Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 15

Untitled

 * See also: WP:EEML

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus Aervanath (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II → Flight and expulsion of Germans —
 * Add "Flight": Although those who fled were expelled "in absentia" or upon returning, this was not foreseeable for the refugees, thus the flight/evacuations before the start of the actual expulsions which is covered in the article should be mentioned in the title as well. To seperately include "evacuation" in the title seems redundant as evacuation was no more than an (badly) organized flight which often enough turned into a spontaneous one.
 * Remove WWII qualification: (1) "after WWII" is misleading, flight as well as actual expulsion started already during the war. (2) The WWII-related flight and expulsion was the only major flight and expulsion of Germans ever. Though there were other events when Germans fled or were expelled, the late and post-WWII events are those usually associated with the terms. Per Naming conventions (precision)'s rationale, we should have a title precise enough to identify the topic, but avoid unnecessary qualifications. Per Dab other events could be dab-ed above the lead. — Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support (nominator) Skäpperöd (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I gave it some thought today, but as I mentioned in the discussion above, I not convinced a rename is necessary.  In respect of the addition of the word "flight", populations all over the world fled from advancing armies during WWII - what is notable here about the flight of the Germans is that it was rendered permanent by the later expulsions - the focus of this article.  Adding words such as flight or evacuation is unnecessary.  As for the reference to WWII, I think the words "after World War II" are necessary and don't represent "over precision".  The proposed title is way too ambiguous - it's not enough to say that the subject of the article represents the only major population transfers of Germans, because it isn't even clear from the proposed title that it deals with population transfers.  This is actually the sort of ambiguity that WP:PRECISION suggests we avoid.  Since this is not a DAB problem, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE isn't really relevant, nor are hatnotes the solution.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't have strong feelings on this issue. At the moment, like Skeezix1000 I don't see a need for a move and I also think that the qualifier "after WWII" is useful though not 100% accurate. If there's some strong arguments I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.radek (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support proposition 1 to add 'flight'; it is well documented that a tide of refugees preceded the Soviet advance westwards in 1944 and 1945, motivated by fear, of communism and also of reprisals. This amounts to flight, not expulsion or ethnic cleansing as was seen, for example, in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Let's be clear: there were many people who definitely fled, and expressed no desire to return; an 'expulsion' is not simply 'being denied the right to return to an area from which you have fled'. An expulsion is where either a) people bang on your door in the morning telling you that you'd better be on the road by midday or else; or b) populations get forcibly transferred by some kind of (quasi-)legal procedure. Undoubtedly there were also expulsions after the war, but this article does not solely describe an 'expulsion' when so many left in advance of those they feared (for whatever reason). Cautious oppose to proposition 2 to delete totally a time frame - I think the article needs a time reference in its title. I agree that 'after World War II' is factually incorrect, but I think some form of wording should replace it. Perhaps "Flight and expulsion of Germans 1944-50" would do, as that seems to be the period in question? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would not object to qualify with a date. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The self-imposed evacuations are already covered by Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II, and to a lesser extent German exodus from Eastern Europe and Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. This article should deal solely with the forced expulsions. The date qualifier is quite necessary; the proposed title is far too ambiguous. Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

The article has been moved several times. Wouldn't a summary of such moves be useful? Xx236 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Various German Civilian “Relocation” Statistics from Eastern Europe in Mid & Latter 1940s
High side figures: 12 to 16 million German civilians affected

Regarding Poland, German civilians were expelled by Soviet/Polish Communist authorities from the area within the 1937 borders of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the exception of northern East Prussia, which was subject only to repopulation by Soviet citizens as the original German population was expelled. Also regarding Poland, all ethnic Germans living within the Polish 1937 boundaries in the places redefined by the Nazis as the Wartheland; Westpreussen; Sued-Ostpreussen; Kreis Suwalki (Sudauen); & Bezirk Bialystok were subject to expulsion, regardless of whether the ethnic German civilians had lived in those areas in 1937, or had been transferred in by the Nazis after September, 1939.

