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

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive1

Real dispute

Header

There are two headers now: the one by Ruhrjung and the one by Cautious. I must say I like the earlier more since it looks as if it was a good compromise. Cautious, could you please stop reverting it?Halibutt 12:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For comparison:

• Ruhrjung:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the expulsion policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of all ethnic Germans from the eastern parts of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe.

• Cautious:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer, of all remaining Germans, from outside post-WW2 border of Germany, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference.

I think, this makes no sense to put POV staff: some believe it was ethnic cleansing some something else in the header. There is a place for discussion later in the article. Factual problems are 2: population transfer had to occur from outside of the new borders, not only from so called Eastern Germany of Nico. Eastern Germany must be then defined as Eastern Germany from 1937 and this makes no sense. Another factual problem is that it is stated ethnic Germans, and this is subject of our dispute. The POV staff includes mentioning SU, without mentioning UK and USA, and without collaboration from UK and USA the transfer wouldn't be possible. Cautious 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on, back down on this one please. The Allied cooperation is mentioned just two or three paragraphs below.Halibutt 12:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the second thought we could settle a real compromise. Like, for instance:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most Germans from the eastern parts of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe.

How about that?Halibutt 12:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I dislike the "of most [[Germans]]", but I would have had no problem at all to accept "of most [[Germanness|Germans]]", given that the article on Deutschtum were written/tranlated. I've for a long time considered to write such an article myself, but have a considerable resistence against it, since I feel my understanding of ethnicity and nationality being too much coloured by my background in German and French thinking.

--Ruhrjung 13:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is not true, that people that feel themselves German were expulsed. Much more important was, what others think about them. For Soviet soldier from Kazakhstan, everybody West of Vistula was German. Later they recognize Poles in some way. German women were raped and killed afterwards, Polish were spared the life. :-( Later Polish procedure took into account nationality, citizenship, not ethnicity. Cautious 15:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What was the intention? Are you claiming that "German populations" at Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Wording_of_the_actual_agreement aimed at inclusion of Poles, or at exclusion of non-citizens, or what are you actually implying?--Ruhrjung 16:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It should be stated that expulsions included huge number of not-ethnic Germans as well. Accoring to Edmund Osmanczyk book, all menfolk of Upper Silesia and Pomerania were deported to Kazakhstan, without disputing nationality. Cautious 16:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree on one of User:Cautious's points. My proposed wording is unlucky in that respect, that it literally says "eastern parts of Germany" despite the expulsions affecting also areas neither belonging to pre-War Nazi Germany, nor being declared annexed during the war. However, the expulsion of Germans from East Germany is that much more important, as it affected a large number of persons, that I thought it at this place, where brevity is important, waranted this deviation from the absolute truth. Furthermore, as I already have noted, I dislike the weaseling. However, we must also try to be pragmatic. How could this article reach a stabile maturity? If you ask me, not by trying to carry on where the Red Army halted in 1945. A compromise is called for.--Ruhrjung 13:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So perhaps a frase like from all the areas located east from the present-day German border or something similar would do? Anyway, I feel we're nearing some sort of a compromise.

Other question is the difference between

• Germans
• ethnic Germans
• people feeling themselves Germans

For me the word Germans would do since the expultions were aimed at other nationalities (Kashubians, Silesians) as well as people feeling themselves Polish or locals (Danzigers) rather than German. By chosing the word Germans we could simply add a phrase like:

• refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most people considered Germans by the communist authorities.

and explain the problem in the article. How about that?Halibutt 13:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then some well-meaning wikipedian notice that [[Germans]] links to a disambiguation page, and relink it to [[Germany]], and suddenly the reference exclude the ethnic Germans. :-/

--Ruhrjung 15:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let it be [[ethnic German|Germans]] then, at least as a temporary solution - until someone prepares a decent article on GermansHalibutt 19:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, at a second thought, if what today is a disambiguation page [[German]] was extended to cover the problems with different understandings of the term, ... ...that could maybe be a solution.

--Ruhrjung 16:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) (leaving for work now)

Could you try to do it?Halibutt 19:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

So, is ths version acceptable?:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most people considered Germans by the communist authorities, from all the areas located east from the post-war German border. This policy has been agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

To do:

• Germanness - Ruhrjung
• [[Soviet satellites - me and Cautous
• explanation of most Germans, more info on Silesans, Kashubians and Volksdeutchen of all nationalities - later in the article or in Germanness - [[me or Ruhrjung?
• did I include all the compromse solutions? s this verson acceptable now?Halibutt 22:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Few things that i see as being controversial in article and headers: (by szopen) "The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the policy of ethnic cleansing of the Germans from the eastern part of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite powers in Eastern Europe. "

• eastern part of Germany is wrong, since Germans were also expelled from parts which were either incorporated into "Reich" after 1939 (fact not recognised by most of international community) or outside "Reich" borders.

• population transfer (which could be seen as ethnic cleansing ... or something like that

"- Property in the affected territory that belonged to Germany and Germans was confiscated. "

vs "Property in the affected territory that belonged to Germany and Germans was to be used as a partial compensation for property damages caused by Germany during the war and as compensation for Poles affected by population transfer from territories ceded to Ukraine. Most people, from either side, who lost their property during the war, have never been compensated. "

• I have no heart for making compromise of that right now...

"The Heimatvertriebene in general are aware and recognize the fact that Poles since 1945 live in the eastern German homelands. The official proposed policy is not to repeat the Potsdam Agreement expulsions with new persecutions and population transfers. Most Heimatvertriebene welcome the Slavic peoples now living on German lands as welcome friends and neighbours in the European Union. "

I would call it highly controversial. Lands are not eternally German, Polish, or whatever. RIght now they belong to Poland. Period. Szopen

Ok, current state: Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Germans remaining outside of German territory as defined by Potsdam Conference.

previous state: Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer, of Germans, remaining outside post-WW2 border of Germany, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference.

My points:

• this version is simple - all of proposals seen here seem clumsy or overly complicated
• this version admits that it was ethnic cleansing because of ' The discussion of the reasons' second paragraph. Ethnic cleansing means relocation some ethnic group with optional casualties. Seems to fit the facts, no need to dilute it.
• population transfer seems like political correctness and considering the casualties it is inappropriate
• argument that Poles suffered more while being transported from territories annexed by Russians doesn't mean that Germans did not suffered (what could justify population transfers)
• if you note the differences in interpretation of facts simply write on it in the body of the article, perhaps creating some subsection. You can eleborate there keeping header tidy.
• What about writing Expulsion of Poles after World War II article and placing a link in Expulsion of Germans after World War II at See also section?
• I'm for creating some ovrview article on Polish-German post-war relationspips, doing research now. Who is for?

Before you start adpersons: I'm Pole, born in Wroclaw and loving it and my grandpa was from Lwow, his family relocated. But I don't think that it matters when it comes to facts. Forseti 11:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing (definition) "The term ethnic cleansing defies a simple definition. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. " Why we shall use the term, that is so unclear and at the same time, it was invented 50 years later?

Population transfer makes more sense, because it is simply and clearly defined.

Another point: we should decide, if we want to describe the expulsion only, or the whole process. Forced expulsion was only one phase of process of transfering German population to Germany. There were more phase, and one must take all of them into account. Cautious 16:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From 'Population transfer':

Given the logistics of a forced "transfer," it is widely thought of as a euphemism for ethnic cleanising , which in turn, carries the connotations of violence and genocide. In it's most idealistic meaning, "transfer" is the mildest form of ethnic cleansing—a peaceful relocation of a compliant people from one area to another. Nationalist agitation and its supportive propaganda are typical politcal tools by which public support is cultivated in favor of population transfer as a solution to conflict.

So you see why I (and Germans) see it as political correctness propaganda? Well, I've read Davies' 'Microcosmos', considering it a quite objective view on the issue and I really don't think that what happened should be neat labeled 'population transfer' as the label really carries no connotation with suffering , loss of dignity and life and loss of property is only implied.

I see the definition of 'Ethnic cleansing' to be really good piece of work and very suitable here: it conveys connotation with violence and - most important - with ethnic criterion. Difference between this cleansing and that of Yugoslavia should be explained just paragraph below.

BTW: what about my last three points? Have you any opinion?

BTW2: I won't revert to ethnic cleansing for now, waiting for your response. Please take your own advice and stop reworking it if some offended German does it.

Forseti 08:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stop propaganda publicistics and talk about facts. Population of Wroclaw 1939 around 600,000 1943 1,000,000 1945 200,000. You probably refer to ethnic cleansing of 800,000 people from Wroclaw by Nazi government? Anyway, the article doesn't give anybody right impression what has really happenned. I am in favour of describing suffering of all people according to historical truth, but I am strongly against propaganda. And in here, nobody wants to discuss with me about facts. Cautious 09:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Speaking about facts: an excerpt from announcement of Allied Control Council i Berlin:

(2) All the German population migrated from Poland (3.5 million persons) will be admitted in Soviet and British occupation zone in Germany[...]

Norman Davies in his 'Microcosm' (Jonathan Cape, 2002) ISBN 0224062433 admits that up to Aug 1946 95% of Germans in now-Polish territories would had to be drove out.

As of Wroclaw: population of Poles in Wroclaw in Dec 1945 was 33297 and there was five times that of Germans. In Mar 1947 it was: 196.814 of Poles and 17.496 of Germans.

As of expellings: the post-war standard in transportation of expellees were freight trains. In case of German expellees they were sealed from without and people had to spend 3-4 days in crowded, stinking with extrements and dark trucks. At destination corpses of those not surviving were put into prepared simple coffins. A part of expellees were deemed insane after experience. - this is from 'Microcosm' too, Davies cites some German priest present at reception of expellees in Gorlitz.

So you see why I don't like population transfer - it was not that clean. -- Forseti 13:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not see any simple factual point. Norman Davies is more publicist then historian. His books are full of factual errors, but easy to read. I read the same page, and I read that those fraights were closed from inside, due to fact, that bandits were really common menace. People wanted to secure themselves, so they closed the fraights. However, this makes no difference to describe it as transfer or cleansing. Moreover, most of Germans of Wroclaw, were expelled by Nazi. Yet another fact: in those days food shortages in Germany were responsible for many deaths. It is very likely that transportation conditions were not worse then normal life in Germany then. Cautious 23:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Nico, its to you: Your version of header can be disputed on grounds of factual and logical accuracy:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Germans from the eastern part of Germany occupied by Stalin's Red Army during the second world war.

