Talk:Federation of Expellees

Human rights and compensation claims
Following should be moved to talk: "They insist that Poland and the Czech Republic must respect the human rights and compensate the victims of the war crimes of the Red Army to be allowed to become part of Europe."

I have 2 problems:
 * 1) Poland and Czech Republic obviously respect human rights, no doubts.
 * 2) Why Poland and Czech Republic should compensate victims of Red Army. Doesn't make any sense.
 * Compensations for human-rights violations in the 1940's lay on the Nazis and Soviets. Compensations for some (not all) territory annexed should still be perhaps considered (Poles lost territory in too 1939 in their east (Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania were part of Poland), so they likewise could have the same recourse).  Nonprof. Frinkus 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody claims, what is written in the sentence. Seaman 09:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nico, the source of those claims? Cautious 10:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The head of the federation of expellees has sharply distanced herself from compensation claims.

If you can, clean up these stubs and figure out where they should go...right now they're eiter out of place or confusingly written


 * See Silent Ethnic Cleansing for a description of the modern political...


 * The Volksdeutschen had lived in lands, that were once part of the Holy Roman Empire of Germany. They came from lands, which at times were ruled by German or Holy Roman Empire connected rulers, were given German Rights as German settlers. In the case of Bohemia-Germans, they lived in a land for 1200 years part of the Holy Roman Empire and in earlier years German lands.


 * The Bohemia-Germans (later known as Sudeten-Germans) and the people of parts of Silesia, Posen-West Prussia, formerly German citizens had since 1919 lived in a newly created "Polish Corridor" and millions were already chased out by brutal suppression from Polish and Czech Slavs between 1919 and 1939.

This really needs a reference; the passive voice is sketchy:


 * The figure of lost lives is estimated at a minimum 2 1/2 million Germans. Several calculations show millions more.)


 * Please, can give you to me any example of brutal suppression of Germans by Czechs post 1919 ? Righs of German minority was far superior to Czechs/Slovaks under AH empire, and not talking about common Germans after 1933 in Germany.
 * And number 2,5 miloins lost Germans lives come from ? Its the same soucre who says over 200 000 SG lost his lives after 1945 ? And is proof these causalties include lost lives in Ostfront ? Historicans claims "only" cca 20 000 SG lost lives during explusion to all cases (murder, suicide, age, diesase etc.)

Why the should this be in talk? Isnt this history?


 * Because it shouldn't be in this entry. --TheCunctator

Didn't want to edit Heimatvertriebene while you were, but it's exactly the same as her Expellees article, which I redirected to Diaspora Studies and gave it its own section called The Plight of the... JHK

Why am I redirecting this (or trying to)?


 * 1) This article (in different forms) appears in several other places under different titles.


 * 1) In an attempt to place this information in this article in the appropriate historical context, I included a version (edited only for grammatical errors and rearranged into chronological order) into the article on Diaspora Studies and redirected the original Expellees and Heimatvertriebene article to that page.


 * 1) Heimatvertriebene (the -en ending reflects a non-nominative case ending and is incorrect) should be the German article of the title -- if we must use it at all. The term is one loaded with political meaning in German, and is ONLY used in the case of this particular group of people.  Otherwise, every other group of people driven from their homes, whether as part of an act of genocide/ethnic cleansing or not, are referred to as simply "refugees," i.e., these people may have been fleeing something, but they weren't driven from their HOMELAND...


 * 1) Granting this subject its own article validates the very dubious theory that the lands where these so-called ethnic Germans lived in some way belonged (and, to follow recent postings, morally still belong) to Germany because they have always been inhabited by Germans. The evidence posted thereto has no foundation in accepted historical method and is often downright incorrect.

That's why I think it should be redirected -- although recent edits should probably be incorporated into the Diaspora studies article.

I tried to explain this yesterday (see above) and also to post on the Heimatvertriebenen/Talk page, but the system said that page didn't exist, so I'm posting here...JHK

Sorry to annoy you. Perhaps you should take a look at the background, especially the Wilhelm Gustloff/Talk page, before you judge too harshly. Had you noticed it at the time, you would have seen in my posting comment that the Diaspora article was thrown together quickly and that I threw it open to the world for editing. It was a genuine attempt to take what appeared to be valid historical information and put it in a place more appropriate, rather than just editing out what were a series of "all these places were taken from the Germans" entries. Also, I did try to contact you about the redirects and what I think is pretty much pointless editing by posting on your page when I saw you were working on this stuff. If you disagree after reading my comments on the talk pages concerned, then please tell me where you disagree. There's really no getting away from the fact that the subject as introduced to the wikipedia is very loaded and has been reduced to irrelevency. I really liked some of your edits, but think they might do better in other places. JHK

