Talk:Danube Swabians

Proposal for New Article: Expulsion of the Danube Swabians
I intend to write a main article for "Expulsion of the Danube Swabians", that this one can link to. More information at User:Adammathias/Vertreibung_der_Donauschwaben Issues: I believe "Expulsion of the Danube Swabians" is the correct English translation for "Vertreibung der Donauschwaben". While some have called the event ethnic cleansing or even genocide, and it certainly fits at least the definition of the former, those terms are both bombastic, likely to arouse controversy, and not used in German. THe other naming issue is about "Danube Swabians". Of course "...Donauschwaben" should redirect, but should the article maybe be called "...Yugoslav Germans" or "Germans of Yugoslavia", since some groups (notably those in Slovenia near Austria) are not Donauschwaben - were they persecuted? Also, Donauschwaben in Romania and Hungary were not subject to the same treatment, though any article would definitely mention their experience. Additionally, it would be natural to include a section on internment in Russia/Ukraine. I have only print media detailing theseBold text events, and very few pictures of camps DURING THEIR USE. I have plenty of pictures of the sites, memorials, etc. as they now are. Any help in this regard would be very much appreciated. I think it would be optimal if we could get Yugoslav perspectives on German collaboration with the Nazis, and detail the motives and origins of the Partisans, etc. If possible, maps/photos/documents from Yugoslav sources would be great. I do have a copy of the AVNOJ-Beschluss, but getting it in the original Serbian would be better than playing telephone (translating twice, Srb->Ger->Eng).
 * Article Name
 * Scope
 * Maps/Photos
 * Perspective
 * Anything else?

There was a source of interviews of first hand accounts from Danube Swabians of the midwest USA published in 2008 you my want to check out. Andor, Ingrid. Bread on My Mother's Table: a Danube Swabian Remembers. New York: IUniverse, 2007. Posthumorus facts (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Posthumorus facts

I think I will point out that the places in the Vojvodina that now have the most Serbs (and occasionally, Montenegrins) formerly had the most Germans.
 * I'm heading out of town for a few days, but I'll try to provide some more help next week. I would suggest asking User:PANONIAN for assistance, as he contributes a large amount of data about the Vojvodina region. Also, I would suggest signing your posts with ~, as that gives your signature and date stamp. Olessi 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should sign my posts properly. I have discussed the issue a bit with Panonian, though, and I'm sure he'll pitch in a lot!  Adam Mathias 18:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Name
This should be listed under "Danube Swabians" or "Donauschwaben", not Donau-Schwabian (never heard that term before today).

Take a look at the external links: all three terms seem to be used. If you think one is used more often, of course, go ahead and change it. Saintswithin 06:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

took it out. donauschwaben or danube swabian is ok, donau schwabian is some sort of pseudo-german or denglisch. some proof thereof: schwabian does not redirect to swabian (whereas suebi, etc ultimately do). Adam Mathias

Donauschwaben Userbox
There now exists a Donauschwabe userbox. Simply add user donauschwabe inside 2 sets of curly braces to your user page. Go to User:UBX/Donauschwabe to edit it or get more information. - Adammathias

Donauschwaben User Category
There now exists a Category:Danube_Swabian Wikipedians. It's about time. I'm not very well connected or much of a wikexpert, so I'd greatly appreciate any help with category tags, language coordination, etc. I'd also definitely encourage those simply with a loose affiliation or interest to put themselves down. Later somebody can make a user-1, user-2 style setup so that there can be categories (born down there, descendent of, other ethnicity but interested, other ethnicity but knowledgeable, etc). - Adammathias

Donauschwaben Category
I'll try and make a general DS category for all relevant articles. -Adammathias

