Talk:Eupen-Malmedy

Untitled

Note: I translated this per a request from de:Eupen-Malmedy-St.Vith, which is now a redirect to de:Ostkantone. I'm not wedded to this version, and if someone feels like the information on Ostkantone is more accurate, feel free to overwrite mine. ~ trialsanderrors 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some less official things

I have completely rewritten this. Now there are some living people in this article. They deserve to be there, after what they went through. Flemish people who watched Maurice De Wilde's documentaries on Flemish Television will concur. "The law is the law is the law." As if the law exists onto itself. Oh, why am I thinking of some recent RFA now?

Oh, and feel free to edit. This is obviously not a final version yet. --Pan Gerwazy 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am more than happy to read that this is not a final version than everyone can feel free to edit. I have been born in Waimes (in German Weismes) almost 50 years ago and never, in my all life, I have read so much wrong allegations about the Ostkantonen (Cantons de l'Est in French) is so few lines of text. I actually wonder where you have found your sources (outside, of course, some ultra-nationalistic Flemish circles, since even the most extremist members of the PDB would really try to write such thinks). I project to translate the French Wiki version (which is much more accurate) into English and, where needed, also include some elements from the German version in order to have a balance. But for your information, Malmedy and Waimes have always been Walloon (not even French speaking, but Walloon), and if you would have made a little research on the Kulturkampf and its development in tha area, you would know it. Not everyone was happy with the German invasion in May 1940. For instance, while the leader of the Heimattreuefront was riding a bicycle in the streets of Eupen on May 10, 1940 waving a nazi flag, he was shot down by someone who has never been indentified by the German occupant.

There are enough reliable sources to find about the history of the Ostkantonen (which, BTW, doesn't summarise to the WW1 & 2, and their aftermaths) which are much more complete that the only De Wilde's documentaries that seem to have a hidded agenda (even if these documentaries have the merit to tell things that are not always known).

In between, I have already changed thinks that were clearly wrong. --Lebob-BE 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. A few remarks:

• • The article has never claimed that Malmédy and Waimes were German-speaking - "achieving high scores even in French-speaking Malmedy."
  • If you mean Josef Kerres with the German flag, it is known who shot him. It is even in one of the sources. Note 109 in the piece by Sofie Decoster.
  • I hope you will not mind me correcting the bad English in the piece you introduced? After all, this is Wikipedia. (Not now, by the way, I feel too upset).
  • Since politics seems to be involved in this, perhaps you can explain, as an inhabitant of the French-speaking part of the former East cantons, why another inhabitant of that part got into trouble after talking German when interviewed by Maurice De Wilde?--Pan Gerwazy 21:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to put things in another way. When reading the article (and I have read it more than just once!), I have really got the feeling that story of that area was limited to its linguistic aspects and to the ills undergone by its inhabitants between 1919 and the aftermath of WW2.

And to answer to the points you raised.

• Even if the article never claimed that “that Malmedy and Waimes were German-speaking”, some parts of sentences of this article might sound ambiguous, to say the least. Just some examples:
  • “This started the legend among French speaking Belgians, that the area had once belonged to Wallonia”. The whole area depends from the Walloon Region. This is a fact. Only the municipalities of Malmedy and Waimes have been Walloon. Another fact. And I am the first one to say that Eupen and St. Vith have never been Walloon, are still not and will never be. I have currently a huge discussion on that point with some Walloon “extremists” who are apparently unable to make the difference between Wallonia and the Walloon Region on the Wallonia page of the FR Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Wallonie). And I agree with the answer of K-H Lambertz to the (stupid) assertion of J-C Van Cauwenberghe that “the inhabitants of the German-speaking Community are Walloons who speak German”. However, I still believe that your above sentence is too general and lacks of nuance. I have scratched that sentence for this reason, as I though that entering in that debate would mean that the article goes to far in details that most of the readers do not need. However, after having thought a little bit more about this point, I think that a sentence like “Even today, there are some people Wallonia who still believe that the whole area has always been Walloon while the fact is that only Malmedy and Waimes are Walloon” would be more acceptable. But I don’t think this would be the right place in the article to put such a sentence anyway.

• • “The subsequent immigration of Walloons to the area to fill jobs in the public sector led to frenchification. I know that this happened just after the war. The customs and excises civil servants, for instance, were mainly French speaking people who came from other parts of Belgium. But the “frenchification” resulting from this has been very limited, to say the least. And today, in Eupen and St. Vith, most of the civil servants in federal or regional administration (as the Ministry of Finance, for instance) come from Eupen or St. Vith and are German speaking.