• at the time of Potsdam decisions it was't Eastern German anymore but contested territory held under Polish administration until the time of diclomatic border delimitation (what happened in 1992 AFAIR)
  • Please read: It was occupied by Stalin's Red Army during the second world war. Anyway, Eastern Germany was de jure considered German, even by the German government, until 1990. The expellees still consider it German. Nico 23:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No, it wasn't de jure German. While it was only temporarily under Polish administration Potsdam Conference stated that in future the will be peace conference that will convey final delimitation. Delimitation in diplomacy means minor errata. So it was meant for Poland. Moreover, if it were to be German, why to expell Germans? So to it was transitional state (probably due to Great Trio infighting and inability to reach consensus). If you want to object more please consider analogy: if your business is going bankrupt and the court assigns official receiver to its property to satisfy your creditor - is that property yours or creditor?
• it wasn't occupied but held under Polish administration
  • It was occupied. Nico 23:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No it wasn't. And while I don't wan't to continue this childplay I could if you insist.
      • Freund! Then why are Polish contributors claiming that various parts of present-day Poland (like Rahmel (now Rumia)) was occupied, when their official status was not "occupied"? Nico 15:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• If you want to claim that it was Soviet occupation, you must claim also that all the Poland People Republic was under Soviet occupation (the Soviet Garrizon at Legnica was withdrawn only in 1991)
  • Surely Poland also was under some sort of occupation. However, Stalin's Polish puppet government still (also) was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Germans, but I'm of course not blaming the Poles only. Nico 23:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not only Soviet forces stationed there, it was early claimed by Polish administration too.
• It wasn't only matter of evil Stalin wreaking havoc on Germany but effect of Potsdam that isn't even mentioned in header.
  • Of course it was the matter of the most evil mass murder and oppressor in history. Yes, the western allies sold Eastern Europe to Stalin, but why? They had no chance to do anything. Nico 23:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • UGH! I have sense of losing the point of article in details. Look, it's the header of article not the body. You can't write your conclusions first and then explain them - not that order. Let's state in header most obvious facts and expand the nuances in the body. So we should mention the Potsdam Conference as the basis of whole action first and then explain the whys. We should mention that Great Trio set the border at Oder-Neisse and chose to expel the Germans from eastern side of it first and then deliberate over whose the land was. Facts before controversies please. I trust that you find Potsdam and its decisions hard historical facts too because in my opinion they are the basis of whole issue and so should be the basis of whole article.

Personal note to Nico: please remember we have to work out an NPOV article. It is no place for German nationalist or Polish nationalist bias and I want neither. I even admit that views of Poles and Germans have its place in Wikipedia as part of reality but they should not substitute for historical facts.

• It wasn't only expulsion from Poland - what of Benes decrees? It is even mentioned in article!
  • You are correct. Nico 23:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- Forseti 11:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- Forseti 08:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SO, we again have "Eastern Germany"" despite the fact, that it was also expulsion from lands that were not parts of Germany?! Szopen

The article is much more flip-flopping than is good. What can we do about that?

--Ruhrjung 06:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans versus citziens of Germany.

i.e. Poland, people that signed Volksliste were subject of legal persecutions as a traitors. They were also subject to death penalty during the war. We should put this detail to the article.

===Volksdeutsche=== were subject of severe persecutions in Eastern Europe. I tries to make an article World War II traitors hunt. They were persecuted as traitors, not as Germans. It is not fair to put them as German victims, without stating what was the problem. ===Some of Volksdeutsche were not ethnic Germans.=== In Poland there were 2.8 milions of Volksdeutche, while pre-WW2 German population were around 1 milion. Polish Volksdeutsche were more persecuted then German Volksdeutsche. Are we going to put them as Germans killed after WW2 or we state the truth? For example, the Lambinowice camp were for Silesians, partly positively verified afterwards. Killed there people can be shown as an example of Stalinist persecution of Poles or Germans killed by Poles. Wouldn't be better to state truth? Cautious 11:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, there were lots of people forced to sign the Volksliste, most notably in the areas incorporated into the Reich and Tatra mountains. My friends' grandpa served in an Afrika Corps batallion where some 30% of soldiers were Poles from the area of Silesia, Bydgoszcz and Torun who were given an alternative of either being sent to Wehrmacht or Concentration camps. The main source of manpower for the polish armies fighting in the west were the POW camps - both German POW camps for Polish soldiers and Allied POW camps for German soldiers. (see: Wladyslaw Anders, Bez ostatniego rozdziału)Halibutt 12:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Siberia deportations

The article son't mention the ongoing deportation of Germans and Volksdeutche to Siberia. ===Cautious 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) It seems as discussions dominate over warfare at the moment. That's good. May I ask which wordings you would have preferred?
--Ruhrjung 12:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd go for something like this:

German policies on the lands incorporated into the III Reich included forcing the inhabitants of Silesia and Pomerania to sign the Volksliste. In 1943 the number of pre-war Polish citizens to sign it reached 2.300.000. Many of them were ethnic Germans, however a big number of them were Poles. Until 1945 approximately 250.000 Poles were forced to join Wehrmacht, most of them in the Pomerania region. Almost 90.000 of them were taken POW on the western front and later joined the Polish Army. However, 50.000 Poles taken POW on the Eastern Front were treated the same way as the soldiers of German nationality and only 2.000 were allowed to join the army. After the war additional 30.000 Poles who signed the volksliste were arrested and sent to work camps.

How about it? Isn't it too detailed?Halibutt 12:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Evacuation, transfer, emigration

People escaped, people were transfered, people also wanted to emigrate ===and after 1948 tobe-Germans were banned emigration. It is never stated in the article, that after the forcible transfers, most of people wanted to emigrate but couldn't. +

Numbers involved

I think that approximately 5 milions escaped, 5 milions were transfered. Unknown number includes people deported to Siberia. If we come with 15 milion number, it means that approximately 5 milions emigrated when it was already forbidden. (Escaped, emigrated after W.Germany-Poland treaties and so on) + Cautious 09:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Evacuation is included?

If we want to cover the whole subject, evacuation must be described in details. i.e decision of creation festung Breslau was followed with evacuation of 90% of dwellers (1943 - neraly 1 milion people, 1945 100 000 people). Cautious 09:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All about Nico, Cautious and other users

User:Cautious's call (above) for banning his opponent User:Nico from discussions, and his repeated revertions to own version, without discussing it here, is maybe a habit which could be better adopted to a cooperative modus vivendi?
--Ruhrjung 13:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nico is not my oponent. Nico is somebody obsessed with the hate to Poles and Polish history (or maybe his family suffering). There is no resonable deal possible with Nico, since he:

• doesn't recognize current borders
• equals Nazi crimes with alleged Allies crimes

and so on. The article prepared with cooperation with Nico, will be false. Cautious 15:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I'm fed up with certain contributors' style of discussion and constant edit wars. That's why I asked for comments on them.Halibutt 10:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How history looks like from Sudeten nationalists POV

Maybe, Sudeten Nazi POV. Quite interesting reading http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/sginferno/sgi00.html 81.27.192.18 10:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is not POV, the problem is factual. I have no idea what is true in those informations, because they are about Czechoslovakia. I know, where exactly the German revisionists made factual falsifications, when they talk about areas of Poland. The main difference between Poland and Czechoslowakia is that Poles were treated as conquered nation. There were no nazi haven in Poland (in opposition what is described as nazi haven in Sudetas) and somebody had to be held responsible for this. Cautious 11:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so Nico again reverted from version which seemed to have more neutral wording (not: more resembling the truth, but: more neutral). My first reaction was to revert, but i decided that i will wait at least one day to wait whether someone else would also object.

Also, some of Nico's wording is highly misleading (some, especially from former Soviet satellite states, say - giving impression that the opinions are not revelant.) The question is still here: there was a lot of evacuation of Germans during war, the Breslau is not the only example. Are those numbers taken into account when giving numbers of Germans involved in post war population transfer? Szopen

The word "Nazi", as applied to ethnic Germans who were civilians and of unknown political affiliation already demonstrates that you are not NPOV. If you don't like Germans and don't want to get along with them... well, whatever. Most are happy to simply rationalize the crimes of the Soviets against the German people without trying to cover them up.

Removal of controversial edits

I removed rather extensive edits with several different controversial assertions, from an anonymous (Earthlink/Mindspring) contributor who elsewhere chiefly have added the claim that the Baltic peoples were "Germans".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II&diff=3064106&oldid=3064076

I suspect this being an example of pushing one's own point of view.

--Ruhrjung 06:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another anonymous contributor (from Prague) removed the second sentence from the following paragraph:

Both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Lev Kopelev during their Soviet military service had objected to the brutal murder of German civilians of East Prussia. For that both were put in Siberian Gulag for 10 years. There Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn memorized and later documented his experiences in the military as well as in the Gulag. Lev Kopelev wrote the book about these brutal events in East Prussia called To Be Preserved Forever (Khranit' Venchno).

I don't know if that's motivated or not. I just think the removal ought to be documented here.
--Ruhrjung 09:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Header again

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the mass deportation (generally considered ethnic cleansing) of Germans living in the eastern part of Germany lost after WW2, as was ordered by the Potsdam Conference.

Factual problems: there is no consensus, that it was an ethnic cleansing and obviously, it was not limited to former German territories. Even if refer to former German territories, it is not clear, what is meant. (It remaindes me the pre-WW2 joke: "German teacher: Hans, please show me the borders of Germany. Hans: Herr Lehrer, I haven't read todays newspapers yet") Nico wants Eastern Germany to refer to 1914 borders, some discuss 1939, 1937 or 1944 borders. Cautious 07:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The present header seems rather acceptable to me. Does anyone have any problems with it?Halibutt 07:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your point so far. The wording is sub-optimal and the article is, in general, a mess with dozens of inconsistencies. However, you are wrong if you see Nico as your enemy whom you have to beat one way or the other. You would better try to rephrase sensitive wordings in a way which you seriously believe also Nico would agree to, or if not agree, at least accept.

A msg:disputed-header might seem warranted for, but in reality, I believe there is a NPOV-problem in the background. Don't you?