Opening paragraph
Here is a the section - The Danube Swabians (Donauschwaben, Dunai-Svábok or Dunamenti németek, Şvabi or Şvabi Dunăreni, Дунавске Швабе, Dunavske Švabe, Podunavski Švabe, дунавски шваби, dunavski shvabi) is a collective term for Germans who lived in the former Kingdom of Hungary, especially in the Danube (Donau) River valley. Because of differential development within the territory settled, the Danube Swabians cannot be seen as a unified people. They include the Germans of Hungary (Ungarndeutsche), Satu Mare Swabians, the Banat Swabians (Banater Schwaben), and the Danube Swabians in Serbia's Vojvodina (Wojwodinedeutsche) and Croatia's Slavonia (especially in Osijek region). The Carpathian Germans and Transylvanian Saxons are not included within the Danube Swabian group.
 * According to this, Danube Swabians are an ethnic group made up by various subgroups, they all have their names in two languages (English and German) but it Vojvodina, the German name (Wojwodinedeutsche) is given as translation to English "Danube Swabians". As it stands, the English name is a duplication of the collective name which in German translates to "Vojvodina Germans". I propose to change this small section unless someone can better explain it. Balkantropolis 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms?
It's nice that someone designed a coat of arms for the Danube Swabians, but is it a legal device? It's not credited or referenced. Do the Danube Swabians use it for official notices or governmental or political purposes? I can design a coat of arms for the Danube Swabians myself. Can we include it here also? --Eddylyons (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been adopted used by the various Danube Swabian cultural organizations (,, etc.). Olessi (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you rephrase the paragraph then "A coat of arms designed by... has been adopted by..." or something to that effect? --Eddylyons (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a really cool article. Someone should add the coat of arms.Mike Babic (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

World War II
The whole section is bullshit.

"but a large number of them volunteered to form Waffen-SS units" I wouldn`t name the choice between getting shot or joining the army "volunteered"

"were held in inhuman conditions in camps made out of their former towns" in fact it where concentration camps

"such as the ones at Knićanin and Molin, " People from other villages where transported to Knicanin

"From 1945-48, many Germans in Hungary were dispossessed and forced to "return" to Germany, " They where ALL dispossessed, men and women who where able to work either shot or transported to russia, children where divided from their parents. ALL people with german origins where arrested.

Seine hochwohlloeblichkeit (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If Volksdeutsche were indeed forced to join the SS at gunpoint, I'd like to see proper sources to that effect. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Takes a very short google search to find second hand accounts of people going to the Waffen-SS "voluntarily" because they could have otherwise joined the hungarian military that would have viewed them as expandable and send them to the front or that is at least what they feared. That it was "voluntary" was seemingly only because of wartime laws. First-hand accounts will be much more difficult to get and surely there will be no official report saying "force them to" when they tried really hard to hide that. Famously there is not one order to kill any jews or anything linked to the "End solution" etc. that is signed by Adolf Hitler. If you are looking for a photo of someone being forced to join the Waffen-SS by someone holding a gun, you propably won't find that. But "at gunpoint" might not be as bad as either join us, get a German passport, better pay and be identified as a German within a German military or keep your hungarian passport, be identified as a German in an Hungarian military and probably go to the front, to be killed.
 * But of course it is easy in the talk thread on an article that talks a lot about inhuman conditions and ethnic cleansing and such and just shoot out some random ethnic hate. Wonderful "Herr Direktor". 2A01:599:320:7EB6:1810:B579:3FF8:3DBC (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Vertreibung.png may be deleted
I have tagged File:Vertreibung.png, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  07:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WWII section edits
I encountered a somewhat biased section and endeavored to improve it by adding well-sourced info. The Danube Swabian SS divisons were simply mentioned, and the next thing was the bit about 2,000 POWs killed by "Tito's communist partisans" at the end of the war. WP:NPOV certainly applies. "Tito's communist partisans" were the Yugoslav Army, legitimate and recognized military forces of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, a member of the Allies and the United Nations. The 2,000 summarily executed POWs were Nazis, members of one of the most murderous SS divisions of Hitler's Germany. The reader gets the impression of the "poor 2,000 Nazis". If they were killed (the claim is unsourced), this is appalling in itself, of course, but it should not be mentioned without proper context. That is selective representation of information, violating WP:NPOV.