• • “Note that even today the PDB still collects a significant number of votes in the French speaking villages, indicating that resentment against the treatment by the Belgian state still exists (French speakers conscripted in the ranks of the Wehrmacht had also been discriminated against)”. I have checked the results of the PDB in the Malmedy canton for the legislative elections of 1971 till 2003 (results for the chambers) on the website of the Belgian Ministry of Interior (http://www.ibzdgip.fgov.be/result/fr/result_party.php?party_id=798&startdate=1971-11-07&enddate=2003-05-18&vt=CK&ko_type=KO_CA&ko=218) and I found out that indeed, in 1974, the PDB had an amazing total of 12,12% of the votes. However, since then, its results completely dropped. The last time the party was present at the ballots in Malmedy (in 1995) it got 53 votes (i.e. 0,5%) in its favour. Do you really think this is a “significant number of votes”?

• • “There are special privileges for the minority language in both areas (the Malmedy language area including a number of villages which were part of Belgium in 1914 already, but then had a German or Dutch speaking majority, and which were frenchified after 1945)”. This is really the very first time I read (or hear) that the “Malmedy language area” (BTW, what’s that?) includes a number of villages that had a German of Dutch speaking majority. I assume that these particular villages are in fact these located somewhat up North, like Welkenraedt, Plombières, etc. That sentence was very confusing, to say the last.

• • “In many communes with a French speaking majority the German speaking minority has never applied for these special rights for the German language, but European unification has led some Walloon politicians to fear that German immigrants from nearby Aachen (who are buying cheap houses in villages close to the German border) may one day apply for these rights.” As far as I know, the special rights are granted to any German speaking person living in the Malmedy canton without any problem. This might well be the reason of the low score of the PDB in the area. On the other hand, I don’t really see why Walloon politicians should fear that some German speaking inhabitants could apply for a right that is constitutionally granted.

• • “Note that although all German speaking Gemeinde are "communes à facilités" and the 5% French speakers in the town of Eupen readily do apply for services in French, the Rat der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft in 2005 received the right of tutelage over its nine Gemeinde while the Flemish and the French-speaking Community do not have such tutelage over their "communes à facilités”. I have some problem to understand what the meaning of this sentence actually is. However, there is a big difference between the German speaking Community of Belgium and the other “communes à facilité”. The DG is part of the territory of the Walloon Region which has delegated (or transferred) to the DG the tutelage power the Regions have on the municipalities that lies on their territory. Doing so, the Walloon Region has also acknowledged the specific situation of Eupen and St. Vith. It’s clear that in the Flemish Region, such delegation is not necessary, since the Region and the Dutch speaking Community have been merged. This means that the Community de facto has a tutelage over the municipalities of the Flemish Region that are “gemeenten met faciliteiten”.

• • “Attempts by German Belgian politicians to also attain autonomy in the social and economic domain, have been hampered by the fact that the German-speaking area, as small as it is, is now even split in two (incidentally, by Malmedy and Waimes), which argues against its viability as an economic unit”. This sentence almost gives the feeling that the way the territory of Waimes separates the canton of Eupen from the canton of Sankt Vith is the same as the Polish Corridor separated Germany from German East Prussia. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there have always been differences between the North and the South of what is now the German speaking Community. This is due notably to the fact that historically, North and South weren’t depending from the same principalities, that they had different languages (both German languages, but nevertheless different) and that between both, there is a natural bareer, i.e. the “Hohes Venn” which makes that Eupen lies 25 km North of Elsenborn.

• As far the story of Josef Kerres is concerned, I must acknowledge I mist that part when reading Sofie Decoster’s study. However, the study states he was killed by a Belgian soldier, which doesn’t correspond with what I have already heard. But I won’t say my sources are reliable on that point.

• I have of course no problem with corrections of my English mistakes. They are always welcome.

• I didn’t see that interview and I can’t remember that story. But I remember another one were in an interview to the French speaking Belgian TV, a well known inhabitant of Malmedy had also given an interview in German. Afterwards, the RTBF had specified that if the interview had been broadcasted in German, the reason was that technical problems had made the sound of the French version of the interview inaudible. I don’t remember when De Wilde’s study had been made, but it is obvious that even 30 years after the facts, what happened around WW2 was still a very sensitive topic in the area so that giving an interview in German might have been regarded as if this person would have had, or still have, sympathy for the Heimattreuefront or the German occupant.

May I also recall you that while that article explained in a very detailed way how the German speaking people have been considered for year as second-class citizens, nothing had been said on the problems that happened in Malmedy with the Kulturkampf.

There is also no mention in that article that the inhabitants of German speaking Community now feel quite well in Belgium and that most of them don’t want to go back to Germany anymore.

This being said, I want to stress that my intention was not destroy the work you have done on that article. I have even learned things I ignored (or had forgotten) which I really appreciate. However, my first feeling when I have read it (and I still have that feeling) is that it was unbalanced. My only intention was to correct that one sided aspect of the article.