I think it's time for you guys to read the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial for some guidance!
--Ruhrjung 08:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did we reach a compromise and all accept this header?Halibutt 00:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've just read nice article in which it was pointed that terms "expulsion" and "resettling" are forced because of political reasons. "Expulsions" is used to create impression that it was illegal, and with mass-crimes. "Population transfer" quite the opposite. It can't be therefore compromise here; I propose mention _why_ there is argument over using these words and finish the case. Szopen

Optimism is a good, and often necessary, feature! :)

I think you are right, that an analysis would be wikipedic!

But the quarrels can surely continue over the wordings of the analysis too. :-((

But please, make a try!
--Ruhrjung 23:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merger

• • I disagree. The second is dealing with the expulsion based on Potdsam agreement, while the latter is about the WW2 evacuation of civilian populations. Opposite is true: we should truly divide subject between those 2 articles, and add main article, that deals with the whole process (but I have no idea, what should be the name of main article) Cautious 14:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New head article

I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.

Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Casualities

OK, here are some casualities [1]

Vertreibungsverluste:

Tote und Vermißte während der Vertreibung

• Aus den Ostgebieten des Deutschen Reiches 1.225.000
• Tschechoslowakei 267.000
• Aus den übrigen Ländern 619.000

Gesamt: 2.111.000

Die Gesamtverluste betragen 3.211.000 (Kriegsverluste 1.100.000 und Vertreibungsverluste 2.111.000). Von den 1939 in den Vertreibungsgebieten ansässigen Deutschen ist somit jeder Fünfte gefallen oder umgekommen.

Nico 01:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but what about 15 million number of displaced? How many of them were expelled, how many evacuated or escaped during war?Szopen

15 million is the number the Bund der Vertriebenen provides. It includes "Flucht, Vertreibung und Aussiedlung". It should not be impossible to find detailed casualities, if necessary. Nico 07:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly:
Flucht means Evacuation (5 mil)
Vertreibung means Expulsions (5 mil)
Aussiedlung means Emigration (5 mil)
Do you suppose that we Poles, forgot German language??
This article is dealing with the expulsions only. Casualtis number, this 1200 000 include also the victims of the evacuation. Cautious 08:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It's all covered by "Expulsion of Germans after World War II", and it makes no sense to have three separate articles dealing with German "evacuated", "emigrated" and "refugees". "Vertreibung" has a wide meaning in German. That's why the Bund der Vertriebenen are calling themselves, exactly, Vertriebene, which includes those who fled, those who remained and were forced to leave and those who had to emigrate when their country was occupied. Nico 08:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I feel that it is completely unapropriate to put the heading "Expulsion" then in the header "DEPORTATION" and reference to the people, that were so lucky to get passport for emigration from communist Poland. Do you know, that some people waited 8 years to get an approval for emigration?
The artcile named Expulsion should be about expulsion. By the way, I am preparing the article under working name User:Cautious/Dawn of German East that should deal with all that subjects. Cautious 08:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Those figures from Ostpreussennrw.de - what are they based on? Do they include civilians killed by Soviet armed forces during the war? Or killed by allied bombing? Or died due to food shortages in Europe?

Ostpreussenrw.de is a pressure group representing displaced Germans and their relatives. Not a neutral site!

Exile 20:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Ethnically cleansed" - "genocid" - and parallells

I've just reverted this (mosty Nicos) version

Yeah, and where non-mostly - mine. But I see that while concentrating on details I've lost big picture. Thanks for being vigilant :). However, some notes below: (Forseti 09:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC))

• It was clear that intention was good :-) But mixed with Nico's special view of hisotry, it had too many factual and logical problems.Wikimol

The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the mass deportation of people considered German from areas outside the post-war Germany borders, that was decided by the Potsdam Conference, and which aimed at ethnically cleansed nation states.

• The term ethnically cleansed in this place is nonsense.

  Right - should be 'ethnic nation states'

  Why not ethnically homogenic [ states / nations / countries ] ?

  Ethnically homogenous states or countries (my preference to the latter) - nations are homogenous already

This forced resettlement, by some considered genocide,

• Any reference to some non marginal source, where it's considered genocide?
• Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen, non marginal: http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/?id=48 -- Nico 14:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  Also support

was performed in the post-WW2 atmosphere of chaos, frequent excesses and crimes. It was like previous wartime population transfers - the whole process was in parallel to German and Soviet conquest

• Expulsion of Germans was not in parallel to German conquest

  This deserves explanation: I considered it parallel because in reality it was not because Polish rights (Poland had very weak diplomatic position), justice (this were to paid in reparations) or something similarly aloft but simply because Stalin wanted lands east of Curzon line for Russia. And this land-hunger was really alike German quest for lebenraum. But I confess that this opinion deserves better wording

  agree to better wording, agree chiefly with Forseti

  My proposal: delete it from header and expand on it in 'The discussion of the reasons'. Anyway, the header is clear sign of the edit war - it is way to long and its latter paragraphs need to be merged with respective sections

of the Eastern Europe that are all perceived today as cases of ethnic cleansing.

• Not all. Some population transfers and will be considered populatiuon transfers. E.g. population exchange between Slovakia and Hungary can be hardly percieved as ethnic cleansing.

According to German sources between 12 and 15 million people were displaced from their homes and over 2 million German civilians were killed or died during the process.

• Numbers dispute IMO wasnt resolved. Where do that numbers came from, is expulsion, population tranfer, evacuation, war casualities or what?

  Well, I wanted to play it softly. But your edit is likely to result in another pointless revert by Nico.

  As if the exact numbers at this point in the process would be critically important. That can be corrected whenever credible sources are digged up and accepted.

  Unfortunately, I hardly believe that numbers provided by BdV are accurate - they have to much political interest to consider them neutral on the issue.

Wikimol 08:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Forseti 09:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung 09:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Forseti 10:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's good that the both of you take such a constructive approach to this edit-matter. A major problem has until now been the very lack of constructive attempts to find wordings that can be accepted also by others than the editor and his/her closest. Nico isn't the only one here around. And this is wikipedia: No-one owns a text one has written. If you don't believe you can convince Nico (which I really hope you can and believe), well, at least try to adapt your wording to other people who would find blatant pro-Soviet or Poland-glorifying POVs of User:Gdansk's vein unconvincing!
--Ruhrjung 09:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, Ruhrjung, I know and agree with what you say on Wikipedia. And I'm advocate for articles that present NPOV where possible and where not possible - balanced POV. So I'll watch out for incorporation of Polish POV in such a way so it would contribute to educational value of article while not spreading propaganda, nationality or hate-mongering. Similarly, I won't allow it in other POVs. It is the source of my commitment to compromise. And besides, I owe respect to my on nick :)

However, I perceive Nico as an obstacle to my goals (that I feel are compliant with Wikipedia's). I understand your motives in defending him, but I think that you, Jor and perhaps others are watching for German interest in a competent way while being sound and constructive Wikipedians. Nico isn't.

I see Nico as person that has to mature. Preferably, outside of Wikipedia so that constructive Wikipedians could go on with their work. At present he tied much of our resources to pointless and petty wars.

As of User:Gdansk: it is unfortunate that his actions are projected on whole body of Polish Wikipedians. I regret it and personally I'm against such projections but all I can do is to ask you and others not to generalize over nationalities. Persons are individuals and should be treated as such.

-- Forseti 10:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I need to comment on this rather funny personal attack. I'm not spending more time on Polish extremists. Nico 14:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wish it would extend to articles on Polish-German issues as well. :/

-- Forseti 10:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ethnic nation states / ethnically homogenic / states / nations / countries

IMO current ethnically homogenous nation states is good, homogenous is propably bettert English than homogenic, and avoids logical problems of "ethnic... ... nation". Link to article explaining concept of nation state is IMO also in its place. Are there any objections against it, or is it only Nicos wish to add some defamations of expulsion/transfer advocates?

Numbers - for a change, I restored them in second paragraph. Anyhow, first paragraph with is many ; statements is allready overweighted. Wikimol 10:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality, merging, and language

I do not like this article for various reasons.

• It cites dubious numbers without source (e.g. "between 12 and 15 million people moved to Germany and over 2 million German civilians were killed or died during the process")
• some wordings lack neutrality (e.g. "Another explanation is even simpler."),
• there are numerous language mistakes (even very obvious ones like "around around 2 million Poles"), indicating none of the people this encyclopedia is written for (english speakers) care for it.
• The style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "The issue of the expulsion is still quite contentious and is thus not easy to judge. For example, take the case of Erika Steinbach")
• There is a message at the top that this "article should be merged with World War II evacuation and expulsion" but both badly written articles still exist. Get-back-world-respect 23:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I propose that everyone would abstain from the changing (from people involved earlier) of the articles and please, Get-back-World-respect, please correct it - you of course would be then attacked, but that would contribute greatly to quality of article.. Szopen 08:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have fun! Myself, I've more and more come to think that certain controversial pages (or, maybe rather: pages that certain contributors are too interested in) better be long-term protected, and updated when there exists agreement/consensus on talk page for any particular update. To make such a system practical for the sysops who can't be expected to read lengthy talk pages, each new version could be kept as "/temp" and without much work copied when that was requested.

— Such a scheme could be tried at once, there is no need for software change, other pages and contributors shouldn't be affected, and cooperativeness and persuation should be gratified instead of certain extremist POV-pushers' exaggerated boldness. (But of course such a system wouldn't be without problems. One is how to assess when sufficient support has massed. Another is how not to stimulate sockpuppets to propagate by division. A third how to hamper obstruction.)

So, for me it had been just fine if everything, virtually everything that's contested on these pages were substituted with a very brief information on the existence of controversy and debate in Central Europe and Germany — of course also the distinction of Germany vs. Central Europe can be battled over...

Then the debate could have restarted, and the debators would have been forced to find compromices if at all the article were to be improved.

A thought worth a try, maybe?

--Ruhrjung 15:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not think I have to rewrite every article I find that is not neutral. I do not have all the time of the world and think it is already a contribution to note a neutrality dispute and to watch if others improve on it. Get-back-world-respect 15:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Get-back, i starting to think that exactly that kind of person is needed here. People interested in topic ALWAYS will write biased versions of this. Noting this is not neutral is not contribution, since we already know it (look just at those wars inpage history). We need someone who don't care about particular POV and therefore couild be accused of beign biased or favouring one side. I don't say it should be necesarily you, but if you could, i would be happy. Szopen 06:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Noone says you should. --Ruhrjung 15:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Szopen did. (And I am still waiting for your advice on my user page.) Get-back-world-respect 16:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did he? Not that I can see. He used de:Singular.

