Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 13

Distrust of and enmity towards Nazi-influenced German communities
A user recently added the following to the section Distrust of and enmity towards Nazi-influenced German communities:

''During the German elections of 1933, the Nazi party's areas of strongest support was in those eastern areas of Germany whose population was later expelled. The German provinces of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Frankfurt on the Oder were the only ones where the Nazis received over 55% of the vote. The Nazis obtained over 50% in much of Silesia. ''

While the facts of course are true, they do not fit in the section (which is on Selbstschutz actions) nor should they be included in the article at all. Reasons: For these reason, I moved the edit out here for discussion. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No source (so far) is shown that this really was an argument for the expulsions
 * The vote was 14 years earlier - back then only a few could predict what the Nazis really were up to. These 1933 votes should not be held as expressing a Nazi attitude of all the voters.
 * The text could imply that the people deserved expulsion because they were the "worst" of the evil. Both of course is wrong, but that association is put forward by having that text integrated.


 * That's a pity, when I saw the map, my impression was it nicely illustrated the issue discussed in the section. I don't think you should be removing it because "it could imply that the people deserved expulsion". Political correctness is nice but the section discusses the various reasons given by various groups to justify the expulsions. We are not arguing if these reasons were right or wrong, only presenting them. To this end, the map nicely explains why the Germans could have been perceived as Nazi supporters. As for the argument that the vote was "14 years earlier", let me ask you: in which areas was nazism most supported in 1939 ? The map should definitely stay in the article. --Lysytalk 18:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, which is why I put it in the article. The article states that one reason for the expulsion is the perception of incompatibility of the Germans there with Polish rule/living within a Polish support.  The election results help explain that perception.  The fact that Germans from those regions, as reflected in the elections, were more often supporters of the Nazi party than were Germans from other regions seems to be important and worthy of inclusion.Faustian (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source that the elections of 1933 played any role at the Potsdam Conference. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please provide a source that Poland participated in the Potsdam Conference. --Lysytalk 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Source provided as requested.--Molobo (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? The decision to expell Germans from East of Oder-Neisse line was made at Potsdam by the Allied powers, no? So it's an interesting point wether this decision was influenced by the 1933 elections, if not, I can't see any coherence.HerkusMonte (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it did. I added an article that touches about this point.--Molobo (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Did the idea of German compatibility within a Polish state play a role at Potsdam?Faustian (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Lysy and Faustian:


 * Lysy: Political correctness is nice (...) I am not that much concerned about PC ;)


 * Lysy: (...) but the section discusses the various reasons given by various groups to justify the expulsions. There we are.
 * First: What group gave that as a reason for the expulsions?
 * Second: The paragraph was (is) about Nazi activities in Pomerania and Silesia - obviously of those parts of these regions that had a substantial Polish minority, which were the parts annexed by the Nazis in 1939 (Pomerelia and Upper Silesia), because the source given for the statements is: (quote) ^ "Polacy - wysiedleni, wypędzeni i wyrugowani przez III Rzeszę", Maria Wardzyńska, Warsaw 2004". Created on order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, the organization called Selbstschutz carried out executions during "Intelligenzaktion" alongside operational groups of German military and police, in addition to such activities as identifying Poles for execution and illegally detaining them. (/quote) Selbstschutz were Volksdeutsche (Germans living outside the 3rd Reich) paramilitary units, notable numbers of Poles only lived in Pomerelia and Upper Silesia. The map on the other hand shows the votes of the Reichsdeutsche (Germans living inside the 3rd Reich). The map / the Reichsdeutsche votes from 1933 therefore does not fit the content of the (original) section.


 * Lysy: As for the argument that the vote was "14 years earlier", let me ask you: in which areas was nazism most supported in 1939 and Faustian: The fact that Germans from those regions, as reflected in the elections, were more often supporters of the Nazi party than were Germans from other regions seems to be important and worthy of inclusion. There is no doubt the Nazis had strong support all over Germany. Some termed that "collective guilt". Yet, I do not know the answer to Lysy's question just as noone here does. Because 14 years earlier, before the Nazis established their regime, the eastern provinces voted 5-10% above average doesn't mean anything regarding the 1939 (or 44) situation. Sure the support was high, but higher than average? Based on the old election results (that do not show differences that big) this is a synthesis and as such should not be included in the article.

If one brainstorms, one might find a lot of reasons why Germans had to be mistreated after the war. The question here is, which were the actual reasons that led to the expulsions (rather than re-education, slavery etc). At that point, a source should be presented that states the reason.

I personally think the Germans would have been expelled from these regions even if they had voted 20% below average in 1933. I think that rather than seeking for rationales we should remember that once the Red Army conquered these territories, Stalinism ruled there. Stalin just loved ethnic cleansing, regardless of how the people he resettled or starved behaved before. The reason that they had a different nationality was sufficient. The idea of Stalinism was a homogenous people where everyone was equal(ly f**d up). Also, Poland needed to get rid of the Germans in order to hold up her territorial claim. We should keep in mind that at that time the status of her new-won territories was not at all a final one. They did not know how much time they even had to make these territories as Polish as possible, that's why they from the beginning exercised the most drastic measures. That of course, is my synthesis, I do not have a source right now, so I do not integrate that into the article. But I doubt that the expulsions had anything to do with the 1933 vote. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue will bo no problem. A source will be provided which makes the exact point that the reason for population transfer of Germans from Germanised former Baltic and Polish territories was made due to their support for Nazism.--Molobo (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"If one brainstorms, one might find a lot of reasons why Germans had to be mistreated after the war." I would say that "Mistreated" is a very extreme POV-majority of Germans polled after the war after all supported the Nazi Reich's goal to exterminate Jews and Poles which was the one primary goals of the war in the East(that of course doesn't mean all-some Germans were against this). After six years of genocidal slaughter of milions in gas chambers, mass graves, kidnapping and murdering hundreds of thousands of children, granting dogs more rights then Poles or Jews, Stalin decided that Germans will be moved to new borders. If anything it could be worth to study the humanity and restraint of people slated for extermination in regards to German state and nation--Molobo (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC).


 * I haven't had time to check out the source you provided. But the image from the elections seems to me to be a decent illustration of the idea of greater support in those regions.  Is there any reason to doubt that Nazi support waned in those regions of Germany relative to other regions?  One criticism that is makes sense is if the section I put the image into was devoted to those areas of Germany that were annexed in 1939.  Perhaps that section can be expanded to include other regions of German expulsion.Faustian (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are partially correct Faustian-the author concentrates on territories removed from Nazi Germany territory of 1937 and why population was moved to modified German border. He quotes statements and documents that show pro-Nazi attitude of most of the population was one of the reasons given as need to move those people.--Molobo (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * where can I find the English version of the Amazing Document stating that "the majority of Germans polled after the war all supported the Nazi Reich's goal to exterminate Jews and Poles"????? This would be an earth-shaking document and go a long way towards enshrining "Collective Guilt".  Does the United Nations have a Handbook on Collective Guilt?  I would like to acquire a copy of that also.      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We can also use this more visible map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Germany_1933.PNG

Molobo: He quotes statements and documents that show pro-Nazi attitude of most of the population was one of the reasons given as need to move those people. I would appreciate you to precisely state the area of interest, whether it was a reason or a justification and to include the respective sentence of the book in your ref. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(And please avoid messing up the ref format again, see below. Just add behind your text: Reference title and text without the "*" and everythink should work out fine.) Skäpperöd (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean we get Silesia back? Its pro NSDAP votes are shown average or lower compared to the rest of Germany. The Poles and Russians can keep all those nazi infested regions. :-P :)) Anorak2 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, we are trying seriously to figure out whether there are reliable sources stating the election results were in any kind a reason for the respective authorities to expell these Germans, or used as a 'justification thereafter, or if it is just a synthesis. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole section on the reasons/justification brings headache. Are you interested in the stated or real reasons ? --Lysytalk 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually that is not my impression. I think that certain users with a nationalist Polish POV are trying to push any statement that appears to justify the annexations and/or expulsions, and to suppress any statement that says otherwhise. They're not really interested in discussions of sources, they want to push their POV anyway. And I think they deserve a little mockery. :) Anorak2 (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you know, that the most successful area for the Nazis was Masuria? According to A. Kossert "Masuren" the exact results in March 1933 were: But after 1945 Masuria was next to Upper Silesia the only area with a significant remaining "Autochthone" population (estimated 160,000), allowed to stay as they were classified as ethnic Poles. The results of 1933 were obviously not important for that classification. At the same time it means that in other areas of East Prussia the Nazis had less success, while 100 % of the populace was expelled. So it would be interesting which reasons were real and which were stated by Stalin. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nidzica / Neidenburg 81 %
 * Elk / Lyck 80,38 %
 * Pisz / Johannisburg 76,6 %
 * Szczytno / Ortelsburg 74,22 %
 * Gizycko / Lötzen 72,52 %
 * Mragowo / Sensburg 69,02 %
 * Ostroda / Osterode 62,73 %