Regarding events in Poland, some sources claim 2 million ethnic German Civilian deaths, including deaths during the “run away” time (in areas that were (1) within 1937 German boundaries, and (2) in areas within 1937 Polish boundaries); deaths directly caused by enemy action; and, deaths during forced expulsions. (Note: the “run away time” is loosely defined as German civilians fleeing the approaching Soviet Army during the war.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, let's do our best to make Wikipedia the home page of the lunatic fringe who a) don't even have the decency to sign up b) don't bring any sources c) don't have the slightest interest in atrocities committed by, under or during the 3rd Reich d) probably have a personal Nazi memorabilia museum/drawer at home. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is much vandalism at times, but most is caught within a short time by the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to Robert Trana, some two million Germans died in the process of Soviet occupation, Polish occupation, and forced deportation--most in the Western territories--of violence, hunger and disease. Robert Trana, 'Wysiedlenia Niemcow a Polski--refleksje na marginesie literatury najnowszej,' in Elzbiety Traba and Roberta Traba, eds., TEMATY POLSKO-NIEMIECKIE (Olsztyn: Wspolnota Kulturowa, 1997), pp. 28-29." Source: Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe, by Norman M. Naimark. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001, in n.111 on Page 228. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Allied Crimes against the Germans

 * Peter... the problem is that the Germans started this terrible war and they were the perpetrators not the victims. Ordinary Germans at the time were the perpetrators of the Holocaust. They were Hitler's willing executioners and had judged that the mass annihilation of Jews and mass murder of Poles was right. German civilian suffering at the end of the war was huge but blaming the victims for their suffering as you do above (Poles, Czechs ..) is not going to win you much sympathy, sorry...--Jacurek (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * one more thing, your comment contains many OBVIOUS historical inaccuracies. I don't want to go into details, maybe somebody else will.--Jacurek (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * re "Ordinary Germans at the time were the perpetrators of the Holocaust. They were Hitler's willing executioners ..." :This is an expansive statement which doesn't present much of a context, but implies a link to Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners". The Wilipedia article on "Hitler's Willing Executioners" has a section titled, "Critical Reception of Work":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Willing_Executioners ANNRC (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, these kinds of rants, reposted from Facebook (!!!) do not belong on the talk page anymore than they do in the article. Wikipedia is not a version of free bloging software. And that's even ignoring the extremist nature of these posts. This should be just deleted.radek (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@Brenton: It is not really helpful to copypaste blogs / oppinions of someone. WP:NOTAFORUM. It would be much more helpful if you precisely adressed the issues which in your view are missing / ought to be included into the article, and reasonably back that up per WP:V. How exactly do you want to expand/alter which sections/paragraphs? Sidenote: It was not a "German holocaust". The term holocaust should only be applied to the industrialized extermination of the European Jews, which has no cognate whatsoever in history. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jacurek: (now a little violating WP:NOTAFORUM myself...) You fully apply the principle of collective guilt. "The Germans" were perpetrators, "the Poles" were victims. Be aware that this is a strong personal view of yours and just imagine what would happen if you applied this on issues other than the expulsion of Germans. I am glad that I do not live in a country where the wrongdoings of a clanmember of mine enable the member of another clan to cut off my hands. And I think the law system you are subject to also follows the principle of individual guilt, qualified with "innocent until proven guilty", and that someone even if found guilty of one crime is not civilly dead meaning everyone is free to commit whatever crime they want on them. You would do good stepping back and thinking of the merits of this approach, which is common law and moral standard in all the "first" world. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd... this is not only my view and no, I do not apply a principle of collective guilt and I acknowledge that the German civilians suffered terribly after the war. They suffered however ONLY because of the insane policies of their nuts Nazi leaders THEY ELECTED and the war Germany started. Now....Let me ask you a question... What would have happen to the Poles or to the rest of the barely surviving Jews if Hitler have won the war?? I'm sure I would not be able to talk to you right now because I would not exist. Well...Hitler lost and as a result the German population suffered, but I and you, assuming you are German, are able to talk to each other.....and this is the difference.--Jacurek (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consequence of the war Germany started: Absolutely correct. But not the necessary or only possible one.
 * "ONLY because of the insane policies of their nuts Nazi leaders": This however is very speculative. The motor of the expulsions were Stalin and his (international) crew. As outlined in the article, punishment for Nazi crimes were one argument, though not really the argument of those who planned the expulsions, but rather of some of those who pursued them. When the truncation of Germany and the expulsions were planned however, rarely anyone knew what the Nazis really did in Central and Eastern Europe. But Stalin and Churchill knew what they wanted, and did not hesitate.