I did. Szopen 06:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...and I put some links on your talk page - was it yesterday or the day before yesterday?

--Ruhrjung 16:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are a particularly clever guy, right? While he only asked me to edit here, my answer was that I will not spend much time on this case because there are so may similar ones that it would cost too much time. Plus, this is not a topic I regard extremely important. ...and I already told I cannot see why you put those links on my talk page.

That's your loss. --Ruhrjung 17:11, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not my problem if you cannot express yourself in an understandable way. Get-back-world-respect 23:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not like this article for various reasons.

A dont like this article too. I still believe best what can be done with these great CEE time waisters is improve them.

* It cites dubious numbers without source (e.g. "between 12 and 15 million people moved to Germany and over 2 million German civilians were killed or died during the process")

Thats why there is factual dispute message.E.g. Centrum against expulsions uses that number. If nobody objects, I'll add wikilink from german sources to ZgV.

* some wordings lack neutrality (e.g. "Another explanation is even simpler."),

Yes.

* there are numerous language mistakes (even very obvious ones like "around around 2 million Poles"), indicating none of the people this encyclopedia is written for (english speakers) care for it.

At least this you should correct rather than complain.

* The style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "The issue of the expulsion is still quite contentious and is thus not easy to judge. For example, take the case of Erika Steinbach")

Lets delete that paragraph, its discussed in Steinbach article.Objections?

* There is a message at the top that this "article should be merged with World War II evacuation and expulsion" but both badly written articles still exist.

From Talk is seems merging had not gained support.

Wikimol 09:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If merging has not gained support, why does it say so at the top of the article? No objection to deleting Steinbach paragraph. Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

*I feel quite significant difference between words "expulsion" and "transfer". I would appreciate the latter one. Miraceti 14:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Language cleanup

I came across this page and noted that its NPOV disputes seem to have calmed down. Therefore, I made an effort to improve the language. Almost all changes were purely to bring the article to standard written English. If I made any errors that changed the meaning, those were unintentional. Gwimpey 06:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minor Point

"The Potsdam Agreement called for equal distribution of the transferred Germans between American, British, French and Soviet occupation zones in Germany. In actuality, twice as many expelled Germans found refuge in the occupation zones that later formed "West Germany" than in "East Germany", and large numbers went to other countries of the world, many to the United States."

To me this says that a greater than intended number of displaced Germans settled in the East rather than the West, given that the West was made of of three ocupation zones while the East was just one. This is the opposite of what the second sentance seems to primarily convey. matturn 14:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Partial reason could be logistical and economical problems of Soviets in their occupation zone. E.g. during first half of 1946 Soviets stopped transfers from Czechoslovakia there. [2] (page 226). Pavel Vozenilek 22:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether it's true or not, rather that one sentance (to my reading) is saying one thing, while the next is implying the opposite. matturn 08:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I might note here that when Stalin said at Potsdam that the Poles "were taking revenge for the injuries which the Germans had caused them in the course of centuries", Churchill retorted that this revenge "took the form of throwing the Germans into the American and British zones to be fed." (US Dept of State, Foreign Relations of the US, The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. II p. 384).Bdell555 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"to create ethnically homogenous states

I've removed "and at the same time to create ethnically homogenous nation states that would not give rise to the kind of ethnic tensions that had preceded the war" because it implies that Pomerania, East Prussia, and Silesia were not ethnically homogenous. In fact these areas would have met most persons' definition of ethnically homogeneous. Had pre-war Polish and Soviet boundaries not been moved, it would have been unnecessary to expel Germans who were living within pre-war German boundaries on "ethnically homogenous" grounds. The expellees were expelled because the expellers believed that the borders would be moved. If one is going to provide more reasons for the expulsion than that, then one must examine the reasons for why the borders were going to be moved. But ethnic homogenity was not among those reasons for moving the German borders west of their 1938 boundaries since the population within those borders was predominately German. In short, this was an objective of the post-WWI territorial arrangments, but not post-WWII.Bdell555 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right but I think you partially misunderstood this sentence. The Allies would like to create a NEW ethnically homogenous state in Poland west from the old. Ethinc tensions existed in Poland before 1939 and Hitler used them as a pretext for war. And as for Czechoslovakia it was deeply divided between the Czech and German people before 1938 so the Czechs want an ethnically homogenous state as "bonus" of the victory. So I think nobody would think that "Pomerania, East Prussia, and Silesia were not ethnically homogenous". If you fear of this, you should express the whole thing more clearly and not simply delete. Zello 00:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Zello: Consider what you are saying here further. Why do you mention the fact that Hitler used the presence of German minorities in other countries as a basis for territorial claims? I suggest you raise that point because it would argue that a possible reason for the 1945 expulsion of Germans was to prevent Germany from having a post-1945 territorial claim against its neighbours. But the argument that supports that reason is circular, which is why I argue that it should be cut out. To phrase this another way, "ethnic violence" is already covered in one of the other points, and to the extent that your point is distinct from that one, reference must be made to the objective of minimizing territorial claims. But the expulsion that this article is about arguably did as much to create a territorial claim (on the part of Germans for former German territory) as it did to minimize territorial claims. To suggest that that the expulsion "solved" a territorial claim is to "beg the question" (that is, presuppose a settled answer to the territorial claim issue). As such, the proferred reason may be rejected on the basis of internal logic as opposed to reference to (debatable) external facts.Bdell555 01:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I confess that I don't understand you perfectly. I stated that both the Czech and the Polish state had bad experiences with their German minorities before the war and after the victory they seized the opportunity to create new ethnically homogenous nation states. Nobody would like to see big German minorities behind the new borders, because they feared of renewed tensions. The problem was actually "solved" with the expulsions. I think this deeply unjust but we spoke only about the reasons of the expulsions. And the desire for ethnic homogenity was certainly one of the reasons even if we condemn such thinking. Zello

Zello: I think the simplest way to put it is to note that there were by and large already ethnically homogenous states prior to the majority of the explusions. So how could the expulsions be construed as furthering that objective? If what is implicit here were made explicit (you hint at it again by referencing "bad experiences"), namely that a purpose of the expulsions was to undermine the viability of a post-border revision German territorial claim, then we would have a suggested expulsion reason that at least can be made sense of (albeit a question begging one). As it stands, the article is misleading because it implies that German and Polish residents were completely mixed throughout the areas in which the expulsions occured, such that an expulsion that only expelled Germans outside Germany's pre-war borders would have failed to leave ethnically homogenous states behind. These issues don't need to be addressed if my deletion stands. By the way, if "nobody" wanted Germans were they were, then why was coercion needed to get them out (or, alternatively, who counts as a "body")?Bdell555 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Probably you are right in the case of Poland, but for me it wasn't misleading - I've never thought Silesia or Pomerania mixed territories. But as for the case of Czechoslovakia this was really a mixed country, the borders remained the same and there was an ethnic cleansing to create a homogenous Czech nation-state. I think we should wrote this: "and especially in the case of Czechoslovakia to create an ethnically homogenous nation state that would not give rise to the kind of ethnic tensions that had preceded the war". What's your opinion? Zello 21:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a difficult issue because there is pre-Munich Agreement Czechoslovakia and then there is post-Munich Agreement Czechoslovakia. There is also the fact that Slovakia was rejoined to Czechoslovakia; - that part of the country declared independence in March 1939 (whether it was truly independent is another question). Anyway, it is perhaps a minor point... I just wanted to call attention to the fact there are two issues here: the expulsion issue and the border change issue.Bdell555 00:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Such was official stand of Czechoslovakia then. (The term used was Czechoslovak, Czechs and Slovaks were officially considered as two branches of one nation.) Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And btw, prewar Poland was far from being ethnically homogenous (the number I vaguely remember was ~60+% of Poles). Expulsion of Germans, losing territory to Ukraine and Lithuania plus annihilation of Jews resulted to today 97% of Poles. Situation in Czechoslovakia as whole country was quite similar. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

legality of confiscations

I've removed "The legality of that act was based on the state of war between those countries and the German state, whose citizens were affected. In addition, devastations caused by Germany during the war by far exceeded the value of confiscated property."

The existence of a state of war does not in and of itself legalize any action that is associated with that war. If it did, there would be no such thing as war crimes! In fact, looting was specifically enumerated as a war crime at Nuremburg, among other places. I think the observation that there were confiscations is best left uncommented, since trying to either justify the confiscations or condemn them would raise POV issues.Bdell555 23:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I put back the intention to create ethnic homogenous state, this was simply true and quite understandable in historical context. I shortened the Churchill's quote as the articles isn't about him. Discussion about legality of confiscations really doesn't belong into article. Pavel Vozenilek 01:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It may not be historically accurate to apply current moral conventions to an historical act, but the expulsions were really ethnic cleansing and not an "orderly transfer"- that is a cynically applied term, since so many otherwise innocent people were murdered in the process. If done today for any other reason, the "expulsions" would invite UN condemnation and probably military action. Your article doesn't mention that the vast majority of people "orderly transferred" were women, children, and the elderly who were forced marched on foot while being preyed upon by Soviet soldiers and marauding partisans (draft age German men were either dead or in Allied POW camps). IMO this article is a sham and should be completely rewritten if not scrapped. I think it has been hijacked by hysterical historical revisionists with a bad case of "victor complex". It sometimes gives people a warm feeling to allow that certain classes of people are removed from the protection of civilized morality. It's basically an acceptable form of racism. So now the self-proclaimed lords of this article can tell themselves and others, 60 years after the fact, that gangraping a young mother while her child watches is sometimes an acceptable crime and an "orderly transfer of populations".