 * Yes, it's known that Masuria had a very high support ratio for the Nazis. However the question of so called autochthones was resolved later, not in Potsdam, so do not draw conclusions too easily. As for the real reasons, we'll never know. Probably Stalin wanted more territory for himself and simple did not care about the Germans any more than for anyone else. However I doubt if we find his citation confirming this. --Lysytalk 11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, the whole section needs to be worked on, and yes, I think that the "stated reasons" (or justifications) and the "real" reasons should be included, but sourced, marked as such and not with an undue weight. Right now most of the section reads like synthesis, a justification for the expulsions thought of by some author. Most of this impression is due to missing sources - it is in many cases not clear, who justified the expulsions with the respective "rationales" and in what context, also it is not really clear what led Soviet and Polish authorities to expell and only to smaller degrees kill and enslave. Yet I do not know either if there are serious works about these issues, that reliably make a difference between the "real" (strategic) reasons and the accompagning propaganda.


 * If the 1933 vote was used to justify the expulsions, it may be included, but it needs to be clear to the reader who justified the expulsions with that vote. But we have to be careful here that we do not get a section citing everything postwar propaganda once stated as a reason for the expulsions. (We all should know that of course the 33 vote was not a real reason for the expulsions.) Skäpperöd (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Skäpperöd, I dare to say you are relatively new to the article, so allow me a word of explanation. The article is a mess but it used to be much worse before. The "justifications" sections that we frown at were created on purpose in order to isolate all the discussions about the reasons from the rest of the article. This allowed to keep some minimal order and to develop the other sections relatively peacefully. The next step would be to attribute these reasons or justifications to particular researchers, politicians etc. Right now it is just a collection of different ideas without any information on their sources. Also, this section requires special care, as it's not our aim to argue about the justifications there but only to present them as they were given. And this requires the proper attribution of course. So I'm all with you. --Lysytalk 12:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This explains a lot. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "stated reasons" (or justifications) and the "real" reasons should be included Who is to say what was real and was stated ? There is no doubt that after six years of attempted genocide and classification of Poles, Russians, Jews as creatures below animal status by German state, many believed removing Germans from former Slavic, Polish and Baltic areas that were Germanised would end their expansion in the East that brought such dire consequences. The belief that those areas are 'expansion point' against others and serve as source of conflict due to highly nationalist population was very real. The ideas of Lebensraum, Germanisation, the dreaded Ostsiedlung that brought extinction of Wends, Old Prussians, slavery for Lithuanians and so on. It all originated mostly in those territories. Thus ending such things by ending what was perceived as colonisation was a very real reason for people behind those decisions. Soviet and Polish authorities to expell  There was a population transfer of Germans from Yugoslavia, France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia. Why are saying it was just Soviet and Polish decision ? and only to smaller degrees kill and enslave There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim. '' Yet I do not know either if there are serious works about these issues, that reliably make a difference between the "real" reasons and the accompagning propaganda.(...) But we have to be careful here that we do not get a section citing everything postwar propaganda once stated as a reason for the expulsions. '' And I can safely assure you that ending the threat to existance of people like Poles or Russians was seen as very real reason behind the population transfer for the people behind this decision. Why you may question if they were right, they certainly believed in it and it certainly seemed to them propaganda but a justified reason. --Molobo (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading this article Polish man accused of 'war crimes' against the Germans one gets a slightly more nuanced picture to balance against Molobos statement that: "There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim.". Enslavement certainly did occur....--Stor stark7 Speak 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And nowhere in the article is there any evidence of any plan to kill or enslave Germans, I do not dispute that after six years of being hunted down as something lower then dogs(dogs had more rights in Third Reich then Poles-for example animals were more protected from medical experiments then Poles or Jews) some people broke and sought revenge just like the man did. Also I suggest giving something more reliable then sensationalistic newspapers. --Molobo (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting people in concentration camps does not seem very unplanned...
 * Besides, the The Daily Telegraph doesnt seem all that sensationalistic... seems like a rather reasonable enough newspaper that cites for example Frantiszek Lewandowski, one of the prosecutors in the case, besides the professor quoted above.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the The Daily Telegraph doesnt seem all that sensationalistic... seems like a rather reasonable enough newspaper that cites for example Frantiszek Lewandowski, one of the prosecutors in the case, besides the professor quoted above.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the The Daily Telegraph doesnt seem all that sensationalistic... seems like a rather reasonable enough newspaper that cites for example Frantiszek Lewandowski, one of the prosecutors in the case, besides the professor quoted above.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the The Daily Telegraph doesnt seem all that sensationalistic... seems like a rather reasonable enough newspaper that cites for example Frantiszek Lewandowski, one of the prosecutors in the case, besides the professor quoted above.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you confuse individual acts of retribution with some kind of plan. There was no plan to enslave or kill German nation and none of your quotes says that or supports that. Show any proof that there was plan to exterminate Germans like the German plan to exterminate Jews in gas chambers or the plan to exterminate Poles and Germanise whole Poland(n March 1941 Hitler made a decision to "turn this region into a purely German area within 15-20 years". He also explained that "Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as Rhineland"Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences" by Keith Bullivant, Geoffrey J. Giles, Walter Pape, Rodopi 1999 page 32). As there was no plan of such kind nor any orders of such kind, you are unlikely to find any. As to deaths due to famine, cold, harsh conditions and individual acts of retribution after six years of systematic genocide against Poles and Jews-nobody disputes this happened.--Molobo (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Molobo, you stated "There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim.". I have shown that that Germans were put in concentration camps, many of these were work camps were they were used as slave labor, this litle girl of 5 was kept in one of these camps until 1949. You are free to call this "individual acts of retribution" but i don't think you are convincing anyone. As to the rest of your text where you essentially go on about the Holocaust, that is Straw man argumentation. Please stop doing that!--Stor stark7 Speak 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you admit there was no plan to kill German nation and there is no evidence of such. As to the rest, please no manipulation, former concentration camps were used as transit facitilies during population transfer, they were not the same concentration camps as under Nazi Germany. Sure the conditions were harsh, and some commanders were abusing their power. This is understandable in context of six years of genocide they experienced(for Salomon Morel another known officer who abused power was a Jewish survivor of Holocaust). There is no evidence of plan to enslave or exterminate German nation and you haven't shown anything supporting this. As to deaths during famine, cold, and individual acts of violance-nobody denies it happened. As nobody denies that to rebuild Europe from Nazi Germany's made devestation which plunged it into food and economic crisis for years some forced labour was used.--Molobo (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Straw man arguments again, and again, and again..... As to "transit facitilies" why not simply read the names of some of the camps: Central Labour Camp Jaworzno (sub-camp of Auschwitz), Central Labour Camp Potulice (formerly Potulice concentration camp), Łambinowice, Zgoda labour camp (sub-camp of Auschwitz). And it must have been a loooooooong transit, to be captured in 1945, and released in 1949.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this was a long transit. And indeed many former facilities of Germans were used to house them before moving them into Germany. As previously you failed to show any evidence or proof that there was any planned attempt to kill German nation or to enslave it. I take it we won't see any. If so please end this, as it has no purpose to demonstrate your personal views if there isn't any publication supporting this its completely unencyclopedic. --Molobo (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is indeed pointless, so I'll let you have whatever final word you wish, but please no more straw man arguments, not that I'd expect anyone to fall for them by now. Just some final comments.
 * I stated: "...a slightly more nuanced picture to balance against Molobos statement that: "There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim." and I concluded "Enslavement certainly did occur" From this, what do you read out? I merely pointed out that there was need to nuance your argument regarding enslavement. You have kept talking about "proof that there was any planned attempt to kill German nation", which is a Straw man argument. You are arguing against a statement that I never made, in order to try to make me look bad. That is bad bad bad. As to the rest, I'm confident I've demonstrated for whoever bothers reading this that I've indeed managed to nuance your claim that it is completely untrue that there was a plan to enslave "German population". German civilians were kept for 4 years in "Central Labor Camps", so completely untrue it cannot be. Try as you may, you cant argue that away with straw man argumentation. Cheers--Stor stark7 Speak 20:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you failed to provide any evidence that plans existed to kill or enslave German nation. Transit camps in modern times often keep people for years, It's a wonder that in German-devestated Europe that was almost complete ruin, people were so quickly and smoothly moved in just a couple of years. As with other post, the above one contained no proof of plans to enslave or kill German nation besides your personal views."You are arguing against a statement that I never made" So yo admit there was no plan to enslave or kill German nation ?--Molobo (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recognise your 'Molobo' username from years past. It seems no matter what anyone says in the defence of Germans, civilian or military, you'll contradict it and somehow justify any wrongdoing against them. Yes but you'll probably say the Nazis did this and the Nazis did that. Most of the people caught up in this ethnic cleansing weren't Nazis. The Allied policy of expelling millions of Germans civilians from land that was legally and rightfully theirs, was a crime and a human disaster and totally flew in the face of everything democracy stood for and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and that's that. Accept it. But you'll probably add another load of waffle to slag my comments off. Don't bother, I won't be replying. 13:18 1st October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.96.97 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There existed Communist policy toward Germans, eg. keeping German soldiers in Gulag camps (but to release them before some Polish women were released). There was no problem of Polish nationalistic policy toward Germans, because Polish nationalists were imprisoned together with Nazis and didn't have any chance to emigrate to Germany, like Germans were allowed. Your discussion has no value for the article, stop it.Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalin didn't care whether Germans in East Prussia, Silesia or Main Pommerania voted 10% or 90% for Nazis. All Stalin wanted to do was move the Eastern Borders of both Poland and Germany further to the west. Roosevelt and Churchill somewhat became his accomplices in that endeavor via the Yalta meeting. That was followed by the July 1945 Potsdam Agreement, which authorized Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to expell 100% of whomever they chose to declare as "ethnic German" from their areas. The determination of what constituted "ethnic German" was left up to the expelling "authorities" in all three countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) What difference does it make if the Communist Government of Poland expelled 97% or 98.5% of Potsdam sanctioned "ethnic Germans" from all areas assigned to Polish administration?? Debating about real and imagined deliberations by the Polish Communist authorities on what few Germans to let remain in all those areas is like arranging deck chairs on the Titannic. The Polish Communist government agreed with whatever Stalin wanted - Stalin probably didn't care if, for example, a total of 231 ethnic Germans were left in all the areas subject to ethnic cleansing. Maybe the Polish Communist Government decided that 231 Germans was a good number to keep in place, anticipating the later debates on whether 100% of the ethnically cleansed population has to be actually removed from the ethnically cleansed areas in order for the term "ethnic cleansing" to be legitimately applied in international discussions about the event. That way, the Polish Communist Government could proclaim, "although we expelled 12 million Germans, we didn't expell virtually all of the ethnic Germans we found when we proceeded with the expulsion action." And of course they would be correct, since they let 231 Germans stay in place. The mentality behind the ACTUAL expulsions, since very little was done in an orderly and humane manner, approached the same type of mentality that supposedly was to have been overcome by the victory in World War Two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I added source on pro-Nazi attitude being reason for population transfer
I added source by German historian from [German Historical Institute] that part of the reason of population transfer was the support for Nazism in affected territories--Molobo (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As Molobo surely knows, Bogdan Musial is a Polish - born Historian, who caused a highly controversial discussion in Poland in May 2008 as he accused another Polish historian to be too friendly to the Germans. ; ; []; . Just to make it complete. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he accused other historian of having pro-German view sacrificing thus objectivity of research. Feel free to add this in his article.--Molobo (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The other part is that perhaps some Germans are too friendly to that historian, eg. publishing his censored book. Do you republish in Germany censored books printed in the GDR without any comment about the censorship? The other problem is that Germans misinform about this historian's father.Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I will remove
A incorrect ethnic map (original research, no reliable sources). It says that the population of Germans in 1944 was the same as in 1910. This is completely false and ignores German settlement by Nazi's from Baltic region into Poland.--Molobo (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you remember the Polish Corridor discussion about the number of Germans living in that area before and after 1919. And I'm sure you remember that a lot of Germans left the area after the creation of the Corridor. You're absolutely right, that Baltic Germans (and some others as Horst Köhler's family) were forced to settle there after 1939 and that's why the map shows quiet exactly the situation of 1944. According to your logic the 1933 election map does not show anything about the political believes of 1944, so you will surely remove that map too, no? HerkusMonte (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed I remember the discussion on Polish Corridor where it turned out that number of Germans was artificially increased by stationing German soldiers and counting them as local residents, in addition to settlement of officials sent by Berlin. Your point ?
 * "and that's why the map shows quiet exactly the situation of 1944. "
 * Where is the source of that statement ? Which scholar states this ?
 * --Molobo (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover, there is a big difference between 14 years and 34 years. Is there any reason to suspect that German attitudes changed much between 1933 and the time of the war?Faustian (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, and remove it. The map contains false information. It does not take into account the massive (over a million) German exodus from Poland under article 91 of the Versailles Treaty. It's only purpose in the article is to purport the view that Germans were a majority in these areas all the time, following WW1 and WW2. --Lysytalk 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Removing.--Molobo (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop to remove that map without a serious discussion and just about 1 hour after you announced it. HerkusMonte (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

