Jump to content

Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Labattblueboy (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 19 September 2009 (Undid revision 314923967 by 156.17.122.152 (talk) discussion is closed and should not be edited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLaw Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: World War II Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
World War II task force

Minor events

In addition to largest scale evacuations/expulsions there were smaller and less visible: Roma into camps, Japanese and Koreans from Manchukuo after war, etc. On yet smaller scale: e.g. when Wehrmach set up military training districts in Czechoslovakia people living there were unceremoniously thrown out (though not liquidated), or some South Tirol Germans were resettled from Italy to Moravia in similar way. Breaking down Czechoslovakia (just before WWII) drove wave of refugees from Sudetenland and Slovakia. Pavel Vozenilek

Better name: population transfers

Wouldn't World War II population transfers be a more neutral name? We should also standardize all subarticles, we have Population transfer in the Soviet Union, Polish population transfers (1944–1946), Repatriation of Poles (1955–1959), Repatriation of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Evacuation of Finnish Karelia... I suggest renaming them all to "Population name (German, Polish, etc.) population transfers (period)". Rationale is simple: population transfer covers all other names - expulsion, emigration, evacuation, deportation, repatriation, ethnic cleansing, and is neutral. Comments? PS. Please add other articles that should be renamed here. PPS. I am not sure if Berihah should be renamed - probably not...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is the best name for these events but i strongly support a standarization. It's totally absurd that very similar events are named so differently. Loosmark (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong to include all such articles in the same general Category:Forced population transfers, but I would oppose renaming all such articles by default. The reason: repatriation, evacuation, deportation and involuntarily settlement are obviously very different events and must be named as such. However, an "umbrella article" that describes different types of the forced population transfer (repatriations, evacuations, deportations, and so on), like this one, can indeed be renamed as Piotrus suggested.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions are different, but in real life we have no ideal types. Hence the population transfer of Poles was not only a repatriation, but had elements of deportation, expulsion and so on. Same goes for the expulsion of Germans - it was also part deportation, part repatriation, and so on. If there are good arguments not to rename some individual articles listed above to population transfer, do say so - but my analysis of them suggests that they are all badly named, as they use the repatriation/expulsion/etc. name, which in fact covers only one of several aspects of population transfer discussed in those articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The naming should be decided individually for each article. Some of them, like Operation Lentil (Caucasus) were very much an ideal type of an ethnic cleansing operation. Some others (like the Betrayal of the Cossacks which actually involved a million of emigrants) had no any ethnic component but need a special discussion. I am not quite sure what it was (a collective punishment, a war crime, mass arrests, etc.), but not merely a "population transfer".Biophys (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there are population transfers which were forced, but by the events, not by authorities. The Evacuation of Finnish Karelia was a forced population transfer, as the population did not wish to leave their homes per sé. Yet, only the immediate war zone was evacuated forcefully. The areas that were given up after the peace was made were evacuated on a voluntary basis. All inhabitants were given, by the Finnish authorities, the option of remaining in the areas to be ceded to Soviet Union. Not more than a few dozen, at the most, used that option. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - most of those events had elements of all other, more specific terms. When I was doing research on Polish population transfers, I found examples of nearly all subterms. Some people were forced to leave by USSR authorities. Yet others could have chosen to stay but decided to leave because they were afraid of USSR. Others because of better job prospects and incentives offered by the Polish government. And yet some were prevented from leaving, or escaped illegally. And many were displaced during the war (forced laborers, soldier constricts) and never went back home in the first place (some couldn't, some were afriad, some didn't bother to...). It was virtually the same for the Germans (as long as we speak in such generalizations). Unless there is convincing evidence than an event should be named expulsion/deportation/repatriation, I still think "population transfer" is the best. Sure, it is unemotional - but we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a book of grievances. There is plenty of room in the articles to describe (categorize, etc.) all the terror and human misery that happened. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the examples Piotr provided, I think it should be Forced population transfer(s). Even the population transfer between Greece and Turkey in 1923, which is nowhere near in coercion and brutality to what happened after WWII, is often adjectivized with "forced". It is a fact that Poles were expulsed from Kresy, as well as Germans were expulsed from lands east of the Oder-Neisse line. I am not talking about the initial refugees, of which were also hundreds of thousands, I mean that eventually everyone was forced to leave based on ethnic group. I am not saying that those territories were inhabited only by Poles, resp. Germans. In fact, in some situations, these were in minority. And it is clear that not the locals of other ethnic groups were the planners of these forced movements. We all know the perpetrators: Soviets and Soviet puppets. And I am not passing any judgement on the historical ethnic composition of those territories in middle ages, etc, etc. But still, expulsion is expulsion. Personally, I think "population transfer" is incorrect. At least, the word "forced" has to be added.