And I really want to apologise if my first comment on your work has hurt you.--Lebob-BE 20:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Treason convictions"

The text now says "However, although many of the men who had been in this situation were put under close scrutiny by the Belgian authorities, there were eventually no more treason convictions of people living in this area than in the part of Belgium not annexed by Germany. All the men who were not formally condemned by a Belgian court eventually recovered their full civil rights."

Apart from the bad English (to be fair on Lebob, that silly "treason convictions" instead of "convictions for treason" was put there not by him, but by a fairly new user who pretended he wanted to improve the English):

• [1] (page 142 - in Dutch and French)

• [2] (page 133, in Dutch)

• [3] (the text under the heading "Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog: discriminatie van de Duitse taal")

That last one is from a radical left organisation, by the way. It is good evidence for notoriety - anyone who lives in Belgium knows that the left is not exaggerating these figures, the radical right does. I can of course provide a lot more sources who all give the same figures: repression in Eupen-Malmédy was ten times harder than in Flanders, both in number of dossiers and in number of convictions. What is the source for the assertion now in this article? Are there other numbers, and if so, were these influenced by one of the early partial amnesties of the early fifties?

There is something else that tends to be forgotten when you quote the official Belgian figures above: the War tribunal auditors had the right without any trial to take away citizens' right from anyone who was accused of collaborating and who did not protest against this measure in the next three years. Many of the men from Eupen and Malmédy were taken prisoner by the Soviet army, and for many of them liberation came much later - so they could not have been in Belgium end of 1947 to protest in time. Of course, the same thing happened to the Flemings and Walloons who had joined the Waffen-SS, but there was a tiny difference: the Flemings and Walloons had done so voluntarily. These guys probably had a dossier in their name for other matters, but many people from Eupen-Malmédy only had joining the German army held against them. So, many of them would not even have had a case started against them - which means they were not in those dossier figures and consequently, that the usual estimate that almost half of the male population of Eupen-Malmédy were prosecuted for war crimes, is in fact too low!

Note that the purely "administrative" loss of citizenship was forgotten in the first half-hearted attempts at reconciliation and amnesty. Only the 1961 Vermeylen law mentioned it. In Eupen-Malédy, it meant that people who had lost full citizenship rights without a legal case, now had to start one. Not surprisingly, many refused.

A special case which I believe should be added to this part of the article, partly because it illustrates the problem very well, is that of the war-time civil servants. When Eupen-Malmédy was annexed, the Belgian government in exile acquiesced (that is not only sourced in the LSP article, by the way) and the Belgian civil administration remaining in Belgium accepted the annexation de facto - they had some paper work performed to enable the civil servants of Eupen-Malmédy to become German civil servants. But after the war, these same civil servants were treated as a particular nasty form of collaborators. At this time, I need to source this thing carefully, and I do not have a sea of time at my disposal, so I am not adding it yet.

That is not all: I have recently found interesting German material on the working of the German secret police in Eupen-Malmedy before and in 1940 ([4]). That will probably be easier to add. --Pan Gerwazy 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have misread what stood in my sources. I have now modified that part accordinly and added the reference (i.e. Minke).

With respect to the annexion of Eupen-Malmedy to the 3d Reich, I am not sure this has been made with the agreement of the Belgian government in London. I think they even protested against this, but I need to find sources to back up this fact. But I agree with the fact that in the post war period, the government tried to impose French speaking officers in the administration. This was the case a.o. for the Ministry of Finance, in particular for the administration of the Customs and Excise. But eventually, this policy has been removed, even if I cannot provide a date.

Moroever, I would like to point out that the worse years for the region are not the period between 1920 and 1940 not the post war repression, but the war period. And many people in the area still think that way, even if they consider that Belgium has been unfair to them in the post war period.

Finally, I have read a part of the material (but not the 150 pages of the Law of 2001) you provided. But I am always a little bit cautious with respect to the Flemisch approach of the "East Cantons" as I have sometimes the feeling that my Flemisch fellow-countrymen have a hidden agenda when they deal with that question. Please don't take this as a personnal offense, as this is just a feeling (maybe wrong) I have. --Lebob-BE 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Title change to East-Belgium or Ostbelgien

Eupen-Malmedy is profiling itself as Ostbelgien (litteraly East-Belgium) in the last few years. I think the title should reflect that. Jhowie_Nitnek 12:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing this article with German-speaking Community of Belgium. This article is really about the disputed territorial unit created by the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath. Even so, there are sound reasons not to retitle the German-speaking Community of Belgium to reflect the (unofficial) Ostbelgien branding - the French Community of Belgium has branded itself the "Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles" since 2011 and we haven't responded... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia calls Eupen-Malmedy Ostbelgien https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostbelgien Jhowie_Nitnek 11:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that has little relevance for en.wiki. For our purposes, the only relevant considerations are set out in WP:CRITERIA —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)