HerkusMonte, it was explained in the discussion above why the map does not belong to the article (at least, I thought it was removed long ago from en.wiki as the original research of its creator, banned from German wiki for his nationalistic pov pushing). Please do not edit-war if you don't have reasonable arguments. The map is known to be hoax anyway. --Lysytalk 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If a map 34 years too early should stay, why shouldn't one that is only 14 years early stay? (In my opinion, the 34 year old map should go given the other concerns about it, but the other one should stay).Faustian (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not only that it's outdated, it's also misleading (what percentage of the German speaking population does it take to mark an area blue ? ) It also does not take into account the million Germans that left the areas of Poland following WW1. I'm sorry to see HerkusMonte revertwarring rather than reading this first. --Lysytalk 22:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a kind of "revertwarring" to restore a version that lasted for quiet a long time, if a user first announces to remove a map (and removing it within an hour), without giving other users the chance to find proper sources. The announcement is needless in that case.

Some users might say the "1931 dominating nationalities in Poland" map does not belong to the article as the situation changed significant between 1931 and 1945. The "Nazi elections of 1933" does not say anything about the situation of 1944, and btw. it's showing the results of March 1933 usually not seen as a free election any more (after the Enabling Act of 1933). But calm down, I don't see any sense in this discussion any more. HerkusMonte (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what sources do you need to understand, that one cannot claim that the demographics did not change, if a million Germans left Poland following WW1 (and were actually encouraged to leave by the German government). I don't accuse you of bad faith, but it is simple to understand. --Lysytalk 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem following Molobo's edit
I restored the last version (Faustian, 29.7.08) with a working references section. Some edits thereby got lost. Please feel free to redo and reference your edits, but please make sure your references do not interfere with the other refs again. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this. A single slash was missing in his edit, no need for a wholesale revert. I've fixed it now. --Lysytalk 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Molobo (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did not find the mistake... Skäpperöd (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The template
The template should be edited similarly to comparable templates or removed. Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "similarly to comparable templates" ? Which ones ? --Lysytalk 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out The Holocaust and the Warsaw Uprizing, both small, without pictures, less colorful. Anyone can define, which events were comparable. Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:MOS defines the colour of a template. As for the photo, it might add to the articles but I'm not sure what is depicted there. Its author and license remain unknown, too. --Lysytalk 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See Navigational templates about the colors.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It reads "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles". #e7e8ff seems to be the standard colour. Adjusted it. --Lysytalk 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Xx236's issue is not really about the color of the template but about the emotional and POV nature of the photo in the template. While he is right that Template:Holocaust and Template:Warsaw Uprising do not have photos, I don't think there is any reason to exclude photos from templates.  See Template:Aztec for example.  The real question, IMO, is whether the photo is appropriate, NPOV, etc.  Let's discuss the photo from that perspective.  --Richard (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the photo is a very good one. The men in hats are in the background are barely visible which illustrates well that the expellees were mostly innocent children and women. The people in the picture have no luggage. That illustrates the fact that the expellees had to leave all their belongings behind. I don't know if the photo is staged or not but it does not matter. It would be good to know who, where and when took it, though. Also, it may be a good illustration for some of the articles but maybe not all in the series. --Lysytalk 08:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are heaps of pictures out there, I don't understand why it seems to be so difficult to find a good free one. --Stor stark7 Speak 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * March of Death
 * Crowd of children
 * Leaving the "Western territories" 1951
 * Expulsion, 1951
 * German refugees
 * Refugees (requires Flash)
 * Refugees, Hamburg