I support Biophys' suggestion 1) to create Category:Forced population transfers as subcategory of Category:Forced migration (or alternatively, to organize better the latter), and 2) to deal with each article individually. A good number of them (half?) I expect to "land" with "forced population transfer" title. But words such as repatriation, evacuation, deportation, involuntarily settlement, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment for betrayal, should be allowed, where (and there are many such cases) mainstream scholarly sources use mainly those terms. The talk page of this category would be an ideal place to discuss individual cases if someone believes his/her "transfer" is lessened in importance, while other "transfers" seem more "advertised". With good common sense it is possible to achieve a degree of fairness and uniformity. Sometimes, a simple look into the contents of a category is enough to induce people who push for something to say "ahahaha, i see..." Let's use the advantages that categories offer.

BTW, here is a suggestion: Category:Post-World War II forced migration/population transfers as subcat of Category:Forced migration, just as Category:Forced migration in the Soviet Union and Category:Forced migrations in the United States. Dc76\talk 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After looking at examples below and the list of academic publications kindly provided by Radek, I think that titles of most articles are currently appropriate. Each article should be discussed separately, on the case to case basis. The title should reflect the name most commonly used in sources, and this is indeed "expulsion", "deportation", etc.Biophys (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Numbers regarding the "expulsion" of Germans are overestimated.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How, in general, should we edit the mention of the expulsions of Gemrmans in order to remove the POV tag above it? I think the fact that these transfers took place is undisputed. The question is whether they were morally acceptable. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very encyclopedic question. The question should be, rather, what are the commonly acceptable and reliable numbers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The article should not issue the question of morality, only of the numbers. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War II-era population transfers Merge proposal

proposed merge of World War II-era population transfers into this article. World War II-era population transfers does not meet Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and this is subject duplication. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition shown. World War II-era population transfers directed into this article. No cited content on former artile so no content merged.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


World War II evacuation and expulsion → World War II populations transfers — I propose that articles relating to population migrations resulting from WWII, and it’s immediate aftermath, be classified under a standard nomenclature that respect the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) model of: Where, What and When. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employing 3 examples:

  1. Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II
  2. Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia
  3. Polish population transfers (1944–1946)

I propose:

1. Format: [Name of affected population], “population transfer(s)”, [originating place or body], (year-year)

Ex 1: German population transfers (1944-1950)
Ex 2: German population transfers from Czechoslovakia (1945-1946)
Ex 3: Polish population transfers (1944–1946)

Or

2. Format: “World War II”, “population transfer(s)”, [name of affected population], [originating place or body]

Ex 1: World War II population transfers of Germans
Ex 2: World War II population transfers of Germans from Czechoslovakia
Ex 3: World War II population transfers of Poles by the Soviet Union

Or

3. Format: “Population transfer(s)”, [name of affected population], [originating place or body], (period)

Ex 1: Population transfer of Germans (1944-1950)
Ex 2: Population transfer of Germans from Czechoslovakia (1945-1946)
Ex 3: Population transfer of Poles by the Soviet Union (1944–1946)

I am open to any other proposal or ideas including replacing the term "population transfer" with something else. I think everyone can agree that something in the form of a standard format needs to be reached because the current status is not functional.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third option added based on some comments by Skäpperöd regarding interpretation. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can use this approach for creating new categories where such articles belong, but not for renaming articles.Biophys (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refference Material

Discussions

For past of ongoing discussion on similar matters see:

Affected Articles

Add to the list as you find them:

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support (nominator) - my reasons were made clear in the nomination. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I personally think this would be very helpful.--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Evacuation", "repatriation" and "expulsion" are very different things. Calling all of them "population transfer" would be misleading. One should simply check if the title was appropriate for each specific article. One could also combine all such articles in a single Category:Population transfers. That would be fine.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are really are all the same thing in that they are all, either by circumstances or law, examples of forced migration. The term employed currently is largely a reflection of whose POV your are talking about. Because these events are still extremely politicized I see moving towards a NPOV naming scheme as rather beneficial. Any suggestions you make have in improving this renaming scheme would be beneficial.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Repatriation and evacuation can be voluntary. That's why there is stable term, "mandatory evacuation", which is indeed involuntary. If all the described events were in fact involuntary, they must be called accordingly, such as expulsion, deportation or exile, whatever applies per sources. I am looking at "Gulag" by Applebaum, page 580. She uses words "exiles" (or "special exiles") and "deportation" with regard to transferring "kulaks" and people from Baltic states to Siberia.Biophys (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle - we should certainly have a uniform, NPOV nomenclature for these articles. I might be open to alternative suggestions as to how to achieve this, but the one proposed seems quite reasonable and certainly an improvement on the current situation.--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I wrote at length about the politically charged nomenclature from the Cold War era, which makes the corresponding Wikipedia articles seem like they don’t relate to each other at all. Please see "A need for cooperation" at WikiProject Poland for the particulars. --Poeticbent talk 15:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kotniski and Poeticbent. Space Cadet (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Various policy and other issues don't allow this move to happen, as detailed in the discussion: (1) NPOV (also V and NOR) demand a descriptive title, not a prescriptive one. It is shown below that sources do call expulsions expulsions, and so must we. RM !votes cannot overrule policy. (2) Emigrations are not population transfers. Some articles cover emigrations, a rename would not anymore have the title reflect the content of these articles. (3) Articles that deal with specific evacuations and flight can not be titled population transfer - it's like titeling the cucumber article "Vegetable (green)". (4) At least the "Expulsion of Poles" article describes an expulsion that is not a population transfer. "Population transfer" might be applicable for some articles as a category, but not as a title. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)/Skäpperöd (talk)[reply]
  • Oppose Euphemism is not neutrality; weasel-wording takes the side of the weasels. Do we really have sufficient reason to use this infamous phrase? Let us at least consider "Politics and the English Language": Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that an argument for using the phrase? A respected writer observing that this is what something is called? (He clearly doesn't think it should be called that - but should's are not Wikipedia's concern.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only works under the premise that wikipedia is an Orwellian world using the "ugly and inaccurate" "political language" of 1946 Great Britain. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And under the assumption that Wikipedia should write badly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nonsense. "Wikipedians know it better than specialists" at its best. If majority of sources describe event as expulsion or deportation or evacuation, then article should be also accordingly titled as expulsion or deportation or evacuation.--Staberinde (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- Population Transfers is a bland expression that fails to convey to readers what actually occurred. These were forced relocations of millions of people that resulted in a huge death toll. The perpetrators acted with a depraved indifference to the fate of the people subject to the relocations, mostly women, children and the elderly. I do support an overall cleanup of these articles that are currently a poorly organized hodgepodge of edits. Ethnic warriors and POV pushers(on both sides) have made a total mess of these articles. I do not consider this to be uncivil due the fact that a POV tag is currently posted at Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Let's end the petty disputes and proceed to improve these articles--Woogie10w (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - since the usage varies in sources the standardization in Wiki would be useful and ensure NPOV. The different usage of "population transfers" vs. "expulsions" etc. can be adequately explained in article text.radek (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for the sake of both standardisation and NPOV. As for "ethnic warriors" - this is both uncivil (as it happens) and a classic example of projection. There is a small but very active group of pro-German revisionist editors that are breaking havoc on all pages associated to WWII and especially on those associated to the so-called 'Volksdeutsche'. Their views are even out of line of the mainstream in wiki:de, where they would be considered a fringe position. Feketekave (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. There are no written sources using this name for the evacuation of Finnish Karelia. The word "evacuation" is used in all sources, and it is appropriate, as the Finnish Karelia was evacuated by the Finnish authorities before ceding the areas to Soviet Union. "Population transfer" is not used in any literature concerning the events. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:woogie10w and Septentrionalis , it's not neutral it's just an euphemism. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support standarisation is needed to give Wikipedia internal consistency. Each article's lead can explain the different circumstances. Loosmark (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

General format

I tentatively support the proposal, but we should clearly list which articles are affected, what are their proposed new names, and start a formal WP:RM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a formal RM. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good intentions, but have to disagree with the rationale above for the following reasons:

