Talk:Effects of World War II

New attempt to syncronise with main ww2 page
Did a quick and dirty change, insering topics mostly from main ww2 page, thereafter trimming ww2 page. Stor stark7 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A good attempt in doing this! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stor stark7 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the expulsions page before making changes
Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

1. The fact behind the 2.1 Million deaths are official German figures, not something from expelee' organisations.

2. It is relevant to state that it is mainly Polish and Czech historians who dispute the German figures.

3. This is what Wikipedia says about expulsion:
 * Expulsion was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing of territory that had been settled by Germans after World War II.
 * Expulsion was a euphemism for genocide in World War II; The Nazis used this term to describe the forced deportation of Jews and other victims to death camps during the Holocaust.

It is not propaganda to call it ethnic cleansing, when Germans were infact expelled due to their ethnicity. But, seing as the euphemism is commonly used in wikipedia I'll have to accept it.

The historically correct number is 15 million expelled people, 3 million of whom died. It was the greatest ethnic cleansing in European history. Poles were expelled from Eastern Poland,too. They had mainly lived there after 1918, whereas Germans often settled in their areas in the 12th century.--92.230.232.212 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what the main page has to say: Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

According to Federal Statistics Bureau of Germany in 1958 more than 2.1 million had lost their lives during this process. The monumental statistical work of the Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, Bd.1-3 Munich 1965, confirms this figure. The standard study by Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation to slave labour in the Soviet Union. One German researcher Rüdiger Overmans has claimed that only 1,100,000 people lost their lives, but these lower figures and the methodology for obtaining them are disputed by reputable scholars as Dr. Fritz Peter Habel and Alfred de Zayas, who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was well over two millions. Czech and Polish sources give a much lower estimate (Czech historians arguing that most of estimated population drop is because of soldiers killed at the front).

If you are still not satisfied there's this document. It is a bit hard to read, but at the bottom of page 5 you can clearly see that a German Ministry claims that civilian losses due to the war were 1,100,000 and the losses due to the following expulsions were 2,100,000. In 1966, the West German Ministry of Refugees and Displaced Persons published statistical and graphical data illustrating German population movements, whether voluntary or enforced, in the aftermath of the Second World War.

If you are still determined to make changes, do them in the main article first, and se to it that you reach consensus, otherwise we'll end up with different versions in different articles. Stor stark7 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO it is propaganda / historical revisionism to call it ethnic cleansing. AFAIK that term was invented for what happened in former Yugoslavia, use of it for post WWII events is as historical as holocaust of native Americans would be.
 * In its time, it was called population transfer by allies, and expulsion by expelees. Neither of the terms is without bias and POV. Of course some of the "transfers" were everything but "transfers in human and orderly manner". On the other hand some of those expeled in fact moved voluntarily or were evacuated by Reich's authorities.
 * Wikipedia articles related to expulsion tend to be POV warfields for years, so I'm a bit sceptical about using them as reference. I suspect most of the German sources do not distinguish among those who were evacuated by Nazi authorities, fled from their own will, had to go because of having Reich citizenship and those expeled/transfered because of ethnicity. German law does not distiguis among those categories. Neveretheless, your numbers are reasonably sourced and I don't have time to do a review on topic "estimated deaths in relation to historian ethnicity", so let it be. --Wikimol 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO terms created at a later date are fully justifiable to apply to previous events, when they convey a more precise and commonly understandable description. If you do a Google search for "armenian holocaust", you'll get 44,000 hits, as opposed to the 400,000 hits for "jewish holocaust". The lower figure for the armenians is understandable, as the plight of the Armenians is very much forgotten as oposed to the plight of the european jews. Anyway, this seems to me to indicate that a term created at a later date, "holocaust", has been found useful to describe other events of the same nature, regardless of when they occured. I'm aware that the name holocaust has been around for a while, but I mean the new meaning it was given. I suspect very few people use it in it's original meaning anymore. I also expect very few Germans left their homes of their own free will, unless you count the large numbers of German civilians who fled their homes before the advancing Russian army. In particuar after Nemmersdorf became known. They were not allowed to return after the war ended. In former Jugoslavia this kind of behaviour, using rape and murder to frighten the civilians into leaving, was labeled as ethnic cleansing, a term which likewise is widely used to describe events that occured before the Yugoslav wars, despite it first being used there and then. Stor stark7 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO Armenian holocaust is also bad term, abusing the word holocaust - I would use armenian genocide. Which actually most people do (google: armenian genocide 1,970,000 vs armenian holocaust 44,000). Proofs by google can be tricky. I would say most people still use it in its original meaning, while it's also frequently used/abused for rhetorical pourposes - as a dramatic say some suffering was as really horrible (e.g. Prussian Holocaust).
 * For quite reasonable treatment of expulsions/transfer read this, also illustrating some proportions of various things that happened. Unfortunately it deals only with Czechoslovakia.
 * To say Russian soldiers used rape to frighten the civilians into leaving like Yugoslavian soldier did is gross distortion of reality. Russian soldiers took their revenge, quite simple. Some Germans were evacuated by German authorities, hard to say how to count that. Millions fled, particulary after Red Army crimes in Nemmersdorf were used by German propaganda with the intention to strenghten combat morale. If I remember correctly, this flea in harsh winter condition between fighting armies caused major part of casualties. --Wikimol 00:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * genocide: But how can you use the term genocide for something that hapened before that term was coined? Genocide was first used in 1943, long after the "Armenian Genocide". You are arguing against your own thesis when using that term.
 * Well (replying to the ethnic cleansing part of the discussion), Ilya Ehrenburg, the Russian counterpart to the German Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, did quite vehemently urge the Russian soldiers to kill all germans and (this is disputed) help themselves to the German women. This and the fact that Russian authorities did little to halt the mass-rapes (which were on a gigantic scale), despite the detrimental effect such activities have on discipline and combat effectiveness, would indicate that there was sinister intent behind. On the other hand it is hard to tell at this time how much effect Ilya's propaganda had on the thinking of the average soldier, and if there indeed was a well thought-out motive behind Stalins and Ilyas activities, such as to simplify the already agreed upon border changes for Germany, or if it was just indifference, lust for revenge upon german women of all ages, or the natural tendencies of Russian soldiers unleashed when no-one holds them back. I'll leave it at that as I lack ready access to relevant literature, as well as the time to dig deeper. Stor stark7 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