Please note that Rolf-Josef Eibicht can be found on the Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus website. This is a web site devoted to profiling right-wing extremists in (mostly) Germany and Austria. As far as I can tell, Eibicht balances on the edge of legality (in Germany -- American free speech laws are more liberal). His works are published by a publisher that specializes in far-right extremist political tracts. I think that it is really not a good idea to base articles on such sources... oh -- heres's the link  http://www.idgr.de/lexikon/bio/e/eibicht-rj/eibicht.html  JHK

JHK -- It's not based on Eibicht; I merely included his quotation and noted that he is an extremist. He was not the source of the information in the article. It's some user:H.J. assertions but mostly stuff I could confirm elsewhere; thus the large Charta section, which is a nice happily historical document. --TheCunctator
 * I saw that -- you just put nationalist, and I thought it was a continuation of the earlier stuff. I still think that it needs more pointing out, i.e., that this is a view that has been coopted by the right wing...JHK

Definitely. Fuller entries on Eibicht and modern right-wing German nationalism would help provide more context. I think Heimatvertriebene is why I spent so much time trying to contruct accurate nationalism articles, so it's clear what one is getting into. --TheCunctator

I would very much like to see a reference for this (that is, which candidate?):

The current Bundesregierung declared, that they are not aware of the speech by then US Presidential Candidate to the German/American? Institute, where he strongly condemned the ethnic cleansings and especially pointed to the 15 to 16 million Germans, mostly women and children, expelled from Eastern Europe.

Also, this is another typically unconnected statement. I'd also like more clarification on people taking things into their own hands -- in what way? Who? since it is right above the stuff on the right wing, are we talking about them?

In general, the new additions aren't very well-thought out. There is a definite implication here that the CDU are the good guys and the SPD the bad guys -- not very NPOV. Also, we need a better translation for Heimatvertriebene if we are to let this article remain -- the translation is literally "the driven from their homeland ones" -- the political meaning is one of Germans driven from their homes -- and nowhere does the article deal with the intricacies of the situation -- like the fact that many of the Heimatvertriebene lost their homes/homeland because previous German governments had placed their ancestors there as colonists in newly acquired lands...JHK -- To JHK 1.)Pres. candidate, see : http://www.csu.de/DieThemen/Positionen_A-Z/Innenpolitik/subpage466958.htm Hartmut Koschyk :Bundesregierung weiss, dass sie nichts weis. In other parts it shows ,that the SPD current government cut funds almost in half for upkeep of Cultural treasures/studies of Vertriebene, which is in the laws called : "Bundesvertriebenengesetz".


 * Please don't ask people to go dig information out of web sites -- the correct answer is George W Bush, and where he gave the speech and in what context. By the way, the web site actually edits out part of the quote, so it's hard to tell exactly what he said, but clear he was talking about the Heimatvertriebene.

2.)people "taking matters into their own hands", is a phrase , that whenever someone does not do their job (a boss-the emploees, leader- general public)start doing, writing, handling whatever , individually.


 * Thank you for explaining English -- but that is not exactly what it means. The way you have used it, it can imply vigilantism or other extremist illegal action -- is this what you are saying?  if you are, it might be wise to re-characterize it, because one can easily infer that you think this kind of action is ok

3.) Heimatvertriebene - that word says everything. Translation: homeland expellees ? Vertriebene is more that just expelled, more like hounded out by brutal military and civilian forces.

4.) "They did not lose homes or homeland/ because previous German governments had placed their ancestors there as colonists in newly aquired lands. " They had lived in land that was either native homeland of Germany/Germania, or in South- Eastern Europe they were brought in by the rulers of those lands, which where part of or connected to the Holy Roman Empire(by contract or marriage). Others were forcibly sent to Siberia where they had to build cities, rockets and mines for the Soviet Union . They lost homes or lives ,because of 'Panslavism' , ethnic and communist movements. They lost homes and lives,because they fought against communist take-over of Europe and lost.


 * I'm sorry, user:H.J., but you have just done the very thing that tends to make people question your writing. You have (deliberately?) taken something I said above and re-stated it out of context to argue against something I DIDN'T say, rather than addressing something I DID say.  What I SAID  was that the article did not take into account the intricacies of the situation.  My example is the fact that MANY (not all, please note) of the Germans who became Heimatvertriebene came from colonization movements by previous MODERN (after around 1750) German governments -- particularly the 2nd and 3rd Reichs.  This is provable fact.  It doesn't negate the fact that these people were themselves perfectly innocent.  It just shows that the wars and treaties of the past can still affect people today.

5.) I found the website with R. Eibicht text : http://www.dingolfing.org/members/mies-pilsen/sudeten.htm another website: http://www.csu.de/DieThemen/Positionen_A-Z/Innenpolitik/1Heimatvertriebene.htm
 * Doesn't it make you just a little ill to know that you are using the words of a right-wing extremist who is known to have a following among neo-Nazis to support your position? 