  • At Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#Use in sources, I have shown that the present nomenclature at least for that article follows the use in sources, and thus is perfectly NPOV and follows the naming guidelines, which in return are based on community consensus. This cannot be overruled by a RM vote.
  • Some of the titles which are to be unitized are titles of different hierarchy levels of articles concerned with distinct features of a population transfer, and that must not be unitized, but need to be kept distinctive. For example Evacuation of East Prussia is a sub-article of Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II, which in turn is a sub-article of Expulsion of Germans, which in turn is or used to be a sub-article of German exodus from Eastern Europe.
  • Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II, though in part concerned with the late-/post-war expulsions, is primarily describing (more or less) voluntary, individual movements, which can't be labeled population transfer without over-stretching the common meaning of the term.
  • Similar problems occur when Expulsion of Poles by Germany would be renamed as a population transfer. The late 19th cty eviction of the 30,000 Poles and Jews who did not hold German citizenship is contrated by the millions of Poles and Jews who held German citizenship and were not explelled, so that can hardly be described as a population transfer. The expulsions during WWII are also difficult to be categorized as such: some Poles actually were "tranferred" to Central Poland, but other Poles expelled from their houses were not, they were instead replaced to somewhere near their former place of residence or deported to the West for forced labour. The majority of Poles in the expulsion area however continued to live where they had lived before until the end of the war. Thus, population transfer seems to not be the best choice.

I therefore insist that the titles are adjusted only in cases where the subject is not properly described as compared to the use in sources. The NPOV policy unambiguously says that the approach should be descriptive, not prescriptive (which is further deprecated by the NOR policy). Thus, the intention of this RM, to achieve a higher level of NPOV than there currently is, cannot be achieved with the proposed uniform, prescriptive names, only by elaborating the use in sources specifically for each article. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no policy that says the move cannot happen, just past discussions where different consensus was reached. Now we are holding a new centralized discussion to see if we can reach a new consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a RM discussion, not a centralized discussion. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus cannot violate policy; but consensus applies policy; who else can? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is an abstract, of course consensus cannot apply anything, only editors can. A small consensus among a few editors can violate policy by interflicting with the consensus of the rest of "the community". Consensus and thus policy is that wikipedia's approach is not prescriptive, but descriptive (NPOV, NOR, V). I have for one provided lots of top quality sources that call the expulsion of Germans an expulsion of Germans, so I must assume that this is the descriptive title the community prefers. Furthermore, "population transfer" does not accurately describe more or less voluntary emigrations and expulsions of small factions of a population. Do I really need to source that? Where are the sources that back up these proposed changes? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning the the discussion back to the main topic: the nomenclature format. What part of the nomenclature format do you not like? I doesn't appear that you take issue with the format but rather of the term "population transfer". Is it that you believe the "population transfer" term should be flexible? Can you agree that the formatting minus the term "population transfer"? As has been stated at a number of points previously, the term utilized is up for discussion but hammering out a general nomenclature format is first item of the agenda. I am confident that we can nail something out here, but lets take one bite off at a time--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I don't "like" your proposal, you have completely misunderstood my first point: This is not about what editors like, but what sources actually use, and that is policy. My other concerns deal with the term "population transfer" not describing accurately the specific subjects of several articles, and with some articles, "population transfer" does not describe the subject at all. See "individual problems" section. I am all for standartizing article titles if different articles use redundant terms and formats. This is not the case here. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I made myself clear earlier. There is no attachment to the term "population transfer". The term is, as mentioned numerous times already, open for discussion and is not set in stone. The first step was to find a suitable nomenclature format then it will be possible to decide on what term should be used. I asked if you found the one or more of the formats, minus the term "population transfer" workable. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terms used in sources

Regarding the articles dealing with the expulsion of Germans, sources tend to use "expulsion of Germans".