The killing of SS-men was mentioned. What was not mentioned is the fact that these men were both Nazis (members of the military wing of the NSDAP), and de jure collaborators obviously guilty of high treason against Yugoslavia - actually punishable by execution. As far as the Allies were concerned, these were Yugoslav citizens collaborating and occupying their own country. What was not mentioned was also the appalling conduct of Danube Swabian Nazi troops, and their notorious massacres. With all due respect, this article is not dedicated to praising the Danube Swabians and depicting the SS as "victims" of WWII. When discussing their unjust expulsion from Yugoslavia, the massacres and quasi-aristocratic overlordship which earned them the hatred of the Yugoslavs should not be omitted in any objective account. Such information is relevant, accurate and sourced (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear User:DIREKTOR, I think this is all a bit misguided. This is the article about Danube Swabians.  This picture is of German SS (from Germany) - I cannot find any proof that it is Swabians from Yugoslavia.  At least in the villages with which I am familiar, the Swabians were originally in the Royal Yugoslavian Army that fought against the Nazi invaders, and even spent time in Nazi POW camps.  When they did fight for the Axis, it was in Hungary and Russia (as Hungarian troops or as German) against the Russians (working especially as translators, since most were good in German, Magyar and Slavic languages).  Any picture we put should be relevant and representative.  It would an error to make 1/5 of the pictures on the article Serbian people pictures of Cetniks, right?  I don't have the time to bother with this at the moment, but if we are all being mature, considering history, considering Wikipedia policies, etc, then I think it would make you look a lot better if you did not just try to push an anti-Swabian view.  (And I do my best to point out to people in the West that not all Serbs are a certain way and that we should never judge every person in a group because of something a few people do.  When people act like wild nationalists over the anonymous internet, it makes it much harder for me to defend the good reputation of Balkan people, it only confirms Western stereotypes.)  It is right to be angry and sad about Nazi crimes and crimes of the Nazi-supported occupation regime, but that is something that was outside of the control of Danube Swabians and belongs in (many) other articles about Serbian history, about Nazism, etc.  Does that make sense?  Hvala lepo i sve najbolje  99.50.126.57 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not "angry", why in the world should I be (I'm a Croat, hvala lijepo :)? I just came along to see a totally biased section and straightened it out as much as possible with hard sourced facts. The only SS division operating in occupied Yugoslavia that was made-up of ethnic Germans was the SS Prinz Eugen. The SS Handschar and SS Skanderbeg were made-up of ethnic Muslims and Albanians, and had very distinct uniforms (with Fez-s). I am not pushing an anti-swabian view, I am presenting the facts. Plain and simple. I am not biased. I'm just a little outraged at the "compassion" this article exhibited towards soldiers that, in all fairness, most certainly were not only Nazis (SS), but also traitors to their country (Yugoslavia).


 * If forced conscription actually took place to form these SS volunteer units, I'd like to see some proper published sources to that effect. Not only is this unsourced, but it seems contradictory for the German authorities to work towards protecting the German minorities, and then to conscript them by force into military units. The fact is, Germany banned conscription of all ethnic Germans in the NDH and Serbia, and put together a special SS division, the SS Handschar, to protect them. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally some sources! I feel like apologizing but I won't, I did my best rewriting the section in accordance with the available sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Milk Hall Massacre Mention should be made of the Kikinda milk (hall/factory) massacre in which hundreds of Donauschwaben men and boys were brought to the hall in the town of Kikinda by Serbian nationalists and partisan troops and then hacked to death in one of the most violent and bloody single acts since the end of World War 2. Eyewitnesses say that hands, arms, legs, and genitals were hacked off in a sea of blood---and that their moans of agony could be heard all night long as they slowly perished on the floor.141.150.145.3 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Edward Lowe, Ocean Gate NJ--great great grandson of Stefan and Elisabeth(Grill) Binzberger who were starved to death in a partisan concentration camp in December of 1945. Sources: Edward Lowe's own family history interviews with donauschwaben victims. archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BANAT/2008-08/1217805565 www.dvhh.org/banat/history/1940/1944-mueller.htm www.read-all-about-it.org/genocide/chapter4.html

Other source: "Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948" by Karl Weber Published 1/2001141.150.145.3 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Edward Lowe 141.150.145.3 (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Edward Lowe

Population shown in infobox for article, for Romania in particular
The population of Germans in four nations based on 2011 Census in each nation was provided by some editor, with a citation for each, a bare url for 3 of the nations. I followed up the cites for all 4 nations, Hungary has a dead link; Romania has a good link but the number in the infobox, where is it in the source?; Serbia and Croatia, the source and the number in the infobox match exactly. Here is the part of the infobox concerning Romania (I removed the pipe characters), it is a big difference and I left a comment in the text, which matches my comment when I made the change to fill in the citation. region2=🇷🇴 Romania pop2=13,510 ref2= Comment-- Table 2 says 36884 people of German ethnicity, what is source of 13510? --

I used google to translate the text on ethnicity and Germans in this source, as I cannot read Romanian and understand it. Do we change the number to what matches table 2, at the top under Germana, for the whole country? The text I had translated matched that total, indicating where in Romania those Germans lived and the total of the different areas matched that same national total. Does anyone know the source for that number in the infobox? If this is a problem on my own account, not reading the census report properly, then please forgive me.