-- To JHK To 2. and 5.) I do not condone any vigilantism or illegal activity. I merely explained, that that could happen, when a people such as Vertriebene have been disregarded ignored or worse in English speaking countries , became a none-event (The "Vertreibung" has not been acknowledged , "it never happened ") I have never met, talked to or even heard of Ralf Eibicht until someone posted this on wiki- Heimatvertriebene. I think , that it should not even be on this page. But since someone posted it, I did find the complete text on altavista and I posted this .It seems obvious , that he is from Sudetenland, which was 'given' to Tchechoslowakia after 1918 . On your socalled "modern Colonization movements of German governments after 1750' , you may want to read the 'Russian" governments invitations to come and build up their lands. Apparently after they buit it up , they were no longer needed. There are 5 mill "Germans from Russia" in the USA alone, whose ancestors left Russia after 1830/60, when Russians took over and wanted to force people to speak Russian only and take away the rights, that were promised to those Germans in Russia earlier.

They were not colonization movements of German governments. But since you said that, does that mean, that you believe that colonists, have no rights and can any time be forcibly expelled ?

user:H.J.


 * If you don't support vigilantism, perhaps you could add more information about people who actually have taken the law into their own hands (fact), or re-write to something less incendiary, like "The resulting frustration on the part of survivors and their families had led to many grass-roots efforts for recognition"


 * They are not so-called. Both the German Empire and the Third Reich settled colonists in territories they acquired through warfare.  In fact, Hitler replaced many of the Poles he sent to labor camps with loyal Germans, specifically in order to help keep a firm grasp on Poland.  I agree that there were many instances where Germans went elsewhere at the invitation of foreign governments; however, whenever you have spoken about the Heimatvertriebene, you have placed emphasis on the events immediately after the second world war -- I hardly see how ethnic Germans leaving Russia in the 1860s has anything to do with events 100 years later.  

"After 1750 - those are people brought in by Catherine the Great and later; Wolga-Germans, etc." "They were not colonization movements of German governments. But since you said that, does that mean, that you believe that colonists, have no rights and can any time be forcibly expelled ?"

To that question, your answer:
 * For the last part, I challenge anyone on this site to show where I have ever implied that I support any kind of genocide or other atrocity. I am simply asking that this article be more than a furtherance of one political agenda.  At present, it does not present a complete picture, and is therefore not a very good article.  JHK

--- The whole subject is irrational. Anyone connected to this event cannot be totally rational.

Now you, unconnected you, YOU even posting irrational challenges.

I do think, your statement is really good, lets put that in: (For me I see too much red, to come up with such a simple explanation) "The resulting frustration on the part of survivors and their families had led to many grass-roots efforts for recognition"'' user:H.J.


 * Thanks. I think that perhaps that's a lot of the problem here.  We all know that this subject is personally close to you, and its inherent injustice doesn't always allow you to look at the longer-term picture.  Those of us not personally affected are more likely to be objective.  You are right in that the Volga-Germans are modern -- but my impression from everything you've written is that most of the Heimatvertriebene were people settled in areas other than Russia -- specifically in parts of the Baltic and/or present day Poland that have been in dispute between "Polish" and "German" governments over several centuries.  Moreover, you've always made it sound like something that happened after WWII and directly linked to Communist takeover -- so the emigration (or exile) of ethnic Germans from Russia in the 1860s doesn't seem connected.  It's only recently that you've mentioned Pan-Slavism as a driving force.


 * <As for the rest, I only offered the challenge in response to your final question -- of course I don't believe that! As a historian, though, I do believe that we have an obligation to point out even the things that don't fit in with our theories.  Even if the reaction was totally unjust and qualifies as an atrocity, it makes sense to mention German governmental colonization and also the fact that (perhaps -- I don't KNOW this, but think it likely from what I do know of the end of WWII) some of the Heimatvertriebene situation occorred and was possibly even tolerated by the winners of the war as a gut reaction to the Holocaust.  It doesn't make it right, but we have seen all too many cases where innocent people are punished for sometimes centuries of their governments actions.  To understand why things happen, we have to present all the facts.''  JHK

-

Ethnic German Mennonites, a particularly innocent pacifist sect, living in the Ukraine and Russia, mostly in the Volga and Dneipr basins, were scattered by Stalin to the far North and other areas where they mostly just died. They were also targetted to some degree during Lenin's and Stalin's purges in the Ukraine, as they were often somewhat better off 'kulaks' (middle class peasants with education, cows, etc.). Hitler used them as part of his excuse to invade the Ukraine, but ethnic Ukranians were the ones who welcome him. Those of German descent had actually fled Germany to escape conscription by Frederick the Great.

Very few survived, so there are few stories told of these people today. What I want to know is, are they considered part of this same movement, or another? I think they must be mentioned somewhere.

