intentional or unintentional attempts to compare the two have actually been noted by historic community. Of interest is the remark that such process sometimes goes into trying to show everybody during WW2 as guilty in the same way, and by doing so erases all guilt in the line of “If everybody is guilty, then nobody is guilty at all”. Perhaps this would be good to add in post war events, of course referenced by scholary works which observe and study the issue. --Molobo (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

===================================================================

Comment to Peter: I served in the US Army in West Germany (1962-64, Gelnhausen). ALSO NOTE: Peter's paragraphs subsequently removed by an editor as being a quasi-forum.

1. I don't believe the bombing of civilians during war time is legally a war crime. 2. US President Roosevelt, Brit PM Churchill & Sov Premier Stalin approved what eventually became (via the Potsdam Agreement)an open-ended population transfer of all ethnic Germans from East of the Oder-Neisse Line. Roosevelt was dead and Churchill was no longer PM by the time of the finalization of the Potsdam Agreement. Per the Potsdam Agreement, theoretically all ethnic Germans were to be relocated to the West of the Potsdam Agreement determined Oder-Neisse Line (Stettin notwithstanding). The approved population transfers also covered all ethnic Germans to be transferred to Occupation Germany from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. 30 years later the Helsinki Accords (1975) made such ethnic cleansing against Human Rights, although it wasn't made retroactive to 1945. 3. The Nazis were well on their way to destroying Polish culture (which was one of their ultimate goals). Ca. 5.5 million Polish civilians were killed by the Nazis during the war (that figure includes 3 million Polish Jews). All of 1937 boundary Poland was intended to be ethnically cleansed (i.e., of all ethnic Poles and Jews) by the Nazis. 4. The policy in the US Occupation Zone of Germany between 1945 & 1947 had the effect of starving to death hundreds of thousands of Germans. The US State Department would not even let the Vatican send in supplies to starving German infants in the US Zone. 5. Most of West Prussia was assigned to Poland in 1919 following World War 1. ANNRC (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear ANNRC - the article by Professor Alfred de Zayas "Forced Population Transfer" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online since September 2008) explains why the expulsions were incompatible with international law in 1945. De Zayas analysed this issue at length in his seminal article "International Law and Mass Population Transfers" (Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 16, 1975) and in his book "Nemesis at Potsdam" (1-3 editions Routledge, 4-5 edition University of Nebraska Press, 6th edition Picton Press, Rockland, Maine ISBN-0-89725-360-4). The bottom line is that the Allies were not above international law, but had to abide themselves by it. The Allies broke general principles of law and numerous articles of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare (notably articles 42-56) when they displaced the German civilian population from the areas where their ancestors had lived for 7 centuries. It is interesting to note that there was no "causal nexus" between Nazi crimes and the expulsion of the German civilian populations. The Nazis committed plenty of crimes in occupied France, Belgium, the Netherlands, but the French, Belgians and Dutch did not expell the Germans of Cologne and Düsseldorf to the East, whereas the Poles and Czechs did expel the Germans of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, East Brandenburg, Sudetenland etc. to the West. This "forced migration" affected 15 million human beings, two million of whom perished (Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, 1958, "Die Deutschen Vertreibungsverluse"; Gerhard Reichling, "Deutsche Vertriebenen in Zahlen", 1985). Churchill himself referred to the expulsions as "tragedy on a prodigious scale". Bertrand Russell called it a crime against humanity, as did several US Senators and Congressmen. The socialist British publisher and philosopher Victor Gollancz condemned the expulsions in his books "Our Threatened Values" (London 1946, Left Book Club) and "In Darkest Germans" (1947). Churchill and Roosevelt bear responsibility because they "accepted" the principle of forced population transfer which originated with exiled Czech President Eduard Benes. There is no doubt that the expulsion of the Germans was many times worse -- and more costly in human lives -- than the "ethnic cleansing" we all abhor in the former Yugoslavia. As de Zayas elucidates in chapters 5 and 6 of Nemesis at Potsdam, the Western Allies did not want to have the Germans epelled -- this was, indeed, against their own interests as occupying powers, because, as Churchill aptly said, the millions of expelled Germans "brought their mouths" with them. Great Britain and the U.S. as occupying powers needed the Eastern German Provinces (which used to be Germany's bread basket) for food production. And the millions of German refugees from those provinces would need food and shelter in the West -- this could only come from the US breadbasket in the great plains of Nebraska. Indeed, the occupation of Germany cost the U.S. and Britain many millions of dollars. It is interesting to read in Chapter 5 of Nemesis at Potsdam that the drafter of article 13 of the Potsdam Protocol, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, and his American colleage Cavendish Cannon made it very clearly to the Soviets that they were against the expulsions -- but that since a situation had emerged in Eastern Europe whereby the Poles and Czechs were expelling the Germans in a cruel and disorderly manner, this should be supervised by the Allied Control Council and channeled into "orderly and humane" transfers. Article 13 was not a "blank check" to the Poles and Czechs -- on the contrary. It was, of course, ignored in Warsaw, Prague and Moscow -- as we know from General Eisenhower's and Robert Murphy's telegrams to the State Department in October 1945. Robert Murphy, by the way, wrote the preface to Nemesis at Potsdam, which has become a "standard" in Germany, having reached 14 editions, the last one "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" in a completely revised and enlarged version with Herbig Verlag, Münich. ISBN 3- 7766- 2454-K --Immerhinque (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) One account has it that the U.S. adopted the idea of debellatio (subjugation) in order to suspend The Hague Regulations in Germany by requiring unconditional surrender. In that specific context, population transfers (in 1945) did not fall within the specific context of the Hague Regulations. Roosevelt announced the concept of unconditional surrender at the Anglo-American summit meeting at Casablanca in January, 1943. That was well before the Tehran Conference in the latter part of 1943.

(2) Article 13 of the Potsdam Agreement put no limts on the amount of subject ethnic Germans to be expelled. Therefore, 100% was an operative concept. So, the US & British signatures on the Potsdam Agreement accepted in effect the expulsion of 100% of ethnic Germans from east of the Oder-Neisse Line into Occupation Germany, which was West of the Oder-Neisse Line. Some bureaucracy was involved, but that didn't change the significance of the US & British sign-off on the Potsdam Agreement: some lip service was given to the Allied Control Council (ACC) determining the numbers of Germans to be "resettled". But, nothing was done when the ACC thus met, since it had no teeth unless the Soviet ACC representation agreed, for example, on any proposal brought up in ACC meetings (For general ACC information, see Allied Control Council). The Soviet ACC representation never accepted anything less than the possibility of 100% German ethnic expulsion from east of the Oder-Neisse Line into Occupation Germany i.e., west of the Oder-Neisse Line. So, the ACC (which comprised US, UK, & USSR representation) accepted the de facto specific wording and results of the Potsdam Agreement (including the sign-off by the US President and the British PM), namely that the Soviets, Czechs & Poles could expell 100% of ethnic Germans from their areas of Eastern Europe into Occupation Zone Germany (for the Poles this meant territory to include all 1937 German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the exception of northern East Prussia, which was destined for "final Peace Treaty" debate on incorporation into the USSR). What the US President & British PM signed off when approving the Potsdam Agreement included the specific, stand alone words, "The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof . . . " : "German populations" is left open to legal interpretation as meaning 100% of the ethnic German population in any given area, to include virtually all areas under consideration. The US & Brit members on the ACC knew by the end of their above indicated ACC meeting with the Soviet ACC representative(s) that that was precisely what the Soviets had in mind. No influential member of either the US or British government stepped forward to effectively challenge the ACC in the direct aftermath of the ACC's roll over, and thus the Potsdam Agreement became a 100% solution, regarding ethnic German population transfers, and was completely controlled by the Soviets in that regard. (Note: I've noticed a pattern of contributers starting to pretend that the Poles had a certain amount of limited freedom in their aggressive behavior toward expelling ethnic Germans. My advice to them: Get over it(!) . . . the Soviet Russians and their Army controlled EVERYTHING !! . . . there was no such thing as the Soviets later learning that the Poles had been harsh in some expulsion action and thus the Soviets (i.e., as a power center rather than individuals) were somewhat taken aback. Those are FAIRY TALES!! -- the Soviets controlled what the Poles did and could have easily stopped any "outrage", whether it be caught in mid-process, or simply by preventing re-occurrences. It is likely that the Soviets simply gave tacit approval to everthing the Poles did to expell the Germans -- both the Poles (in general) & Russians agreed upon the major issue: the expulsion of the Germans (not much room for sentiment in such proceedings).)

(3) In 1945 NOTHING COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE in the Eastern Europe countries "liberated" by the Soviet Army without explicit or tacit Soviet agreement. Specifically, this includes the "Wild transfers".ANNRC (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis committed plenty of crimes in occupied France, Belgium, the Netherlands, but the French, Belgians and Dutch did not expell the Germans of Cologne and Düsseldorf to the East, whereas the Poles and Czechs did expel the Germans Did you read on differences between occupation of Western and Eastern Europe ? For starters the French were not classified as untermenschen.--Molobo (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (1) and most of (2) by ANNRC: When you de-contextualize the flight, evacuation, and expulsion of Germans (both pre-war inhabitants and post-1938 settlers) from Eastern Europe and the former Eastern German provinces, you completely eliminate one of the central reasons why it occurred (and was agreed to by all the Allies): namely that the German nation bullied, threatened, and finally subjugated other sovereign nations based on the concept that, simply because some of the population of those nations had German ancestry, Germany had the right to annex the territory of those nations. The expulsions were nothing less than a means of eliminating this "claim" from being a future cause celebre to a nation that had already been instrumental in causing two catastrophic wars in three decades, and acting barbarously (as a matter of official state policy) in the conduct of those wars.

Regarding the rest of (2) and (3): Making the USSR out to be an all-seeing, all-knowing big brother in 1945-48 is simply laughable. Historically (as opposed to your contrafactual argument), lots of things went on in this period that occurred "without explicit or tacit Soviet agreement". Or do you deny that armed resistance to Soviet occupation existed, not only in the nations 'liberated' by the USSR, but in areas of the USSR (the Ukraine, for one) as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.50.135 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Population transfers were recommended as a means to the end you described, but all parties except the Soviets sought them on a much more limited scale than what ensued. The Americans and Brits caved in to the Soviets at Potsdam under the (their own) guise that a final peace treaty would be forthcoming, at which the final outlines of land areas & associated population transfers would be determined. The more the Americans and British faltered in the Potsdam discussions, the more the Soviets pushed and succeeded in their aims.

All of the mentioned resistance to the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe "in 1945-48" was minor (or "relatively minor" if preferred), given that millions of Soviet soldiers were in eastern Europe. In the larger picture, for example, the Soviets controlled the Polish Communist apparatus - the Polish Communists did what the Soviets wanted done. For example, if the Soviets had wanted all the Germans that were in Silesia in May, 1945 to remain there, they would have remained, regardless of what the Poles wanted.ANNRC (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Legality of the expulsions

re "Timothy V. Waters argues in 'On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing' that if similar circumstances arise in the future . . . [it] would also allow the future ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law...." Comment: "similar circumstances" would by definition involve "unconditional surrender". Likewise, de Zayas says nothing about "unconditional surrender" in his book "A Terrible Revenge".ANNRC (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights

RE: "Ayala Lasso gave the German expellees recognition as victims of gross violations of human rights at the memorial service at the Paulskirche in Frankfurt a.M. on 28 May 1995" Comment: Given the international organizational focus on human rights starting about 1949 (Geneva Convention) and on-going, the assumption must be that if a future war includes specifications of "unconditional surrender", that the international organizations will be more pro-active in safeguarding human rights than they were, say, in 1943 when Roosevelt pushed for unconditional surrender. And of course, the climate of 1943 was followed in the same vein by that of 1944, 45, 46, etc.ANNRC (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.N. Charter was signed June 26, 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 07:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added

Added on legal aspects in regards to UN Charter. Shortened the De Zayas quote. Although he is personal backer of BdV far more important people are not quoted.--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

Expulsions and resettlements of other ethnicities took place contemporary to the expulsion of the Germans. From Tito's Yugoslavia, not only the Germans, but also most Italians were expelled.[43] Poland did not only expel Ethnic Germans, but also expelled 482,000 and resettled 140,000 Ukrainians[44] (Operation Wisla).

What does this mean, expelled 482,000 Germans or 482,000 Ukranians? But it says it expelled "not only Ethnic Germans"...on the other hand, why would different figures be given for resettled and expelled Ukranians? Can someone clear this up?--Npovshark (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both figures probably refer to Ukrainians. The 482,000 figure probably refers to the overall number of Ukrainians that were expelled, while the latter to those who were resettled to somewhere else in Poland (generally in the west), the remainder being forced to move to Soviet Union. That's my guess at least.radek (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - look at Operation_Wisla.

Population transfer to Soviet Ukraine occurred from September 1944 to April 1946 (ca. 450,000 persons) and The second event occurred in 1947 under Operation Wisła . The Rusyn and Ukrainian population that still existed in southeastern Poland were forcibly resettled to western and northern Poland. The resettlement to West-Poland occurred from April 28 to July 31, 1947, and involved 130,000 - 140,000 persons who were internally relocated in Poland.

So 'expelled' here means expelled to Soviet Union. 'Resettled' means resettled internally within Poland.radek (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Condition of the expellees after arriving in post-war Germany

I did quite a bit of editing to this section to make it read better--fixed grammar and re-wrote sentences, but did not make substantive changes. Please give it a look and feel free to change or revert what I did. Again, I didn't change anything fact wise, just tried to make it read better. If anyone reading this likes what I did, let me know and I can work on other parts of this article. Or if I did something wrong with my editing, please let me know that as well for guidance with future editing. Thanks. Slgordon3 (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

thought this interesting

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,600216,00.html

67.220.47.150 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Evacuation to Denmark section

The entire "Evacuation and flight to Denmark" section is based on a single self published vanity press source Books On Demand. Per this talk [1] ("they don't do any editorial review at all") the entire section should be removed unless reliable sources are found.radek (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the section is based on an English language article of the "Spiegel" news magazine, which is available online. Just some minor details are based on the BoD source, there's no reason to remove the whole section. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Self published sources

Actually, the entire section is based on self published sources, not some SPS "among others" - there's not a RS in the entire section. Furthermore, the usual criteria for inclusion of SPS material is that the text either a) is about the source itself - as far as I can tell this section is NOT about "Erwin Ay, Rettende Ufer" or b) if the source is produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications - neither is the case here. Without a single RS to support it this section simply needs to go. Here's the policy link [2]radek (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Copypasted fork here)

As HM has already outlined above, the section also contains many other references, see: Manfred Ertel. "A Legacy of Dead German Children", Spiegel Online, May 16, 2005 Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In view of the desire of ethnically homogeneous nation-states it didn't make a sense to drew borders through regions which were already inhabited ethnically homogeneous by Germans without any minoriti

This is currently in the section "A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states". Comment: There is a difference between "temporary borders" and "permanent borders" . . . all borders in the 1937 land area of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse Line (including the Oder-Neisse Line itself) were temporary borders pending the final Peace Treaty for the European part of WW2. The Potsdam Agreement authorized the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from within the 1937 borders of Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please put a stop to this insanity...

I browsed into this page and I'm seriously confused. Since I'm native Polish living in Poland and I know a thing or two about both 20th century history and Wikipedia's structure it can't be a good thing. If I wanted to delve into the place of Poland in the subject I could read about it in this article, however that's but scratching the surface of the problem. At least it's apparent after seeing all this other pages that cover this issue in context of Poland as well:

• German exodus from Eastern Europe - Almost identical to this article, not counting the countries the authors didn't manage to include in their definition of "Eastern Europe". The term is used very creatively as not even the article on Eastern Europe lists so many countries allegedly located there. Anyway, Poland is a country in Central Europe. The problem is that so is Germany. The article's title wouldn't make sense were it correct. Not to mention IMHO exodus implies voluntary relocation, which hardly was the case here.
• Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland - Contains many passages from this article and the one above. Either of the two should be removed, preferably German exodus from Eastern Europe, which also has a flawed title.
• Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century - Article very badly written, not even sourced properly. Were it deleted nobody would cry (except for the author maybe).

If redundancy could kill this bunch of articles could in time generate a higher death toll then Hitler and Stalin combined.

Seriously now - this here is a prime example of content forking, which in turn is grounds for deletion. The articles on more detailed subjects actually contain less relevant information on the then this parent article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewelyn MT (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you know a thing or two about 20th Century history will you agree that "The Potsdam Agreement authorized the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from within the 1937 borders of Poland."? A simple answer will suffice i.e., keeping the answer responsive to 1945 Germans living within the 1937 boundaries of Poland. Lets call this "Step One" (& therefore it needn't address issues beyond the specific wording in the question).

As we can see in the preface of the article about ethnic cleansing the term was coined in 1990s for a very different thing. First of all it implies the active and aggressive role of the local population. There's no evidence anything like that took place on a large scale. The differences between German relocation of Polish people and relocation of Germans from Poland was that the Germans were allowed to pack their things before departure and didn't travel in railroad cars meant for cattle. I'd prefer to call it pressured ethnic emigration to avoid further confusion.