 * We don't know about the license of these pictures. But why don't you like the current one ? And why do we need a picture in the template at all ? --Lysytalk 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the "Expulsion of Germans"? Why to discuss the details when the subject is fuzzy? The title has been manipulated by the accidental editor. It's a case of vandalism for me rather than the basis for any discussion. Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Xx236, I'm not sure what do you mean. Please calm down :) and try to explain slowly ... --Lysytalk 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of this (and several others) articles. The name Expulsion is biased. There was a series of migrations and forced migrations, which started in 1940. One cannot write about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II and use numbers of war victims or data about Soviet crimes in future GDR.

I have asked for help in Template:The Holocaust and Template:Warsaw Uprising. This Wikipedia has certain logic and certain rules a small group of biased authors won't rewrite it, I hope so.Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the German exodus from Eastern Europe is the general article in the series, and Expulsion of Germans after World War II is only one of the subarticles. Maybe the title of the template should be changed to reflect the structure. At the same time it would look less inflammatory then. What do you think ? --Lysytalk 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimes agaianst German civilians and expulsions took place in Western Europe, too. Sudeten is situated in Central Europe. Xx236 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but at the same time, the exodus spanned over much longer period than WW2 only. --Lysytalk 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to link the other template-discussion at the Portal:Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board.

As for whether German exodus from Eastern Europe or Expulsion of Germans after World War II should be considered to be the lead of the series, I chose the latter mainly for the reason that not all of the expulsions took place in Eastern Europe, and also for the reason that most of the "exodus" were expulsions.

The concerns about a bias in the term "Expulsion" (comment by Xx236) are hard to understand. Xx236 wrote: The name Expulsion'' is biased. There was a series of migrations and forced migrations, which started in 1940.'' In the 1940s, lots of Germans migrated to post-war Germany, some by force? Come on. "Forced migration" sounds a lot like "collateral damage" or "repatriation". Skäpperöd (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word expulsion (Vertreibung) is politically motivated. Either all forced migrations are here expulsions or none. Millions of Germans were evacuted by German government, including prisoners and KZ-inmates. Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a clear cut between the "evacuations" and the expulsions. I do not know the motivation behind your statements, but if one looks at your userpage ... (Btw, "Polacken aufzumucken" does not make any sense in German).

Is it really that hard for you to accept that in the last 100 (or 1000) years not every German was an evil aggressor and not every Pole was a gentleman? If you really want to challenge the use of the term "expulsions", a new section would be more appropriate. Your crusade against the template (Poland board and here) starts to become a case of WP:Don't beat the dead horse. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This template breaks many rules of this Wikipedia, so it should me edited.
 * This article uses fuzzy notions so it should be rewritten.
 * This article contains a number of errors, so it should be rewritten.
 * Don't threaten me and answer what I'm writing. I haven't written here anything about evil Germans or gentleman Poles, it's a lie.
 * Please, no Ad personam comments here.

Not true
The sentence During the period of 1944/1945 - 1950, possibly as many as 14 million Germans were forced to flee or were expelled as a result of actions of the Red Army, civilian militias, and/or organized efforts of governments of the reconstituted states of Eastern Europe is false. Millions were evacuated by German government and partially not allowed to return - the rest didn't want to return. The number includes also German occupants, who returned to their homes, like Erika Steinbach's family.Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

there was persecution of "war children", technically that was not the same phenomenon as "expulsion" so I am removing this section
It's exactly what I haven been writing about since ages - some Germans impose their POV and it's commonly accepted because of language manipulations. The Vetreibung isn't a simple Expulsion, but a series of crimes against humanity, even genocides. But technically persecutions in Norway were different, so let's concentrate on bad Poles. When a child of German soldiers Erika Steinbach migrates to Germany, it's an Expulsion, when a child of German soldier Anni-Frid Lyngstad migrates to Sweden, it's not an expulsion. WOW!Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC) We should change the title to Expulsion of Germans and crimes against Germans during and after WWII. Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of German nationals (Reichsdeutsche) and ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) from Germany and parts of territory formerly claimed by Germany in the first three years after World War II."


 * Was Norway part of Germany or claimed part of Germany?
 * Did a German minority (Volksdeutsche/Reichsdeutsche) exist in Norway?
 * Were German Civilians forced to leave Norway?
 * Was the expulsion of Germans from Norway mentioned in the Potsdam Agreement?

Do you answer one of these questions with "Yes"? Maybe it's you trying to push your POV. 84.139.207.194 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So maybe you push your POV?Xx236 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The children in Norway were persecuted because they were perceived as German. Is persecuting people without German citizenship different than persecuting people with such citizenship?
 * I don't care if Germany claimed Poland to be German and there are many of us, except NPD members.
 * The expulsion (?) of Germans from Czechoslovakia wan't mentioned in the Potsdam Agreement.
 * "*The expulsion (?) of Germans from Czechoslovakia wasn't mentioned in the Potsdam Agreement." Xx236, do you just make these things up as you go along? Go back to school!  The following is from the Potsdam Agreement (The Americans and British bought into their own legal fantasy concerning the word, "Orderly"):

XIII. ORDERLY TRANSFERS OF GERMAN POPULATIONS The conference reached the following agreement on the removal of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary:

The three Governments having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the Agreement define Germans? What were the Beneš decrees for?Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Legalistically, "Germans"=All Germans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Germans were either German citizens as of 1937 or German citizens as of 1937 plus Sudetengerman. Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not True!! The Allies used the Nazis' own definition of what constituted an ethnic German within Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.  Thus, ethnic Germans who had lived in those areas, and who had ancestors in those areas dating back hundreds of years were equally subject to expulsion, as were any ethnic Germans who had moved into those areas within a more recent (e.g. within the previous 5 to 10 years) time span.  The ethnic Germans in the "Temporarily Administered" German territories (i.e., those territories outside the eventual 4 Allied Occupation zones of Germany. but within the internationally recognized 1937 boundaries of Germany) were likewise subject to so-called "orderly and humane" ethnic expulsion (a process which, according to the Potsdam Agreement, could achieve essentially a 100% ethnic German population removal).   Accordingly, the Potsdam Agreement permitted a situation of not one ethnic German to remain east of the Oder-Neisse line (i.e., to as far east as the Border of the Soviet Union), nor south of the DDR & BRD border line with Czechoslovakia (nor east of the BRD border with Czechoslovakia).  Note: Legalistically, the Potsdam Agreement permitted virtual 100% expulsion of anyone determined by "authorities" in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to be ethnically German.  Of course, it is also legalistically understood that not necessarily all of those considered to be ethnically German by the authorities required expulsion i.e., it was up to the "authorities" to make the determination as to the extent of the expulsions.  However, if in fact those authorities decided that 100% of the German ethnic population within their jurisdiction required expulsion, the Potsdam Agreement supported their decision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)   The "population transfers" (substance and procedures) authorized by the Potsdam Agreement in July 1945 were essentially and indirectly being declared as War Crimes (by extrapolation) several months later at the Nuremberg Trials, although the wider significance of that was only slowly realized over time.  Note:  the above doesn't go into details about such matters as Volksdeutsche as a general category; and, the various efforts at defining Volksliste, which had various applications, not all of which were compatible with the Volksdeutsche concept.  Thus, the Allies, as stated above, left it up to the "authorities" of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to determine the extent of expulsions of ethnic Germans.  Accordingly, any figure was acceptable, and any assigned percentage was acceptable, based upon the Potsdam Agreement.  Apparently, a few German Jews were assigned German ethnicity by Polish authorities and were expelled.  This happened in the years after World War 2, when a few German Jews attempted to return to such places as Breslau/Wroclaw.  Obviously, there were very few German Jews who survived World War 2, and fewer still who sought to return to the "Polish Administered Territories", namely lands in Eastern Germany such as Silesia and Main Pommerania, which were within the 1937 German Boundary.