Dear anonymous, you have to remember few things: 1) a lot of Germans escaped of of their own will in the fear of approaching Red Army, 2) A lot of them were evacuated by their own authorities 3) The expulsions were started by Germans themselves in 1939 year, when they extremely brutally were expelling Poles from Greater Poland, Silesia, Pomerania etc. This is just to put the expellings into the context. (BTW, I read recently nice article that after verifying the data of victims of expellings from some Balkan region the number of estimated death was HALVED. I think you may expect similar results for all other regions as well)

If you want to change something, then please, discuss it here. Moreover, for marching on foot it is true mainly for the first phase of expelling, so called "wild expellings" in Polish literature. Then the Polish authorities were trying to provide the Germans with available transport (which doesn't mean much after the devastations of WWII) Szopen 10:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Then post your "sources" and do not presume to threaten me with them, because I am not impressed. Trying to create a homogenous ethnic demographic by force is a crime any way you choose to slice it. "Available transport", you are right, does not mean much. The Polish authorities could have done the humane thing and allowed the Germans to remain until the situation improved. They could have *stopped* their citizens and Soviet soldiers from brutalizing the potential expellees. Far fewer people (perhaps even nobody) would have died. It was a crime and this article should reflect this fact.

You will never (with very, very rare exception) meet a German who does not accept that what Nazis did in Poland was a crime!

There is your context. Nobody is relativizing anything. But the act of denying basic human dignity to the victims worsens the impact of the initial crime. It has created the current climate among some Germans who are tired of these evasions and of being continually dehumanized by people in other countries.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83160&start=30 <- you will see a reference to estimating the number of deaths. Let me quote one fragment:

That this order of magnitude must be too high became apparent at the time already from lists of missing civilians; only about one-tenth – ca. 200,000 people – were being searched by relatives and friends. So far however only the Danube Svabians [ethnic Germans of Yugoslavia, translators’ note] made the effort to individually document all victims – and halved the estimates of the Federal Statistics Bureau for their region.

"There was indeed an estimate made by the German Federal Statistics Bureau in the late 1950's that over two million ethnic Germans had perished during the flight from the Red Army at the end of the war and the postwar expulsions from Germany's former Eastern territories and various countries of Eastern Europe, mainly Poland and Czechoslovakia."

"This estimate, which in the second paragraph is referred to as being well above the mark, has recently been challenged by German historians, for example by Rüdiger Overmans, author of Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Overmans writes the following (my translation):"

"The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service."

"These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified."

"As also pointed out in the Spiegel article, the ethnic Germans of Yugoslavia have been the only ones so far to prepare a detailed documentation of their losses during the war and postwar period, resulting in a figure half the estimate of the Federal Statistics Bureau. According to another article published in the same feature, a total of 48,447 ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia lost their lives to privation, disease and violence between 1944 and 1948."

As for you other question: could POland try to stop her population to "brutalising" the Germans? Well, of course it could and it tried as it could only be expected after six years of brutal occupation (with the exception of Solomon Morel and similar bastards). Could Poland stop Soviet soldiers? You have to be kidding. How exactly? It cannot stop Soviet soldiers for robbing and raping Poles (the amount of this rapes is unknown, and probably will never be known since only in last year or so I found first report about this - officially Soviets were allies and saviours so they COULD NOT of course be raping Polish woman and robbing Poles). COuld POland allow Germans to stay? No, it couldn't. The places were need for few millions of Poles which were expelled by Soviets from the east. The only thing which could avoid the bloodshed and to allow humane conditions for Germans would be to move them to their own country. Of course, some Germans stayed, and the transfer lasted well into 50s and even later there were still Germans who were applying for emmigration into Germany (how many of them were defined as Germans in 1945 is another case).

Besides, really, just thikn about the situation in 1945. During 6 years of occupation almost every ethnic German was treating Poles as bad as he only could. Just read some memories from occupation, how even German children from HJ were behaving. Expectation that Germans could live peacefully amongst the people they were brutalising for years were simply unrealistic, even IF most of ethnic Germans were innocent. It would lead only to bloodshed.Szopen 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

relevance of Potsdam

The Potsdam Agreement is given a lot of prominence in this article. How relevant is it, though, when the expulsions were mostly a fait accompli by August 1945? If anything, Potsdam may have constituted an obstacle since the Agreement also states that "The Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary are ... being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions..." The Potsdam Agreement also includes things which never came to mean anything, like the "holding of free and unfettered elections [in Poland] as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot in which all democratic and anti-Nazi parties shall have the right to take part and to put forward candidates, and that representatives of the Allied press shall enjoy full freedom to report to the world upon developments in Poland before and during the elections." Finally, the text that is quoted in the article is ambiguous. It refers, for example, to Poland, but elsewhere in the agreement it states that "The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement." In light of that lack of determination with respect to Poland's borders in the agreement, does the agreement in fact approve of the expulsion of Germans from all territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line, or just territory outside Germany's 1937 borders? The fact that Churchill, who was present at Potsdam, described the expulsions as "on a scale grievous and undreamed-of" and "enormous and wrongful" in 1946 suggests that a central theme of this article, which is that the expulsions were approved of by the Western Allies, should not be stated as a unqualified and undisputed fact.

If the Potsdam Agreement is given prominence, I would suggest it be used for the "Discussion of the reasons" section. For example, under "The purposes of the occupation of Germany by which the Control Council shall be guided" it says "To convince the German people that they have suffered a total military defeat and that they cannot escape responsibility for what they have brought upon themselves, since their own ruthless warfare and the fanatical Nazi resistance have destroyed German economy and made chaos and suffering inevitable." This would provide a sourced explanation for post-war developments as opposed to the unsourced speculation we currently have in that section.Bdell555 00:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Churchill

Pavel: You mean to say you eliminated the quote you "shortened". Shouldn't readers read Churchill's words so they can come to their own conclusion about whether my interpretation that he condemned the expulsions is supported? If "the article isn't about Churchill", then why didn't you eliminate the other (unsourced) Churchill quote in that same paragraph, which suggests that he favoured the expulsions? By retaining the quote, we could eliminate the following paragraph which occurs under "Development":

"In 1946, Winston Churchill delivered a memorable speech in Fulton, Missouri in the presence of US President Truman. Churchill made the USA aware of the Iron Curtain coming down "from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic". In this speech, Churchill also emphasised the wrongful Soviet-directed Polish incursions into Germany (that is, the land east of the Oder-Neisse line) and the plight of millions of refugees/expellees. However, taking into account his personal responsibility for the decisions made in Potsdam, the sentence would seem to have been motivated by the contemporary political agenda."

First of all, as one could see from the Iron Curtain article, Churchill advised Truman of an "iron curtain" in May 1945 (prior to Potsdam), so to suggest that he advised Truman of the concept in 1946 is inaccurate. Secondly, to claim that Churchill is personally responsible for Potsdam is debatable since Churchill had to leave the conference early when the British election results were released. The agreement bears the signature of [Clement Attlee], not Winston Churchill. Finally, if Churchill's remarks in his Fulton speech were "motivated by the contempary political agenda", then why do the records going all the way back to the Yalta conference show him voicing opposition to the Western Neisse line and stating that the British public would not approve of large numbers of Germans being expelled?Bdell555 05:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Churchill could be eliminated more. Source for first quote should be found and linked. The article is big and messy enough even without a politician speeches. If there's something more relevant it would be links to official memoranda of Allied governments to expulsions. Pavel Vozenilek 19:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Post-War Expulsion

I changed "Potsdam Agreement expulsions" in "post-war expulsions" because the expulsions of Germans from different countries in East-Europe had already started before Potsdam Conference took place. Furthermore Potsdam wasn´t a peace conference and the so called "Agreement" was just a "Protocol". Potsdam hasn´t ordered any expulsions. They spoke about "humane and orderly transfer" - just of Germans in Poland etc - not from their ancestral homeland in the east of Germany (Germany in the borders of 31st December 1937). A borderline between Poland and Germany wasn´t decided in Potsdam. The Allies shall have decided the transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homeland and at the same time the Nazis were trailed for such things? Wouldn´t this be two-faced?

-- Wikiferdi 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In this article at "Development" there is this statement which in my opinion is wrong: "However, taking into account his personal responsibility for the decisions made in Potsdam, the sentence would seem to have been motivated by the contemporary political agenda."

Potsdam didn´t decide the Oder-Neisse-Line! This must be clear. The Allies couldn´t agree on this item and so they shelved it for a peace conference. Until this final determination of the borders between Germany and Poland the disputed areas were put just under Polish administration. But Stalin and Poland didn´t wait until this peace conference. They continued to expell nearly all Germans not only out of Poland but also out of their ancestral homeland east of Oder-Neisse-Line (and other former German regions located north of Poland) and in this way they created accomplished facts which eventually led to the situation we now have.

--Wikiferdi 10:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

............................................................................................

Well-known accepted References:

The following publications might shed a different light on what is presented in the comments above:

• "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern & Central Europe" compiled by a professional editorial board headed by Professor Theodor Schieder, of the University of Cologne. Published by the Federal Ministry for Expellees, Refugees, & War Victims, Bonn:

• • vol.1: "The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse Line" (1959).

• • vol.2/3:"The Expulsion of the German Population from Hungary and Rumania" (1961).

• • vol. 4: "The Expulsion of the German Population from Czechoslovakia" (1960) (Dates may indicate the year of the English translations rather than the original publication).

• "Speaking Frankly" by James F.Byrnes, New York & London, 1947.

• "Nemesis at Potsdam - The Anglo-Americans & the Expulsion of the Germans", by Dr.Alfred M. de Zayas, London, 1st published 1977, revised edition 1979.

• Germany and Eastern Europe since 1945" - Keesing's Research Report, New York, 1973.

• Four-Power Control in Germany and Austria 1945-1946" by Michael Balfour and John Mair for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Oxford University Press, 1956.

• "In Darkest Germany" by Victor Gollancz, London, 1947.

• "Thine Enemy" by Sir Philip Gibbs, London, 1946.

• "The Home Front:Germany" by Charles Whiting, Time-Life Books, Virginia, 1982.ISBN: 0-8094-3419-9.

• "The Aftermath:Europe" by Douglas Botting, Time-Life Books, Virginia, 1983.ISBN: 0-8094-3411-3
• "Hour of the Women" by Count Christian von Krockow, Stuttgart,1988, New York, 1991, London, 1992. ISBN: 0-571-14320-2,

• "Crimes and Mercies - The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation 1944 - 1950" by James Bacque, London, 1997. ISBN: 0-316-64070-0.

• "Memoirs - 1945:Year of Decisions" by Harry S.Truman, 1st pub.,by Time Inc.,1955, reprint New York 1995. ISBN: 0-8317-1578-2.

