Wikipedia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.94.134.131 (talk) at 18:57, 12 September 2005 (→legality of confiscations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Wikiferdi in topic Post-War Expulsion
Learn more about this page

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive1

Real dispute

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:

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.

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
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:
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:

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.

"- 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

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

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

"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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

"to create ethnically homogenous states

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

legality of confiscations

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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".

relevance of Potsdam

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Churchill

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Post-War Expulsion

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)&oldid=23114058"