Flight and expulsion after the defeat of Germany
The section doesn't inform even about basic facts - where, who, how many. Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, discuss before editing
This is the place to discuss changes. Radical editing during holidays may be regarded as POV pushing.Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)~
 * Holidays? Hmmm Skäpperöd (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

undertaken by the Polish Communist military authorities - misinformation. The decision was Soviet. Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * added ref Skäpperöd (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

number of deaths attributable to the expulsions  - flight and expulsion, not expulsion. See German Wikipedia Im deutschen Sprachraum bezeichnet der Begriff in einem verengten Verständnis meist Ausweisung und Flucht deutschsprachiger Bevölkerung. Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

poloniacentrist?
it's very much about Poland but very lacking on other area (CSR, Hungary,...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check
Who says Churchill and Roosevelt cared about the Nazi voting record east of the Oder-Neisse line before World War 2??? All they were doing was ethnic cleansing in conjunction with Stalin, who wanted to move both the German and Polish borders west. At one time a U.S. Government map showed the Russian Zone of Occupied Germany as extending to the eastern frontiers of Silesia and Pommerania (& the connection between). Why is there such ignorance on these matters???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WOuld you please use a more neutral language?Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Potsdam Agreement permitted a situation of not one ethnic German to remain east of the Oder-Neisse line (i.e., to as far east as the Border of the Soviet Union), nor south of the DDR & BRD border line with Czechoslovakia (nor east of the BRD border with Czechoslovakia). Note: Legalistically, the Potsdam Agreement permitted virtual 100% expulsion of anyone determined by "authorities" in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to be ethnically German. Of course, it is also legalistically understood that not necessarily all of those considered to be ethnically German by the authorities required expulsion i.e., it was up to the "authorities" to make the determination as to the extent of the expulsions. However, if in fact those authorities decided that 100% of the German ethnic population within their jurisdiction required expulsion, the Potsdam Agreement supported their decision. The "population transfers" (substance and procedures) authorized by the Potsdam Agreement in July 1945 were essentially and indirectly being declared as War Crimes (by extrapolation) several months later at the Nuremberg Trials, although the wider significance of that was only slowly realized over time. The Allies, as stated above, left it up to the "authorities" of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to determine the extent of expulsions of ethnic Germans. Accordingly, any figure was acceptable, and any assigned percentage (including 100%) was acceptable, based upon the Potsdam Agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read recently a Polish article about Sudetengermans. According to it Czech historians admit that many anti-Nazi Germans were expelled after the war, even if Czechoslovak authorities had declared to allow them to stay. So the Czechoslovak government had a choice and was responsible for its actions. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Poland compensated for territories lost to the Soviet Union
"Poland lost 43 percent of its pre-war territory" What percentage of the inhabitants of that 43 percent of pre-war territory were of Polish ethnicity? 24%?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have written several times - any speculations should be removed from this article. The agreements of US, SU and UK defined post-war Europe. Any compensation was pure propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss edits here
Any editing should make the text more readable. BTW - please register.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please register and sign your texts
There are basic rules. Please learn them and obey them.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt, German Collective Guilt, and the Expulsions (Yalta, Potsdam, etc.)
Franklin D. Roosevelt is quoted as saying that "We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleaswe register and sign your contributions. Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed as a WP:SYNTHESIS that the allies agreed on collective guilt of Germans by allowing Germans to be expelled in the Potsdam Agreement. We should have a source that said so. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that Germans should be sterilized in order to prevent future war." If Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to the Germans' Collective Guilt, then your argument must be premised on Stalin not believing in the Collective Guilt of the Germans.  Where, O Where, can I find such a humanitarian statement from Stalin?ANNRC (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide the date(s) of such statement(s) from Stalin, since he likely could have been extremely humanitarian toward the Germans after the high 90s percentile of them from East Prussia, Main Pomerania, Eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia (namely those areas within 1937 Germany boundaries) had been ethnically cleansed and dumped into the 4 Occupation zones of rump Germany.ANNRC (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Isolated statements of however important persons do not satisfy WP:RS. Bring on a reliable source that says the western allies were committed to collective guilt of all Germans, then feel free to integrate that at the proper site and reference your statement. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect you know that can't be done, since the Leading Figures of the Western Allies would only make the more severe of such so-called "non-Christian" pronouncements in private. Also, and to a much lesser influence, were political considerations, since, for example, German ethnicity is the largest ethnic heritage in the U.S., although most of such people, of whatever degree of German ethnic heritage, have little knowledge of specific ancestral sources in Germany (e.g., great-great grandparent names, villages, etc.).  As much as Eisenhower/hauer disliked the Germans (likely also influenced by his parents' particular type of religion) he shied away from statements that they had a bad (genetic) seed/fatal moral flaw, since he would have been in effect talking about his father's people, himself, and, by extension, his children.(PS: I know where my German grandfather's village is in Germany & have communicated with many relatives there -- tis in northern Wuerttemberg.  I also know where my Polish grandfather's village is in 1937 boundary of Poland)ANNRC (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, there was a lot here, let my try to see if I can get my head around what's being discussed here. The focus of the unstructured discussion above seems to resolve around "WHY" they were expelled. Let me make some observations, point by Point.


 * Value of the land occupied by Poland The former Polish territory that the Allies assigned to the Soviet Union had a population of maybe 3 million ethnic Poles, of which maybe 2.5 million were expelled. The former German territory Poland in turn received in the West and North was populated by many times that number of Germans. And in "industrial value, at least, Poland was the gainer; what Russia had taken from her was largely agricultural."


 * A big motive for the ethnic cleansing was land acquisition. Some editors seem to have a predilection to state that the territory was assigned, and not annexed. Maybe is was assigned, but not permanently and definitively. Where the border was to be had not been finally agreed upon, and when the U.S Secretary of State pointed that out in September 1946 it gave the Poles fear-hickups. As a famous army general would comment: "It was a shocking statement. It made us think that our western border was being questioned by the Germans and by other Western countries. It was one of the most important things that strengthened our ties with the Soviet Union.". So in shifting the Border the Soviets had succeeded in turning the Poles into a puppet state. But the Poles themselves also wanted the new rich land. The border was not finalized, so they needed a way to ensure there was no going back. The communists therefore already had ordered, "expel the Germans by whatever means necessary". As a result even the Russians expressed shock at the widespread Polish use of rape as a means to drive the Germans out. Nevertheless, even with most of the Germans gone, the Poles were still uncertain regarding the Polish future of the territory, and perhaps therefore continued to plunder it for years. For Breslau (Wroclaw) it is noted that "Astonishingly, in the early 1950s, up to 165 million bricks per year were collected and taken to building sites in Central Poland, while Wroclaw's dwindling stock of habitable housing fell into neglect and disrepar."


 * Polish communist reliance on enmity with Germany for the survival of the regime It is a disgrace that the article still links to the Recovered Territories as if that word denoted a piece of territory and not just a communist propaganda slogan, and it is symptomatic of the bias still present in the article and seemingly still promoted by some. The Polish regime needed various excuses to stay in power and used the "regained" concept, and a promotion of enmity with Germany as a way to rule the population, i.e. the fifth column excuse. The propaganda organ Western Institute no doubt produced a mountain of scholarly worthless books on the topic. A similar but anti-communist fifth column myth existed with regards to the Jewish population (Żydokomuna), where the survivors also ended up expelled. Thank heavens the "recovered territories" myth has been debunked, and I pity those whose world view is still firmly shaped by communist cold-war literature.


 * General Eisenhower. He actually proclaimed that the whole German people was a "synthetic paranoid" and that he saw no reason to treat them well. snippet view, other snippet.