• "Memoirs - 1946-52:Years of Trial & Hope" by Harry S.Truman, 1st pub.,by Time Inc.,1955, reprint New York 1996. ISBN: 0-8317-7319-7.

See also the list of books on the article page.

I find it somehow typical that most of the books quoted above were written either in the fifties, at the peak of the cold war, or even in the forties, before the expulsion of Germans even ended. Could anyone check whether they are relevant to this article at all? Halibutt 07:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the reasons

The "reason" listing "Werewolves" and "Selbschutz" is not sourced; therefore I removed it. "Werewolves" were a complete failure, and the "Selbschutz" was dismantled in 1940. Groeck 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Since this keeps being added in without reference, the historical correctness of this chapter is disputed until the issue is resolved. Added according tag. Groeck 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The results

If confiscation of property was in line with nationalisation, and anyone else besides expulsed Germans was affected, a source should be provided. Otherwise, the claim would be POV and unsupportable. Also, the statement as written appears to support groups such as the "Preussische Treuhand", who demands confiscated property to be returned to the original owners. This is not in line with common thinking and does not make much sense. Groeck 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No reference that anyone else besides Germans has been affected has been provided. Yet, the claim (and implied assumption) remains in the article. Until references are provided, the content of this chapter is disputed. Added tag. Groeck 21:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Groeck, my family lost some buildings (I think I would now had right to some 1 or 2% or original property :) ), and those who were expelled from what is today Belarus also lost their property, DOes this qualify as reference? Szopen 12:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC).

In Czechoslovakia the nationalisation was started with the presidential Decree No. 101 of October 27, 1945. It included the nationalization of all companies with more than 150 workers. Other acts of nationalization of private property followed and were accepted by the parliamentary Act No. 115 of 1948.

In Poland the nationalization was one of the aims of the PKWN manifesto of 1944. The decree of January 3, 1946 ordered the nationalization of all companies with more than 50 workers. However, the decree was never taken seriously by the communists themselves and practically all companies were nationalized - either through legal means or through illegal. For instance, a common thing was the so-called domiar tax. By administrative decision certain companies were declared rich and punished with this tax. Most private companies were forced into bancruptcy because of that. In the 1950's only really tiny stores remained in private hands. Other decrees nationalized all of the manors and palaces, as well as land and forests above 25 hectares (50 in the post-German areas).

In Warsaw the Warsaw Act nationalized all property, be it tiny house on the outskirts, a ruin in the city centre or a rebuilt house. Halibutt 11:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish Propaganda vs Morals

It is important that Wikipedia and the subjects therein are not just a reflection of Polish propaganda which, frankly, seems not to have changed at all since the war. The comments made here are appalling. To suggest that you somehow have a right to persecute, pillage, and rape and murder civilians at the end of a conflict and into peacetime, and then to evict them from their homes where many had lived for up to eight centuries is a scandal;

Dear Churchchrist, nobody is suggesting that. I think we all consider this rate events to be unfortunate. However, we demand to put them in the context. If Person A kills whole family of B, and then B came and kills both A and his wife, the murder of A's wife is a crime - but it would be bad not to mention why this crime happened.

to select atrocities carried out in Poland proper at the height of a world war (some Poles were not treated badly by the Germans)

Some Poles? Like, Two, three?

and suggest that this give Poles some sort of moral right to inflict similar atrocities is beyond any morals and Christian thinking.

Not moral right. You either do not want or can't understand. We simply demand to put actions in context and give them correctly. Nazis were murdering on purpose, by actions of government, while atrocities commited on German civilians were either committed by Russians, or by individuals AGAINST policy of government.

To suggest that because the Soviets annexed a chunk of Polish territory in the east somehow gives Poland a moral right to confiscate territory elsewhere belonging to other countries is beyond belief.

Not moral right. Simply Poland had not confiscated. POland had nothing to say in that.

The German authorities (verified by the International Red Cross) calculated the population levels east of the Oder by the simple method of rations issued to individuals. Suggestions that these figures are under revision now, 60 years after the event, is insulting to the victims.

No. German authorities themselves calculated the numbers differently. First, more than million former German citizens (most of them from Polish minority in pre-War Germany) left in Poland. SOme of them were considered missing and included in death toll. Some were drafted and were killed. Some were evacuated by their own government. Some died during military events (does for example siege of Posen or Breslau rings a toll? You think it was POLAND which should be accused by that?). Second, numbers were not verified. Only In Yugoslavia numbers were actually VERIFIED which led to HALFING numbers of victims.

This is not insulting to victims. Similarly, Polish losses were scaled down: you don't say about 6 millions death in SCIENTIFIC publications, but about some 5.6 dead POLISH CITIZENS (which includes about 200.000 ethnic Germans for example and 2-3 millions Jewish Poles)

The Polish Communist Government issued three Decrees confiscating private property over more than a few acres throughout Poland and the territories under their administration. Under International Law they had no authority to do that in the latter territories because the Peace Treaty defining everything had not been agreed upon.

The new that communists were bastards who were not legal government of Poland, but rather puppets installed by soviets is not really news to us. BTW: similarly Germany had no right to join part of Polish territory to Germany (no peace treaty) and confiscate the private property (of Polish citizens, which happened quite often, for example during expelling of Poles from territories annexed into Reich).

It is clear to me at least that Polish and communist nationalism is alive and well and unjust and immorral. Christchurch............................................................................

No, not really, you are either not understanding our position, or trying to twist is for some propaganda efect?

Our - or, at least, my position - is like that:

1) The crimes on expellees are to be condemned.

2) However, you cannot say about this crimes without mentioning the context, that is previous 6 years of brutal occupation, in which millions of Polish citizens perished.

3)This does not justifies the crimes, but it makes them _understandable_. By ignoring previous experiences of Poles, you simply change the history. OK? Let me do some very drastic example: If I would came to your home and rape your wife, it would be terrible crime, and I would should be punished. However, if you would earlier came to my home, burned my wife and daughter alive, beat me, and THEN I would kill you and rape your wife, this still would be a terrible crime and I still should be punished, but this would be totally different situation and I bet most of people would understand the reasons. In first case, I would be just animal; In second I would be man driven to the madness by despair, searching for revenge. Ok? Poles, if they committed some crimes (uncomparable to German crimes in Poland in scale BTW) had not do that because they were animals, but because they were turned by GERMAN GOVERNMENT into people, who for 6 years dreamt about revenge. In perfect christian world they should go to the wives of their brutal oppressors and help them rebuilt their bombed houses, but in this world people are as they are, and deep in their souls they have the need for "eye for eye" (if you forget me to quote the title of the book) policy.

4) Poland did not confiscate the lands - it had no influence on that. It was simply deprived by Russians lands of east, and was given lands on west. Millions of Poles therefore had to be transferred somewhere and had to receive homes.

5) Research on the scale of the event is not insulting to the victims, if done in scientific way. The estimations of war losses almost always are somewhat skewed up. The research, which is also driven by GERMAN historians, is not insulting as it simply can't be. Similarly you CAN research number of Holocaust victims as long as you use reliable sources. Holocaust historians are giving different estimation of Holocaust victims between 5 to 7 millions and no one is saying that they are insulting the memory of the victims (The wholesale denial of course is quite different thing.). The numbers are never the Holy Truth.

6) If you are unable to grasp this simple 5 points before, then I can only have hope that you are not typically represented amongst your nationals.

7) Please, do not try to imply that I or anyone else said something we don't. This is quite disgusting, and on other way this a thing which I found far too often in special class of people, who were seemingly raised on propaganda of victimhood, people who are unable to grasp the idea that they have no monopoly to truth, and that the other side CAN HAVE BEEN RIGHT SOMETIMES TOO.

Szopen 08:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nationalisation

An example of policies that shows whole population was involved : htttp://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn1_02.pdf "Wydany 6 września 1944 r. dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej przewidywał, że parcelacji będą podlegać ziemie Niemców, zdrajców narodu, a także prywatne polskie majątki ziemskie, których powierzchnia przekraczała 50 hektarów (100 hektarów na Ziemiach Odzyskanych). Z reformy mieli prawo skorzystać nie posiadający własnej ziemi, a także małorolni chłopi, zwłaszcza obarczeni liczną rodziną."

"Given out on 6 September 1944 decree of PKWN about agriculture reform had forseen, that lands belonging to German, traitors of the nation, and private polish land, that exceeded 50 acres(100 acres on Regained Territories).Peasants that didn't posses any land and small land peasants, that had large families were allowed to benefit from the law." --Molobo 12:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Poland reverts

While I try not to involve myself in those disputes, I see no reason why this should be deleted unless other sources are provided. Nightbeast - I just seems to me... - your personal opinion is not enough for a revert basis, I am afraid. On the other hand, I'd like to see more references and footnotes, preferably in English, for the problematic fragment below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Although relations between Poland and Germany were good after 1991, they have slowly worsened, following events like actions taken by Erica Steinbach, and growing changes in German attitude towards the war. Particulary calls by Germans to be seen as victims of WW2 were criticised by many in Poland , including such leading public figures as Marek Edelman.[3]"

There are four relevant sources I found on the Internet: [4], [5],[6], [7]. Hope someone (other than Molobo or Space Cadet) can utilize them in an impartial way in the article. NightBeAsT 19:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly this source includes many keywords I expect a Molobo to have looked for: "Expulsions of Germans", "Center against Expulsions", "Erika Steinbach", "CDU", "Gdánsk", "Danzig", "victims of German aggression", "radicalism", "culture", "former Polish territories", "abuse", "brutal", "ethnic cleansing", "stereotypes", "phobias", "clichés", "German-Polish relations", "anti-Polish", "Preußische Treuhand", "Rudi Pawelka", "World War II", "Poles", "Wprost", "national identity", "Gazeta Wyborcza". And the Standford university emblem certainly didn't discourage you. In fact, I wonder if it's not too far-fetched to assume that you not only read the text (and turned a blind eye to criticism levelled at Poland) but that you also used the first two sentences (out of three) of its abstract. So why not the third when it is well-founded, a national bias doesn't seem to exist (Stanford and the name doesn't sound German). Anyway, the sentences as they are one-sided and oversimpefying. If the sentence didn't come from Molobo, I would assume the ambiguity of what is meant by "growing changes in German attitude towards the war. Particulary calls by Germans to be seen as victims" (victims rather than perpetrator, or perpetrators but also victims?) was unintentional. Also with the only two facts mentioned in connection to the worsening relations being on the German side, the text seems intentionally reproachful, and even mirrors a view actually pretty much contrary to the point of view of the academic article. Why shouldn't its point of view be mirrored? NightBeAsT 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.I will read it.My contributions weren't based on this link, but rather a pursuit of knowledge and study of history, as well as modern issues facing the world.I must dissapoint you though-I didn't use it. --Molobo 17:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?! You're calling this "minor vandalism of information by NB and attacks against Polish media"??? What are you calling this? Maybe "High treason"? Now, seriously, how do you personally evaluate the source, Molobo? NightBeAsT 17:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't evaluate it because I have yet to read it.However if you have proof that Marek Edelman didn't say such things and it was a fabrication-be my guest and present the evidence that this was forgery. --Molobo 17:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid its a very POVish article in which the author uses the opportunity to atack politicians.Not very good as a source of information.It also misses some important issues- the issue of war reperations towards Poland for example.The fact that he gladly glances over the status of Steinbach-which in itself was just a colonist, doesn't speak too highly of his views on theissue.Furthermore the article is very onesided-alledging all wrongdoing on Poles as people with phobias, while describing tendencies in German society as "interesting", as well as not addressing anti-polish sentiment in Germany etc.A very weak source IMHO.