 * "insane policies of their nuts Nazi leaders THEY ELECTED": The Nazis did not get 100% of the votes, and the Nazis were elected eleven years earlier when only very few could foresee what they were up to. I cannot go into detail here regarding the political, economic and social situation in Weimar Germany that led to the Nazi victory. But the majority of the votes the Nazis got not for their extermination plans, which took shape only later.
 * "What would have happen to the Poles or to the rest of the barely surviving Jews if Hitler have won the war?" This is already the right question, but the wrong implementation. Yes, the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Poles and the Jews. Yes, that was evil. No, that does not mean that if the Nazis judge others solely based on racial criteria, that we do so too in respect to the Germans.
 * You said you don't apply the collective guilt principle, but in the same post you did again. "They" - the Germans. We are able to talk to each other because those who committed murder during and after the war, based solely on ethnic reasons, spared our (grand-)parents. This should prevent us from judging others based on their ethnicity, don't you think? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I used the term "they the Germans" to underline the "fact" and not to blame the whole Germans for it. I partly agree with you that there was more to it and there was another "evil idiot" in the East, Stalin, but facts are as they are. Germany started the war, they were the initiators of this conflict which led to the enormous suffering and destruction unseen in Europe until then. Now...who is there to blame for the eventual German suffering after the war, in most cases of innocent civilians, Wolf kids, raped woman and helplessness? "Three stooges" in Yalta, Teheran and Potsdam and their idiotic decisions to please Stalin? The Soviet Army? Poles and Czechs? Jews? ... or perhaps the Germans themselves? The German suffering after the war is indisputable but blaming the Poles as Peter did or even better, Polish Jews, who are also Poles, is simply disgusting...--Jacurek (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all let me assure you that we are not that far away in our views. If you'd replace "the Germans" and "the Poles" with "Germany" and "Poland", we would not have a big argument. Of course (Nazi) "Germany" and "Poland" are virtual bodies, maintained and able to act only via physical Germans and Poles, but not the Germans and the Poles. If Poland had tried/detained/expelled only those Germans who had actually ordered/supervised/committed atrocities, even if broadly defined and if executed with a "fair" amount of "collateral damage", the retrospect debate would be much different. But the expulsions/murders/atrocities were to a large degree indifferent to individual guilt and based on ethnicity only. They were not even limited to members of NS-organizations, and even those were not all guilty/supportive/aware of the Nazi crimes. In fact, the actual perpetrators were for the most part absent, like most adult males, when the flight and expulsion took place.
 * Both Polish governments, the exiled and the Communist ones, wanted German territory and they wanted the new Poland to be ethnically cleansed of Germans. The Polish vote in 1946 explicitly asked the Oder-Neisse question, and although this vote was held under somewhat dubious circumstances and the presented outcome cannot be taken for granted, it is undisputed that a significant proportion of the Polish populace supported the westward expansion and the ethnic cleansing evidently tied to it. It is also undisputed that it was not just Gomulka who cleansed, just like it was not only Hitler who engaged in mass murder and ethnic cleansing before, but that the orders of Gomulka and Co were willingly executed by other Poles, and that there were Poles who in this respect did not just do their "duty", but a lot more to Germans they encountered or detained in their camps and cellars. This is the undeniable Polish responsibility. But this does not mean that the Poles were responsible and/or guilty. It means that distinct Poles were perpetrators in this respect, and it does not mean that these Poles could not have been victims in another respect. In fact, all Poles were at least potentially victims of Nazi crimes, even those who were dubbed "racial Germans" by the respective SS bureaus, and many were not only potential but actual victims in this respect. That however does not make them victims in every respect.
 * Now what has all this to do with the article. I feel many editors dropped in here motivated by a desire to settle national scores, i.e. compare/equal one set of crimes with another and assign some sorts of ethnic guilt. This is not acceptable.
 * We must present data and not own conclusions, phrase everything carefully without weaseling and without an underlying personal interpretation.
 * We must carefully avoid generalization, especially by wordings such as "the Germans" and "the Poles" in cases where not all Germans or all Poles or whatever nationals were involved. Instead we have to properly attribute who said and did what exactly to whom exactly.
 * We must show the ties the expulsions have with the preceding war including the Nazi crimes, but we must limit this to where these ties actually are. The place for the preceding Nazi crimes is the "punishment" section, which should focus on elaborating on the ties, i.e. published ties and not felt ties. WWII events and Nazi crimes have numerous own articles and should be mentioned and linked instead of getting boosted to make a point; expellee=German=Nazi=guilty=civilly dead is a prime example for a synthesis.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Such comparisions as abover are not really appropriate as huge differences are in two situations which need to be pointed out