It seems appropriate to do that here since they were incorporated into the German Empire (Third Reich) at its greatest extent (only) into South Russia and Ukraine.

I added a sentence about the new friendships between old and new inhabitants of these regions, because these articles make the reader overestimate influence of Heimatvertriebenen-organizations and their way of thinking. Today relations between Germany and Poland (even between the former inhabitants and people who live there nowadays) are very relaxed. There always is a small extremist group with a loud voice but they are not to be taken seriously.

Where does
 * "due to being bombarded, refugee boats and ships being torpedoed"

come from? --Ann O'nyme 04:38, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * bombarded probably refers to strategic bombing campaigns such as the firebombing of Dresden and the idea that the British attacked columns of refugees to interfer with German troop movement to the Russian front (which I don't know if it actually happened), possibly to Russian attacks, I don't know

refugee boats refers to several attacks on ships that contained mostly refugees but also German soldiers, making them valid military targets, such as the Wilhelm Gustloff Rmhermen 15:57, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Bombing of Dresden (and other cities) is out-topic.
 * Refugees moved at the very end of the war or after. War actions during that time didn't sound like a explanation for ~2 millions deads.
 * --Ann O'nyme 07:58, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Shoudn't this article be merge w/ German expulsion after World War II? --Ann O'nyme 04:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * It could be merged but their is no real need to. We often have separate articles on peoples and the places they live so separate articles on a group of people and a historical event is not so strange. It would be a little strange to discuss the current political dealings of this group in a historical article on World War II. These pages were set up during a conflict with a now departed user and represent compromises from that time. Do you have a strong reason to merge them? Rmhermen 15:41, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Mostly a matter of consistency. --Ann O'nyme 07:17, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it should be merged, FWIW. Martin 21:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

162.70.233.18
 * There are 3 kinds of lies, that usually are reapeated about the problem.
 * 1.Insisting that all number 15 000 000 of people left after the war in the period of 1945-1950. It is a lie, since most of Germans left before Red Army captured the territories, in hope to avoid rapes and massacres, Red Army used to commit. In case of Poland, most Germans left during the war, in evacuation organised by Nazis. 2 200 000 were expelled after the war by Polish authorities, and a large number left volountarily after 1950, when they only had a chance to get out of comunism.
 * 2.The second lie is that there were 3 000 000 Germans, that died after the war. Most of the victims were actually killed during the war. Except the private revange of few Polish Jews, like Salomon Morel, commander of the camp for Volksdeutche in Swietochlowice, Polish government did not want to kill Germans. Of course, there were criminal bands, and the life was very cheap in Poland after the WW2. Put number more realistically and based on sources and I would agree with you.
 * 3. Minor question of citizenship. All Germans, that were expelled after the war, became German cititens during the war. If zou try to reason otherwise, please provide facts.

Maximus Rex v. AM (was GH)
1. The user Maximus had deleted my comments about his behaviour.

2. Is a person that reverts changes without critical discussion. For example, why the clarification in the German expulsion after World War II

"Some groups claim that over 15 million Germans were forced to relocate and an estimated 1.8 to 3 million died during the trek. These numbers are not well established as little research has been done on this subject. At least some of these persons fled voluntarily, rather than being expelled by any government." My clarification: However, those numbers include the evacuation during the WWII and are not related to expulsions that happenned after WWII.

is biased? Most of Germans, that died during the evacuation, did died during WWII, and there is plenty of historical evidence.

Ans it is obvious that expulsions where related to the citizenship. Ethnic Germans were forced to take German citizenship during the war. Those who opposed, were sent to concentration camp.

However, those who opposed and survived, were not expelled. Plaese give an example of somebody, that was not Volksdeutch and was expelled?