The following list contains recent Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge publications that use "expulsion" as primary label for the processs, as opposed to "flight and expulsion" or "population transfer". Though the sources may use these phrases also, the catchphrase is "expulsion of Germans":

Oxford

  • Johnson, Lonnie (1996). Central Europe: enemies, neighbors, friends. Oxford University Press US. p. 233. ISBN 0195100719.: "The expulsion of the Germans from East Central Europe took a number of forms. Many Germans [...] fled to avoid ending up behind the Soviet front. [...]"
  • Gibney, Matthew J; Hansen, Randall (2005). Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present. p. 197. ISBN 1576077969.: "The expulsions took place in three broad phases. First, refugees fled East Prussia, Pomerania [...]" Gibney's website at Oxford
  • McLean, Iain, ed. (1996). The concise Oxford dictionary of politics. Oxford University Press. p. 335. ISBN 0192852884.: "and the expulsion of Germans"
  • Frank, Matthew (2008). Expelling the Germans: British Opinion and Post-1945 Population Transfer in Context. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199233640.: title; p.99:"the mass expulsion of Germans"
  • Cornwall, Mark; Evans, Robert John Weston (2007). Czechoslovakia in a nationalist and fascist Europe, 1918-1948. Oxford University Press. p. 223. ISBN 0197263917.: "the expulsion of Germans from territory occupied by the Red Army"
  • Bloxham, Donald (2003). Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory. Oxford University Press. p. 165. ISBN 0199259046.: "crimes committed on the invasion of Germany and during the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe"
  • Davies, Norman (2005). God's playground VolumeII (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 365. ISBN 0199253404.: "the expulsion of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary"
  • Ahonen, Pertti (2003). After the expulsion: West Germany and Eastern Europe, 1945-1990. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199259895. (title)
  • Harbutt, Fraser J. (1988). The iron curtain: Churchill, America, and the origins of the Cold War. Oxford University Press US. p. 186. ISBN 0195054229.: "the mass expulsion of Germans"
  • Palmowski, Jan (2008). A Dictionary of Contemporary World History: From 1900 to the Present Day (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 496. ISBN 0199295662.: " the expulsion of Germans from all non-German territories (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary)"

Harvard

  • Naimark, Norman M. Fires of hatred: ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe. Harvard University Press, 2001. p. 108. ISBN 0674009940.: "IV: The Expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia."
  • Wingfield, Nancy Meriwether (2007). Flag wars and stone saints: how the Bohemian lands became Czech. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674025822. p.274: "the expulsion of the country's Germans"; p.291: "the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans"; pp.269, 294: "the expulsion of the Germans"
  • Kaiser, David E (2000). Politics and war: European conflict from Philip II to Hitler (2 ed.). Harvard University Press. p. 409. ISBN 0674002725.: "The expulsion of Germans from East Prussia and the eastern part of Germany began whith the Soviet invasion of these territories, when millions of Germans began to flee."
  • Fritzsche, Peter (2008). Life and death in the Third Reich. Harvard University Press. p. 301. ISBN 0674027930.: "the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe"
  • Schulze, Hagen; Schneider (2001). Germany: A New History. Harvard University Press. p. 288. ISBN 0674005457. {{cite book}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help): "They [the Allies in Potsdam] further legalized the expulsion of Germans from the areas east of the Oder-Neisse line and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, a process that was already well under way."
  • Herf, Jeffrey (1997). Divided memory: the Nazi past in the two Germanys. Harvard University Press. p. 368. ISBN 0674213033.: "the division of Germany and the expulsion of Germans"
  • Bryant, Chad Carl (2007). Prague in black: Nazi rule and Czech nationalism. Harvard University Press. p. 10. ISBN 0674024516.: "the complete expulsion of Germans"; p.210: "the expulsion of Germans from Poland"
  • Lie, John (2004). Modern peoplehood. Harvard University Press. p. 147. ISBN 0674013271.: "the massive expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia."

Cambridge

  • Brubaker, Rogers (1996). Nationalism reframed: nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge University Press. p. 166. ISBN 0521576490.: "postwar expulsion of Germans"
  • Schabas, William (2000). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes. Cambridge University Press. p. 195. ISBN 0521787904.: "the expulsion of Germans" (in reference to another work)