Also, the article seems anti-Polish to me. Poles didn't take part in drawing of the new maps for which they're held responsible. I find sentences like this annoying: "Another motivation was to punish the Germans who some argued were collectively guilty of the Nazi war crimes by ethnic association." "Some argue"? Duh. Of course we blamed the Germans. See why. Nazi Party was elected by nearly half of the voters and there was no meaningful opposition to the Nazi politics in Germany throughout the war. Llewelyn MT (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Whatever its label, what was accomplished in 1945 and beyond east of the Oder-Neisee Line was ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is done by governments, not "local populations" - the Potsdam Agreement provided a mandate for the ethnic cleansing of all German lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line (plus centuries-established German ethnic settlements in Czechoslovakia and Hungary). (2) If you will do some research you will find pictures of expelled Germans stuffed into railway cars - it's not that difficult to find on the internet. (3) Poles did in fact take part in preparing proposed maps of shifting the boundary of Poland to the Oder-Neisse line. Again, research will readily reveal such matters. Such proposals date from early in the war and involve the Exile Polish government in London. (4) Several of the Polish contributers to the English language Wikipedia over the years have, via various outbursts, created the tone of the "collective guilt for Nazi war crimes by ethnic association." Again, a little research will bear this out. Note: Of course such ethnic Polish contributers could be located outside of Poland in any of several countries. Caveat to #(1) above: the orginal mandate from the Potsdam Conference was for the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and from within the 1937 boundaries of Poland west of the Curzon Line. But that fine print didn't stop the Polish Communist government from ethnic cleansing most of the German eastern territory that had been temporarily assigned to Polish Administration by the Potsdam Agreement, pending the final Peace Treaty of World War 2. Caveat #2: Ethnic Cleansing: it is up to the governments to control/manage/represent "local populations" -- by not doing so in some situations the results lead to ethnic cleansing; in other situations the government deliberately incites one part of the population to engage in ethnic cleansing (this includes "participating" in the ethnic cleansing via use of government militas/police/other military). ANNRC (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Llewelyn that a sub-article should neither hold less nor just the same information as the respective section(s) in the parental article, and I agree with Llewelyn that the present structure needs to be optimized. I think the confusing structure contributes to the partial redundancy of the articles, and is caused by the unability to cut the masses of information along properly defined lines. Finding such lines however is difficult: Right now, the articles on "German history outside Germany" are split along the lines of settlement vs exodus on the one hand, and territorial definitions on the other hand, with the latter causing most of the difficulties. There just were no defined stable territories over history, including Germany itself. What kind of a hierarchy would you propose to solve this? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all I do admire the editorial balance of this article. It gives key points and sends you to many pages on subtopics for more info. We should create some logical structure to the whole series. The best would be to take the post-war borders into account. I'm pretty certain we could get rid of German exodus from Eastern Europe and Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century. Relevant parts from the first could be moved here. The other may not even be worth keeping, but I'm not a historian so it's not for me to decide. From a purely technical POV that's a substandard article. Llewelyn MT (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your rationales. Regarding the "Exodus" article: that one is no more than a dab page filled with abundant masses of unsourced redundant stuff. I'd support turning it into a real dab page or even deletion. Regarding the unsourced "20th cty emigration" article, that could be merged to "German minority in PL" (in other words - deleted as well). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: The 20th cty emigration was turned by a dedicated editor into a sourced, solid article about post-war emigration. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi-occupied Warsaw

Poland's old and new borders, 1945. Territory previously part of Germany is identified in pink

How does the unsourced paragraph about atrocities in Nazi-occupied Warsaw fit in this article? Of course it needs to be outlined that the expulsion of Germans was - among other reasons - justified by holding them collectively guilty of the preceeding Nazi atrocities. This is already stated and sourced, and the atrocities itself already have their own articles. What qualifies the Warsaw events to be in this article? How does the paragraph comply with WP:UNDUE? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Warsaw "events" as you call it, are a very important part of the countless crimes that the Nazi Germany commited in Poland therefore it has a place in the article. Loosmark (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was a Nazi crime committed in Poland, but the question is why it is in this article? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It was one of the biggest crimes against the Poles plus the capital was completely devastated by the Nazi bandits. It is therefore useful to explain why many Polish people felt they cannot longer live in the same country with Germans anymore. You know to prevent the casual reader of the article thinking these expulsion came "out the blue". Loosmark (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The casual reader should receive the message that the expulsions were agreed to at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. They should also be aware that Stalin outmaneuvered the gullible Western Allies at both those conferences. Stalin didn't care about the Poles (he killed 22,000 Poles, mostly Polish military officers, at Katyn in 1940); Stalin was more concerned about gaining back lands lost in the early 1920s, namely lands within the 1937 Polish border east of the Curzon Line. That land area had a population which included 40% ethnic Poles. Stalin needed somewhere to dump those Poles, so he proposed that Germans be moved west & the Poles be moved west. Roosevelt was dying in 1945 - he was easily outmaneuvered by Stalin. By the Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945 Churchill had lost power and had to leave the conference early, and Truman was tied down by Roosevelt's commitments, so Stalin got his way again. The casual reader should also receive the message that the "Wild" expulsions by both Russian and Polish authorities were begun east of the Oder-Neisse Line and long before the end of July 1945 Potsdam Conference which ONLY authorized the ethnic cleansing of Germans from within the 1937 borders of Poland, and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The Potsdam Agreement separated all German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line from "Occupation Germany" (all of that German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line had been part of the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany prior to the Potsdam Conference). Most of that German territory was placed under temporary Polish Administration pending the final Peace Treaty for World War 2. The Potsdam Agreement also stipulated that Northern East Prussia to be placed under temporary Soviet Administration pending the final Peace Treaty for World War 2. Note: there is a distinction between "Occupation" and "temporary Administration" as delineated by the Potsdam Agreement. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill were in favor of Poland extending all the way to the Oder-Neisse Line.ANNRC (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of writting these long rants on this talk page? A lot of what you write is true however this is the expulsion of the Germans article not the territorial changes or the Potsdam Agreement article. Let me repeat again, the terrible Nazi-German crimes which caused countless victims were responsible for the anti-German feelings among Poles. This is crucial as otherwise the Germans could have remained in postwar Poland as Polish citizens of German nationality. Another thing is that nobody here is arguing that Stalin wish to grab as much teritory as possible wasn't the main driving force behind the teritorial changes but wihtout everything that happen before that he would have never been able to pull that off. Loosmark (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So-called "long rants" are better than short half-truths (which seem to thrive on such Talk pages). If enough short half-truths are assembled in, say, a conspiracy, then they are proclaimed as TRUE. Boundaries are somewhat arbitrary re the background of such matters as "expulsions of the Germans" . . . so, "territorial changes", "the Potsdam Agreement", "Nazi-occupied Warsaw" could become boundary issues, depending upon their substance and how salient/germane such substance is to the matter at hand. Re your point about Germans remaining in "Poland" (you use that term without defining which Poland you are talking about, whether it be the 1937 boundary Poland (minus, of course, the territory east of the Curzon Line), or the added on Potsdam directed Polish Temporary Administrative areas of German territory): you seem to be missing the point that it was not up to the Poles as to whether or not relatively large populations of Germans were to remain -- Stalin called the shots. There was no separate Polish freedom that somehow skirted Stalin. Poland was Stalin's flower bed - he didn't want any German flowers in his flower bed; rather, he wanted nice, obedient Polish Communists.ANNRC (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And what are these half-truths you are talking about? I really don't understand what point are you trying to make. I already agreed that Stalin was calling the shots, my point was simply that without all the sh*ts the Nazis did things would have been very different. And yes the Polish communist were indeed very obedient to Stalin (note that the German commies in the DDR were just as obedient) but a great part of Polish population was both anti-communist and anti-soviet so from that perspective there wasn't really much a difference if the Germans stayed where they were. Loosmark (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish German history was never too friendly but WW2 and what happened in Poland at that time was "SOMETHING"..Loosmark is right that if not for the war the anti-German sentiment in Poland would not be even close to what it was right after the war. It was probably hard to find people in Poland at that time who would feel sorry for the Germans driven out of their homes. Almost every Polish family lost somebody due to the German invasion...I hope our German editors here will understand how sensitive this subject is for Polish editors. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC: Regarding Polish family losses in WW2, the Soviets occupied ca half of Poland between Sept 1939 and June 1941. They contributed to the losses to Polish families - anyone who lived in that area during that time was aware of Soviet actions. Here's from Wikipedia, Subj "Soviet invasion of Poland": "The 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland was a military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939, during the early stages of World War II, sixteen days after the beginning of the Nazi German attack on Poland. It ended in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army. . . . During the existence of the People's Republic of Poland, the invasion was a taboo subject, almost omitted from the official history in order to preserve the illusion of "eternal friendship" between members of the Eastern Bloc.[15]"ANNRC (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very right ANNRC. Anti-Soviet sentiments in Poland were also very strong after the war. I would like to say something positive here...Anti-Russian sentiments are still strong in Poland today but you can't say the same about the sentiments towards the Germans, they are rather positive. Looks like the old wounds are slowly healing. Thank you for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment below was somewhere else when I introduced it and got swept away when the thread "grew". It does NOT refer to the above comment. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing collective guilt here, a concept that played a role in 1945, and as such is explained already in the article. The outdated collective guilt concept however must not be the basis for this article - the expellees did not destroy Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What a silly straw man; I'm not are arguing collective guilt and I most energetically reject such accusations. My point was the expulsion of Germans needs to be placed in the proper historical contex. Just consider this: after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor killing around 3000 people there were a lot of anti-Japanese feelings, they were put in camps etc. The Nazi Germany brutally killed many millions of Poles, almost everybody lost at least some family member etc. In that context it was impossible to expect that the German and Polish people would leave together as if nothing happened. It's very regrettable that many Germans were expelled but their expulsion was a direct consequence of the Nazis' atrocities and horrors. Loosmark (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Loosmark here. Anti German sentiment was very strong in Poland at the time. (not anymore) People were terrified by the sound of the German language alone. I remember my grandmother telling me that if I had ever suddenly shouted "halt!" behind her back she would have died. She was in real hell during the German occupation. You have to understand that Skäpperöd. On the other hand ordinary Germans can not be blindly blamed for everything. Wermaht soldiers for example just followed orders, even while burning Warsaw or shooting at Polish or Jewish civilians. They had no choice, they fought for their country and were tottaly brainwashed. I have heard many nice stories about Germans in Poland even from my Grandmother who told me about Germans she knew who were afraid of Gestapo themselves.--Jacurek (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek I think we should be carefull with the explanation they were following orders. To a degree that is correct but at some point that stops to be an excuse, most certainly when it comes to war crimes and horrible crimes against civilian population. Mind that many Nazis at the Nuremberg trials and elsewhere were saying that they were just following orders and didn't have other choice. The view of most post-WII tribunals like Nuremberg, Tokyo and more modern ones like Haag is that following orders can't be used as an excuse. Loosmark (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, you have a good point. I was talking about regular German soldiers, civilians, women, children etc... What could the soldiers do? Once ordered to shoot at the civilians they had no choice. And if the civilians were Jewish they probably believed that they are doing the right thing. Nazi propaganda thought them that the Jews are the biggest threat to them...threat to the "superior" race. We know how ridiculous that German superiority complex was, but many Germans at that time really believed that they are better and that the Jews or pure Poles have to go. I don't blame them for being brainwashed. Not all Germans were so stupid to follow Hitler blindly either. My concern here is the fact that sometimes people are trying to portray Germans as the victims of the war. German suffering was not even close to the suffering and the destruction their country (Nazi Germany) inflicted on other nations. Germany is a democratic, prosperous nation now, nation full of happy people which are looking into the bright future. Polish Jews are no longer here…1000 years of rich culture and their people have disappeared... and this is the difference.--Jacurek (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish poster mourning the reduction of German population in cities belonging to the Polish Corridor

Pre-WW2 Polish propaganda about "the western historical boundaries of Poland" including Czechoslovakia and large parts of Germany.

Well, has somebody ever imagined that the statement "is a democratic, prosperous nation now, nation full of happy people which are looking into the bright future" could be made today (or could have been made earlier) about certain states if only they in 1918 (and again in 1945) had taken a less hostile stance towards the numerous Germans within their newly drawn borders? After all, these goverments took effective measures to make them Germans outside their borders. And, on top of that, desire for further territorial gains "recovery" at the expense of Germany (and other states) was expressed, at least by some factions. They sowed the whirlwind in the 1920s and reaped the hurricane in the 1930s. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well many Poles as well as other people had to live outside their borders too... As for this comment They sowed the whirlwind in the 1920s and reaped the hurricane in the 1930s. it's a bit out of place as nothing can excuse the brutality of the Nazi regime. Loosmark (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To Jacurek. So after the rich jewish culture of Poland and other countries was destroyed (at this point, I want to ask what happened to the last Jews in Poland which survived the Holocaust?), it was good and clever to destroy also the rich culture of the polish Germans, the rich culture of the Silesians, of the Pomeranians, of the East Prussians (the culture of the people which built cities like Breslau, Stettin, Danzig and Königsberg)? And also the culture of the Germans from Bohemia and Moravia, of Slovakia, of Russia, of the Baltic States, of Yugoslavia, of Transylvania and of Bessarabia (the culture of the People which were invited to make modern States of this countries)? And I don't think that the People which didn't survived the Expulsion are now happy People in a modern Germany full of happy People, they never arrived there, and may are buried somewhere anonymously. Jonny84 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnny..I knew that somebody will bring Polish post war anti-Semitism right away...I just knew it...What happened to Jews in Poland after the war was not mass genocide and it happened ONLY because of the the war and communist take over. Jews would never leave Poland and would still live there and prosper if not for the sick minded Nazis and their "brilliant" plans for Germany. With all the anti-Semitism that existed in Poland before the war, Poland was still the best place for the Jews to live in. Poland was their country and they loved as much as Germans loved Germany. People of Warsaw in 1939 fought to defend their city like no others and guess what...one third of them were Jewish. Now...do I think that it was good for the German culture of Stettin and Königsberg to be destroyed and that the German civilians suffered rapes and expulsions after the war. Absolutely not. But what I also think is that if not for the crazy German Nazism and if not for the war Germany started...Polish Jews would still live in Warsaw and Germans in Königsberg.--Jacurek (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You neglected to include all of the German cities identified by Jonny: it wasn't just "German culture of Stettin and Koenigsberg (that was) destroyed" . . . Jonny didn't just mention Stettin and Koenigsberg; he said, "cities like Breslau, Stettin, Danzig and Königsberg". What happened to Breslau's University ??????? ANNRC (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ANNRC, please do not try to provoke conflicts with unconstructive comments. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Polish Jews would still live in Warsaw" This is questionable after the bigger part of the last Jews in Poland which survived were discriminated and were forced to leave Poland between 1968 and 1970. Maybe you forgot about it? Does Jews blame you for this? Should you expel some Poles? Not? Maybe for the pogroms? Wouldn't it be justified? -- And your argument "it happened ONLY because of the the war and communist take over." is so good like "it happened ONLY because the Nazis take over." --Jonny84 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonny, 1968 events are also connected to the war and the communist takeover after. And no, I did not "forget" about it. Perhaps you should read more about it so you can understand what happened. I can assure you that if Hitler was never born, there would be no need to build the Museum of the History of the Polish Jews in Warsaw because these people would be still there and not in heaven as they are now.... but thanks for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I find comments like yours silly. Nobody here is arguing that the expulsions of the Germans were a good thing. The point is simply that after the Nazi Germany triggered the most brutal and horrifying war in hitherto history, a war in which 6 million Polish citizien died (many of them in most atrocious circumstances) and where the majority of Polish cities were devastated and destroyed, it is completely unrealistic to expect that the Polish people still wanted to live on with the Germans as it nothing happened. I'd say that Hitler and the Nazis are directly responsable for the distruction of the rich German culture. Loosmark (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody disputed what happenend in Poland? But... recompensing crimes with crimes is a very questionable thing. There is no law that links crimes with the expulsion of people as a punishment or there is no law that recompense crimes with crimes. Somebody who make crimes isn't better like Germans which make crimes. A crime is a crime. And a crime could never be a justification for another crimes and wrongs. - Maybe you find this silly, but for some people it's maybe silly to argue that expellees have a good life now (like nothing happened to them) and that there is nothing wrong with expulsions, "cause they're living now in a modern democratic state where everybody is swimming like in gold". And at last, Polish people hadn't to live on with Silesians, Pomeranians and East-Prussians, 'cause they lived by the majority outside of the polish settlement area, so what is your point? This is a silly argument. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, of course it was very wrong what happened to the German people who lost everything and had to leave their homes, but the question is: Who is there to blame for it? The Soviets? Three stooges in Yalta, Teheran and Potsdam? Poles, who could say as much as the bricks in the Berlin Wall and had to leave their Kresy homes behing as well?... or maybe the Germans themselves for starting this evil conflict in the first place?--Jacurek (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to blame somebody, but there is a possibility to undo. - Jonny84 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonny84, the expulsions of Germans cannot be compared in any way with the crimes that the Nazi Germany perpetuated on Polish and Jewish people. If you don't get that i suggest you take and read some good book about Auschwitz, Dachau or Treblinka. I don't understand what do you mean by Polish people hadn't to live on with Silesians, Pomeranians and East-Prussians, 'cause they lived by the majority outside of the polish settlement area. Perhaps you should elaborate a bit and try to make some sense. Loosmark (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a pause, take a deep breath and then read a second time: Nobody compared the expulsion with the Holocaust and the sufferings of the Jews. I only called the expulsion a crime, without any comparison. Think about this and if necessary also a second time. The only ones who tries to make comparisons are you and Jacurek. -- Jonny84 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you try to backpedal now. Nice try but you said this Somebody who make crimes isn't better like Germans which make crimes. A crime is a crime. Loosmark (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And where is the relation? --Jonny84 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalin was the main driver behind the expulsion of the Germans. Do you really believe that Stalin was concerned about the suffering of the Poles by the Nazis????? Churchill and Roosevelt never envisioned the almost 100% ethnic German expulsion from east of the Oder-Neisse Line. Again, Stalin was the driver in all of that (Polish Communists were Stalin's lap dogs). Stalin preyed on the dying Roosevelt at Yalta, and outmaneuvered Truman and Churchill's replacement at Potsdam. You two are looking for Eternal Justice arising from what is really Stalin's outhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