162.70.233.18 aka AM

145.254.xxx aka 162.70.233.18 aka AM

Is a Polish nationalist adding some biased information and general historic revisionism on articles concerning Germany and Poland. Has used anonymous IPs (that changes) such as 145.254.119.100, 145.254.116.175, 145.254.116.60, 145.254.117.39, 145.254.115.28, 145.254.118.168, 145.254.118.103, 162.70.233.18, 145.254.117.190, 145.254.119.156. His additions include stuff like insisting the Germans expelled from the east 'left voluntarily' and were all 'German citizens'. He also wrote biased entries Regained Territories and Drang nach Osten. Their additions should be watched. M123 21:50, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Note: After adding him or her to this page, they added me as a problem user in retaliation. I removed myself (I hope doing so is ok). (BTW I now have a new user name) Maximus Rex 04:01, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * They've re-added me to this list. This time I'll wait for someone else to remove me, or if you want just keep listing me here -- I have no inclination to get into an edit war with 'GH' and will leave their changes alone. The user also made biased contributions to Oder-Neisse line, which need to be checked. Maximus Rex 19:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * User:Maximus Rex is biased. I am trying to clarify disputed staff about the Germans expelled after WW2. Maybe will help if I reveal, that one of my ancestors was actually German citizen during the WW2 and I am personally very interested in subject. There are 3 kinds of lies, that usually are reapeated about the problem.
 * 1.Insisting that all number 15 000 000 of people left after the war in the period of 1945-1950. It is a lie, since most of Germans left before Red Army captured the territories, in hope to avoid rapes and massacres, Red Army used to commit. In case of Poland, most Germans left during the war, in evacuation organised by Nazis. 2 200 000 were expelled after the war by Polish authorities, and a large number left volountarily after 1950, when they only had a chance to get out of comunism.
 * 2.The second lie is that there were 3 000 000 Germans, that died after the war. Most of the victims were actually killed during the war. Except the private revange of few Polish Jews, like Salomon Morel, commander of the camp for Volksdeutche in Swietochlowice, Polish government did not want to kill Germans. Of course, there were criminal bands, and the life was very cheap in Poland after the WW2. Put number more realistically and based on sources and I would agree with you.
 * 3. Minor question of citizenship. All Germans, that were expelled after the war, became German cititens during the war. If zou try to reason otherwise, please provide facts. AM


 * I moved this from the problem users page. If there are problems with specific details in an article, it needs to be discussed on that article's talk page rather than listing the debate on problem users. Angela 04:26, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
 * User AM seems questionable at best. Most scholars would disagree with his assessment of casualties after the war. Furthermore he speaks as if the Polish government were in control of the post-war situation when they were in fact not at all - Poles were also being forcibly expelled by the Soviet Union and moved to different areas.
 * Also general statements such as "All germans... became citizens during the war" are simply false. At the least a large number of Germans only gained citizenship after comming to Germany after 1945. Why else would the German parliament pass a law granting them citizenship, seems a bit redundant.

I just read the article und stumbled across a few strange sentences:

1. "Some who would like to draw a picture of German population as victims of post-war politics describe it with a term the German expulsion after World War II"

What's the purpose of using phrases like "would like" and "draw a picture"? It creates the impression in the reader that Germans beeing victims of post-war politics might not resemble reality but is merely an attempt by "some" to portray it as such. Therefore I would shorten the sentence simply to:

"Some decribe it with the term the German expulsion after World War II"

2. "Generally sympathy for the plight of the expelled Germans was and remains low among families of victims of Nazi policy in many countries of Eastern Europe."

So the non-victim families are generally in favour of the German plight? I 'm just asking because I'm curious. Why are the Nazi victims singled out here? From my personal observation I can see no difference in the "general" attitude of Eastern European non-victim and victim families. The sentence should therefore read:

"Generally sympathy for the plight of the expelled Germans was and remains low among many countries of Eastern Europe that where victims of the Nazis."

3. "Some countries justified expulsion by high treason committed by their ethnic Germans during the war, in the form of acceptation of German citizenship (see Volksdeutsche). However, the process was forced by Nazis and in many cases Germans had no other choice"

This sentence creates the impression in the reader that accepting the German citizenship was some sort of a damnable act. I don't understand why that should be the case since most of those Germans had a German citizenship before WW1, where living on territory that had been German before WW1.

What you have here instead is a struggle of different nations over multiethnic territories. Willingly accepting or seeking this or that nationality and politically supporting an integration with this or that country is not a damnable act at all. I do include all sides in that statement. The means you use to reach your goals are of course what makes the difference (again all sides included). Whether some Germans were forced to accept the German citizenship is totally unimportant for the question of how the Eastern European countries tried to justify their actions after WW2. The sentence should therefore be changed to:

"Some countries tried to legally justify the expulsion by accusing the ethnic Germans of high treason committed during the war in the form of acceptation of German citizenship (see Volksdeutsche)."

4. "Holocaust deniers have attached themselves to the issue of the Heimatvertriebenen, and have attempted to use the sympathy for the plight of those Germans who suffered and died in the expulsions to put forward their right-wing agenda. These revisionists attempt to retroactively minimise the suffering of the Holocaust, or to blame the Jews for the suffering of the Heimatvertriebenen."

Inaccurate. "Holocaust deniers" minimising the holocaust is an antagonism. Those people are "Revisionists". Also, the sentence is much too detailed it should be shortened and hotlinked with a seperate article about revisionism:

"Revisionists have attached themselves to the issue of the Heimatvertriebenen, and have attempted to use the sympathy for the plight of those Germans who suffered and died in the expulsions to put forward their right-wing agenda. See Revisionism"

5. "German right-wing revisionist author and ethnic nationalist Rolf Josef Eibicht has described what has happened to the Heimatvertriebe as "an unparalled genocide, an eviction-Holocaust of the German people, an undescribable thousand-year crime."