 * Collective guilt. I cant really answer for what U.S. official opinion was during the war, but in the U.S. occupation zone they certainly believed in collective guilt. This type of poster was plastered everywhere. I.e. "You are guilty!". "In 1945 there was an Allied consensus — which no longer exists — on the doctrine of collective guilt, that all Germans shared the blame not only for the war but for Nazi atrocities as well.". This google book gives a good summary of the propaganda campaign of the first 6 months. And there certainly was an element of vindictiveness in the U.S. occupation, as admitted by the Military governor that succeeded Eisenhower. And besides, using German prisoners as a modern slave labor force for several years does not strike me as a very noble sign.,,


 * Plans for partitioning and dismemberment of Germany Just as Eisenhower Roosevelt didn't really like the Germans. He did in fact talk about sterilizing Germans (and Puerto Ricans...) and he had some ideas on how to dismember it, e.g. the Roosevelt Plan. East Prussia had in principle been promised to the Poles by the British already in 1939, but the rest was up for discussion. Churchill preferred partitioning what should remain German in only two parts, where the Southern Bavarian part would form a confederation of the Donau with Austria and Hungary as a means to keep it detached. In the end the 1945 committee on dismemberment of Germany didn't really make any headway, and the partitioning and dismemberment evolved on its own based on the same underlying mix of sometimes conflicting factors driving the Allies, such as economic and political security, i.e. make future Germany weak and keep the Poles and the others afraid of Germany and relying on Russia for future protection. Current viewpoint is that this kind of thing can happen when you start a war and lose completely.. The winner takes it all...


 * Allied complicity in the expulsions, and Czech responsibility It is indicative of the crappy state of this article that no mention is made of the fact that it was the Czechoslovakian government that first proposed expulsions, and managed to get the U.S. and U.K. to become willing partners in this criminal endeavor as early as 1943.. I say criminal since the Ex post facto laws clearly state that deportation is a crime against humanity. And if the argument that it is not ex post facto law is correct, then it is even more applicable, to ALL. It is also worth noting that neither the Hungarian people nor its government wanted to expel its German minority, but they were put under such heavy pressure by the Allies that they finally had to cave in and follow the Allies expulsion orders.see the section on Hungary.

To sum up, and side notes aside, i partly agree with Skäpperöd. While the U.S. certainly was in collective retribution mode, to couple that as a motive for the ethnic cleansing we need a good source that makes the connection. The article should however at a minimum, besides a mountain of other needed cleanup, note the British/U.S. complicity in the early wartime planning and preparations for the ethnic cleansing, i.e. going back to 1943 or earlier.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank heavens the "recovered territories" myth has been debunked I am quite interested in any historian who claims those territories were never part of Poland before.
 * Re "I am quite interested in any historian who claims those territories were never part of Poland before."
 * For many members of Western European cultures (& for the pragmatic folks of the U.S.), talk of having a historical claim based upon something that happened 800 or so years ago borders on the essentially meaningless. For example, the U.S. is a little over 200 years old; it is inconceivable here for most to become incensed over some historical action of 500 years ago as warranting a personal emotional reaction (although many do express concern over the slavery issue, which began here when it was a British colony).  The best we can do is have squabbles over what someone's great-great grandparent did or did not do to someone else's great-great grandparent in the U.S. Civil War of the 1860s -- that's only ca 150 years ago.  We simply can't get overly-exercised over something apparently unfair that happened 700 or 800 years ago.  I can trace some of my relatives in Germany back to the early 1500s; most people here can't trace ancestors back nearly that far (that's misty history to most of them).  I have names of a few of my 10th & 11th level greatgrandfathers.  I simply couldn't get upset over how someone stole their farm or caused great injury of some sort -- tis unreal to me . . . that's simply too long ago.  Whatever buildings, for example, that were in the "Poland"/Polish area(s) that was/were around the Oder-Neisse Line before the Germans moved in are likely long gone -- maybe I'm wrong, maybe you can post a picture or two of original Polish constructed buildings [which exist in the FAR WEST or even Center West of the Western Territories] from, for example, 1150, that somehow survived all reconstruction & wars since.  Please spare me the oft repeated phrase about how the Germans destroyed everything Polish -- here's a reality check: ALL CULTURES destroy lots of stuff over time and place; this includes in wars (to include civil wars, etc.).  Stuff gets destroyed when new construction comes along.   Here's a social science construct (I don't have a clue what your educational level may be): "In the overlapping and cross-cutting character of multicultural social relationships, a phenomenon of "cross-cultural conflict" occurs.  Such conflicts highlight the effects of cultural difference on communicational competence, and on mutual understanding or shared “metrics” and perceptions." . . . Of course, "time" as in "800 years ago" is a shared metric.  While I'm on the soapbox, let me share a couple of thoughts about Germans and Poles (since I am exactly half of each): almost all Germans I have met in my working experience here (namely, the ones who have German accented English) are part Polish !!!  Now, isn't that amazing !!!  I could name 5 of those people & in each case I was surprised when they told me that they had a Polish grandparent -- this happened over & over again -- way too frequent for it to be a fluke.  How did the subject come up?  Ans.  In initially meeting them I said that my mother's parents were German immigrants to the U.S. & that my dad's parents were Polish immigrants to the U.S. (they could tell when I introduced myself that my last name was Polish).  I saw the other day that Angela Merkel has a Polish grandparent as I recall.  Germans and Poles have lived side by side for 1,000 years, and not always at each others throats.  In the past (at the least) German Catholics had more in common religiously with Polish Catholics than they did with German members of Martin Luther's church (to which my mother belonged).ANNRC (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) PS:  I had relatives on both sides killed in WW2 -- Polish civilians, German civilians, one in the US Army in North Africa, one in the Wehrmacht-Heer in Poland in Dez'44, one in the Luftwaffe, & one in the 8th US AAF based out of GB(UK). (The one in the Luftwaffe was a Second Cousin to me -- Second Cousins share at least one greatgrandparent e.g., a Great-Grandmother -- Germans in the past had large families & my 2d Cousin was 30+ years older than me.)ANNRC (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"But the Poles themselves also wanted the new rich land." So you would argue that if Germany didn't raze down Poland to almost pre-industrial level as well as ruining Europe then such great acquisitions wouldn't be needed to repair those countries from German made destruction ? Of course those territories didn't help at all, because they were almost completely ruined by the war and for years Poland had to rebuild them from war damage-like Warsaw and Wrocław. Of course capital had priority. --Molobo (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Talk/Discussion page is becoming more informative than the main article, in what some would say was off-topic asides. My only comment on the statements immediately above is as follows:  General Eisenhower was referring to the behavioral/political consequences of the Germans in the German nation within then recent history, namely that historical events and consequences thereto (both "appropriate" and "inappropriate") had made them a "synthetic paranoid" (also, I doubt that Eisenhower desired his words to be too broadly circulated).  The distinction in all this is that the Germans (in Germany) were a product of their recent history and not, as some would have it at the time, that the amalgamation of tribes through history ending up/comprising "the Germans" were biologically/genetically (i.e., morally) defective.  The latter argument implies that morally defective Germans (i.e., to encompass 100% of emigrating Germans to many parts of the earth, which Germans tended to do) throughout "modern history" perforce took their biological/genetic ("moral") defect with them, and thus passed it on to their progeny.  Obviously, Eisenhower would have been reluctant to contemplate that he was thereby inherently/unalterably a moral defect/morally defective due to his father's ethnic German Stammbaum.ANNRC (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

View of a German minority as potentially troublesome
The following passage does not make sense: "There was an expressed fear of disloyalty of Germans in Silesia and Pomerania based on the Nazi activities of numbers of ethnic Germans during the war, and even after the end of the war." Comment: the Germans living within the provinces of Silesia and Main Pomerania (within the 1937 boundaries of Germany) were, by redundant definition, Germans, whose ancestors had lived in those areas since the early Middle Ages. The excerpted citation above implies that those Germans wouldn't be so-called loyal to Poland because a high percentage were supporters of Nazism. That is a disingenuous argument! The Polish administration of Silesia and Main Pommerania was, per the Potsdam Agreement, a "Temporary Administration". The Potsdam Agreement called for the expulsion of ethnic Germans from within the 1937 boundaries of Poland (repeat, Poland) up to the new border (Curzon Line) with the USSR.ANNRC (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) It is instructive also to note that the Polish Temporarily Administered areas of Southern East Prussia and the Versailles Treaty defined Free City of Danzig were not addressed in the section entitled "View of a German minority as potentially troublesome".ANNRC (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pomerania and Silesia here is related to Pomorze Gdanskie (Danzig Pommerania) and Górny Śląsk (Upper Silesia) within Polish borders. Maybe this should be clarified. Szopen (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Szopen, there is a problem in the use of "Pomerania" and "Silesia" in many wiki articles, as the corresponding Polish terms "Pomorze" and "Slask" primarily refer to the easternmost parts of these regions, whereas the western and central parts are adressed with "zachodnie" or "dolny" and "opole", respectively. I fixed that here by proper attributing and wikilinking the regions in question.