IP 76.something could you please sign your comments? Just adding text makes it a bit confusing who wrote what. Now regarding your comment it is true that Stalin was the main driver behind the expulsion of the Germans but the suffering caused by the Nazis was still an extremelly important factor, without it he surely wouldn't have been able to push his agenda and neither would the Poles have supported the expulsion. Loosmark (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Often, a bot adds the missing signature, but when this fails, a regular user can add a signature like {{unsigned|76.14.240.177|06:52, 24 June 2009}}, like I did above. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between the Nazis persecuting the Poles and Stalin wanting to get back the lands east of the Curzon Line that Russia lost to Poland in the early 1920s. Russia/the Soviet Union was going to get back those lands, period, at the end of WW2 & Stalin wanted somewhere to dump the 40% of that population that was Polish . . . the Germans could have treated all Poles as long lost Hun brothers during WW2 & Stalin would have still demanded former Russian territory east of the Curzon Line at war's end. BTW, since the Huns "courted" the local ladies in both German areas and in Polish areas in ancient times there is a sense in which Poles & Germans share a certain level of Hunnish genetics -- some Germans reveled in the Hun label in WW1, since they self-identified with being modeled on such fierce warriors.ANNRC (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh but there is a connection; first Stalin would probably have never been able to push any teritorial demands on Germany if not for the Nazi crimes on Polish and all other people. And secondly without the crimes there wouldn't had been so much anti-German feelings and they could have still become Polish citizens instead of being expulsed. Loosmark (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its not that simple: (1) Stalin and the Nazis agreed in 1939 to a phased attack on Poland, in order to partition it . . . but Stalin had to wait until 1945 to dump the Polish population of pre-war Poland from east of the Curzon Line into the extended area west of the Curzon Line. (2) On your other point, only a small percentage of all Germans expelled starting in 1945 came from areas within the 1937 borders of Poland. (3) As stated above, in the lands east of the Curzon Line within the 1937 borders of Poland, 40% of that population was Polish. ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking for arguments here whether or not the Nazis did evil things and with that created responding hatred. Neither do I need a confirmation here that this hatred (or sentiment) was by some applied not only to the perpetrators, but to the German people in general. And that this also played a role in respect to the expulsions, at least in Poland and Czechoslovakia. All this is undisputed, mentioned, and sourced:

• The "Background" section already mentions lebensraum concept, Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, the infliction of a variety of evils on occupied people, involvement of ethnic Germans, and gives the respective links to Nazi atrocities.
• The section "Punishment of ethnic Germans for Nazi aggression" is entirely devoted to the connection between Nazi atrocities and expulsions.

What makes the Warsaw events exceptional or important in respect to the expulsions? Why is this not WP:undue in this article? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you answer your question in the above. This is part of the background which as you yourself note is undisputed and mentioned. Removing it is un-mentioning it. Additionally - and why it's in the "Background" section rather than a different one is the (unsourced) preceding sentence which gives as an example the supposed attempts at changing demographics in interwar Poland. The Nazi Pabst Plan is another, and in fact, better, example of attempts at changing demographics.radek (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Include a link to Generalplan Ost in the background section, delete the specifics about Warsaw per undue/unsourced. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know...I think that the atrocities committed in Warsaw and in Poland in general are important here because they were (among other things of course) a justifications and excuse for the Allies in their decision to start massive population transfers. They knew that because of the German atrocities nobody will oppose their decisions. Kind of "we can do whatever we want now with these "terrible" Germans, they deserve it". This is my opinion at least. Maybe rewording somehow would work? But please be careful with this sensitive issues. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If a citation can be found linking Warsaw to deportations/expulsions, I support keeping it. Otherwise, remove. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, There are references in Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße to the relocation to the former German territories of residents of destroyed Warsaw and the employment of German forced labor in the clearing operations in post war Warsaw

Also the Polish census data from 1950 indicates that 480,000 former residents of pre war Warsaw city and Warsaw province were resident in the Recovered Territories in Dec 1950.

The homeless folks of 1945 Warsaw needed a place to stay and somebody had to clean up the mess and rebuild the city

One cannot now deny that the Expulsions and the destruction of Warsaw are related.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job Woogie10w. Loosmark (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

By "Recovered Territories" is meant the Eastern German provinces still (1950) under Potsdam Agreement-directed Polish Temporary Administration pending, per the Potsdam Conference, the Final Peace Treaty to end WW2 in Europe.ANNRC (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By support keeping "it", does "it" mean verbatim, or can you also support the proposal I made two days ago (below) and which I have already inserted this morning? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

oppose. Skäpperöd did not provide any good reason for removing the specifics about Warsaw therefore WP:AINT applies. Loosmark (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I presented as reasons: Unsourced and WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all Jacurek said, the question is whether the Warsaw events should be prominently included in addition to all that is already there on this topic. That from a general perspective the Warsaw events were not - as it is put now - the "most dramatic ethnic cleansing" should be clear to everyone here. And obviously there is no source in any way supporting the prominence given to the current description of the events in respect to the post-war expulsions. All arguing above is for the general importance of Nazi atrocities in the background, on which there already is a consensus.

So how about ammending the paragraph dealing with the Nazi atrocities the following way:

After this sentence: "[...] Following the racist concept of lebensraum, the Nazis devastated Eastern Europe during World War II, introducing previously unknown ethnic cleansing practices.", we add "Local concepts like Pabst and Nisko Plan were in the course of the war replaced by the general concepts of Generalplan Ost and Final Solution, blueprints for the genocide on Slavs and Jews." Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Applied on 27 June. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No censensus was reached but you decided to delete it anyway?. Loosmark (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed replacement stood unobjected for two days, I took that as a consensus since the replacement addresses all concerns raised above: Pabst plan is mentioned, but with due weight integrated in a bigger context. Also, the replacement, though unsourced, is not likely to ever be challenged because the information is thouroughly undisputed. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing conduct

Please everyone make sure that they have read

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Final_decision
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Final_decision

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?--Jacurek (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I ask all editors interested to use this section only to present sources concerning the disputed sentence:

The most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars.

The sources need to

• (1) establish its factual accuracy (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR)
• (2) establish its connection to the expulsions of Germans (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, if (1) can be established)
• (3) establish its due weight in the background section (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, if (1) and (2) can be established, and taken into account that the following line has already been added to the Nazi atrocities coverage per the above proposal: "Local concepts like Pabst and Nisko Plan were in the course of the war replaced by the general concepts of Generalplan Ost and Final Solution, blueprints for the genocide on Slavs and Jews.")

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish statistical sourcebook 1957

User:Woogie10w presented as a source Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße (most probably the Schieder report, 1953?)Polish statistical sourcebook 1957 saying "Polish census data from 1950 indicates that 480,000 former residents of pre war 1939 Warsaw city(150,000) and Warsaw province(330,000) were resident in the Recovered Territories in Dec 1950."

Given that in 1950 about 5 million people had settled the former German territories, this means that about 10% percent of them originated from the Warsaw Voivodeship including Warsaw City. Per the 1931 census, Poland had 32,108,000 inhabitants, 1,179,500 of whom in Warsaw City and 2,460,900 in the Warsaw Voivodeship, which is above 10% (see Voivodeships_of_Poland and Polish census of 1931 for the data). Thus, it does not seem that peolple from Warsaw and the Warsaw Voivodeship accounted for an exeptional proportion of the settlers. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1950 Polish census questioned people on their residence in 1939 or that of their mother in 1939. The data was published in the 1957 Rocznik statystyczny / Glówny Urzad Statystyczny Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej., For example one can verify that 1.1 million former German citizens lived in the Recovered territories and 2.1 million persons were born in the former Polish territories in the east(USSR). The data in the 1950 census for Warsaw city and province makes sense, 480,000 people were homeless refugees in 1945 and were resettled in the former German territories. Also remember that 8 million of the people in 1939 Poland remanined in the USSR, you can't compare 1939 and 1946 Poland--Woogie10w (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have the complete figures for the 1931,1946 and 1950 Polish Census. Please ask if you have any questions.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether or not people from destroyed Warsaw settled the former German territories at a significantly higher rate than other Poles did. The numbers I have are most certainly the same you have, though cited in a different source: 1950, the former German territories had a population of 5.9 million, 4.8 million of whom were settlers, the rest "autochtones". Of the 4.8 million settlers, 480,000 came from Warsaw and the Warsaw voivodeship, that is 10%. Now if Warsaw people were more active in the settlement compared to other Poles, their percentage of the settlers' total would need to be significantly higher than their percentage of the Polish population. As noted above, the pre-war 1931 census indicates that well above 10% of the Polish population originated in Warsaw and the Warsaw voivodeship. So their distribution among the settler population just resembles their distribution in the total population. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to put this on a spreadsheet--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Per 1950 Polish Census

Former German/Recovered Territories-1950(By Origin 1939)

Total Warsaw origin 508,200 (8.6%) Population Recovered Territories
Total East Poland(USSR) origin 1,553,512 (26.1%) Population Recovered Territories
Total West Europe origin 152,000 (2.7%) Population Recovered Territories
Total Operation Vistula Ukrainians 157,000 (2.8%) Population Recovered Territories
Total Germans Remaining 1,165,000 (19.6%) Population Recovered Territories
Balance other regions Poland 2,401,300 (40.4%) Population Recovered Territories
Total Recovered Territories 5,936,000 23.7% Polish Population

Entire Polish Population 1950 (By Origin 1939)

The Total Warsaw origin population was 3,357,000 of which (15%)lived in Recovered Territories
Total East Poland(USSR) origin 2,136,000 of which (72.7%)lived in Recovered Territories
Total West Europe origin c.160,000 of which (+90.0%)lived in Recovered Territories
Total estimated Ukrainians c.200,000 of which (+75.0%)lived in Recovered Territories
Total Germans Remaining 1,200,000 of which (+95.0%)lived in Recovered Territories
Balance other regions Poland 17,982,000 of which (13.3%)lived in Recovered Territories
Total Polish Population 25 million

The 1950 Population for Warsaw region was 2.845 million, including the city, of which 199,000(7%) was from other Polish regions. The 1950 Warsaw city population was 659,000 compared to 1.4 million in 1939. The 1939 Warsaw region, including the city, population was about 3.8 million.

A summary indicates a total 1950 Warsaw origin population of 3.357 million- 2,645,000 79 % remained in the region, 500,000 (15%) migrated to the former German regions and 200,000 (6%) to other regions in pre-war Poland. The Warsaw region had a net decline in Population of 1.3 million from 1939-1950. 800,000 due to war deaths, a migration out of 700,000 and a migration in of 200,000 from other Polish regions.

The numbers are there--Woogie10w (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The analysis indicates the case for Warsaw is overstated, that's why numerical analysis is essential to understanding this type of problem. Also, please note well that the population of the former German territories can vary in different sources because the Polish administrative regions of 1939 and 1950 are not the same in the case of Posen and Kattowitz.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the statistics. Could you please explain how they support the points (1), (2) and (3) outlined and bolded above? I lost track. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted the figures so that editors will have a better understanding of the Warsaw issue. I always try to use original sources of statistics rather than relying on secondary sources for an interpretation of their meaning. The sole statistic of 500,000 people from Warsaw in the new Polish areas needed to be viewed in the context of the entire population of Warsaw from 1939-1950, as a component population of the former German territories and Poland's population as a whole. The figures tell us that Warsaw had a net decline in population of 500K and the German territories a gain of 500K from Warsaw. From a NPOV we can say due to the war that 500,000 displaced persons from Warsaw were relocated to the former German territories along with 2.4 million other persons from Polish areas that suffered war related devestation, there should be no need to use emotional rhetoric about German occupation policy in Warsaw. Please ask if you need a clarification of the data or further information.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I find all of the data useful. Though the source does not establish a special significance of the Warsaw atrocities in regard to the expulsion of Germans, I encourage you to use all the data above (and additional data from the source) to expand

• Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II#Repopulation
• Recovered Territories#Resettlement
• Historical Demography of Poland

In these articles/sections, some of the data is already cited, but not all, so all these articles would benefit. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that was my point the source does not establish a special significance of the Warsaw atrocities in regard to the expulsion of Germans We only need to mention that Poles displaced by the war were relocated to the German territories, there should be no necessity to use emotional rhetoric about German occupation policy in Warsaw--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is to decide what is "emotional" rhetoric? And what exactly is the point here, to avoid making the Nazis look worse than they were? Believe me given all the attrocities they did in Warsaw there is no such risk. Loosmark (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße

In my opinion we should cut out the emotional rhetoric about the destruction of Warsaw, it does not belong in this article. Just mention that persons displaced by the destruction were resettled in the former German areas. Let's keep it NPOV. The city was destroyed, people were living in the rubble of Warsaw, these people sent to the former German lands. German POWs cleared the rubble.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify the following issues:

• The source, is it Schieder? 1953?
• What has the POW-issue to do with the expulsions?

Skäpperöd (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The source, is it Schieder? 1953?

Yes for example - Band 2, s. 56 -"Mein Haus ist besetzt von Warshauer Polen"--Woogie10w (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• What has the POW-issue to do with the expulsions?

See Band 2 s. 516 ""wurden wir wieder ins Lager gesteckt und kamen dann nach Warshau, wo wir Aufraumungsarbeiten in der fast vollig zerstorn Stadt zu verrichten hatte. Unterbringung ebenfalls hinter Stahldraht--Woogie10w (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

POWs were used for all kinds of work, but what is the connnection between of some German POWs subjected to forced labour in Warsaw and the expulsion of the German population? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some German civilians were held in Poland after the war to clean up the rubble and clear mines. They were later expelled.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They were civilian "POWs". Some persons were held in Poland as forced laborers and later expelled. I knew a man(Polish Volksdeutsch) who was kept as a coal miner in Silesia for 5 years after the war as a military POW and then expelled to Germany. His wife remarked that he returned on the verge of death. He was with the SS in Warsaw!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story, now i'm gonna tell you one I heard from an old woman. During the Warsaw uprising Nazis entered the home where a classmate and a good friend of her lived, dragged her out, accused her of helping AK, her mom was begging them to let her go but they just shot her in the head. She was 17 years old. Loosmark (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting story. It's quite sad too. Did the old woman tell you any more stories, or was this the only one? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This story is sad and full of pathos. Is the old woman still living? Has her story been investigated by the IPN. Was she present herself during the atrocity, or did she hear about it? Do you consider her reliable? Perhaps her story can be included in this article too. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this source might provide some useful data. Though it does not establish a special significance of the Warsaw atrocities in regard to the expulsion of Germans, I encourage you to read

• Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II#Internment and forced labor in Poland

and use any additional data you find in the source to expand that section. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the section, interesting. However, German Wikipedia does a much better job on this topic--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Are you contesting that the deliberate destruction of Warsaw really happened? If not then stop making drama all over this talk page. Your "coverage" of the Nazi atrocities is weak because it is not specific, it only mentions Nazis' concepts and plans without saying what exactly did they do. Local residents of Warsaw didn't care about Nazis' plans, ideas and concepts instead the countless people murdered and the total desctruction of the beatiful city is what counted for them. Loosmark (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please keep on topic! If you cannot bring reputable sources in article's context Piotr Konieczny's advice should apply If a citation can be found linking Warsaw to deportations/expulsions, I support keeping it. Otherwise, remove. - Elysander (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are references in Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße to the relocation in the former German territories of residents from destroyed Warsaw and the employment of German forced labor in the clearing operations in post war Warsaw

Also the Polish census data from 1950 indicates that 480,000 former residents of pre war 1939 Warsaw city(150,000) and Warsaw province(330,000) were resident in the Recovered Territories in Dec 1950.

The refugees of destroyed Warsaw needed a place to stay and somebody had to clean up the mess and rebuild the city

One cannot now deny that the Expulsions and the destruction of Warsaw are related--Woogie10w (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressed in the "sources" section. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have made myself very clear in the discussion above, but I will clarify again, in detail:

• I do not contest that most of Warsaw was destroyed during the war, but view it as undue in respect to this article per WP:UNDUE. Despite this my view, I have already linked the Pabst Plan along with additional information for a broader perspective which should suffice.
• I do not contest that during the war, 800,000 Warsaw residents, including 450,000 Jews, died, but view it as undue in respect to this article per WP:UNDUE.
• I contest that it was "the most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing" per WP:NOR, WP:V
• I contest that "the Germans" did that (=collective guilt) per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV
• I contest the phrasing "racial and cultural annihilation of the city" as an emotionally loaded totally inadequate way to put it, and its inclusion in this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:V
• I contest the phrasing "centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars",as an emotionally loaded totally inadequate way to put it, and its inclusion in this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:V
• In general, I contest the inclusion of any part of the sentence beyond the Pabst Plan mention already included in the article, as there is no direct connection to the post-war expulsions.
• In general, I further contest that editors - aware of the wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:3RR and the respective ArbCom rulings above - revert war to include unsourced material without even trying to provide the required sources as outlined above. I further contest that it is ok to not comment on compromise proposals for two days and after its implementation again add the contested unsourced stuff in addition to the already installed compromise sentence.