What kind of usefull information does this sentence give the reader? Nothing. It should be moved to a seperate article about Revisionism or Rolf Josef Eibicht.
 * Well I agree mostly I would leave the Eibicht quote in though. And not use "see Revisionism" just link Revisionists Rmhermen 18:32, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

added after move The following text was copied over from Heimatvertriebene. Please merge with main article.

fled or were evicted from "countries occupied by the Soviet Union"
Regarding the following wording:
 * ...fled or were evicted from countries occupied by the Soviet army

It is neither true nor NPOV. Germans were transferred and expelled also from territories liberated by American army (e.g. western part of Bohemia, inluding Pllsen, was liberated by US Army). Quite strange is also use of word "occupied". Red army soldiers were seen as liberators and welcome in 1945 Czechoslovakia. Word "occupied" is appropriate from German perspective -which is typical for whole aticle. Long way to NPOV. 81.27.192.16 23:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where did the English translation, "Federation of Expellees", come from?
Where did the English translation, "Federation of Expellees", come from? IMO this article belongs under the actual name of the organization; the way it is now is like moving Volkswagen AG to Peoples' Car Corporation...LOL. Mkweise 04:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I clearly see your point, but on the other hand there has been a tendency to add more articles than I like to en.wikipedia with titles in pure German. Volkswagen is a well known brand name, BdV is not. --Ruhrjung 12:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, that for purpose of better understanding and clarity most German Term ought to be translated. However i find the term "Federation of Expellees" inappropriate. I think "Federation of the Displaced" would be more accurate, since i believe people driven from their homes in war are usually called "Displaced" and not "Expelled". --Neil Jonsson 15:11, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Expellees is the term used in the English version of the ZENTRUM GEGEN VERTREIBUNGEN website. I hope I have addressed your other concerns in my most recent edits. Rmhermen 20:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * That website can hardly be held up as an example of English usage. Its quality ranges from reasonably good translation (adhering too closely to German word order) to non-native (misuse of English verb tenses). Personally I hate "Federation of Expellees". Something like "Association of Expelled Germans" would be a reasonable translation, an accurate label, and something a native English-speaker might have come up with. (In fact, one did;) — Wegesrand (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording
Why inserting "alleged damages" ? Is anyone in doubt that German government made a lot of damage to Poland (including, for example, Polish capitol deliberately razed to the ground as effect of Hitler's order?) Szopen`

September 18 edits
Are these edits unbiased and correct? Because they come from an editor whose neutrality and honesty in these issues I highly doubt.NightBeAsT 11:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are searching for example of person who wasn't an ethnic German in Poland, didn't posses any property in Poland, and found herself in Poland as result of military occupation by German Reich-see no further then Erica Steinbach.

Likewise the term expelled refers to ALL Germans that moved to Germany after the war.Regardles of the reasons they found themself abroad-thus it also includes German colonists settled after 1939. --Molobo 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nightbeast personally I am puzzled why this so to.I don't think people like Steinbach should be classified as "Expelled" unlike those moved from their homes in territories given to Poland after WW2, I would like to know what made German government decide to make such a decision.

--Molobo 17:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, IMHO these edits are correct and unbiased (mayby not spelled political correctly), but is need to say, parts of post-WWII expelles was neo-colonist which moved to ocupied parts of europe, after German victories (booth military or peacefull (anexation of sudetenland and later creating Protectorate of Bohmen and Mahren)), and have no rights for compensation, but are most active in cry for this.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatvertriebene ''"§ 2 des BVFG sagt dazu aus:
 * ''Ein Heimatvertriebener ist, wer am 31. Dezember 1937 oder bereits einmal vorher seinen Wohnsitz in dem Gebiet desjenigen Staates hatte, aus dem er vertrieben worden ist (Vertreibungsgebiet) und dieses Gebiet vor dem 1. Januar 1993 verlassen hat; die Gesamtheit der ehemals unter fremder Verwaltung stehenden deutschen Ostgebiete und die Gebiete außerhalb der Grenzen des Deutschen Reiches nach dem Gebietsstande vom 31. Dezember 1937), die am 1. Januar 1914 zum Deutschen Reich oder zur Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie oder zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zu Polen, zu Estland, zu Lettland oder zu Litauen gehört haben, gilt als einheitliches Vertreibungsgebiet.
 * ''Als Heimatvertriebener gilt auch ein vertriebener Ehegatte oder Abkömmling, der die Vertreibungsgebiete vor dem 1. Januar 1993 verlassen hat, wenn der andere Ehegatte oder bei Abkömmlingen ein Elternteil am 31. Dezember 1937 oder bereits einmal vorher seinen Wohnsitz im Vertreibungsgebiet (Absatz 1) gehabt hat.

''Die begriffliche Unschärfe versinnbildlicht sich in der Person der Vorsitzenden des Bundes der Heimatvertriebenen Erika Steinbach, die als Tochter eines Luftwaffenoffiziers aus Hanau und einer Mutter aus Bremen ihre ersten 18 Lebensmonate in dem Ort Rahmel verbrachte, wo ihr Vater stationiert war."