While doing so, I saw the argument "no party would agree with Germans remaining there due to their Selbstschutz etc activities" connected to these regions. Yet, Upper Silesia is afaik the only region where significant numbers of Germans were allowed to stay, although most had to "verify" as Poles und undergo Polonization. As it is put now, the factual outcome contradicts the point of the argumentation, any suggestions to solve that? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To Polish authorities those were Germanised Poles not Germans.--Molobo (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Add a "" or "" tag. It seems to be nonsense, and we should anyways not be using unverifiable Polish language sources here. Good polish historians are able to publish in English, the others can safely be ignored. Infact, looking at pages 411 and 412 of this we learn that the Polish authorities had two good reasons for wanting to keep as many as possible in Upper and lower Silesia.--Stor stark7 Speak 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stor Stark7, several good Polish historians do not publish in English, e.g. Modzelewski published excellent book on northern barbarians (about Germans and Slavs mainly) only in Polish (and which was only recently translated into French). Szopen (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

temporarily administered territory
I object using the word "temporarily", as it was used in the article, in context with former German territory placed under Polish and Soviet administration by the Potsdam Agreement. Although the P.A. did postpone the final settlement of these territories' status to a peace conference that never took place, we should use the term temporarily only in referring to this matter and not as a designation for these territories in broader contexts. I have removed the term from the article twice. (Note: This was only one reason for the removals, the other ones are stated in the respective edit summaries) Skäpperöd (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your terms "broader context". Are you saying that over the years the "temporary" status of the Polish (& Soviet) "Administration" of the eastern German provinces of East Prussia, Pomerania, Eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia (namely as they existed within the 1937 boundaries of Germany) magically went away because the Germans were mostly ethnically cleansed from those provinces & that by Britain, the U.S., etc. extending recognition to the People's Republic of Poland that that somehow removed the "Temporary" nature of the administration??  Please explain your position in terms of International Law.ANNRC (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The "temporary" status of the "territories placed under Polish/Soviet administration" is a construction made by politicians and lawyers to point out that a final settlement did not exist back then. As we all know, this state was not temporary, but it took both Poland and the USSR only a few years to establish a fait accompli (de facto ending the "temporary"), that was accepted by Germany in the respective border treaties (de jure ending the "temporary"). There was nothing magic about that. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in your assessment of the date frame for the "fait accompli". West German border treaties were years away from July/August 1945, unless you mean somehow that the 1949 created DDR was taking on the mantle of historical representative of the German Nation.  In the early years following the P.A. there was an impression that the final settlement would allow some of the expelled Germans back into (some of/parts of) the territories from which they were expelled.  This was a valid expectation under International Law.  Are you saying that ethnic cleansing is its own "fait accompli"?ANNRC (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't give an exact "date frame" for that. The first fait accompli was made even before Potsdam when the areas on the Oder and Neisse eastern banks were cleansed of Germans to influence the P.A. decision (prevention of settling on a line further east). The next "fait accompli" was presented between about 1948 and 1950, when the expulsions of the Germans and the contemporary resettlement of Poles and others was de facto finished. The longer the "new" settlers lived in the "temporarily" administered territory, and with the next generations born there, the less "temporary" was the character of the Polish administration. Afaik West Germany finally dropped the term sometimes during Brandt's Ostpolitik in the seventies. Given that it is veeeeeery unlikely these territories will become a part of Germany again, it does not make sense at all to now adress them as temporarily Polish - the term was only used because the outcome was not clear immediately after the war, and there was a hope of return based on international law in the first post-war decades in W.Germany. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your analysis. I wasn't addressing a context of the present land area of Poland (presently) containing "temporarily administered" provinces; rather, my context was that the "Western Territories" of Poland began as Temporarily Administered areas.  There are some contributers to wikipedia who seem to pretend there was never a "temporary" status to those territories, and that somehow the Potsdam Agreement awarded those territories directly and permanently to Poland (e.g., by mid-August 1945 they were permanently assigned to Poland).  I am suspicious of authors of history books which were apparent sources of such contorted history.  The linkage seems to be that since those lands were part of Poland ca. 800 or so years ago, the P.A. sanctioned their immediate return to Poland in August, 1945.  That was simply not the case in International Law, yet certain references in wikipedia point to the present borders of Poland as permanently determined by the P.A. in July/August, 1945.  Some of the allegations attempt to use indirection and generalizations; I suspect some hide behind a pretended inadvertent misconstrual of the English language by contributers whose first language is not English (a clever disguise when they are being deliberate in their misconstruals).  Those tactics are fairly obvious and seem to have gone unchallenged over an extensive period of time (maybe due to varying degrees of sympathetic reception?).ANNRC (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

4 Comments
1.	Since the Temporary Polish Administered areas of the eastern German provinces of southern East Prussia, Main Pomerania, eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia (based upon the 1937 boundaries of Germany) were contingent upon the “final settlement” of the World War 2 Peace Treaty, those temporarily administrered territories were de facto not considered part of Poland at the time of the Potsdam Agreement (P.A.). Of course, it was assumed (re International Law) that the final Peace Treaty would make such determinations re which, if any, parts of those territories would be returned to Germany.

2.	Accordingly, “Poland” in the following from the P.A. (“XIII. ORDERLY TRANSFERS OF GERMAN POPULATIONS The conference reached the following agreement on the removal of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary:”) could be considered as the land area of 1937 Poland up to the newly decided Polish eastern border, namely the Curzon Line. For consistency, assume the P.A. was also talking about the 1937 boundaries of Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

3.	 Where does it state in the following words that the transfers of German populations from the Temporarily Polish Administered areas of eastern Germany was authorized by the Potsdam Agreement? (“There should be a Provisional Government of National Unity recognised by all three powers, and that those Poles who were serving in British Army formations should be free to return to Poland. The provisional western border should be the Oder-Neisse line, parts of East Prussia and former free City of Danzig should be under Polish administration, but that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement.”)

4.	Note: “Appeals” (in whatever form they are proffered) are not legal interpretations.ANNRC (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Note: Per the Potsdam Agreement, Poland could have expelled all ethnic Germans from within the modified 1937 boundary of POLAND, as mentioned above, INTO the Polish Temporarily Adminstered eastern German provinces.ANNRC (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

reply to (1): see section above. It is legitimate to use the term Poland for both pre-war Poland and post-war Poland including her newly administered territories, because the latter became an integral part of Poland in the years following the Potsdam Agreement. The expulsion policies, authorities and measures were about the same, the former German territories did not have a special government (however a special ministry). That the new Western and Northern territories of PL had been only recently become Polish is stated in the article, a distinction is even made in the "Exp from Poland" section to address the circumstances that actually were different. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

reply to (2): Look up scholary sources if this your interpretion of the P.A. is stated by a reliable source, too. If not, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS and shall not be used here. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

reply to (3): At least the allies interpreted "their" P.A. to cover the expulsions from the former eastern Germany, and that is what matters. They agreed on quotas (how many expellies to which occupation zone) and provided the according infrastructure (though at a very minimal level). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