Skäpperöd (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, quite a number of English sources use the term "population transfers" here as well: [1] so this isn't a one sided issue. As to the publishers, just taking the first few out of the 710 hits:
  • [2] - Oxford Univ Press.
  • [3] - also Oxford Univ Pres, though it also uses "Expulsions".
  • [4] - standard Sociology textbook by Taylor & Francis
  • [5] - Springer, major academic publisher
  • [6] - Routledge
  • [7] - Macmillian, more textbooks.
and so on. Basically on none of these topics is there going to be a clear usage in English sources. As a result, I think standardization makes sense on Wiki, and of course the usage of the term can be explained in the article itself.radek (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above links presented by radeksz are invalid. It is only a googlebook search with the parameter %22population+transfer%22+germans, i.e. links where the phrase "population transfer" and the word "germans" appear in the same book. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. If I do it that way I get even more hits [8] - I think my first search was more restrictive. Did you actually look at it before calling it 'invalid'? I assume you're not referring to the clear cut examples I listed above as 'invalid'.radek (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Skapperod changed "transfers" to "transfer" which lowers the number of hits. "population transfer" + germans, doing it exactly per Skapperod's suggestion gets you 470 hits [9]. "population transfers" + germans, doing it exactly per Skapperod's suggestion gets you 636 hits [10].radek (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the appearance of the term "populstion transfer(s)" and the word "German" in the same book means nothing as these phrases must be within a context. If you look for books published between 1980 and 2009, you get the following results for the following, valid strings (where "expulsion" and "germans" are forced into context)

whereas eg ""population transfer of germans"" yields 3 hits. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously has to do with grammar usage rather than whether or not sources use the term "population transfers" in this context. For example the google books search which gives you only 3 hits, misses this source [11] which is very much about the topic under discussion. Likewise, I think that search misses every single one of my specific examples listed above (of which all are on topic, and of which there are more then 3). The search string has been constructed so as to be artificially restrictive.radek (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you perform a booksearch with the string expulsion+germans (which is just replacing the "population transfer" of your search with "expulsions"), you get 8,800 hits. That does not mean that the authors of the returned books use these words in the context we need, and that's why I used restrictive strings and restrictive publishing dates (1980-2009) in my presentation above, and in addition listed more than a dozen top quality sources with quotes. If you want to make a case against it, you have to do so on the same level. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles issues

Expulsion of Germans after World War II
Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia → German population transfers from Czechoslovakia (1945-1946)
German exodus from Eastern Europe → German population transfers from Eastern Europe
  • This article deals not only with expulsions, but also with more or less voluntary emigrations. Population transfer does not cover the latter.
  • "German population transfer" might be read not as a transfer of German populations, but as a German-organized population transfer Skäpperöd (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans → Demographic estimates of German population transfers
Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II → German population transfers from Poland (1944-1951)
  • Sources use "expulsion"
  • "German population transfer" might be read not as a transfer of German populations, but as a German-organized population transfer
  • The date 1960 is arbitrary. Expulsions had ended by 1950/51. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed the date was arbitrary, we needed a starting point to work from. The article goes to discuss movement up until 1960 but I will change it to 1951. Change made. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II → German population transfers from Poland (1944-1951)
  • This article deals not with expulsions, but also with more or less voluntary emigrations. Population transfer does not cover the latter.
  • "German population transfer" might be read not as a transfer of German populations, but as a German-organized population transfer
  • The date is wrong. Expulsions had ended by 1950/51, this article primarily covers emigrations after this date. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date was arbitrary, we needed a starting point to work from. The article goes to discuss movement up until 1960 but I will change it to 1951. Change made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evacuation of East Prussia → German population transfers from East Prussia
Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II → German population transfers from Romania
Evacuation of Finnish Karelia → Finnish Karelian population transfer
    • Comment Considering that this is proposal to standardize, voting under separate parts makes just things more confusing to read. You should just vote in main survey because with exceptions whole standardization would become pointless anyway.--Staberinde (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Votes moved to survey section. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repatriation of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union → Ukrainians population transfers from Poland (1944-1946)
Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II → German population transfers (1944-1945)
  • The article specifically deals with flight and evacuation, not with later expulsions. Population transfer does not reflect that.
  • The dates are unspecific. The Soviet front advanced into different regions at different times throughout these years.
  • Since the evacuation measures were implemented often belated, the movements had the character of an uprooting rather than a transfer. A transfer should have at least some organization and an area where this transfer is directed. This is not at all true for the chaotic period described by the article, where people were heading away from the frontline towards what they thought from hearsay were safe areas or not yet Soviet-conquered ports or train stations where there were probably evacuation measures going on. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expulsion of Poles by Germany → Polish population transfers from Germany
  • The late 19th cty eviction of the 30,000 Poles and Jews who did not hold German citizenship is contrated by the millions of Poles and Jews who held German citizenship and were not explelled, so that can hardly be described as a population transfer.
  • The expulsions during WWII are also difficult to be categorized as such: some Poles actually were "tranferred" to Central Poland, but other Poles expelled from their houses were not, they were instead replaced to somewhere near their former place of residence or deported to the West for forced labour. The majority of Poles in the expulsion area however continued to live where they had lived before until the end of the war.
  • "Polish population transfer" might be read not as a transfer of Polish populations, but as a Polish-organized population transfer
  • "from Germany" might be disputed as this would include the WWII annexations of Nazi Germany Skäpperöd (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A country can't expel people from a territory it does not control and providing an exhaustive list is too long. The article title currently leads the reader to believe it is a singular event. Given this article is not a singular event I suggest employing 'History of' [General format under discussion] as the article name, if the intent of the article is to be an exhaustive and a complete history.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is better solved by changing "expulsion" to "expulsions". Concerning the WWII territorial status: Of course Germany controlled this territory during the war, and Nazi Germany, the Axis powers and until 1941 the USSR all regarded this territory to be "Germany". Yet, the view of the Allied countries during the war, and the dominant post-war view is that the annexations did not comply to international law and thus it is disputable whether these territories really were "Germany". Skäpperöd (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I don't know if "population transfer" is the best title but some sort of standarisation is very much needed. Also another thing i propose to merge the following articles (it's a bit ridiculous to have 25 articles about basically the same events):

Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans
Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II
German exodus from Eastern Europe
Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II
Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II
Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia
Loosmark (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view Loosmark is that once a standard nomenclature is established it will be much easier to evaluate whether mergers are necessary or warranted. As I mentioned earlier I am very much open to using a term other than "population transfer", it just seemed like a good NPOV start. I view the first step as establishing that there is an agreement that standardization is necessary and that the basic format is workable and acceptable. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed merge is not suitable, as large sub-articles with distinct sub-topics can't be merged into a large main article, and this merge proposal does not belong to this RM discussion. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong to create an "umbrella article" that covers all these events, but sub-articles should remain for readability reasons, I believe.Biophys (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has 1 article about The Holocaust, so I don't understand why can't the topic of the flight and expulsions of Germans be handled in a similar way. I bring this point up because a friend of mine who is half Jewish asked me why is there so many more articles on wiki about the expulsions of Germans in comparision to the Hollocaust and I was completely unable to give him a satisfactory answer. Since we are discussing renaming of articles I think it's the right moment we adress possible mergers too. Loosmark (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your premise is wrong: "Holocaust" is a main article, each country has a subarticle "Holocaust in [country]", additionally, there are numerous other subarticles
  • Your conclusion is wrong: If there was no sufficient coverage of the Holocaust on wikipedia, this coverage would need to be expanded, not the coverage of other events shortened.

Skäpperöd (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly cannot call myself expert on German expulsion issues, this argumentation for merging proposal is just hilarious. I mean seriously, there are lots of articles like The Holocaust in Belarus, The Holocaust in Latvia, The Holocaust in Lithuania, The Holocaust in Poland, The Holocaust in Ukraine, Aftermath of the Holocaust etc. Category:The Holocaust is a good place to start. I wont rule out that there may be some articles about German expulsion that could be merged with each other, but current proposal and its argumentation is just ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural remark

Since my remarks involve a malfunctioning bot, I asked them at ANI: [12]. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet deportations

I propose that articles relating to population migrations resulting from WWII, and it’s immediate aftermath, be classified under a standard nomenclature that respect the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) model of: Where, What and When.
Assuming that this wasn't simply some primitive overgeneralisation, World War II related population migrations include also various soviet deportations like Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Deportation of Crimean Tatars, Soviet deportations from Estonia, Kalmyk deportations of 1943. And it wouldn't make sense to standardize only half soviet deportations so Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union and whatever else(ah yes, the NKVD operations) I may have missed would come in picture too. It would be nonsensical to turn them all into "population transfers" but you can't really standardize only half of population migrations either, which is exactly the reason why I consider this whole proposal ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that it would be improper to standardize some and not others. The starting list was simply those that came to my most immediate attention and didn't claim to be exhaustive. I will try and get around to adding them to the list today and leaving notices on the talk pages of affected articles. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong to standardize some and not others. But I do not see any need for new "standards" at all.Biophys (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion&oldid=314926371"