--Molobo 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Other example that makes the source not seem to be very objective and in possession of taking sides: " do Poles fear that the whole issue of the Berlin Center is just a Trojan horse of the BdV and that “the Germans” will cry out for compensation from Poland for the lost territories, which is estimated at around 19 billion Euro?" The author alledges that Poles are afraid of having to pay some compensation, and thus already presents Poles as guilty of something that they are afraid of paying for.In addition he gives an exact number. Now another line: " The role of the Polish political elites in this debate is troubling. They seem to lack any constructive or imaginative counter-proposals and solutions. Instead they prefer to join the front of noisy “anti-German” protesters. Moreover they lack ideas how to formulate Poland’s own stance on the expulsions, on the/a center, on reparations, and how to put the issue of Steinbach’s proposal in a more differentiated and nuanced context. Instead, local politicians, like Warsaw’s mayor, instigate calculations of damages suffered during the German occupation, for which Poland could sue Germany.25" Author is troubled that Poles would like to seek justice for destruction of their country.He doesn't name German demands as Antipolish,but he calls seeking war reperations as "anti-German", in addition in contrast to German demands he doesn't give the number Germany would have to pay Poland for war damages.That being circa 630 bilion Euro... Thus it seems that the article isn't very objective in its treatment of both sides. --Molobo 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish German Feud

Let's put an end to all the edits and revisions. Why not have a Polish section for the Poles that says Pan Edelman said " bla bla bla" and a German section for the Germans that says Frau Steinbach said "bla bla bla". Insert links and let the readers make up their minds. --Berndd11222 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

expulsions after WWII

I doubt that somebody was happy to leave their homes after WWII, because some politicians decided that the borders have to be displaced - neither the Germans in the former Eastern parts of Germany nor the Poles in their former Eastern parts, which belong to Belarus or Ukraine today, but I refuse to say that there is a "historical justice" - guilt is always something individual - a complete population can't be guilty - therefore it can't be justice to punish a population...

Citius Altius Fortius 08:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of concepts of guilt, collective guilt and justice is IMO beyond the scope of this article. The section "Discussion of the reasons" shoul just briefly report more usual opinions (mainly those frequented within affected populations). --Wikimol 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

O.K., you are right that this isn't the place to discuss concepts of guilt or collective guilt, but you have said that it should just briefly report more usual opinions (mainly those frequented within affected populations) - the Germans, who had been expulled, were affected, therefore their opinion has to be mentioned, too.

Citius Altius Fortius 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, but the whole section is devoted to "Discussion of the reasons". I dont think the German population holds the opinion "There is no "historical justice", because that implies that a population can be guilty - guilt is always something individual." is one of the reasons for expulsion. If you feel the comment on historical justice has to be somewhere, please try to find some other place in the article. --Wikimol 12:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What is when it is said like this: "It had been seen as act of "historical justice""?

My intention is to make it clear that it is an opinion, only... Furthermore I would like to add, that it isn't my intention to change the borders again or any kind of "revanchism"... (opps I hadn't sign in (Citius Altius Fortius) 193.24.32.37 12:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In the beginning of the section, it is stated, that its opinion only. Thats the point of the section - to report various, often conflictiong, opinios. --Wikimol 22:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The historical injustice is the fact that there is a double standard on the issue of war crimes when it comes to Germany. Nazi war crimes and the Holocaust are well covered in American textbooks. If anyone dares mention the fate of the German civilian population in WW2 people become indignant and interject with comments on the Holocaust and the Nazi war crimes as if the German civilian population was responsible for these crimes. The women, children and elderly population of Prussia were raped, robbed and starved by the Soviets and their allies in eastern Europe and this is considered a natural response to Nazi crimes. Rivers of ink have been spilled on the subject of the American bombing of civilians in Asia but hardly any mention is made of the bombing of Germany. The fate of the Soviet POWs is given prominent attention in histories but the fate of German prisoners in the USSR is hardly ever mentioned. The entire German people are robbed of their humanity and sterotyped as Nazi war criminals, this is a historical injustice.--Berndd11222 17:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the standpoint of Wikipedia is neither to be in line with American textbooks nor ballance their injustice. In fact not the justice should rule here, but the NPOV.
[offtopic] IMO to blame the nazis and exculpate the German civilian population is far from reality. There were cases when for example almost entire village (the innocent civilian population) went to hunt prisoners who escaped from a transport to an extermination camp.
In a way, it's easy to release "the ordinary people" (who are uncomfortably like me) from the guilt and responsibility, and blame the leaders, the nazis, or just Hitler.
Btw the same holds the other way - I mean the blaming of Stalin, communists,.. and innocence of ordinary Poles, Czechs,... this is also far from reality.
Another point of view - the double standard on crimes on Germans and crimes by Germans has its reason. Taken collectively, everything done to Germans was by wide margin inside the ethical limit of retribution set by Biblical "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". [/offtopic] --Wikimol 22:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats a mealymouthted excuse for Soviet brutality in Germany.--Berndd11222 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry wikimol,

Quote: "Taken collectively, everything done to Germans was by wide margin inside the ethical limit of retribution set by Biblical "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"."

That's the limit: Do you really exculpate injustices with a text passage out of the bible? I think that the bible shouldn't be used in such way - by the way: do you think that Jesus lived according this "ethical limit" out of the old testament?

(sorry I hadn't singed in again (Citius Altius Fortius)84.142.174.250 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to judge, merely present various views. The more I know the more I'm able to understand and less able to judge. If you ask: Yes, according to Bible Jesus lived well within the limit. In fact he set much stricter limit - no retribution at all, turn the other cheek. Apparently no human society was able to live up to this demand. Modern western societies are usualy within the old testament limit, but even that is sometimes breached (various tought-on-crime/drugs/sexual harassment/... laws). --Wikimol 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimol, are you saying that Joe Stalin lived by the rules of the Old Testament like other "modern western societies"? --Berndd11222 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Legality of Expulsions

This link contains amongst other topics an intresting discussion on the legality of the expulsions. As it was not allowed to remain in the article reference section for the stated reason of being "dubious" I try again here. I have no doubt that the text is an accurate representation of a speech by Dr. de Zayas, one of the more well known experts/authors on the subject at hand. I fail to se what is dubious about it, furthermore I feel that its contents are a valuable contribution to this topic.

The Expulsion Of Germans, By Dr. Alfred de Zayas

I mean it looks strange to put link to a website among book sources when the book has ISBN and page about its author exists. I replaced it with more standard ISBNauthor link combo. Pavel Vozenilek 03:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

---

DE ZAYAS, ALFRED M. Nemesis At Potsdam: The Anglo-americans And The Expulsion Of The Germans - Background, Execution, Consequences. Revised Second Edition. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London: 1979 268 pages 0710004109.

One of the few sources in English on the topic. The numbers he quotes are dated from the 1958 report of West German government. This has been superceded by the research of Gerhard Reichling and Rüdiger Overmans. Losses were about 1.1 to 1.3 million rather than the previous total of 2.1 million.--Berndd11222 18:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Selbstschutz Excuse

The Selbstschutz groups were created in 1939 and were not in existance in 1945. In any case the Polish government did take action against those persons involved in war crimes. All Germans guility or innocent were subject to the expulsions not only former Selbstschutz members. This "reason" for the expulsions is not at all convincing, its just an excuse for ethnic cleansing. The Poles called all the Germans " Nazis " in order to justify the expulsions just like Milosevic who called the Albanians " Islamic terrorists" in order to justify Yugoslav brutality. --Berndd11222 02:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for the partiotioning of Germany

I added this text to the "discussion of the reasons" but user Molobo promptly removed it without stating reason.

I feel at least one of the reasons for why germany was carved up should be presented, and not just some random remarks about Russia wanting to keep its piece of Poland. The text below presents a case for discussions of the removal of the eastern parts of Germany that goes back to at least 1944. It refers to the Morgenthau Plan that albeit its wikipedia page might need a lot of polishing still presents a credible and verifiable case that at least the removal of Silesia from Germany was planned by the americans quite early, years ahead of the actual expulsions.

---

It was a direct consequence of the partly implemented plan by the Allies to completely remove Germanys capacity to pose a military or economic threat to them ever again. This was to be achieved by reducing Germany to a “pastoral state” with a reduced population. Part of this was to be achieved by the removal from German control of her main centres of industry and main coal and iron deposits; Silesia in the east and the Ruhr Area and the Saarland to the west. This plan is commonly known as the Morgenthau Plan after its author Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Secretary of the Treasury of the United States during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although the plan was never made official policy it ended up heavily influencing U.S. policy in the later years of the war and in the years immediately following the German surrender.