I really wish that the involved editors will find back to a concentrated and focussed atmosphere, and provide the necessary sources to determine if the Warsaw events really should be given more weight in the background to the expulsion of Germans as they are given already. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly Skäpperöd since you seem to have a very strong POV on this matter, you most certainly don't seem to be the right person to evaluate what is NPOV, undue etc. It was already explained to you why and how was what happened in Warsaw relevent but you keep having emotionaly loaded reaction with all this UNDUE repeating. I don't understand what do you mean by contesting that the Germans did that, who else then? maybe the martians? And why are you contesting the phrasing racial and cultural annihilation of the city as an "emotionally loaded totally inadequate way to put it"? On October 1944 the SS chief Heinrich Himmler said: The city must completely disappear from the surface of the earth and serve only as a transport station for the Wehrmacht. No stone can remain standing. Every building must be razed to its foundation. Suggesting that what the Germans did in Warsaw had no effect on the expulsions is bizzare to say the least. One last think could please reduce of the amount of ALPHABETSOUP a bit, that would be nice. Loosmark (talk)

Use of the phrase "the Germans" is an awkward shorthand for what it's intended to represent, namely the Nazi apparatus related to the location of the events. One connotation flowing from such named usage is the "German collective guilt" implication. German collective guilt was rejected by the 1946 Nuremberg proceedings. Implying collective guilt, in itself, implies an agenda. Note: By "Nazi apparatus" in the above reference is meant the broadest interpretation of line and staff.ANNRC (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Implying collective guilt? Don't be ridiculous, by the same logic one could for example never use "the Soviets" because it would "imply collective guilt". Another thing is that not everybody involved in the crimes was a Nazi, the Wehrmacht commited crimes on their own. Loosmark (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "the Germans" - just think of these articifial analogy:

"In 1998, the Poles stole 654,321 cars in the Czech Republic."

This is of course false and offends all decent Poles who never steal anything, it should be "Polish gangs ..." or something similar. Likewise, Warsaw was not destroyed by "the Germans", but by "Nazi German forces" or something similar. Hope that helps. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that during WW2 there weren't any other German forces of note so if one says that the Germans destroyed Warsaw it's clear what it means (nobody would really think that every German participated in that). There are countless books about WW2 which even use just the term Germans for events perpetuated only by SS for example as in "the Germans the rounded up the Jews and arrested them" and so on and so forth. And btw I hope you aren't trying to imply that all Wehrmacht members were Nazis? That doesn't make any sense. Loosmark (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways -- sure there were non-Nazis in the Wehrmacht who committed crimes, but the overwhelming number of crimes were committed by "the Nazis", "the SS". "The Soviets" isn't an ethnic designation, so comparing the use of "the Soviets" with "the Germans" is an artificial construct. Poles seem to be very sensitive to the implication that average Polish civilians participated in the ethnic cleansing of German civilians, especially the "Wild" expulsions . . . so, when "the Poles" are named as the expellers, various Poles have come forth to attempt to qualify that "it was mostly" Polish Communists/Militia. etc., and thus there were very few "average Poles" who were cruel (& they put a further caveat to that, namely that if in fact some average Poles were cruel it is somewhat understandable that they were, given the years they suffered). So, "the Poles" don't like the generalization of "the Poles" to be used regarding the "Wild" expulsions, etc., but according to you it is perfectly acceptable to use the vague generalization "the Germans" regarding the destruction of Warsaw. In the context used, it connotes collective guilt, regardless of how many books casually use similar wording.ANNRC (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are important differences, 1.) the communism was imposed to Poland from the outside (by the Soviet), the great majority of Polish population was anti-communists while the majority of Germans clearly supported the Nazi regime 2) the transfers of population were decided in the Potsdam Conference therefore there was some sort of international legal basis for those events while of course no international body ever agreed with the bandit destruction of Warsaw. Final about the books, I'm sorry it is not up to you to decide what word connotes collective guilt, if many books use it then it is acceptable to use it on wikipedia too since we are based on sources. Loosmark (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing what do you mean with the comment that "the Soviets isn't a racial group"? I hope you don't think that the Germans are a racial group!?!? Loosmark (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the majority of the Germans voted for the Nazis when they came to power? I used "racial" as in "human race" -- some participants don't seem to understand anthropological terms such as "ethnic", as in "ethnic group". The Communist Poles in Moscow prepared to take over Poland as lap dogs of the Soviet Union upon the Red Army's 1945 takeover of all of Poland (just as they did in September 1939 in the Soviet sector of Poland). The Soviets found a way to put pressure on the Brits to break their promises to the London Polish government in Exile. However, the Soviets liked one proposal which came out early in the Polish Exile Government in London, namely the idea of moving Poland's western boundary to the Oder-Neisse Line. This fit in well with the Soviet need to dump the Poles from east of the Curzon Line into rump Poland (actually, rump 1937 Poland plus the so-called "Recovered Territories" ... that title is a bit absurd: "Recovered" after 1,000 years????). Finally, I didn't claim it was up to me to determine what word connotes collective guilt. Those things are governed by convention. Have you read anything on linguistics? Note: Regarding your comment on "many books use it", Academia doesn't rely upon the book market to give that sort of guidance to scholarly research.ANNRC (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the majority of the Germans supported the Nazi regime and almost nobody protested when they occupied Czechoslovakia, when they invided Poland etc. etc. I used "racial" as in "human race" -- some participants don't seem to understand anthropological terms such as "ethnic", as in "ethnic group". What the hell are you talking about? Neither the Soviets or the Germans are a racial group, I can only conclude that you originaly meant to say that the Soviets aren't an ethnic group and got a bit confused. The comments about the book market and Academia are absurd, many good books about WW2 by highly respectable authors use "Germans" all over when the meaning is clear from the context. The "collective guilt" cries we hear all over this page are both boring and out place. Loosmark (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the above to read "'The Soviets' isn't an ethnic designation". The Germans are an ethnic group; "the Soviets" is/are a political group. The Nazis knew how to deal with protest, so it isn't surprising "almost nobody protested". BTW, which "occupation" of Czechoslovakia are you talking about? (one part was internationally sanctioned; also, Slovakia was a separate issue.) Are you saying that many good books about WW2 (to include "many good encyclopedias") use "Germans" all over [the place] when the meaning is clear from the context? Are you saying that when Polish contributers attempt to qualify that very few average Poles participated in the Wild Expulsions, that their comments are "both boring and out [of] place"? Most Sudetenlanders wanted to be absorbed by Germany. The Austrian Germans voted following WW1 to join Germany but the Allies, in rejection of Pres Wilson's "self-determination" point (one of his 14 Points), denied their request.ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So basicaly your claim is that many Germans wanted to for protest for example the occupation of Poland and other Nazi's agressive policies but were just scared to do so? Interesting, do you have any source for this "revolutionary" claim? About Czechoslovakia I don't know if you are pretending or really don't know history that well but Czechoslovakia, after Hitler grabbed the Suddets from her, still existed and was occupied in March 1939. I already adressed the differences between German crimes in Warsaw and the postwar exchanges of popullation. Loosmark (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The average German became afraid of the GESTAPO in the mid-1930s. It was not Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939; Slovakia declared independence on 14 March 1939.ANNRC (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked you if you have some sources to support the claim that a significant part of Germans were against the occupation of Poland. do you have it or not? Slovakia declaring "independence" was a joke and later events proved it. But even so that doesn't change the fact that Nazi Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia. Loosmark (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic: If most of the Germans were afraid of the GESTAPO how could there be contemporary measuring sources? Is it documented that "most of the average Poles" were against the Wild Expulsions? The 30 Sept 1938 Munich Agreement provided that traditional ethnic German lands within Bohemia and Moravia be incorporated into Germany. Since that Agreement was governed by International law the land transfer is not referred to as an "occupation". Both Bohemia and Moravia were subsequently de facto smaller due to the incorporation of the above referred transfer of traditional ethnic German lands into Germany. So, the reduced Czech lands within Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by the Germans on 15 Mar 39, becoming the so-called "Protectorate". This is all getting way off topic.ANNRC (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Also, I guess I don't understand the distinction between Slovakia declaring independence in March 1939 and again in January 1993.ANNRC (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well for example it should be in some book by some Germans how absolutely shocked they were when Hitler invided Poland and they wanted so much to protest but were afraid of the Gestapo or something. Your comments about the Munich Agreement are embarrassing, the Sudetenland were foolishly given to Hitler because he promised he won't have territorial demands but of course he eaten his word only a couple of months later. Loosmark (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's you who doesn't seem to understand the distinction between a normal state as is Slovakia from 1993 and the puppet Nazi state from March 1939. Loosmark (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't read German, so I wouldn't know. Why was the Sudetenland included in Czechoslovakia in 1919 when those lands contained a vast majority of ethnic Germans? Answer: the Brits and the French were engaged in some Victor's Justice, regardless of US Pres Wilson's 14 Points. Again, this is mostly Off-Topic.ANNRC (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) So, are you saying that the majority of Slovakians were Nazis in 1939?ANNRC (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that Slovakia in 1939 was a Nazi puppet state. We could of course elaborate further the circumstances of its creation but i don't see how is that relevant here. Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So, the majority of Slovakians in 1939 were not Nazis. The Slovakian Army attacked Poland in 1939, and then later in 1941 participated in the attack on the Soviet Union. It is likely that the majority of Slovakians, whether Nazi or not, supported their Army in its attacks on Poland and the Soviet Union. An army is typically comprised of a large body of infantrymen who come from a spectrum of political persuasions.ANNRC (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are so without serious arguments that now you are comparing the Slovakian Army with the Nazis? Ok the Slovak role in the attack of Poland was minimal, they weren't doing war crimes and crimes against civilian population and in fact they even refused to occupy Zakopane as Hitler asked them so. And btw there was a strong opposition Slovak National Uprising Loosmark (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein as you present, most of the Wehrmacht wasn't "doing war crimes and crimes against civilian population". Ref: The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality / Wolfram Wette ; translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. (BTW, are you aware of the status of Harvard University?)ANNRC (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh excellent reference. I searched that book in Amazon and here is the result: http://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-History-Myth-Reality/dp/0674022130 from one of the reviews: ...Wette debunks the myth, created by former Wehrmacht officers and continued by their Allied counterparts, that the German military fought a "clean" war in the East 1941-45. He strips away the layers of obfuscation and cover-up to set the record straight: Wehrmacht and SS hand-in hand conducted a campaign of racial extermination in the USSR. --Holger H. Herwig, University of Calgary and another one In the history of WWII, the German army too often has been regarded as an unwilling tool of Adolf Hitler. Wette destroys that myth in his book, an indictment of the German army for its involvement in atrocities against Jews and people in eastern Europe. --K. Eubank (Choice). Congratulations ANNRC, with this reference you have just shot yourself in the leg ;) Loosmark (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I figured you would like parts of the book. You missed the part where it states, as paraphrased above, that "most of the Wehrmacht wasn't 'doing war crimes and crimes against civilian population.'" You should have also noticed the dates 1941-45.ANNRC (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I meant that the Amazon reviewers you quote limited their focus to eastern Europe.ANNRC (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And isn't it enough that a part of the Wehrmacht participated in the terrible crimes? Why are the dates 1941-45 relevant? Loosmark (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Partial participation should not be equated to Collective Guilt.ANNRC (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The collective guilt thing again, now even spelled as "Collective Guilt". Have you seen anybody in this thread arguing in favor of that concept? I, for example, have even already stated that I'm completely against something such absurd. What is exactly your point? Loosmark (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you agree that the Wehrmacht "in total" should not be branded as part of Collective Guilt? (Note: by use of the term "in total" is meant the on-balance behavior of the 1939-45 component of the 1935-45 18.2 million soldiers referred to in "Wehrmacht" in Wikipedia.)ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the collective guilt concept. What does that mean is that somebody just by being a member of the Wehrmacht as normal soldier isn't necessary guilty of anything. On the other hand the Wehrmacht did commit war crimes and if somebody was involved in that he's sure guilty. Loosmark (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected Expulsion of Germans after World War II for 24 hours. No more edit warring! I've reverted unsourced anti-German POV from the article. Please don't insert such things without any reliable source. Editors should discuss with each other to reach a concensus. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

anti-German POV, oh really? so now even mentioning the Nazi crimes has become anti-German POV? at least take some time to read the talk page, that sentence was contested on the basis that it was undue rather than being anti-German POV. Loosmark (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the Nazi crimes against the Poles is never an anti-German POV. But, inserting this sort of unsourced statement is an anti-German POV. It claims that "... the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars." The German carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city? Were they ordinary Germans or Nazis? Perhaps they were Germans who opposed Nazis! Which German scholar supervised such activity? Albert Einstein? Günter Grass? Loosmark, the English-language Wikipedia is not a computer game where one can insert whatever he/she wants. The statement was without any reliable source. See WP:RS. If you want to insert such statement, please add reliable source to back up your claim. We are here to create a neutral encyclopedia; inappropriate statements are erased from articles. AdjustShift (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you to take a look at this AdjustShift - Planned destruction of Warsaw....and maybe this[[3]][[4]] Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The German carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city? yes. Were they ordinary Germans or Nazis Not everybody participating in those crimes was a Nazi, there were werhmacht units too so Germans is not bad describtion (please not that nobody wrote ordinary Germans and it is clear what does Germans in that contex mean). If your problem is with sourcing please say so, it can be sourced, corrected, rephrased, whatever. But the conclusion unsourced = anti-German POV is silly. Loosmark (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, my conclusion has never been unsourced = anti-German POV. This is a controversial article. Before inserting any controversial statement, you must add reliable source to back up your claim. As an editor, I try hard to maintain neutrality on en.wikipedia. If your statement agrees with the reliable source, the statement will stay on the article. AdjustShift (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It took me 2 minutes to find a source: [5] German architects carefully identified the historic monuments of the city: the most beautifully proportioned buildings, the buildings designed by distinguished architects, the buildings where famous Varsovians had lived, the places where important historic events had taken place, the buildings with gracious sculptural decoration, the buildings of symbolic importance, the best examples of different architectural styles, the most meaningful buildings of various periods, the proudest churches, the richest palaces, the most beautiful homes, and the neighborhoods where the architecture of Warsaw was knit into an artistic whole—the panoply of Warsaw's pride, built across seven hundred years of history. Then, having ascertained the patrimony of the metropolis, the German occupational forces sent out squads to rob these places, to strip them of their art and artifacts and, afterward, to dynamite the architectural accomplishments of Polish culture. The structural integrity of buildings was analyzed. Explosives were set and detonated from a safe distance. In World War II, it became German national policy that the culture of Warsaw be erased as a way to quash the spirit of resistance among the Polish people. Loosmark (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Same source also states that between 1939 and 1944 ~800.000 people in Warsaw were killed. Loosmark (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the source, Loosmark. Whenever you are inserting any controversial statement, please add reliable source to back up your claim. As a neutral individual (I'm not from Germany or Poland), I don't think this statement is neutral. The whole German people can't be blamed for the Nazi crimes. We have to remember that there are evil people (and good people) in every society. Calming that "... the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered ..." is not neutral. Chance that. You also have to specify which German scholars were involved in that activity. Some of the world's best know scholars were from Germany. Multiple German scholars strongly opposed the Nazis. So, be more specific. The protection will expire tomorrow. So, please discuss with other editors, and try to reach a consensus. After reaching a consensus, you can insert some info. AdjustShift (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I have not inserted that statement, which isn't controversial, I only objected to Skaperod's deletion. Btw tons of respectable books about the WW2 use the term Germans in that contex, so you have no special rights to deus ex-machina decide it is wrong to use it in the same contex on wikipedia. If you really want to push such a concept try to provide some source which explains how all the books using "Germans" should be rewritten. But don't forget to try to reach a consensus. Loosmark (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's from the on-line Encyclopedia Brittanica: " The invasion of Poland in 1939 by the U.S.S.R. and Germany precipitated World War II, during which the Nazis sought to purge Poland’s culture and its large Jewish population in the Holocaust." Only the terms "Germany" and "Nazis" are used i.e., there is no use of the term "the Germans".76.14.240.177 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Noone disputes that most of Warsaw was destroyed during the war, and that 450,000 Jews and 350,000 other inhabitants lost their lives. I maintain though that for the events be included into this article, sources are needed to

• (1) establish its factual accuracy (of all parts of the statement, per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR)
• (2) establish its connection to the expulsions of Germans (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, if (1) can be established)
• (3) establish its due weight in the background section (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, if (1) and (2) can be established, and taken into account that the following line has already been added to the Nazi atrocities coverage per the above proposal: "Local concepts like Pabst and Nisko Plan were in the course of the war replaced by the general concepts of Generalplan Ost and Final Solution, blueprints for the genocide on Slavs and Jews.")

I have created the sources section above to evaluate such sources, but if you can present such sources here for evaluation, it is also fine, if only the thread remains consistent and focussed. So far, it has been shown that in the course of the war, Warsaw was largely destroyed and an overall 800,000 people from Warsaw lost their lives. That part of the statement never was disputed. So (1) is now partially sourced, (2) and (3) have not been established. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As it was already explained to you a couple of times killing 800,000 people and destroying a beatiful city like Warsaw which happened to be the capital tends to make you "bit unpopular". I think about that we all agree. Now as we know Stalin was the main force behind the expulsions and he needed excuses to pull it of. The only logical conclusion is that 800,000 people killed, Warsaw destroyed, and the anti-German feelings which these events originated both among Poles and wider strengthened his position and gave him the necesary legitimity. To claim that the expulsion of Germans would have been the same without 800,000 people killed and with Warsaw intact is unlogical, bizzare and grotesque therefore the burden of proof is on you on that one. Loosmark (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. As for your argumentation:

• The expellees did not destroy Warsaw. There is a chance that a handful of them had participated, but if one was expelled or not had to do with one's residence and not with one's possible criminal past.
• Revenge for Nazi atrocities was only one justification of the expulsions, among others. Others included the geopolitical and ethnic reconfiguration of Eastern and East Central Europe. That is sourced and I think undisputed.
• Germans were not the only ones expelled after the war. Other ethnic groups were also shifted around to make the post-war peoples match the post-war borders. Warsaw did not influence either expulsion.
• Germans were not only expelled from post-war Poland, but from all over. The expulsions from eg Hungary can hardly be explained with the destruction of Warsaw.