False and misleading map
The author has ignored massive settlement of Germans into Poland after 1939 (estimated by some at over 1 million with certain number of hundreds of thousands).The author doesn't explain why the same map is used for several different era's-1937, 1945 and WWII ignoring the fact of major population changes in WW2 ? The map doesn't show the exact date and as German population changed in very significant way during XX century in Central Europe it isn't neutral. It isn't clear what the map presents, if the map presents those Germans born in Poland or those people who spoke German as mother language ? Second option would indicate he counts occupation in his map. The use of colours is very strange since it hardly shows significant populations of Poles in Silesia left after 1921. For example-map of Poles before WW2 clearly shows that German settlement isn't as widespread in Poland as the author has shown on the map. Another example, a list of Polish areas with German minority listed: http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg In 1921 Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German Poznan 1921-16 % of population is German This numbers obviously don't support the map presented here where the impression is that in those areas Germans made up almost total majority. And in 1931: Pomerania 1931-9% % of population is German Poznan 1931-9 % of population is German Upper Silesia 1931- 6 % of population is German
 * And finally the map conflicts credible scholary data on German population.

According to p.27 of the Reich Statistical Yearbook for 1941 the population of the territories annexed from Poland was as follows in June 1940: Province Ostpreussen: 994,092. Reichsgau Danzig-West-Preussen (not including Danzig): 1,487,452. Reichsgau Wartheland: 4,538,922. Prov. Schlesien: 2,603,550. General Gouvernment: 12,107,000 According to p.6 of "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from East-Central Europe" Volume 1, (Bonn, 1954) the following was the German population of these areas when they were annexed from Poland in 1939: Polish Territories attached to the Provinz of Ostpreussen: 31,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen: 210,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Wartheland: 230,000. Eastern Upper Silesia: 238,000. Generalgouvernment: 80,000. --Molobo 16:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another data:

POV article
Article now presents a picture that Germany was the main victim of WW2, nothing is mentioned about the enourmous devestation made by German armies in WW2 in terms of infrastracture, industry that needed to be rebuilded after WW2 in territories of Poland and Soviet Union, the claim of organised rapes is being repeated. The article is very biased and actually could be renamed German views of the end of the war rather then presenting a wider picture. Please include a wider view, including the fact that at least 50 million people were saved from genocide planned by German state in WW2.