--Prairieplant (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox was introduced in January 2017, with the figure of 36,042 (apparently the preliminary results, but close enough), but immediately changed by the same author. Looks like a good-faith mistake. I suggest fixing it. No such user (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * U|No such user Thank you! --Prairieplant (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Prairieplant: As for Hungary, this is tricky. Full census results are at http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_09_2011.pdf (p. 94). According to it Germans (Német) total 185,696. However, our article Germans in Hungary and this article state much lower figure of 131,951. Apparently, the editor went after the mother tongue data (can't find the ref so easily), which are much lower. Even http://emberijogok.kormany.hu/ethnic-germans-in-hungary notes the discrepancy in 2001 census results (33,792 by mother tongue, 62,233 by ethnicity). And this blog then notes a startling raise in the number of ethnic minorities in Hungary between the two censuses - In 2001 Germans numbered 120,344; ten years later this figure swelled to 185,696. Whatever the cause in this discrepancy, it should be noted in our respective articles, not arbitrarily interpreted by Wikipedians. (I don't speak Hungarian but I'm good at googling). No such user (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And hu:Németek also lists 186,596 btw. No such user (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent source. I think it will be consistent inside this article to use all identifying as German. The other census reports from the other nations did not have a break out by mother tongue or lanuage spoken. The citation can include the title of the table, and isbn too. If we show only the 2011 population, is there a need to explain it in comparison to the 2001 number? I did not look at (use google to translate) enough text to see that explanation of more people coming forth to identify themselves with a specific ethnic background in that official report, rather than an increase of in-migration or large natural growth in that group. It was interesting to see that national population shrank, but not our issue for the Swabians. Can we use a blog source for the explanation? So okay to use 186,596 in the infobox? And add a paragraph somewhere if the change from 2001 is of interest. ---Prairieplant (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that the place for going into such details, including native speakers, is Germans in Hungary. This article is more focused on historical events, and apart from the recent census figures it IMO should not go into deeper analysis. Unfortunately, we can't use that blog as a source – although it does offer some apparently serious analysis, it pretty much admits that those are personal "reflections on politics, economics and culture" [of Hungary]. However, I did find an official source which at least notes that discrepancy:
 * {{tq|In terms  of  the  various  identity  categories,  the  increase  in  the  number  of  people expressing an ethnic identity was the greatest (177%). In 2011, the number of ethnic [...] Bulgarians and Germans  had  more  than  doubled.
 * (p.109) {{tq|The question, therefore, is this: how can we delimit and define the group of individuals who,  at  some  time  between  the  two  censuses,  changed  their  self-identification,  whereby, for instance, although in the 2001 census they stated that they were Hungarians in response to each of the questions on national and ethnic identity, in 2011 they declared themselves to be Germans in response to one or more of the census questions?[...]}} The authors attribute the trends to "ethnic dissimilation"
 * It also has a useful table on p. 99 with 2001 and 2011 numbers by ethnicity, native tongue and family tongue. Being rather busy IRL, I didn't update the articles myself, but I will if I get to it soon, or if you don't beat me to it. No such user (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I put the revised number for those in Hungary and the citation in the infobox of this article. I also summed the four numbers and put that as the total in parentheses at the top of the infobox -- not sure of the source of that number, but the parts below were larger than that "whole". I added a new section on late 20th and 21st century trends, very short and no sources, sorry. I did add in See also, the Expulsion section of the Germans in Hungary article, which is rather detailed about the complex post war situation in Hungary. I did not alter that article, Germans in Hungary, at all, leave that for you -- it cites the 2001 Census for a table in the article that says 2011 in the title, and the numbers in the infobox link not to tables of data but a long table of contents, census year unclear. :-) I did not look for a similar article about Yugoslavia or its successor nations. Maybe my punk little new section should have a link to a Main article with a better version of the later movements of people, such as the Germans in Hungary article. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I put the revised number for those in Hungary and the citation in the infobox of this article. I also summed the four numbers and put that as the total in parentheses at the top of the infobox -- not sure of the source of that number, but the parts below were larger than that "whole". I added a new section on late 20th and 21st century trends, very short and no sources, sorry. I did add in See also, the Expulsion section of the Germans in Hungary article, which is rather detailed about the complex post war situation in Hungary. I did not alter that article, Germans in Hungary, at all, leave that for you -- it cites the 2001 Census for a table in the article that says 2011 in the title, and the numbers in the infobox link not to tables of data but a long table of contents, census year unclear. :-) I did not look for a similar article about Yugoslavia or its successor nations. Maybe my punk little new section should have a link to a Main article with a better version of the later movements of people, such as the Germans in Hungary article. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mystery references
There are several mysterious references, giving an author's last name, year and page numbers. This is not using Harvard format. Instead there are double square brackets, as if to link to an article in Wikipedia, and it links to nothing. Further, the author and year with title is not in any bibliography list in the article. With just an author and year, I cannot find the likely sources meant by that editor. Can anyone else find the sources and fill them in correctly? --Prairieplant (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean (Sabrina) Ramet and (Jozo) Tomasevich? They are well-known WW2 historians, so it should not be too much of a problem to fill in the gaps. Digging through the article history, the refs seem to be introduced in 2011 by, who seems to have copied the material from elsewhere, but did not copy over the bibliography. Perhaps he will remember. And probably knows the book titles by heart. No such user (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember when I cared about anything.. oh wait, I forgot.
 * Unfortunately, I can't remember the pages. I did get the refs from elsewhere, aiming to expand a related topic... but no, at this point I can't recall even where I copied the text from. Its been what? Several years? Perhaps that spry youngster Peacemaker can halo-jump in as support. -- Director  ( talk )  18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Tomasevich is cited often from a source with full information in this article, but these mystery references are others, published in a different year from the that citation. I am glad this is explained so quickly, and hope those knowledgeable on the topic of Danube Swabians can resolve the sources, with a title for the book or document intended. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If its Jozo Tomasevich, then its almost certainly War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945. --  Director  ( talk )  16:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are the exact references that need more information. The Tomasevich cites note publication in 1969 or 1975, much earlier than the 2001 book that is fully cited in this article.
 * References in square brackets, link to nothing
 * 1. 2nd paragraph of World War II section, following this sentence: "The Baranja and Bačka Swabians reverted to Hungary, to their general disappointment."
 * Ref8 Tomasevich 1975