That is the big picture we are in, and all that is sourced in the article. The destruction of Warsaw was only one of the numerous Nazi atrocities that only via the collective guilt theory contributed to only one justification of the expulsions. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw man again. Nobody claimed that the expellees destroyed Warsaw, rather the destruction of Warsaw and all the people killed there contributed to the anti-German feelings. Comparing the expulsions from Hungary and Poland is ridiculous because the scales of the two things were completely different and Hungary didn't get any former German territory. Even if the revenge for Nazi atrocities was only one justifications for the expulsions it already makes it includable in the article. The destruction of Warsaw was exeptional and shocking (did the Germans devastate any other capital in Europe to the same degree, and killed 800,000 inhabitants?) Loosmark (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

• This would solve the problem and is NPOV

Poland suffered enormous destruction in the war, including the city of Warsaw which was completely destroyed. Up to 500,000 displaced persons from Warsaw along with 1.6 million Polish refugees from the USSR were relocated in the former German territories. – citation reference- The Polish census of 1950 indicated that the Warsaw region had a net out migration of 500,000 and that these persons were relocated to the former German territories. In addition 1.6 million Poles from the USSR were residents in the former German territories. These refugees made up 1/3 of the population in 1950.

Readers will realize that Polish government had a practical problem in 1946 to house the refugees from Warsaw/USSR and relocated them to the former German territories. This is NPOV, it just states what actually happened, without pointing fingers--Woogie10w (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok maybe we can work something out, however your proposal fails to mention two things, who destroyed Warsaw and how, and how many Warsavians were killed. Loosmark (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this comply WP:SYNTHESIS and per the discussion we had above? To create the impression that need for housing was a reason for the expulsions should be substantiated with reliable sources. That former Warsaw residents made up for a significantly high amount of settlers was already shown to be not the case - they made up for 10% of the Polish population and for 10% of the settlers. What sources give the destruction of Warsaw so much weight as a background information that we have to mention it more than linking the Pabst Plan - which is already the case? What source connects the expulsions to the Warsaw events anyway? What source gives a need for housing as a reason for the expulsions? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a need for housing created by the destruction of Warsaw and these people were moved to the former German territories.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Woogie10w, your input is great and honest. (as always by the way)--Jacurek (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What sources give the destruction of Warsaw so much weight as a background information that we have to mention it more than linking the Pabst Plan - which is already the case? There is a big difference between mentioning a plan and mentioning of the events which did happen. The anti-German feelings were created by direct actions (read killings and destructions) rather than by plans which most people didn't even know about. Loosmark (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Polish "refugees" from the Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union were not homeless and had to be placed somewhere by the Polish government, they were expelled from their homes because Stalin, Churchill/Atlee and Roosevelt/ Truman decided so at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. Their fate was the result, not the reason to shift Poland to the west. Which role did the fate of Warsaw play at these conferences? Was the destruction of Warsaw mentioned as a reason to expell Germans? Does a reliable scholar say so? Does a reliable source say, the people of Warsaw had to be housed and that's why the Germans had to go? Just like User:Piotrus said above, unless a reliable source is presented, which argues like that, there's no reason to include it per WP:NOR. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been over this again and again, everybody is in agreement that it were Stalin & comp who decided the territorial shifts and the transfers of populations, so what is the point to continuously repeat something we all agree on? The point here is that the Nazi German crimes in Poland were a, or one of, direct reasons which were justifiably or not used as an excuse for those events. The crimes in Warsaw were the largest single crimes against the Poles and are therefore mentioned as an example of what the Polish population had to go through and why there were strong anti-German feelings. (An abstract thing like a plan doesn't work too well to describe it). That there are some editors who deny the self-evident connection between these events, with lots of drama all over this page is, to put it mildly, weird. Loosmark (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to persons left homeless by the war Poland suffered emormous economic damage which can be documented. We should not seek to blame anyone, only state what happened.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, but we need to keep in mind that this article is about the Expulsion of Germans and not about war-induced damage to Poland's economy. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that Germany should be held accountable for the damage caused by the war, the Allied powers decided at Yalta that the German territories in the east would be part of the reperations.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To the victor goes the spoils, my GGGgrandfater served from 1777-1781 with George Washington's army, after the war he was given 100 acres of land confiscated from Loyalists. .--Woogie10w (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"To the victor goes the land spoils/options on population expulsion" was sanctioned in the Summer 1945 Potsdam Conference, but by the 1946 Nuremberg Trial the realization set in that population expulsions were a war crime.ANNRC (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the expulsions can fall into the war crimes category because war crimes are usualy commited during war or on war prisoners. But if you have a serious source which says that by the 1946 Nuremberg Trial the Nuremberg Trial the expulsions were considered a crime by all means include it in the article. Loosmark (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The already-agreed to expulsions sanctioned by the [July/August 1945] Potsdam Agreement (namely regarding all ethnic Germans from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and within the 1937 borders of Poland west of the Curzon Line) were excluded from war crimes consideration in the same sense that the Nuremberg litigation agreement specifically included no consideration of Soviet war crimes committed during WW2.ANNRC (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, the Nuremberg trials were organised to trial major perpetuators of ww2 war crimes and crimes against humanity. The expulsions, bad as they were, don't quite fall in the same category of crimes. Loosmark (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Nuremberg trials were to (& did) address not only major perpetrators of WW2 war crimes, but other war crimes as well. It was through the prosecution of the Nazis that the case was made against ethnic cleansing, but by then it was a bit late to introduce that issue on the agenda against the Polish Communists & militias re the Wild Expulsions which took place before 8 May 1945. And of course the Soviets were immune for/from their participation, as mentioned above.ANNRC (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The "Wild Expulsions" occurred both before and after 8 May 1945. The areas of the Wild Expulsions included (1) East Prussia, (2) within the 1937 border of Poland west of the Curzon Line, & (3) between the Oder-Neisse Line and the western 1937 border of Poland. Note: Regarding #(2): some try to focus on 1945 expulions of Germans transferred into #(2) after September 1939 -- that ignores the population of Germans who in 1937 lived in #(2).ANNRC (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the Nuremberg trials could have trialed people for transfers of population agreed at the Postdam conference seems to be a "Alice in wonderland" theory. You can argue that those events were wrong from a moral point of view but suggesting that the Polish communists should have "shared the cells" with the Nazis at Nuremberg is crazy. Loosmark (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A war crime is a war crime. In addition to many others, the following war crime should have been sustained at the trials: Katyn. The following is from Wikipedia: "Although it had been initially planned to hold more than just one international trial at the IMT, the growing differences between the victorious allies (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Union) made this impossible."ANNRC (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Also, as the Potsdam Agreement post-dated the Wild Expulsions, the Potsdam Agreement called for "orderly and humane" ethnic German population transfers in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and also within the 1937 border of Poland west of the Curzon Line.ANNRC (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the July 16 to August 2, 1945 Potsdam Conference, both of the areas (1) between the Oder-Neisse Line and the western 1937 border of Poland, and (2) all of East Prussia, were part of the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany.76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The idea that the Nuremberg trials could have trialed people for transfers of population agreed at the Postdam conference seems to be a "Alice in wonderland" theory." : What does the Wild Expulsions, including those prior to 8 May 1945, have to do with your "Alice in Wonderland" statement in which you apparently sought to link, as an expression of absurdity, the (absurd) idea that the Nuremberg trials "could have trialed people for transfers of population agreed at the Potsdam conference"? The Potsdam conference had nothing to do with the Wild Expulsions, which occurred in the time prior to the 16 July to 2 August 1945 Potsdam Conference.ANNRC (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really feel strongly about that point I suggest you go to the Nuremberg trials article and try to make your point there but i doubt anybody will agree with you that the expulsions, pardon me, "Wild Expulsions", should have been part of those trials. Loosmark (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Wild Expulsions and Katyn should not have been part of the Nuremberg Trials?ANNRC (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, i'm saying that Katyn should have been included but the expulsions not. Loosmark (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wild Expulsions before 8 May 1945 and their associated deaths were just as much war crimes as Katyn. How many German civilians were deliberately killed in the Wild Expulsions before 8 May 1945? 50,000?, 100,000?ANNRC (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Look I think this discussion has become circular and doesn't serve any purpose anymore, you have your opinion, I have mine. You are free to try to insert your (hopefully sourced) point that the expulsion should have been part of the Nuremberg Trials both on this article and/or on the Nuremberg Trials article. Just please be aware of one thing, that is a controversial view and other editors might oppose it. Loosmark (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The treatment of the ethnic Germans in France and Belgium, both democratic nations that respected human rights, should be contrasted to the policy of communist dominated Poland and Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia suffered relatively minor economic and human losses compared to Poland yet treated the Sudetendeutsch poorly. Post war Poland and Czechoslovakia would not tolerate a substantial German minority, it was politically unacceptable and in fact untenable. The issues are complex, there are no easy answers. The Germans and Poles both suffered because of the war that was started by Hitler and his Nazi party. Anyway, I presented the facts. You decide and edit accordingly--Woogie10w (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the editors who think the Nazi atrocities in Warsaw must be included in the background can draft one or a few sourced proposals and we request a comment to evaluate their merit? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get over this nonsense, because enough is enough, "Nazi" atrocities in Warsaw had virtually nothing to do with the expulsion of the Germans after the war. The die was cast prior to the Warsaw uprising with Stalin , Churchill, and Roosevelt deciding on implementing this policy after the the defeat of Nazi Germany and demanding its unconditional surrender. Any desire to to otherwise skew this event with some absurd POV is not going to make it in the long run. It's been tried before at the Battle of Berlin, where the Polish Army was in the vanguard, and supposedly vanquished the Germans, and thereby getting revenge for for the three week war in 1939.Dr. Dan (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to keep your anti-Polish feelings under control would you? A couple of neutral non-Polish editors already agreed that having the Warsaw events in this article makes perfect sense. Loosmark (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a for-what-its-worth (that is, an interpretation of some of the positions argued above, and so the interpretation might not be worth much): it may be that it's about numbers of Germans expelled . . . in other words, if the Germans had been nicer in 39-45, not as many would have been expelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Loosmark (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But, of course, specualtive. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Polish Communist militas would have been less severe on the German civilians during the expulsions (in total) if the Germans had been less severe on the Poles during the 1939-45 war. Polish Communist militas as moral brokers??? . . . that's an absurd stance.ANNRC (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The destruction of Warsaw

Ok the version we previously had in the article was:
The most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars.

If i understood Skaperod and other German editors they were unhappy with two things:
1.it wasn't the most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing
2.the sentence risks to introduce the collective guilt concept

My proposed change is:

A dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the various German units carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars.
sources: [6] [7] Loosmark (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to keep your anti-German feelings under control would you? You seem to be unable to understand that the destruction of Warsaw was not the reason nor the basis for the expulsion of the German after WWII. It's addition is absurd and is not relevant. You might as well put the sinking of the Hood in the article for good measure. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you have missed it, a rough agreement was already reached to include the events, now we are in the process of trying to find the proper phrasing so it's not clear why are you trying to sabotate the consensus and re-ignite disagreements. Actually, wait, i can imagine it... Loosmark (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this "rough" agreement has not been unanimously agreed upon. If other opinions are considered to be "sabotage" by you, when they diverge from your own, is not my problem. As for your imagination and what that is capable of, is apparent by your insistence to include the "destruction of Warsaw" as being pertinent to this article. Sorry, it remains undue, POV'd, and irrelevant. The decision to expel the Germans was made prior to the destruction of Warsaw. After its destruction there were not additional amendments to this decision. No one at the time said ,"Oh, they destroyed Warsaw now we REALLY have to expel them. Previously we were only thinking about it." Dr. Dan (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice straw man, i've never claimed anything like that. Loosmark (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The main concern is undue weight, but the points you mentioned above were additional points (factual accuracy, implying collective guilt, emotional style, lack of sources). I am glad that the latter points are now addressed, so the issue with the undue weight (i.e. mention at all? mention as wikilink? mention in detail?) can be discussed on a proper basis (i.e. respect for basic policies like RS and V). If the Loosmark phrasing is ok to the other editors who want to introduce the Warsaw atrocities we can call for comments. I am open to include the sinking of the Hood as well if Dr Dan insists. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding the sinking of the Hood would be as ridiculous as adding the destruction of Warsaw into this article. They are two separate events related only by the fact that they occurred in WWII. The simple fact is that the Germans were expelled because they lost the war. Adding their defeat at Stalingrad into the article would be as relevant to this article as that totally unrelated event. The question is whether some people would like to add Katyn into this article if they could find a way. Dr. Dan (talk)

Having destruction of Warsaw in this article is not ridiculous at all Dr Dan. Please refer to my and others comments because I don't want to repeat myself 100 times.--Jacurek (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your not wanting to repeat yourself 100 times. Nor do I. Without you having to read my comments or others again, who disagree with you, just re-read about "Undue" again right here. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek and Radeksz, do you agree with Loosmarks proposal or do you draft your own? Woogie10w, do you stick with your above proposal? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I changed my mind. I see no sources here that will allow us to include Warsaw in this article. Unless somebody can produce a reliable source that will link the two events it is OR. Older Poles here in Brooklyn told me that people left Warsaw and returned after the city was rebuilt, a family member lived in the celler of a building to hold a spot in Warsaw for the family. Also people lived in the suburbs and comuted to work on the reconstruction so that they would get an apartment-Budujemy nową Polskę--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Roman Herzog explicitly linked the two events in his speech in Warsaw but I can't find it online atm. However this I think [8] (pg. 86, bottom) alludes to it.radek (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Loosemark's proposal.radek (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also fine with it, thanks Skäpperöd.--Jacurek (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a good number of editors agreeing with each other, I think that at this point it's worth reading the actual policy on consensus, in particular:

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system.radek (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Jacurek is thanking Skäpperöd (dunno for what), and Woogie10w says he changed his mind, perhaps a re-examination of "Since we have a good number of editors agreeing with each other"... is in order. Just who is in agreement to what? Certainly not that the destruction of Warsaw was any kind of a substantial reason for the Germans being expelled after WWII. No one is suggesting unanimity is necessary here. What is the consensus you're talking about? Btw, bad as filibustering can be, ramrodding something down people's throat is much worse, especially if it is untrue and contrived information. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thanking him for this discussion Dr Dan. We do that where I'm from, you know...--Jacurek (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. Where I'm from we attempt to connect our thoughts to our words. To wit, I remember the lines from the play going something like this:

Radek- "I'm fine with Loosemark's proposal".

Jacszurek- "I'm also fine with it, thanks Skäpperöd".

So, where you come from, this represents thanking Skäpperöd for this discussion. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

N.P. Dr Dan. To be very clear now: I'm also fine with Loosemark's proposal. Thank you Skäpperöd and the rest for this discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dr. Dan, you too...:) I sometimes think that you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing (I may be mistaken...:)) but I thank you for the conversations anyway.--Jacurek (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion by Piotrus

Whether this belongs here or not, may I suggest that contributing to Planned destruction of Warsaw, Pabst Plan or related articles may be more productive than beating a dying horse here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Dan's reservations, concerns, explanations, theories, etc. etc. etc

Dr.Dan can you please write your objections here? The section above is dedicated to trying to find a consensus on the phrasing and weight to events in Warsaw. Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding the sinking of the Hood would be as ridiculous as adding the destruction of Warsaw into this article.
Are you serious? Loosmark (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious.

• My objections are:

1. This is only related to that in the same way that a thousand other events in WWII are, i.e., extremely peripherally

2. Therefore it is "UNDUE".

3. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a forum for POV'd interpretation of events, nor theories, etc. etc. etc.