--Molobo 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Molobo. Wikipedia is work in progress. Why don't you also complain at the lack of information on the consequences for Western Europe, for the Middle East, for Africa, for China, Japan and the rest of Asia while you're at it?
 * Instead of spreading POV tags around you like fertiliser when you don't like the efforts of other editors, or feel they have not written enough, why don't you be a bit constructive instead and add to the article by writing an additional chapter that describes the effects of the war on Eastern Europe instead?
 * Since this is the english wikipedia few of its authors have literature describing the situation of the countries that were behind the iron courtain. You obviously have access to literature on the subject, use it instead of complaining.
 * --Stor stark7 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Right now I have little time, that is why I asked others to contribute to the article and I certainly believe it needs to be added that it has oneside Germanocentric view of history. --Molobo 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not one German does not feel deeply sorry for the many victims of Nazi Germany. Why can´t Poles and Czechs feel sympathy for 15 million Germans expelled from their homes of many centuries? What a lack of self-confidence!--92.230.232.212 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I added POV check
Untill the article describes in detail devastation made by Germany in Central and Eastern Europe and how countries rebuild from it to this date, the egnorinmjusn population loss made by German genocide in Soviet Union, Poland that influenced those countries future, the fact of saving at least 50 million people from elimination by German state etc. --Molobo 18:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Those countries are now EU members. It was Germany which wanted to get them in and which is the greatest payer for those countries. So be fair like other former enemies Britain, America and France.--92.230.232.212 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Molobo
Stor stark7, there is no need to get so defensive. You type as if someone had insulted you personally. Molobo's criticism is constructive, a POV tag is appropriate in lieu of a wholesale overhaul. I would like to also add that the rise of the US/USSR/Cold War, the end of imperialism, and the effects in Asia and elsewhere are given very little or no attention. The rise of the two superpowers is arguably the central effect of WW2, these being the two main victors of the war. Compared to that, the effects on Germany itself or even the Marshall Plan/EU seem to be marginal.

18.251.5.137 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad that someone is taking an interest in fixing this important article.
 * I think however that we should separate those events that were a direct consequence of WW2, and those events, however “momentous” that were pretty much bound to happen, war or no war. It think the U.S. was destined for Superpower status no matter what. The Soviet Union was probably going there as well, thanks to Stalin’s massive industrialisation efforts. If it hadn’t been for the communist “peasant” revolution in China it would have as well. The Fall of the European Colonial Powers, most notably the U.K, from their position of ‘Great Powers’ would probably have been slower, with much more bloodshed than was the case now. Imagine if the U.K hadn’t been broke and instead had tried to stay on as occupier in India the same way that the Netherlands tried to stay on in Indonesia, or France in Vietnam and Algeria etc.
 * As for sounding defensive, this has it’s explanations. Molobo seems determined to rub me the wrong way. I do my best to be civil though. However, considering Molobos recent one year block from English Wikipedia I guess I’m not the only one with that experience. --Stor stark7 Talk 09:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stor stark7, perhaps you are right about Molobo in general, I was just referring to his remarks in this article. In any case, I don't think it is our job to speculate as to whether any of these things would have happened anyway. The things I listed are pretty much all a direct consequence of WWII; whether they would have happened anyways is unclear. I do think that if we are going to title an article "effects of World War II" it should give proportionate space to the most consequential technologies, organizations, and events flowing from the war, this most pivotal historical event of the 20th century. 18.251.5.137 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means go a ahead, I was not trying to discourage you from adding new material, just giving you my "view" on historic events. You can probably find useful material for the task in the Cold War articles. --Stor stark7 Talk 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Aftermath of World War II
This article and the Aftermath of World War II article cover essentially the same topic, and often they have the same wording. Why should there be 2 articles? Anything redeeming and different in Aftermath should be moved to here. Civil Engineer III 12:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've suggested the opposite: anything redeeming (not much of that though, because it's nearly all unsourced) in this article should be moved to Aftermath article, of which revision has already commenced as per ongoing discussion there, whereas this article is stagnant and there's been no discussion for a long long time, as you can see. Communicat (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Israel?
It says in the introductory paragraph "the creation of Israel", so Israel didn't exist after the World War? That's not what we learn in our Religion class :O I want an answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.135.219 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)