reply to the rest: This article is about what happened, and not about what could have happened. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please clarify for me: are you saying (in your reply to (1)) that, for example, in September, 1945 the term "Poland" in International Law encompassed the Temporarily Administered eastern German territories?? (I doubt if Truman or Churchill or DeGaulle would have agreed with you.)  If that is so, then the U.S. administered Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria would likewise be considered part of the United States.  Since the Occupying powers had unlimited authority within their occupation zones, the United States considered their occupation zones as extensions of the U.S. in matters such as selecting candidates for U.S. citizenship from Polish D.P.s within their zones.  Those Polish D.P.s could remain in the U.S. Occupation zones for years and years (somewhat equivalent to Polish populations transferred to the Temporarily Administered eastern German territories).  In International Law, in both cases, the eventual resolution would have been the final Peace Treaty of World War Two.ANNRC (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me clarify: (1) The territory that was to be administered by Poland following the Potsdam Agreement was explicitely not made an occupation zone by the very same agreement. You can read the Potsdam Agreement in full text version by following the external links provided in the Potsdam Agreement article. (2) To answer the question whether the former eastern territories of Germany were actually a part of Poland in legal terms or not, there has been a scholary debate on that, you will find plenty of literature on that. Basically, the Polish government said yes they were, and the (West) German government said no they weren't, both based their argumentation on the same Potsdam Agreement and were supported / opposed in their position by respective numbers of lawyers. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I deliberately used the date September 1945 in my question to you. Are you saying that the Polish government claims the Potsdam Agreement permanently assigned the eastern German territories to it as of August/September 1945? (is that some sort of de facto/de jure retroactive legalism i.e., ex post facto application?)     I am fully aware of the various eventuality/ies that occurred in some later time beyond that e.g., 1948, 1950, etc., etc.  This Wikipedia article "German Expulsions" reflects confusion simply by the fact that an early date is not addressed in terms of the status of the Polish Administered eastern German territories, such as, for example, the date of September, 1945.  I am also aware that the Polish Administered eastern German territories were separated from the original area of the Soviet Occupation Zone.  There are maps, including U.S. government maps, showing the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany prior to July 1945 as encompassing the German eastern territories of Main Pomerania, eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia.  Those maps ALSO include, in addition to the eastern German territories of Main Pomerania, eastern Brandenburg & Silesia, all areas that were actually to become the eventual Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany, which later became the DDR. ANNRC (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Red Army handed over control to the Polish administration only after the Potsdam agreement. Where did I say anything contrary? Now, before this discussion becomes overlength, what exactly (which specific sentences) do you want to have changed what way in the article? Let's rather discuss actual change proposals and not write essays for talk page archives. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the article (under Poland) simply say, "At the Yalta Conference, the Allies agreed to place certain territories that had been part of Germany under Polish and Soviet administration", and not mention anything about the Potsdam Agreement, and the contingent nature of those administrative assignments pending the final Peace Treaty of World War Two? Is this some sort of "political correctness"?ANNRC (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the Potsdam Conference to the sentence and made the paragraph a little more precise. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

this document is useful if you want to follow the transition month by month. I.e. at first the Poles paid lip service to the fact that the border was provisional and that there might be modifications whereby Poland would have to return some of the land, but that started changing by November 1945.--Stor stark7 Speak 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

== I don't see any attempted linkage anywhere in the article between the expulsion of Poles from the Soviet claim of land up to the Curzon Line, and the expulsion of Germans from the eastern German provinces ==

Is "Compensation" a code word? Is it actually stated/admitted anywhere that the Germans were expelled to so-called make room for the Poles expelled from east of the Curzon Line? Maybe Churchill was referring to that quid pro quo when at Yalta he stated, "It would be a pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that it gets indigestion." ANNRC (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixing Apples and Oranges
The following lead-in paragraph is from the section titled "View of a German minority as potentially troublesome"

During the unfree German election of 1933, which preceded the Enabling Act and thus was the last vote held in Germany before the end of World War II, the Nazi party's areas of strongest support was in those eastern areas of Germany whose population was later expelled. The German provinces of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Frankfurt on the Oder were the only ones where the Nazis received over 55% of the vote. The Nazis obtained over 50% in much of Silesia. One of the reasons given by Stalin for the population transfer of Germans from those territories was the claim that Germans from that area were a stronghold of the Nazi movement.
 * NOTE: This paragraph specifically addresses Germans living in 1937 Germany borders, yet the beginning of the very next paragraph addresses Germans living within the 1937 borders of POLAND!!: "There was an expressed fear of disloyalty of Germans in Eastern Upper Silesia and Pomerelia based on the Nazi activities of numbers of ethnic Germans during the war, and even after[citation needed] the end of the war."

For whatever reasons, the subject of Germans living within 1937 POLAND boundaries is intertwined in ambiguous transitions with Germans living within 1937 GERMAN boundaries in the sub-section entitled "Distrust of and enmity towards Nazi-influenced German communities". Stated another way, (1) the "Nazi-influenced German communities" within 1937 GERMAN borders, is mixed with (2) statements about "Nazi-influenced German communities" within the 1937 borders of POLAND !! Assisting this is the fact that BOTH 1937 Germany and Poland had areas, of varying sizes, which translate to English as "Pomerania" and "Silesia". This seems to be another of those areas where the mixing of such matters may be considered by some as a piece of political artwork.ANNRC (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Note: The context of "View of a German minority as potentially troublesome" can be spun as (1) referring to the German population in 1937 Poland; (2) as referring to a potential German minority in the Polish Administered eastern German areas that were within the 1937 boundary of Germany (i.e., after the incoming Polish expellees from east of the Curzon Line become a majority in those administered territories); or, (3) somehow implying that the subject is some combination of (1) & (2) &/or bouncing back & forth between (1) & (2) to keep the issue continually confused. Re #3: Thus my accusation of "political artwork in words".ANNRC (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no problem here-they are two different sources for this. One concerns the pre-war minority which in huge number comitted massacres of Poles in 1939 and the other the pro-Nazi attitude of German population in areas restored to Poland after 1945 and which was noted by Soviets.--Molobo (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be straightforward and clear. If the reference is to two separate historical contexts of German minorities, then the lead-in to each separate paragraph should clearly identify which minority population is being addressed e.g., Para #1, the Germans remaining in the Polish Administered territories (namely, the territories declared by the Potsdam Agreement); Para #2, the pre-war German minority in Poland.  Note: By lead-in I refer to the first few words of each subject paragraph.ANNRC (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)  In para #2, for example, the lead-in words need to be clear, namely, that it refers to the pre-war German minority in Poland.  I make the claim that most American & UK readers of Wikipedia are unaware of the distinctions in pre-WW2 Germany & Poland such that both countries used the names Silesia & Pomerania (in their own languages of course) to describe varying parcels of land which had meanings of different partial locations and histories to each country.ANNRC (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia
"After World War II, the majority of German-speaking people from Yugoslavia (mostly the Danube Swabians) left for Austria and West Germany. "

Thats nothing but untrue.

"Because of ethnic German support to Nazi Germany, specifically the mobilization of some in the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, many ethnic Germans suffered persecution and sustained great personal and economic losses."

There was NO support of the mayority of danube swabians. People were forced to join the german army.

"But some ethnic Germans did remain in Yugoslavia, particularly those married to local partners." Most of them where transported into concentration camps like Knicanin/ Rudolfsgnad.

Whole section is nothing but damn stupid bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seine hochwohlloeblichkeit (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Be bold, add the information, and source it. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering. Why is Slovenia listed seperately from Yugoslavia, when at the time of the expulsion they were part of yugoslavia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.96.186 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How the population transfer helped German economy in the long run-Social Structure in Divided Germany
Just one of many sources that can be found on the subject.

Social Structure in Divided Germany - Jaroslav Krejčí page 20.

Notes how Germans transfered to FRG became an asset that helped to reconstruct economy and provided needed manpower as well as consumers in the long run.

I believe a chapter how the population transfer helped Germany would be in order. We also shouldn't forget that those areas were the focus of most intense battles on German territory besides Berlin, and it was Poland not Germany that was burdened with the task of rebuilding them. --Molobo (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't most of the battles take place on agricultural land in the approaches to Berlin east of what became the post-war Oder-Neisse Line? There was not much rebuilding in the occupation zones of Germany between 1945 & 1947.  The Soviet Zone became a dismantling zone.  The Western Zone(s) were deliberately prevented from rebuilding by the Western Occupation authorities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia Subj. "German territorial changes": "Germany's eastern border was to be shifted westwards to the Oder-Neisse line, effectively reducing Germany in size by approximately 25% compared to her 1937 borders. The territories east of the new border comprised East Prussia, Silesia, the eastern part of Brandenburg, and two thirds of Pomerania. These areas were mainly agricultural, with the exception of Upper Silesia which was the second largest centre of German heavy industry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)