Dr. Dan (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok i don't know if you cared to read all the discussions on this talk page (admittingly it's very confused and messed) but we are not talking only about the destruction of Warsaw but also the criminal massacres and killings of its population. Those events are in large part responsible for the anti-German feelings among the Poles which in turn helped Stalin to pull off his demands and their implementations. Claiming as you did somewhere above that the Germans got expulsed just because they lost the war is IMO completely crazy, going by that logic every war would end up with max expulsions in every losing country. Please also note that the events in Warsaw were also unique both in the nature and the scale (unless maybe you can prove that there were other capitals in Europe devastated by the Germans to the same degree.) Finally, dr.Dan can you please point out to us when exactly were the expulsions of the Germans decided according to you? Loosmark (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Have read them, and calling them "confused and messed (sic)" is quite an understatement. Many wars and rebellions have caused the expulsions of people and destruction of cities. Or read this. No, I'm not claiming any logic to your statement claiming then "every war would end up with max expulsions in every losing country". And please don't kid yourself that Stalin was "influenced" by Polish sentiments, and thereby "helped him (Stalin) to pull off his demands and their implementations". And "finally" in answer to your last question. The incipiency of the policy to expel the Germans was at the Tehran Conference, eight months prior to the Warsaw uprising. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We have to be precise here, at the Tehran Conference only the change of borders were (roughly) agreed. Check the article there was no mention of the expulsions. Loosmark (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The seed was planted there. The final decision to implement this policy was here, by him and no "permission" was sought after from anyone by him either. Least of all, Polish considerations. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please concentrate Dr.Dan, that the final decision was Stalin's is a general consensus, mentioned on this talk page already 250 times. The point is that he needed some sort of rationale for the expulsions to make Churchill and Roosvelt agree. German attrocities in Poland was an argument against having a two-ethnic Poland. Loosmark (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Concentrate on what? Maybe it's you who needs to "focus like a laser". The decision to expel the Germans was not based upon the the destruction of Warsaw. That is the bone of contention in this discussion. Where in the 250 mentions of Stalin's decision has it been shown that the destruction of Warsaw, let alone Hitler's maltreatment of Poland, influenced Stalin's decision to expel the Germans? "German attrocities (sic) in Poland was an argument against having a two-ethnic (sic) Poland". Was that Stalin's "argument"? If so, where and when? Or is this your belief? Btw, I remember that the rationale in the PRL for the expulsion of the Germans was that they were merely "recovering" their territories, not because of atrocities. That wouldn't have played out too well during the "Braterstwo" celebrations which included Ulbricht and Honecker. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, i'm not saying that the destruction of Warsaw influenced Stalin's decision to expel the Germans (it might have or it might have not, we can't read his mind) i'm just saying he used it as an excuse and legitimation for his demands. Are you trying to argue that had the Germans not completely devastated Warsaw and had 800.000 Warsawians not been killed his ability to get his solution accepted would have been just the same? Tell me then why did the allies directly oppose the expulsions of all Hungarians out of Czechoslovakia? They also lost the war. Loosmark (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"i'm not saying that the destruction of Warsaw influenced Stalin's decision to expel the Germans " ...followed with " i'm just saying he used it as an excuse and legitimation for his demands" - comment by Loosmark. Stop with the WP:OR. Where did he use it? When did he use it? thanks Dr. Dan (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What OR it's total common sense. Mind also that they explicitly stated that one of the reasons for the expulsions was also to punish Germany for its actions during World War II. The horrible events in Warsaw surely one of the worst things they did. Anyway it seems to me that you don't move from your position for 1mm in regards with the inclusion of those events in the article so lets agree to disagree for now. Loosmark (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I'd be happy to change my position much more than 1mm. All I need is some answers instead of evasions. Some scholarly evidence would also be nice. Until that time, the POV'd entry does not belong in the article. Just like the Hood. Agreeing to disagree does not solve the problem. Building a factual encyclopedia does. Answers to above questions concerning Stalin: Nowhere. Never. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors of this of this page may find this interesting, especially German.

[9]--Jacurek (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of the Germans, Potsdam, Oder-Neisse Line, etc.

Here is what is missed in most perceptions of the events of the times:

(1) There was general agreement via the various war time conferences that there would be German land and population transfers after the war, and that these would be covered by legal language either before and/or after war’s end. What seems to be widely misunderstood is that the 16 July to 2 August 1945 Potsdam Conference was really an expedient, interim conference, intended to set the stage for what was assumed to be the pending Peace Treaty Conference ending World War Two. It is likely that the British and the Americans both felt that the Peace Treaty Conference would take place in late 1945 or early 1946. That expectation led to various tentative and ambiguous language contained in the Potsdam Agreement.

(2) Neither the British nor the Americans initially supported the Oder-(Western)Neisse Line proposal (see the Churchill and Roosevelt Partition Plan division of Germany maps in Wikipedia, subject Yalta Conference). The British and Americans eventually agreed to the Oder-Neisse Line as a temporary demarcation line pending what they felt would be the (impending) Peace Treaty Conference (although the British were surprised by the American short-circuiting of the negotiations with the Soviets on this matter{See Wikipedia Subject Oder-Neisse Line, including, "[on the next day, U.S. Secretary of State James] Byrnes told the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov that the Americans would reluctantly concede to the Western Neisse.[15] Byrnes's concession undermined the British position"); the Americans claimed they were being "practical", since after all, the "real" western border of Poland would be decided in just a few weeks/months anyway, at the assumed impending Peace Treaty Conference.). Therefore, the context of the British and American acceptance of the Oder-Neisse temporary demarcation line included the prospect that the Oder-Neisse Line was not necessarily the final demarcation line for Poland’s western border. It was assumed that the final adjustment on German lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line would be made at the Peace Treaty Conference e.g., to include the prospect that some of those German land parcels might stay attached to Germany.

(3) However, the Potsdam Conference and Agreement did address issues which were unambiguous even before the assumed impending Peace Treaty Conference, namely that ethnic German transfers were to be effected in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and within the 1937 borders of Poland west of the Curzon Line (Caveat: most of the former 1937 Polish lands east of the Curzon Line were ceded to the Soviet Union on August 16, 1945, 14 days after the Potsdam Conference). The above referenced ethnic German transfer actions were stipulated by the Potsdam Agreement to be undertaken in an “orderly and humane” manner.ANNRC (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, prior to the Potsdam Conference, the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany included all 1937 border German lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line. The Potsdam Agreement removed those lands from the Soviet Occupation Zone and reassigned them to temporary Soviet and Polish administration pending the assumed (impending) Peace Treaty Conference.ANNRC (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Another area of confusion is the distinction between "occupation" and "administration". For example, per the Potsdam Conference the Soviet Occupation Zone was reduced to the land area which eventually became the DDR ("East Germany"), and the area of northern East Prussia was detached from the pre-Potsdam Soviet Occupation Zone to become an area under temporary Soviet administration pending the assumed (impending) Peace Treaty Conference.ANNRC (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is in part from History Department at the University of San Diego on Teheran Conference 1943

Here is in part from History Department at the University of San Diego on Teheran Conference 1943 http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Europe04a.html Note: FDR’s map of 5 smaller Germanies (it is on Wikipedia Subject Yalta Conference) obviously was prepared before he agreed to “moving the German border back to the Oder”.

• FDR in private talks with Stalin agreed to a Curzon line for Poland in the east and moving the German border back to the Oder, and agreed some transfer of population would be necessary "on a voluntary basis" to allow Russia to take back Ukraine and Belorussia from Poland. • FDR proposed dismemberment of Germany into 5 smaller parts (surprised Churchill) and Stalin wanted to take part of East Prussia to get the warm water Baltic port of Konigsberg (became Kaliningrad). • FDR willing to accomodate Stalin; Churchill was isolated; Stalin joked at dinner that Churchill was soft on Germany and that it may be necessary to execute 50,000 German officers; Churchill replied that he would never agree to such "barbarous acts" but FDR joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw

Schould the Nazi atrocities in Warsaw be included in the background section, and if yes, how much weight should they have?

In the preceeding discussion, some editors proposed the introduction of the following statement into the background section:

"A dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the various German units carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars."

Other editors think that, absent a solid establishment of their relevancy for the expulsions, the atrocities committed in Warsaw should not be included. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude per WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Include it is important to give to the casual reader some minimal background about the general atmosphere at the end of the war and why were the anti-German feelings so strong. Just imagine how 9/11 triggered anti-arab feelings. And now imagine Warsaw, a city which was completely and systematicaly destroyed under orders by Himmler and Hitler (95% of buildings gone) plus 800.000 people were killed. That was an unprecedented event in modern European history plus no other European capital was devastated by the Nazis to nearly the same level. Isn't a complete no brainer that these events have some relevancy for the expulsions of Germans from Poland? We only want to include 1 sentence about it in a long article. Loosmark (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Include per Loosmark, Space Cadet (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Include - there is a reason why this is in the 'background' section (I would understand concerns about it being in the lede or in some inappropriate section). The article already discusses that the expulsions weren't just limited to the "official" ones ordered by Stalin (and others) but included also the flight of Germans from Western Poland and the "Wild Expulsions" - hence, including this information provides some necessary background. I've also provided a source [[10] (pg. 86, bottom) which explicitly links atrocities in Warsaw with the expulsions, made in a speech by the German president Roman Herzog. If someone could find an online text of that speech I think that would easily put this controversy to rest.radek (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Include - The nazi atrocities certainly did not justify what happened to the Germans post war but they explain it. It is unlikely that anything comparable would have occurred without the nazis.Dejvid (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Include - see my earlier comments on this talk page.--Jacurek (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude - There's no reason to point it out and there's no direct connection. Jonny84 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Include it is relevant, and now radek has it sourced. Ostap 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Include IF there is a clear ref that links Warsaw to expulsion of Germans (if such a ref was given above, I cannot find it - I suggest adding it to the RfC explanation above and informing editors who voted about that important fact). It makes sense to me, per Loosmark, to note that it was Nazi's atrocities which fueled sentiments behind the expulsions, but such a statement needs refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Include Warsaw If a reliable source can be found to link it’s destruction to the Expulsions, otherwise definitely include a passage that mentions the undisputable fact that Nazi war crimes made Germans Persona non grata in postwar Poland and Czechoslovakia.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Include with the same caveats stated by Woogie10w, above.Faustian (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude. First of all, the expulsion of the German population from the areas assigned to Poland per the Potsdam Agreement took place due to the Allies' decision (to be more precise, Stalin's decision with the consent of the others). The expulsion of the Germans as a whole was a result of the war Germany began. It was not the result of any specific acts the Germans committed in any particular place in Poland. Therefore, going into details about Warsaw would give it undue weight in this context. Regarding Piotruś's statement above - even if there was a "a clear ref that links Warsaw to expulsion of Germans", this wouldn't mean that such a linkage objectively exists, but that some author(s) claimed it existed. People claim all sorts of things, and just that someone verifiably claimed something doesn't mean it's notable in a given context. Regardless of the question whether the situation in Warsaw warrants a special mention, the proposed wording is unacceptably sloppy. There's no point calling the destruction of Warsaw "ethnic cleansing" - there were no concrete attempts at replacing the Polish population with Germans, so "ethnic cleansing" is out of place. "Over 800,000 people murdered" - "murdered" is too emotional and non-encyclopedic. "racial [...] annihilation of the city" - what is that supposed to mean? "under the supervision of German scholars" - how do "scholars" come into this? Overall, the proposed wording is unacceptable not only because it implies a direct connection between events where there is none, but because it does so in an incredibly sloppy and emotional manner. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude. I've waited patiently several days before casting this vote. I would not have done so if any evidence to the contrary had been presented. The entry seems to be biased POV, violating WP:Undue and WP:OR. No evidence refuting the rationale or objections to include it into the article has been demonstrated. Those votes for inclusion with caveats and IF'S, and claims that the entry is "sourced now", should probably retract their votes, or make some other adjustments. Certainly one needs to examine such a vote before considering it as a vote for inclusion. (Please read the discussion section top to bottom, for a full explanation and rationale for this vote. Not an easy task) Dr. Dan (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude as per Piotrus: there's no clear ref that links the 1939-1945 history of Warsaw to the expulsion of Germans. I was waiting for someone to bring a source of at least one Polish politician clearly stating "We expelled the Germans because they began to destroy Warsaw in 1944. If they hadn't done that, they could have stayed in their traditional home lands, in Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia". The attempt by Radek to use a Roman Herzog speech, or a discussion of his speeches, as a source, is clumsy. If the Nazis were so bad, why did they destroy the relatively young Warsaw after the Uprising of 1944, but not other, much older cities and buildings with cultural importance to Poles? Why are Wawel Castle and the cathedrals in Posen and Gnesen still standing, after 6 years of German occupation? Systematically destroying cities is what Allies have done with their bombing to all German cities, well before 1944, and to non-German cities, too. Besides, in 1945, the Poles had already over 600 years of experience with expulsion of Germans, by open violence, or by more subtle methods. And well before WW2 or Hitler, Poles have clearly expressed their desire to get rid of Germans within their reach, and to "recover" German and Czech lands, simply because these areas had temporarily been occupied by one of their ancestors almost a millennium earlier. And that is what the background section needs to cover. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

See also: Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II § Nazi-occupied Warsaw

Please vote at the survey, please put your commentary here. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Herzog speech?

Note, Woogie found the text of the speech online [11] and as far as my crappy German can take me, there's nothing in it on the Expulsions. I assumed the original source I gave [[12]] was referring to this particular speech (since it's sort of the most famous one on the subject) but it could be a different one (Herzog made several speeches broadly related to these topics). Since the source still characterizes it as "setting off the Expulsion of Germans from their now Polish birthground against the killing of People of Warsaw and the destruction of the city" - I still think that's sufficient for an explicit connection (of course in this case an implicit connection should be sufficient).radek (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The source is an article about a speech Herzog made commemorating the Warsaw uprising (chapter 4, full title: The search for acceptable perspectives. German president Roman Herzog commemorates the Warsaw uprising.).

The quote you gave is an explaination given by the authors on how the German term "aufrechnen" can be understood, which Herzog not even used. It does not mean that Herzog made a connection between Warsaw and the expulsions, nor does it mean that the authors really meant that there is one. The full quote is:

The rather implicit act of "Aufrechnen" [9] (i.e. setting off the Expulsion of Germans from their now Polish birthground against the killing of People of Warsaw and the destruction of the city) that is implied in the discussion...

The cited footnote [9] says: "Amid the echoes of sacrifice and suffering, we can feel the sense of pride that survived the physical surpression of the Uprising and understand that the soul of your people still resonates to the themes of that historical event." Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the connection is made by the authors of the source, not Herzog. Which makes it a secondary source rather than a primary source. As it should be.radek (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The authors are linguistically examining a speech made about the uprising which did not mention such a connection - this is not a history book. The "connection" made during the speech's elements' analysis is a mention put in parenthesis to explain a German word. "Aufrechnen" means that if two people owe each other something, they substract each others debts and the difference remaining if there is any is the "new" debt. The authors of the speech's analysis do not claim that Herzog did that, they said that this is "implicit" and "implied in the discussion". And, even if Herzog explicitly did it, which he did not, there were no causal argument, but a retrospect substraction of the misdeeds of post-war Poland from those of Nazi Germany. Which would be kind of political suicide for a president. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the original discussion is about whether the info belongs in the BACKGROUND section - i.e. is it a notable component of the background to the expulsions and their nature? This idea that someone was arguing that there is a causal connection between destruction/murders in Warsaw and the Expulsions is a STRAWMAN (as Loosemark already pointed out above), successfully set up by Dr. Dan in his hijacking of the discussion. But a strawman is still a logical fallacy. Even IF the actual and cultural genocide in Warsaw didn't in any way directly lead to the expulsions, as long as it affected how 1) the expulsions took place and/or 2) how the expulsions are/have been perceived in Poland, Germany and anywhere - since both of these are discussed in the article - it is relevant. The source making that connection is sufficient, whether or not Herzog did. BTW, there are also numerous Polish sources which link the two events (again, not nec. causally) but I was trying to stick to English lang sources for the benefit of non-Polish speakers.radek (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"'....STRAWMAN (as Loosemark already pointed out above), successfully set up by Dr. Dan in his hijacking of the discussion. But a strawman is still a logical fallacy." Look Radeksz, I am offended by your insolent and uncivil tone. Perhaps whenever your viewpoint is challenged and an alternative one is presented you consider the discussion "hijacked". We can dance around this issue all day long. The Germans lost the war. They were expelled. Poland had nothing to do with it. Poland had no influence over the matter. The fate of Warsaw had nothing to do with it. Stalin, who had everything to do with it, did not consult his new acquisition, Poland, regarding it. Polish anti-German sentiments did not influence him, nor did they matter in so far as implementing this policy. The entry undue. It is undue. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan sums it up nicely. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- Let me repeat: "Yes, but the original discussion is about whether the info belongs in the BACKGROUND section" - i.e. is it a notable component of the background to the expulsions and their nature? This idea that someone was arguing that there is a causal connection between destruction/murders in Warsaw and the Expulsions is a STRAWMAN ... Even IF the actual and cultural genocide in Warsaw didn't in any way directly lead to the expulsions, as long as it affected how 1) the expulsions took place and/or 2) how the expulsions are/have been perceived in Poland, Germany and anywhere - since both of these are discussed in the article - it is relevant. The source making that connection is sufficient, whether or not Herzog did." Where exactly any of this has been addressed?radek (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay we went over this a couple of times but lets try again. We are not, i repeat not, claiming that Stalin made his decision because the Polish anti-German sentiments influenced him, what are we saying is 1) he used those Polish anti-German sentiments and 2) it made it much easier for him to do the expulsions. Frankly, that is helpfull when you want to expel millions of people, to have native population who also want that, is so obvious that i don't understand why are you guys still in denial on that. Loosmark (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the paragraph you're defending here is unsuitable to that end, as I just pointed out above. It is inaccurate, misleading and moralizing. Also, the fact some of what it says is "so obvious" is a part of the problem - stating the obvious makes it look as it it weren't obvious. However, if you formulate a neutral and factually accurate paragraph that helps uninitiated readers understand the situation without patronizing them I'm sure nobody's going to object. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"...what are we saying is 1) he (Stalin} used those Polish anti-German sentiments and 2) it made it much easier for him (Stalin) to do the expulsions. Frankly, that is helpfull when you want to expel millions of people, to have native population who also want that, is so obvious that i don't understand why are you guys still in denial on that". Let me respond to all of the fallacies Loosmark has presented in that statement. Point #1 Where and how? (source it), Point #2 How? (source it). When Stalin expelled tens of thousands in the Baltic States to Siberia, the general populace was not "helpfull" (sic), it was appalled and dismayed to say the least. Yet Stalin did what he wished without an accommodating "native population". Nobody is in denial about Polish anti-German sentiment after the war, nor that it existed prior to Warsaw's destruction either. Once again, some are simply in denial by insisting that Warsaw had something to do with the German expulsions, even though it didn't. Or in denial that Stalin's decision was in any way influenced by Polish public opinion, or what happened to Poland after September 17th, 1939. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek's, Radeksz's and Loosmark's Reply to Matthead's Vote in the Survey