As you can see the law is controversial since it stretches out to 1993, and I can assure you that many people probably left Poland in later years for economic reasons and weren't "expelled". Furthermore the law denies the existance of Poland after 1918 treating it as German territory.And add to that it is worded in such a way that it makes German colonists removed from Poland qualifiy for status of "expelled"--Molobo 17:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore colonists from WW1 are also qualified as expelled: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_lebensraum_02.shtml ''Ratzel's ideas very much accorded with intellectual fashions in late 19th- and early 20th-century Germany, where various forms of 'Social Darwinism' were prevalent, and where there was a growing concern about the allegedly negative effects of industrialisation and urbanisation. There was also a belief in the virtues of agrarian society and, specifically, of the peasantry. Ratzel's ideas also fitted into the general debate about German imperialism.

''The idea of increasing Germany's strength by encouraging migration to Germany's colonies had developed during the 1880s and 1890s. It was thought that sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials. Whereas economic imperialism was particularly popular with industry, migrationist colonialism became associated with agrarianism.

''... sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials ...

''Moreover, during the years immediately preceding World War One, the focus of this colonialism shifted from the settlement of overseas colonies to the idea of conquering territory in eastern Europe, and of settling it with German peasants. The leading advocate of this notion was the influential chauvinist pressure group, the Pan-German League, and its associated propagandists.

''Of these perhaps the most notable was the retired general and radical-conservative publicist, Friedrich von Bernhardi. In his notorious book Germany and the Next War, published in 1912, Bernhardi used many of Ratzel's ideas to advocate using a victorious war to gain space in eastern Europe for the settlement of peasant farmers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_lebensraum_03.shtml ''he notion of acquiring Lebensraum in eastern Europe thus became quite a familiar one before the war, and it gained even more impetus as Germany went through the experience of World War One.

''Following the outbreak of the war, the Pan-Germans seized the opportunity to present a programme of war aims advocating the seizure of large areas of western Russia. The idea was that after most of the indigenous population had been cleared, German farmers would settle the land. The settlers were to consist mainly of war veterans and urban workers, who were meant to be the key to ensuring the 'physical and ethical health' of the German nation.

''The crucial turning-point in the development of the Lebensraum programme occurred when German armies conquered Poland and western Russia after 1914. A German military regime (Oberost) was established in the Baltic provinces and in part of White Russia, under the command of General Erich Ludendorff. The situation became formalised with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed by the new Soviet regime in March 1918.

''Operating under the slogan of 'German Work', Oberost aimed to introduce a modern form of bureaucratic, technocratic, rationalised government in an area which the German occupiers regarded as semi-barbaric. In the process this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups located in specific territories, each with its own distinct history and culture, but simply as 'space' (Raum).

''... this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups ... but simply as 'space' (Raum).

''Many of the large numbers of people involved in this massive programme came to acquire a sense of fulfilling a German mission in the east and, through propaganda, this perception was transferred to the German homeland, where it achieved some resonance. Popular journalists wrote articles with titles such as 'To the East! New Land', and 'German Deed and German Seed in the Russian Badlands'.

''Even after the end of the war, German irregular troops, the so-called Free Corps, continued to operate in the Baltic states in a guerrilla war against the Bolsheviks, fought with exceptional brutality on both sides. The post-war German government, hoping to dominate the new Baltic republics, encouraged this process and promised land to the troops.

''Eventually, however, at the end of 1919, the Allies forced their disbandment and the Free Corps returned to Germany, embittered and frustrated. Some of their members found a home in Hitler's Nazi party.

As you see those who are qualified as expelled include also people hardly being victims.--Molobo 17:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Molobo, if I wanted to hear your opinion, dear student of International relations and Social communication, I would have asked you. However (for reasons stated above) I have not asked you but yearned for a third opinion on this all from sb who knows a lot about it and at the same time is detached.NightBeAsT 17:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I quote others not me :) --Molobo 18:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hans Krüger
While I find it very interesting that he was a rather big Nazi and could rise so high in the BdV, the information about him and his war crimes really shouldn't be in the lead section (that would like putting info about Hans Filbinger's past into the lead section of Baden-Württemberg). Since there is no information on how he or his Nazi past might have influenced the BdV, I don't see why it is so relevant here. Kusma (討論) 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite the norm to name the first president of any organisation. The fact that he was both former Nazi and BdV president caused a scandal so it is important.
 * --Molobo 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (please learn to use talk pages properly by indenting so others see easily who made which comment) -- Why don't you write about this scandal in a history section, then? In the lead section, it is definitely out of place. Otherwise it reads as if you say that Hans Krüger's Nazi past is among the most important things to note about the Federation of Expellees. Please find a more appropriate place to put that information if you believe it should be included. Kusma (討論) 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should the FIRST president and his political affiliation be ignored ? It is quite normal to name the first president of organisation. And the fact that the FIRST president of BdV(an aggresive organisation putting territorial demands against Poland for a long time) was a Nazi is notable.
 * --Molobo 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are completely right that he should not be ignored and that an investigation of the influence of his (past? I don't know if his views changed) Nazi views and allegiance on the BdV and also on the outside perception of the BdV are topics that are worthy of investigation and possibly inclusion into this article. I am only saying they do not belong in the lead section in this short and uncommented form. And please indent your posts. Kusma (討論) 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, he should not be ignored, and he is not, that is why he is included in the relevant section of the article. as for its "aggressive" claims on supposedly Polish lands that should be discussed on that region's serticle, not here.  Although it must be noted that in most of these "recovered territories" until the forced expellations after WWII were inhabited predominantly by Germans. And I would like for you to provide references that state that he was not one of the many late comers who joined the Nazi party for the power and influence it could give them (eg Oskar Schindler).