--- Stor stark7 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes this was true in 1945. However, after 1947 the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany was US policy. Truman viewed the USSR as a threat and wanted the Germany economy to be strong again.--Berndd11222 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

--- It was true in 1945, 1946 and 1947. And yes, eventually the Marshall Plan was extended to cover Germany as well (1948 or 1949?). I think it necessary to point out to you that the Marshal plan did not originaly incorporate Germany. Maybe the german people in the U.S. and U.K ockupationa zones were given some other sort of aid in the years after 1947, I don't know. However by 1948 the expulsions were nearly completed. Stor stark7 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Anyway the Americans had little or nothing to due with the question of Germans in the area under Soviet control. In 1945 Americans just did not know of the fate of Germans in Soviet occupied areas. For example my father who was an American GI in 1945 first found out about the expulsions in 1969. He was shocked to find out what happened in the hometown of his own father under Soviet occupation back in 1945. --Berndd11222 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'n not sure what your point is. Sure, the common GI might not know what policy his leaders might have decided on, nor how it was being implemented, just as the common German conscript might have not known about the nazi death camps. But that is a non issue. My statement was that it was partly US policy that lead to the expulsions, and the resulting deaths. The U.S might not have commited the deed, but it was an accomplice "before" the fact.

The teritorial amputations of Germany were mainly economic in nature, as can be seen in the quote below. Ie. the reason behind them, or at least one of the most important reasons behind them was a U.S desire to weaken Germany. That they changed their minds a few years after the fact has no bearing on the subject. They did it, the consequence was ethnic cleansing, suffering and death.

On the site the text below is copied from you can find amongst other things U.S. government documents with discussions on giving France the economicaly important German Areas such as the Ruhr and Saar, and of the problem of having a german minority in their country would mean for the French. No such objections were voiced about the eastern territories of Prussia and Silesia, presumably because they knew damn well there would eventualy be no living germans left in them, hence no problem for the Poles and Russians.

Documents listing

"We contemplate the transfer from Germany of ownership of East Prussia, Upper Silesia, Alsace' and Lorraine (each of them except the first containing raw materials of importance) together with the imposition of general economic controls. We also are considering the wisdom of a possible partition of Germany into north and south sections, as well as the creation of an internationalized State in the Ruhr. With such precautions, or indeed with only some of them, it certainly should not be necessary for us to obliterate all industrial productivity in the Ruhr area, in order to preclude its future misuse." Roosevelt Presidential Library, online document Stor stark7 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The policy of the US was to treat the German civilian population and the POWs in a humane manner. Ike made sure that there was sufficient food for the civilians and POWs even though he was angry when he found out the extent of Nazi crimes. As far as my father was concerned he saw the Nazi death camps. He would say " I don't believe my father came from a country like that". He was like most Americans and wanted to get home in 1945. The crimes of Stalin started to become an issue in 1947 when the Soviets imposed their system in Eastern Europe. However, the plight of the Germans was just not known in the west, the media never made an issue of the fate Germans in the Soviet bloc. The US could do nothing to help the Poles and Czechs in 1945-46 as well as the Germans. Stalin did what he pleased in Eastern Europe despite US protests. Anyway what could the Americans done to stop Stalin short of starting a war?--Berndd11222 15:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Do you have any evidence to back up your statements about Eisenhower? His treatment of POWs is disputed Eisenhower and German POWs, especially since he decided to strip them of their legal rights as POW by relabeling them as Disarmed Enemy Forces. No more Red Cross visits etc. Now why on earth would "nice" Ike do that? And as far as treatment of the civilian population goes, have you even bothered to check out the Morgenthau Plan?

E. Allan Lightner, Jr.: Oral history interview "As early as the Quebec Conference he [the President] had bought Secretary [Henry J.] Morgenthau's ideas: The Morgenthau Plan -- to do everything possible to prevent the Germans from regaining the strength ever again to wage war, by requiring them to exist on an agrarian economy. Then gradually the President pulled back from that extreme position. Yet those ideas permeated much of American thinking, especially in the War Department, right up to the time of Secretary [James F.] Byrnes' important Stuttgart speech in [September of] 1946. They were reflected in the basic directive for the occupation of Germany, which was a kind of Bible for all that was done during the early days of the occupation, the paper known as JSC-1067. They also affected Roosevelt's thinking on the question of whether to split up Germany."

As a result the German people ended up with severe starvation that continued for years when the rest of Europe had recovered. Herbert Hoover's press release of The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report No. 1: German Agriculture and Food Requirements, February 28, 1947.

And besides I'm not blaming the Americans for what they did about the expulsion of Germans from the east after the war ended, I'm blaming them for what they did before the war ended, when the lines on the map were drawn up and the fate of the civilan population was planned.

You seem to have a very rose tinted view of your countrys history. Back it up with references and maybe I'll listen. Stor stark7 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Aber natürlich, I will back up my statements with a solid reference by a respected German author.
Author is: Bischof, Gunter Title is: Eisenhower and the German Pows: Facts Against Falsehood ISBN: 0807117587 Publisher: Louisiana State University Press Baton Rouge, LA, U.S.A.: Louisiana State University Press, 1992.

I am from Missouri, my motto is "show me", well I have shown you the source, check it out.--Berndd11222 22:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Sehr gut, guess this discussion is on ice till I've had the oportunity to review it then. The book you present seems to have the purpose of refutating the claim that Eisenhower deliberately starved millions of german former POW's. Note that I did not claim that he did. I just pointed out that his actions with regards to POW's were subject of dispute. And aparently there is this book for him and one other against, seems to be a tie. Got any book on him being nice to the civilian population? Besides, I still havent seen you touching my basic tenet, that U.S. policy was accesory to the expulsions, the expulsions being the topic of this article page.

I se you have a motto, maybe I'll get one for myself. Howabout: The majority is not always right. Stor stark7 23:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

THE FACTS ON GERMAN POST WAR LOSSES:

Death Rate per 1,000 in population Germany 1939 - 12.3
Death Rate per 1,000 in population West Germany 1946 - 13.0
Death Rate per 1,000 in population West Germany 1947 - 12.1
Death Rate per 1,000 in population East Germany 1946 - 22.9
Death Rate per 1,000 in population East Germany 1947 - 19.0
Source:European Historical Statistics 1750-1975, B. R. Mitchell, Facts on File 1980. ISBN 0871963299. Page 126.
The Americans made sure that Germany had the necessary food to prevent starvation but you can be sure that it was a no frills diet, horsemeat and turnips. My folks in Missouri got the steak and potatoes.
Stalin did what he pleased in Eastern Europe despite US protests. Anyway, what could the Americans done to stop Stalin short of starting a war?--Berndd11222 00:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Horsemeat and turnips? Nope, cereals. [8] And Nope; After Germany had surrendered, the U.S. could do nothing besides start a war. Probably true. Before Germany surrendered the U.S. could have done a lot, and as far as I can tell even was an accomplice in the planning. Being a good guy in 1947 doesnt change the fact of being a bad guy in 1944.

Besides-

  [[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/lightner.htm Oral History Interview with

E. Allan Lightner, Jr. Assistant Chief, 1945-47, and Associate Chief, 1947- 48, of the Central European Affairs Division]]

Some quotes/citations:

"President Roosevelt could not make up his mind what to do with

defeated Germany. As early as the Quebec Conference he had bought Secretary [Henry J.] Morgenthau's ideas: The Morgenthau Plan -- to do everything possible to prevent the Germans from regaining the strength ever again to wage war, by requiring them to exist on an agrarian economy. Then gradually the President pulled back from that extreme position. Yet those ideas permeated much of American thinking, especially in the War Department,right up to the time of Secretary [James F.] Byrnes' important Stuttgart speech in 1946. They were reflected in the basic directive for the occupation of Germany, which was a kind of Bible for all that was done during the early days of the occupation, the paper known as JSC-1067. They also affected Roosevelt's thinking on the question of whether to split up Germany."

---

---

"LIGHTNER: Yes. Well, I'm being a little long-winded and perhaps it

isn't necessary to give all this background. We started earlier to talk about what we in the State Department did to counteract the Morgenthau plan philosophy which was strongly reflected in the basic military directive, JCS-l067. "

---

---

"MCKINZIE: Kindleberger contends that sometime in 1946 the economic

people came around to the view that there would have to be some reconstruction of German industry even above the level of industry agreement, which was being hassled around about then or had been hassled around previously.

LIGHTNER: Well, to us those months between V-E Day and mid-'46 seemed a long time. That's when much of the dismantling was taking place. It was a crucial period when much time was being lost in restoring the economy and our group in CE found that we were being opposed at every turn by those who wanted to carry out literally the provisions of JCS-l067. You know, Jimmy Riddleberger was the one who sweated out this whole business of dealing with the Civil Affairs Division of the War Department during the days of planning for the occupation of Germany, and also later on in dealing with the Kindleberger group.

MCKINZIE: You look at the period between the Morgenthau plan and the Marshall plan, one of which represents a "salted earth" policy, and the other an industrial development policy. The question of historians who are always concerned with pinning things down to precise things inevitably comes down to: what was the turning point? Was there any particular event or any absolutely crucial time period in which the change from the Morgenthau plan to the direction of the Marshall plan was made?

LIGHTNER: I think it was fairly gradual. I think the military had their directives based, as I said before, very much on the philosophy of the Morgenthau plan, the basic JCS-l067. They had to accomplish the main chores, which everyone agreed had to be done at first, the denazification and the demilitarization. Germany never was to be in a position to wage war again. But how does one prevent a modern state from ever waging war again? Easy answer -- you strip it of its industries and you make it economically unable to produce the weapons of war. But that was overlooking a whole lot of other features, which made that concept impractical and unwise, Yet that was not apparent to the proponents of the Morgenthau idea at the beginning; but they found in practice, in administering defeated Germany, that it wasn't enough to prevent "disease and unrest;" the Germans could not live on that basis in the modern world. You couldn't hold them down to that point; we weren't that kind of conquerors. Anyway, it gradually became clear to our people who had favored the Morgenthau plan that in our own interest,in terms of our ability to accomplish our political goals in Germany, you had to give them hope for the future.

How could we make them a democratic country by treating them as the

Romans treated the Carthaginians. I guess the turning point was Secretary Byrnes' speech in Stuttgart in September 1946.

By that time after the experience of running occupied Germany for a

year, the more Draconian policies of JCS-1067 were being interpreted differently. More and more people along the line were coming to see that we had to help the Germans restore their economic life, their industries and so on.

---

Isnt it nice with online source-material references, so easy to check out for your self at no extra expense than time? Stor stark7 01:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)