Matthead's comment being replied to from above (reposted by Radeksz):

"there's no clear ref that links the 1939-1945 history of Warsaw to the expulsion of Germans. I was waiting for someone to bring a source of at least one Polish politician clearly stating "We expelled the Germans because they began to destroy Warsaw in 1944. If they hadn't done that, they could have stayed in their traditional home lands, in Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia". The attempt by Radek to use a Roman Herzog speech, or a discussion of his speeches, as a source, is clumsy. If the Nazis were so bad, why did they destroy the relatively young Warsaw after the Uprising of 1944, but not other, much older cities and buildings with cultural importance to Poles? Why are Wawel Castle and the cathedrals in Posen and Gnesen still standing, after 6 years of German occupation? Systematically destroying cities is what Allies have done with their bombing to all German cities, well before 1944, and to non-German cities, too. Besides, in 1945, the Poles had already over 600 years of experience with expulsion of Germans, by open violence, or by more subtle methods. And well before WW2 or Hitler, Poles have clearly expressed their desire to get rid of Germans within their reach, and to "recover" German and Czech lands, simply because these areas had temporarily been occupied by one of their ancestors almost a millennium earlier. And that is what the background section needs to cover." User: Matthead

"Poles have clearly expressed their desire to get rid of Germans within their reach" - Are you suprised by that? You must be kidding !!For all what the Germans did to the Poles such as countless mass murders, Auschwitz, cities burned to the ground? Wow! "Bad" Poles. In your opinion, Poles should love the Germans after the war, right?--Jacurek (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, your entire comment just blows my mind away...--Jacurek (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait did I understand you correctly, are you really saying that the Nazis "weren't so bad" because they didn't destroy every single Polish city!? Are you normal, what kind of argument is that? And what does that "relatively young Warsaw" mean? Warsaw was the capital, the most important city with countless beatiful historical buildings. The Nazis completely devasted it in a most barbaric possible fashion. Loosmark (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be careful Loosmark, less you be accused of not assuming good faith in someone who says "If the Nazis were so bad...", implying that, you know, they really weren't that bad. I mean, really, we should all thank the Nazis for not destroying Krakau, Posen and Gnesen. Someone should quickly write Nazi Beautification of Posen, or better yet Nazi Beautification of Warschau - these very important topics have been neglected on Wikipedia far too long.radek (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd's reply to Radek

Herzog did not make such a connection, the source is two linguists analyzing one of his speeches concerning the Warsaw uprising and make one mention of the expulsions in parenthesis to explain a German term ("aufrechnen") they used, saying this aufrechnen was implicit in the discussion. See below. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

re Piotrus/Tehran

Re Prokonsul's above comment: "Include IF there is a clear ref that links Warsaw to expulsion of Germans (if such a ref was given above, I cannot find it - I suggest adding it to the RfC explanation above and informing editors who voted about that important fact). It makes sense to me, per Loosmark, to note that it was Nazi's atrocities which fueled sentiments behind the expulsions, but such a statement needs refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)":

My comment: It's really about the DEGREE of expulsions, since the prospect of post-WW2 "expulsions" per se can be traced back to the 1943 Teheran Conference. There were going to be expulsions post WW2 regardless of whether Warsaw was destroyed or not . . . whether realized or not, the debate seems to center on the degree of expulsions, with the inference that the Warsaw destruction contributed to more extensive expulsions than would otherwise have been the case. To repeat: the subject of expulsions came up at the 1943 Teheran Conference, and thus needed no prompting of a 1944 Warsaw destruction to introduce or ratify or validate the topic.ANNRC (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC) To continue: Some sort of Oder-Neisse boundary line was suggested at the 1943 Teheran Conference . . . however, as a general suggestion it didn't get into the specifics re Eastern or Western Neisse River as potential border line: again, that, along with other German-Polish boundary issues, was to be left up to the Final Peace Conference and Treaty ending WW2. It is unlikely that anything related to the 1944 Warsaw destruction led US Secretary of State James Byrnes at Potsdam to change the temporary western boundary of the Polish administered territories from the Eastern Neisse River to the Western Neisse River: as with most others, Byrnes felt that the Final Peace Treaty ending WW2 was just a few weeks/months away from the Potsdam Conference, and all matters would be negotiated in final form, and settled legally there. Lastly, the idea that the Polish Communist Militias would have been less harsh and less far reaching on expelling ethnic Germans if the 1944 Warsaw destruction hadn't occurred is absurd.ANNRC (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in Article #12 of the Potsdam Agreement which addresses the Eastern German territory placed under (temporary, pending the Final Peace Treaty) Polish administration. Article 12 follows:

12. Orderly transfer of German Populations

The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner.

The "Poland" referred to is the 1937 bordered Poland west of the Curzon Line. The Germans referred to are both (1) the ethnic German population living, for example in 1937, within the 1937 borders of Poland; & (2) the ethnic German population moved into what was the 1937 borders of Poland following the division of Poland between the Nazis and the Soviets in 1939.ANNRC (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the Potsdam Agreement was an ambiguous document since it was intended to serve as both an interim document and as applicable to some extent following the Final Peace Treaty ending WW2, it obviously was intended to eventually cover expulsions from former German territory awarded to Poland at the Final WW2 Peace Treaty (Note: The precise location of those territories was to be decided at the Final Peace Treaty). Another indication of the Potsdam Agreement's interim nature was the fact that it didn't mention anything about the "orderly and humane" transfer of the ethnic German population from northern East Prussia, which had been assigned to Soviet administration pending the peace treaty.ANNRC (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

interesting this claim that "expulsions came up at the 1943 Teheran Conference". You might want to check this: [13]. Loosmark (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What would be even more interesting is showing any claim, anywhere, linking the expulsions to this. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ok i note that the fact that in the Teheran conference declaration there is no mention of the expulsions is now established. Loosmark (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In Tehran, Churchill said that Poland should be shifted between Oder and Curzon line, and this meant "possibly disentanglement of population at some points" (just copypaste into googlebooks searchbar to get refs). He also made that statement if Poland takes a step sidewards she would step on German toes. Roosevelt also proposed the transfer of German populations - in 1943 [14]. And Stalin was used to ethnic cleansing anyway. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, Loosmark. The consensus on what happened at the Tehran Conference, concerning this survey, hasn't been "established" by your telling us that that's now the case. If at the conference an incipient agreement to dismember Germany was implemented, it seems much more relevant to the expulsion of its inhabitants than anything relating to Warsaw. Do you have any sources mentioning these expulsions relating to Warsaw? As I remember this survey is specifically related to that question, not the Tehran Conference, nor if you brought it up first. You asked me when I thought the impetus to these expulsions first occurred. I gave you my answer. The historical facts speak for themselves. The emotional ones on Wikipedia also speak for themselves. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the Tehran conference, somebody else did. For now lets just stick with the facts and the facts are that the Tehran conference didn't officially define the expulsions. Informal agreements are open to interpretations and the German actions in Warsaw most certainly didn't help their cause. And in any event the destruction Warsaw and the mass killings still remain very relevent for the anti-German feelings which most Polish people had. Loosmark (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Potsdam Agreement didn't officially define the [full extent of the] expulsions either. It doesn't say a word about expulsions from territories "administered" by the Poles and the Soviets. Reason: The expulsions were to be legally defined by the Final Peace Treaty.ANNRC (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do the homework. The Potsdam Agreement has a section titled Orderly transfer of German population: The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner. [15]. note: the text 'full extent of the' was sneakily added 10 hours after i wrote this comment. Loosmark (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the "full extent" caveat because you seemed to miss the point that the Potsdam Agreement said nothing about German population transfers from northern east Prussia. Your comment that I didn't do my homework is completely off the mark. I have cited Art 12 of the Potsdam Agreement numerous times. I say again: The Potsdam Agreement [PA] didn't officially define the expulsions either, since the boundaries of post-war Poland had yet to be determined at the time of the Potsdam Conference. The PA did legally define the ethnic German expulsions for Czechoslovakia and Hungary, namely that within the 1945 boundaries of those two nations the expelling "authorities" were given a mandate by the PA to expell 100% or less of the population they determined to be "ethnic German", regardless of how many generations those German families had lived within the 1945 bounaries of Czechoslovakia and Hungary. To repeat, the PA was an interim document which wasn't intended to address the full scope of the Final Peace Treaty. The intent was that the Final Peace Treaty would determine Poland's borders. At that point the "orderly and humane" transfers of ethnic Germans was to take effect from whatever percentage of the temporary Polish administered Eastern German lands which had been permanently assigned to Poland in the Final Peace Treaty. The "Poland" mentioned in Art. 12 of the interim Potsdam Agreement document pending the Final Peace Treaty was the 1937 land area of Poland west of the Curzon Line. In that area, and that area alone until the Final Peace Treaty, the "orderly and human" transfers of ethnic Germans applied, and therefore Polish authorities were empowered by the PA to expell 100% or less of ethnic Germans living in that land area, regardless of how many generations those German families had lived within that 1937 land area of Poland west of the Curzon Line. The "destination" of those "orderly and humanely" transfered ethnic Germans could have been the Eastern German provinces temporarily administered by Poland pending the Final Peace Treay, or "Occupation Germany", or both.ANNRC (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the boundaries of Peace Treaty Poland were unknown at the time of the Potsdam Conference, the only legally applicable Polish entity to which the "transfer" provision could be applied (at the time of the Potsdam Conference) was the 1937 bordered area of Poland west of the Curzon line. As previously stated, the Final Peace Treaty would define the permanent borders of Poland, and would legally identify the transfers of ethnic German population from both the Soviet and Polish administrative areas of German provinces east of the Oder-Neisse Line.ANNRC (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what exactly is your point. I wanted to note there is a complete difference between the Tehran and Potsdam declarations in that one doesn't mention the transfers of populations and the other does. Loosmark (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Both conferences were more than their texts. For example, the U.S. Dept of State reference http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/104429.htm states in part, "At Tehran, the three Allied leaders also discussed important issues concerning the fate of Eastern Europe and Germany in the postwar period. Stalin pressed for a revision of Poland's eastern border with the Soviet Union to match the line set by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1920. In order to compensate Poland for the resulting loss of territory, the three leaders agreed to move the German-Polish border . . . " (Note: The Neisse River was mentioned, but not which one . . . besides, everyone knew, just as they did later at Potsdam, that the final determination would be made at the Final Peace Treaty.)ANNRC (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

re Thorsten1/emotional language

reply to Thorsten1: "murdered" is too emotional and non-encyclopedic. Yes murdered is too emotional, when we talk about the Nazis victims we have to be as cold as possible, perhaps we should use over 800.000 had their existence terminated, sounds more neutral and encyclopedic. There's no point calling the destruction of Warsaw "ethnic cleansing" - there were no concrete attempts at replacing the Polish population with Germans, so "ethnic cleansing" is out of place. The Nazis wanted to do just that, see [16] just because they for whatever reason didn't complete their sick plans it doesn't mean that phase 1, the ethnic cleansing, to a degree didn't take place. Loosmark (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

reply to Loosmark: "when we talk about the Nazis victims we have to be as cold as possible" - not cold, but neutral, as with anything else. "perhaps we should use over 800.000 had their existence terminated, sounds more neutral and encyclopedic." - no, it just sounds stupid. "Killed" would be just fine. "The Nazis wanted to do just that [...] just because they [...] didn't complete their sick plans it doesn't mean that [...] ethnic cleansing [...] didn't take place." The Nazis wanted to take over all the world, attack New York with long-distance bombers, raze Berlin for World Capital Germania, and what not. We should limit ourselves to what actually happened (that's more than enough), not what could have happened, based on things the Nazis dreamed up and put in their drawers. "Ethnic cleansing" is a good term to describe what happened in other parts of occupied Poland, but not really in Warsaw. Even if it were, it wouldn't be in any causal connection with the postwar deportations of Germans (except in the sense that both were results of WW II), which is the only question we're really concerned with here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In this noble quest for absolute neutrality which seeks to replace "murdered" with "killed" shouldn't we also rename this article from "Expulsion" to "Movement westward".radek (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your insinuation that "expulsion" relates to "movement westward" like "murder" relates to "killing" is absurd (as I assume you know well enough). In Polish, the established term is wysiedlenie (resettlement or, more literally, "settling out"), while wypędzenie (expulsion, the literal translation of the German Vertreibung, both literally "driving out") is rejected as too emotional and accusatory). In German, it's the other way round; Vertreibung is the established term, while Aussiedlung (the counterpart of wysiedlenie) is interpreted as trivializing or apologetic. Germans often don't understand that when Polish speakers say wysiedlenie/Aussiedlung, they are not trying to justify these events, but just using the common expression in their language. Conversely, Poles often don't understand that when Germans say Vertreibung/wypędzenie, they're not being revisionist or accusing anyone, but just using the common expression in their language. English is, so to speak, neutral territory for Poles and Germans, and they shouldn't try to continue their bitching on it. Instead, they should use whatever the most established term is. I don't assume to decide what it is, but "expulsion" is definitely more common than "westward movement". Having said that, there's a number of alternatives to "expulsion", such as deportation, population transfer, displacement, forced migration, (forced) resettlement or relocation.

However, none of this has anything to do with the issue of "killed" vs. "murdered". "Killed" is the standard English term used when the circumstances are not specified, "murdered" always requires a specification, otherwise it sounds moralizing and patronizing (because it doesn't trust readers to make their own moral judgment based on the facts). To give you an example, English newscasters saying that "10 civilians were killed in a suicide attack" are not making any statement about the moral justification of the killing, or lack thereof. However, if they were saying "10 civilians were murdered in a suicide attack", it would sound very strange to English ears - as if anyone needed to be educated that taking innocent lives in suicide attacks was wrong. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

question for Thorsten1 I advise you to check the definition of murder on wiki: Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent. Are you really trying to claim that in Warsaw the Nazis didn't unlawfuly kill people with intent? Loosmark (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