--Jadger 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Krüger participated in the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich". What kind of references do you mean more? Xx236 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the Federation
The Federation has more than 50 years of history. Why so little about it? Xx236 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes perhaps we should mention the demands that Polish government should give German soldiers the status of combatants or the sale of Waffen-SS marches on their meetings --Molobo 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Landesverbände
It's the list of German "lands", available probably under Germany. Will ever someone write articles about Landesverbände? I would remove the list. Xx236 09:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Landsmannschaften
One of them was made by SS-officer who took part in murder of Lwow professors. --Molobo 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He was Gesamtdeutscher Block/Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten activist. Xx236 11:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Erika Steinbach
The Erika Steinbach article has been protected to encourage editors to resolve an edit war over the wording of her place of birth (in essence Rahmel vs. Rumia and text describing its location in German-occupied Poland). There is a vote going on at Talk:Erika Steinbach regarding how to word the place of birth. Please express your opinion on this issue if you have one. --Richard 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

just a question
why is it that the centre against expulsions is controversial because it pays more attention to the expulsion of Germans, but the Holocaust Museum in Washington is not controversial when it only focuses on one genocide?

--Jadger 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I say we focus on all genocides equally. That will solve most of the political debates pretty fairly in a method that is possibly scientifically justifiable.  Nonprof. Frinkus 09:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

they had inhabited for centuries
German soldiers occupying Poland, policemen killing Polish people, Arbeitsamt officials running slavery system didn't inhabit Poland for centuries. They came between 1939-1944 but are regarded as expelled.Xx236 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Charter
“Charter of the Ethnic German Expellees” - is this translation a joke? Jonny84 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
This section shouldn't be removed; instead it should be expanded. I have read many articles critical of the FoE, the article focuses only one one or a two. The organization is very controversial in Poland; but what about Germany itself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of members
de:Bund der Vertriebenen quotes several sources in German criticizing claims of the Federation that it has 2 000 000 members. Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats why it is butressed by the phrase "The Federation claims", rather than being stated as fact. - Schrandit (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The organizations who create the Federation pay fees for 100 000 members. According to Erika Steinbach the number http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/idw_dlf/711793/ is a little underestimated to pay less (ein bisschen herunter gerechnet). "ein bisschen" doesn't make 2 000 000.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

History section is missing
The history section is missing. It only covers the events that led to formation of BDV,but what is lacking is half the century of its existance and events that took place within the organisation. For example the attempts to keep Munich Agreement from being retroactively annulled in late 1966.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting information-they actually count people from before the war and those moving out of East Germany.
The Upper Silesian Landmanschaft actually counts members from Geramns of territories ceded to Poland in 1921, other landmanschaften contain people who moved out of Eastern Germany. After the expulsion: West Germany and Eastern Europe, 1945-1990 Pertti Ahonen page 32 --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Charter of the German Expellees
Is it available online with signatures? Are following names signed underneath it:Rudolf Wagner,Waldemar Kraft,Alfred GilleGottlieb Leibbrandt,Walter von Keudell,Franz Hamm,Karl Mocker,Josef Walter,Erik von Witzleben,Rudolf Lodgman von Auen? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Signed byXx236 (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Another BDV scandal
Another BdV scandal, this time BdV member claims Second World War was a chance for which Poles and Czechs waited according to the newsource. Another one according to the news tried to shift blame about WW2 from Germany to other countries.  --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Charter of the German Expellees - POV
The section doesn't inform about critics of the Charter.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC) It seems an anon IP deleted it because a weblink was not up to date. I have corrected this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided German sources for this claim. Zezen (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Title "Federation" vs "Association"
Unless this is their official english name, I would recommend the translation of the German word "Bund" to be "association" and not "federation" here. 212.60.196.82 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)