 * 2. 7th paragraph of World War II section, following these two sentences: "The AVNOJ Presidium issued a decree that ordered the government confiscation of all property of Nazi Germany and its citizens in Yugoslavia, persons of ethnic German nationality (regardless of citizenship), and collaborators. The decision acquired the force of law on February 6, 1945."
 * Ref20 Tomasevich 1969, p. 115, 337.


 * There are 5 references to the later book by Tomasevich, listed now at Ref9, but with no page numbers cited.
 * Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. 2. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4.


 * Reference in square brackets, links to nothing.
 * 3. In World War II section, following this sentence, which is immediately prior to #2 above.
 * "Consequently, on November 21, 1944 the Presidium of the AVNOJ (the Yugoslav parliament) declared the ethnic German minority in Yugoslavia collectively hostile to the Yugoslav state."
 * Ref19 Ramet 2006, p. 159 __I hope this list makes it clearer why my hunt on google did not result in the obvious sources wanted.     Prairieplant (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Subsection on language
It says mainly Swabian, Franconian, Bavarian, Rhinelandic/Pfälzisch, Alsatian, and Alemannic. This is too messy.Sarcelles (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also sort-of mislabelled, as Alsatian is a dialect of the Alemannic subgroup

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danube Swabians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050651/http://www.drustvosns.org/nemacka%20manjina/stefanovice/Publications%20available%20in%20the%20Danube-Swabian%20archives.pdf to http://www.drustvosns.org/nemacka%20manjina/stefanovice/Publications%20available%20in%20the%20Danube-Swabian%20archives.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious sources
1. The article states: ''On March 1, 1946, there was a proposal to expel 130,388 interned Yugoslav ethnic Germans under the Potsdam Agreement. ''

For this it cites: ''Lt.-Gen. Avsich, Yugoslav Military Mission, Berlin to the Allied Control Commission. Foreign Office 1032/2284.'' I was unable to find a single reference to this primary document on the entire web, aside from the citation in this article. In view of WP:VER I suggest a better source be found, or else this should be removed Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

2. The article also states: ''In addition, 35,000–40,000 Swabian children under age sixteen were separated from their parents and force into prison camps and re-education orphanages. Many were adopted by Serbian Partisan families. ''

For this, the article cites: Expellees Tell Tales: Partisan Blood Drinkers and the Cultural History of Violence after World War II . The author of the article, Monica Black, states that these tales "were recorded in the late 1940s and early 1950s by a folklorist and former National Socialist and SS man named Alfred Karasek". Since when are tales of vampires recorded by Nazi folklorists and SS members Reliable Sources according to WP?