answer for Loosmark: "Are you really trying to claim that in Warsaw the Nazis didn't unlawfuly kill people with intent?" This is completely irrelevant. People killed in wars are usually called "people killed in wars", not "people murdered in wars". Using "killed" instead of "murdered" doesn't imply any moral or legal justification of the killings. Conversely, using "murdered" in this context sounds patronizing, as if talking to children that can't be expected to make their own moral judgments based on the facts. We don't do that here at Wikipedia. Quite apart from that, you're confusing legal terminology and everyday language. The definition you're advising me to read is a legal definition based on which a court decides whether or not a killing was legally a case of murder or not - this obviously doesn't apply here (BTW neither Poland nor Germany are common-law countries.) --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, what people who are killed in wars are called depends on who they are and why are they killed. Civilians or POWs killed are "murdered", combat soldiers are "killed". If we were saying that Polish pilots shot down in the Battle of Britain were "murdered" you'd be right. But we are talking about civilians. And that whole business about how it "sounds patronizing", "we don't do that here" etc. - you're just making stuff up, as in Original Research, which ... we don't do that here on Wikipedia. What do the reliable sources use: "German troops in Warsaw had murdered masses of AK soldiers and civilians" [17], "troops murdered between 30000 and 40000 civilians" [18], and so on... Here on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources not what someone feels is "patronizing" or not.radek (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"what people who are killed in wars are called depends on who they are and why are they killed. Civilians or POWs killed are "murdered", combat soldiers are "killed"." Not quite. "Killed" is an umbrella term covering both "fallen" soldiers and "murdered" civilians. BTW, in contrast to what you seem to believe, "murdered" is not the standard term for all civilian casualties - unless you're saying that German civilian victims were "murdered" as opposed to "killed". Of course, the term "murdered" may be absolutely correct to describe specific situations - such as the illegal executions of prisoners of war and civilians. This is exactly how your sources, Włodzimierz Borodziej ([19]) and Robert Forczyk ([20]) use the term "murdered". Neither source uses "murdered" in reference to the entire 800,000 wartime casualties in Warsaw, contrary to what you're saying. Your selective (not to say manipulative) use of sources would get you kicked out of any undergraduate class in history at any Polish university. As for the rest, you seem to be having a hard time that it's not necessary here to educate anyone that the Nazi regime was evil. This knowledge should be taken for granted, not taking it for granted is patronizing - period. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten, please stick to the topic instead of trying to lecture other editors (speaking of "patronizing"...) on whether or not they'd pass undergraduate courses. You have neither the qualifications nor the mandate, here on Wikipedia. And you're splitting hairs - sure, not every single of those 800,000 was "murdered" strictly speaking. We could word it something like "killed 800,000 civilians, most of whom were murdered in cold blood" - this is in fact how the sources use the term. And no - in contexts that directly deal with Nazi Germany, it is sometimes important to restate the fact that the Nazi regime was evil. I think we've seen users on this very encyclopedia who seem to forget that fact, while others, while saying "of course the Nazis were evil" then proceed to try and whitewash Nazi crimes. If it is obvious and true as you say, then there really is no cost to restating it (and even here, we're only doing it indirectly, by being specific and factual about what the Nazis did). You've pulled this notion that somehow this is "patronizing" out of thin air and now present it as a knock-down argument which it isn't. By far.radek (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't need any "mandate" to point out that your use of references is manipulative - you implied that the sources used "murdered" in reference to all wartime casualties in Warsaw, when they don't. Pointing out obvious mistakes (not to say blatant attempts at manipulation) isn't patronizing. What is patronizing is assuming that readers will be unable to understand common neutral wordings. "[I]n contexts that directly deal with Nazi Germany, it is sometimes important to restate the fact that the Nazi regime was evil. [...] [W]e've seen users [...] who seem to forget that fact, while others [...] try and whitewash Nazi crimes." I think now we're getting nearer to the crux of the matter. No one is denying that Wikipedia is vulnerable to Nazi (or other) POV pushers. However, that doesn't mean that we have to preemptively fortify our wordings against them. We're writing for the reasonable average person here, not for totally ignorant and morally immature hypothetical readers that must be protected against Nazi propaganda. " You've pulled this notion that somehow this is "patronizing" out of thin air". No, in fact, I have gone to great length to explain this - I just did it again. If you refuse to understand this, I can't help it. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mandate" - what exactly gives you the right to lecture others? And no I was not "manipulating" sources - and saying so borders on a personal attack - I didn't say that the sources used "murdered" in reference to ALL wartime casualties, just that this term is a frequently used , by the sources, to describe the wartime killing of CIVILIANS in Warsaw. What you seem to be asking for is a source which explicitly states "all 800,000, every single one, was murdered" - which is of course a ridiculous request. The sources use the term to refer GENERALLY to the civilian casualties of Warsaw. And again - the idea that somehow being factual about Nazi crimes is "patronizing" (to whom? experts in Nazi atrocities?) is your own invention. You seem to be mistaking a strongly worded assertion for an intellectual argument. It doesn't matter whether you think that this is "patronizing" or not. What matters is what the sources say. So please drop it.radek (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your comments. A lot of civilians killed in Warsaw were murdered and I fail to see why we should use the more neutral term, killed can basicaly mean anything. But anyway as usual lets agree to disagree. Loosmark (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If it "puzzles" you that someone wants to keep moralizing, patronizing language out of here, you're definitely in the wrong place. The 800,000 victims mentioned in the paragraph died in a variety of circumstances; executions, combat, exhaustion, starvation - you name it). So using a term that "can basically mean anything" is exactly what we should do. In no way does "killing" imply that the killing was in any way morally justified. That everything about Nazi policies was morally corrupt can be taken for granted and doesn't need to be hammered home to our readers. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling the text "moralizing, patronizing language" is your particular POV. I personally don't see it that way. So we should use the term that the sources use. Which is "murdered".radek (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out above why using an emotional term when a neutral term is available is patronizing and nieency. "I personally don't see it that way" (emphasis mine). No further comment necessary. "we should use the term that the sources use. Which is "murdered"." No, they don't, as pointed out above. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this "emotional term" that you refer to? "Murdered"? Yes, it is a strong term, but in this instance it is also a factually correct one. Just like it is in many other instances. Or are you going to go and lobby to change Mississippi civil rights workers murders to "Mississippi civil rights workers killings" because "murders" is too POV and emotive? You need a far better argument than just your own personal emotions on the subject.radek (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I know absolutely nothing about Mississippi civil rights workers murders. But from the sound of it, "murder" seems to be a correct word. Anyway, using an article name like Mississippi civil rights workers murders to justify a wording like "Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered" is extremely far-fetched. But by now, I've stopped expecting anything else. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- Well, you were arguing that "murdered" is an emotive and POV term. I've been arguing that it isn't, as long as it is in fact what happened and that fact is verifiable through the use of reliable sources. You appear to be backing down from your extreme earlier stance (that "murdered" is always POV) now, though you're also abandoning consistency in the process. So let me say it again, there's nothing POV about using "murdered" to describe unlawful killings of civilians, whether this is perpetrated by individuals or states.radek (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that ca 2 million of the German expellees "died" as part of the expulsion, what is the politically correct way of referring to, for example, the sub-population of that total which met their doom via direct physical action (e.g., shooting) by Polish Communist Militias? There's a whole string of word candidates: "simply died", "eventually died", "likely died", "simply killed", "likely killed", and last, but not least, "murdered". . . . Oops, almost forgot: "indeterminant deaths". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 76.14.240.177 could you please start to sign your posts? If you don't know how to do it: it's simple just type 4 type four tildes at the end. Thank you in advance. As for what you write I don't know what exactly is the purpose of your continuous anti-Polish provocations but I'll try to answer you politely anyway: if some German civilians were illegaly shoot then that needs to be called as it was and not with another name. If however you are trying to imply that the Polish Communist authorities were similar to the Nazis then your are only wasting your time. Loosmark (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting concept: the Polish Communist Militias as Altruists on Horseback during the Wild Expulsions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An even more interesting concept is an anonymous IP trying to bait Polish editors to overreactions. Nice try but unfortunately: [21] Loosmark (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would they over-react? I'm sure that not all the Polish Communist Militas on Horseback during the Wild Expulsions were altruists . . . . maybe only a few were.

Although off-topic, here's where I would expect "Polish editors" to have multiple opinions: I think that some of the Polish Communist Militas were perfectly capable of carrying out Stalin's ordered Katyn massacre against their own people. Communism poisoned the mind just as much as Nazism did. All Stalin had to say was "enemy of the people" and all his lapdogs jumped to do his bidding, for reasons to include self-preservation, fear, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, by comparing the Polish communists with the Nazis you are only discrediting yourself. Loosmark (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Certain comparisons are easy to make. For example, the Nazis wanted to eventually do away with the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise (repeat after me): the Communists wanted to eventually do away with the Roman Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what I think you are on to something, the commies in the DDR might have had some similarities with the Nazis, the secret police Stasi was maybe similar to the Gestapo, but I'm not sure. Maybe we should research the Berlin 1953 events and the role of the East Germany communist militias. Since you seem to be an expert on these comparisions maybe you can research it for us. Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I say again, "some of the Polish Communist Militas were perfectly capable of carrying out Stalin's ordered Katyn massacre against their own people."

Also, maybe you could explain what you mean by "the german POV".ANNRC (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's not get bogged down in these semantics. This issue remains whether the events in Warsaw either instigated, contributed to, or in any other way, based on scholarly sources, influenced Stalin, who in the final analysis acted alone in deciding to expel the Germans, not these arguments about semantics. Furthermore these debates and lengthy expostulations belong in the discussion section, not the survey section. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The problem is that the paragraph under discussion has so many issues that you don't even know what to start with. Anyway, as long as there are no scholarly sources that say that "the events in Warsaw either instigated, contributed to, or in any other way [...] influenced Stalin" we can save ourselves this tedious discussion. That the Poles were, understandably, more than happy to see the Germans leave is perfectly obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be obvious to you but remember we are building an international encyclopedia and the casual reader from Zimbabwe, Cambodia or Venezuela doesn't know these things too well. Adding a single sentence to help readers who are unfamiliar with the topic most certainly doesn't hurt. Loosmark (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Adding a single sentence to help readers who are unfamiliar with the topic most certainly doesn't hurt." No, not when it's worded manner-of-factly and doesn't confuse facts and judgments. "the casual reader from Zimbabwe, Cambodia or Venezuela doesn't know these things too well." Please don't underestimate the schools and common sense of people in poorer countries. That's what I meant with "patronizing". --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not underestimating or patronizing anybody but I've traveled the world a bit and I can tell you that the general knowledge of history is poor, very poor. Even in countries much richer than those like for example in the US. Anyway adding a sentence which describes a little bit what was going on in Poland IMO isn't patronising at all and we have 10000x more patronising stuff on wikipedia anyway. Loosmark (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"I can tell you that the general knowledge of history is poor, very poor." Yes, especially knowledge of Polish history, of course. Poles are history buffs. ;) However, ask the average Pole a question not relating to the history of Poland, and in particular, the treatment of Poles at the hands of Germans or Russians, say the Spanish Civil War, and the picture won't be much different. "Anyway adding a sentence which describes a little bit what was going on in Poland IMO isn't patronising at all" - again, not if it's worded matter-of-factly. The paragraph under discussion isn't. Quite apart from the fact that it implies a causal connection that just isn't there. "we have 10000x more patronising stuff on wikipedia anyway." Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make a right, even 10,000 wrongs don't. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent) Again, please stop the with the semantics over murder and with the assesment of the educational systems of Zimbabwe, Cambodia or Venezuela . There's a plethora of examples of military forces committing murder throughout history. The Germans at Warsaw, the Americans at My Lai, the Poles at Pinsk, and so on, and so on. Let's not get bogged down here over this and return to the question of the survey. Did these events have a direct bearing to these events? The only reason I haven't voted is I've been waiting for further evidence. I think its been five days now. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The scale of Pinks events (according to your link 35 people killed) and the events in Warsaw (+100.000 civilians murdered) is completely different. It's out of place to compare the two, but we all know why you did that, don't we. Loosmark (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, please don't attempt to read my mind..."we all know why you did that, don't we..." A psychic you're not. But it's an interesting comment just the same. A more interesting comment is..."Pinks events (according to your link 35 people killed) and the events in Warsaw (+100.000 civilians murdered) ". That speaks for itself, in so far as your non- neutral POV is concerned, and it's revealing as well. After that ridiculous and tedious debate over the semantics concerning murder, you come back with the statement that the Germans "murdered" Polish civilians, while at the Pinsk events "people" were "killed". Truly interesting.

Just to give you an insight into my actual thinking, and I'm telling you this from the perspective of a Pacifist, morality is not, IMHO, predicated on the number of times it is deviated from. Whether you murder one person or a hundred thousand you're evil and dammed. And it's probably harder to kill 10 people with a knife than 1000 people with a machine gun, or 100,000 people with incendiary bombs. Mans inhumanity to man unfortunately goes back a long way, and it continues even as you read this. What happened in Warsaw is not the axis of the world view concerning the subject. It was a great tragedy, everything about it was, not least of all the "heroic" foolishness of the Uprising. Whereas the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was heroic, as that was their only option, many Poles understand that the Warsaw Uprising was not. But the issue remains whether the events in Warsaw are related to this article in anything but the most peripheral manner. I believe they do not. I'm trying to be patient and still waiting for the evidence demonstrating this. Oh, and do please tell me why "we" know why I brought up the examples of Pinsk and My Lai. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments: I don't oppose calling the Pinsk event a murder, secondly i disagree with your comment above, if you murder a person you are sure evil and damned however if you murder 1000 people then you are 1000 times damned, so there is a big difference between murdering 35 people or 100,000 people. Finally I find your comment on the foolishness of the Uprising "unfortunate" and even offensive, those people were true heros, they did what they thought was right at the risk of their own lives and they could not have possibly known that Stalin would order the Red Army not to help. Loosmark (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of the 2 million German civilians who died during the expulsions is it an exaggeration to say that Polish Communist Militas murdered between 50,000 and 100,000 of them?ANNRC (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "they could not have possibly known that Stalin would order the Red Army not to help": the following is from Wikipedia, Subj Warsaw Uprising: "The insurgents aimed to reinstate Polish authorities before the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation could assume control." The two statements are mutually exclusive.76.14.240.177 (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Like, how? No wait don't tell me I got tired of reading your anti-Polish provokations. Loosmark (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason & Logic 101: You can't strategize/hope to win (as in Warsaw Uprising) before another faction shows up and then, when they don't show up in enough time to essentally save you from losing, blame the other faction for your not winning. The only way to reconcile this inconsistency is to disconnect the statement and then claim that no such interconnective ever existed.76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it True that both the Wild Expulsions and the Post-Wild-Expulsions were conducted by the Polish Communist Militia?

They apparently worked both sides of the street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Was there really a need to start a new section just to write that? Loosmark (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Polish Communist Militias seemed to be overlooked in the debate. Were these the folks that were going to be discriminating (i.e., "reflecting the will of the Polish people") in determining which Germans were allowed to stay and which Germans had to leave, carrying whatever would fit into a sack carried over their shoulder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

apparant copyvios

There are numerous copyright violations in the "Evacuation and flight to Denmark" section - basically, everything from the Spiegel Online source (i.e. everything that is not from a self-published source) is taken verbatim. For example:

Article: "the refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by military personnel.[22][29] The largest camp, located in Oksbøl on the west coast of Jutland, held 37,000 refugees.[22]"

Spiegel: "The refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by heavily armed overseers. The largest camp was located in Oksboll, on the west coast of Jutland, and had 37,000 detainees."

But pretty much every sentence from that source is very close to being verbatim. Likewise in the Poland section, the sentences taken from Gibney and Hansen are also copyvios.

There may be more and the whole article should be checked.radek (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, rephrased. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also take care of the ones that come straight out of the Gibney and Hansen book?radek (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out the problematic sentences and/or phrases? Thanks, Novickas (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Glasnost and historiography

[[:File:Tessek valasztani.jpg|thumb|200px|Eastern Europe before and after glasnost and perestroika. Choose, please! - A 1990 political poster by Fidesz, depicting Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker performing a traditional and widely known communist-style kiss-greeting (archive photo, above) and a kissing contemporary young couple (below).]] "The fall of the Soviet Union, the spirit of glasnost and the unification of Germany opened the door to a renewed examination of these events." - Did "glasnost" really have anything to do with it? Is there a source for this claim, as well as for the others in the sentence?radek (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "The fall of the Soviet Union and the spirit of glasnost opened the door to a renewed examination of the Katyn event(s)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk • contribs)

The linked events could be exchanged with "The fall of Communism and thus the fall of regime-dictaded, -censored and -fabricated historiography in the USSR and her satellite regimes including East Germany" To cite Claudia Kraft, Ruhr University, Bochum, analyzing the situation in Poland:

"For many years, there were strict limitations on dealing with the expulsion of Germans in a scientific manner in the People's Republic of Poland. It was considered the inevitable consequence of the German extermination policy in Eastern and Central Europe and the territorial reorganization following World War II. Since the 1960s, the integration and settlement of the new Polish territories was intensively studied. This meant that the "forced resettlement" or "transfer" of the Germans was also studied - but only as a precondition for the successful integration of these territories, without asking about the responsibility of the Poles involved or about the impact of these events on the country's political culture. In addition, historians fell back on traditions found earlier in Polish historiography, traditions according to which the former Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostgebiete) were considered as originally Polish territories. The disappearance of the Germans from Poland thus was regarded as a more or less logical consequence of historic developments. Only once historiography was no longer subject to political limitations after the political turnaround of 1989 was it possible to use a more comprehensive approach when dealing with the complex of theme that was "expulsion". Sometimes in co-operation with their German colleagues, Polish historians seized the opportunity of more liberal access to the archives to reconstruct the sequence of events during the expulsions and the activities of the decision-makers and players involved. The topic of expulsion was considered one of the "blank spots" which had been caused by the restrictions that the science of history had been subjected to during the existence of the People's Republic of Poland and which Polish historians now began to reappraise with great vigour." (cite from Claudia Kraft: Germany, its Neighbouring Countries, and the Expellees: History and History Policy since 1949. Debates on the Expulsion of Germans in Poland since 1945. Changes in Historiography.)

Emphasis added. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the german POV. Loosmark (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no "German POV". Skäpperöd (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another, non-German source: "The operation of double resettlement - Poles by the Soviets, resettled onto a territory from which Germans were expelled by other Poles and the Soviet Army - had a clearly precarious status. It had to be ideologically defended, mostly by spreading anti-German sentiments and propaganda, and it certainly was not supposed to be questioned under any circumstances. A debate about the Soviet annexation of the Polish eastern territories was unthinkable during the Cold War. Thus, the injustices in the Polish east and the German east were "balanced-off", as it were, in the conciousness of many Poles, and were understood as "just" acts by the Poles and the Russians, with regard to the Germans. Moreover, the expulsions of both the Poles and the Germans became a taboo in Communist Poland, not addressed politically or publically, or educationally, for decades, except for the official anti-German (or later on, anti West-German) propaganda. [...] The ideological freeze on any open discussion of the status and manner of the expulsion of the Germans and the Poles lasted practically until the changes of 1989 in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe." (Arie Marcelo Kacowicz, Pawel Lutomski: Population resettlement in international conflicts: A comparative study. Lexington Books, 2007, pp.102,103, ISBN 073911607) Skäpperöd (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's better, although it's still not clear to me what exactly does that has to do with the glasnost policy (wasn't that an internal Soviet thing?) Loosmark (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole Eastern Bloc was an "internal Soviet thing" - until glasnost and perestroika changed just that. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much glasnost and perestroika changed that, the fall of communism in 1989 brought real changes. Loosmark (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Glasnost and perestroika were the fall of Communism. At least the decisive steps on the Soviet side, which deprived the Eastern European regimes of Soviet military and - even more important - ideological support. That's why these regimes collapsed one by one within months, and there was no re-occurrence of Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, and Prague 1968. That's how it had ended without glasnost. [22] Skäpperöd (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- I think it's possible to make a connection between the fall of Communism and the study of expulsions though care should be taken to do so in a NPOV way (something like "systematic and scientific study of the expulsions became easier and more comprehensive after the fall of the Soviet Union"...). However I don't see a link between "glasnost" and the "expulsions" - and no, "glasnost and perestroika" were not the fall of Communism - they were a last ditch effort to save it by making some compromises, which didn't work. But that's off topic actually. Bottom line is - need sources linking "glasnost" to this article.radek (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the fall of communism as a factor (in wider discussions of the issue) with a ref and quote. The ref uses the phrase fall of communism; if editors object to the specific term Glasnost in this regard, they could take that out; I'd think there wouldn't be much argument. In the event some outsider happens on this, the term G. implies the whole thing originated within the SU rather than without - that makes it sensitive. Novickas (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Batch rename for all World War II evacuation and expulsion articles

Articles on those subjects are chaotically and confusingly named. Please see a proposal to standardize all names here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)