As to support for extermination-it was very high above 30% after the war according to available Allied data, needless to say we can expect it to be higher in the effect nationalist regions just as the votes for Nazis were higher.
 * -German removal was all there was to the action/The removal of Poles and Jews was part of far wider program of extermination which the Germans were not target of
 * -The Poles and Jews were targetted as creatures on lower scale to be exterminated by German state with appropriate legislation included/the Germans were to be moved to new German homeland in order to prevent violence.
 * -the German state during the war was based on ideology of racial genocide seeking to mass murder others as motive for its existance, no possibility of co-existance with Poles or Jews was possible or relations with Polish state/countries removing Germans had nothing against German state’s existance is some shape, and pursued relations either with West Germany or East Germany
 * -the exact stated reason for removing the Germans was among others the persistant nationalist orientation of the Germans in eastern territories, in part due to frontier nature of them. The area politically speaking has always been the primary nationalist region, dating back even to German Empire. They are many factors in this, too detailed to describe, but for example nationalist organizations were awarded money and membership was finanacially rewarded by German state in the region. The removal was seen as defence against German agression. On the other hand removing of Poles and Jews was quite openly justified by racist goals of German state during the war and quite openly described by German officials as agressive(which was in line with Nazi ideology of constant warfare)
 * -comparing Gomulka to Hitler ? That’s really uncalled for. You have a  ideologist activist for workers who became authoritiarian ruler and used state police against dissent to man who openly called for world war and exterminated tens of milions of people in the name of racial genocide while destroying Central Europe and creating a totalitarian state.
 * -the territorial aspect is of course yet another matter-Germans were removed from border regions that were Germanised in the course of centuries from the native inhabitants. Poles were being removed from core Polish areas such as Poznań where the first Polish state was established, or even areas with no previous German presence such as Zamojszczyzna. Again this shows that the extent and scope of German actions was different.
 * -The expulsion and extermination of Poles and Jews had background in expansionism of former German Empire’s attempts to win control over Central Europe(see Polish Border Strip Plan), of course Nazis greatly changed the former plans changing their scope and methods/the removal of Germans had background in the populations seeking the removal being subject to German made mass murder and racist policists and hoping to end this ordeal or any possibility of its return
 * -finally legal matters-German law in Third Reich included such legal conditions as higher status of househeld animals then Poles and Jews, I don’t think this was common in the international or any law at the time or now and things like injecting children of subhumans with poison don’t have any legal basis likewise putting people in gas chambers/The  re-settlement of Germans to Germany had basis in already existing events such as population exchange of Greece and Turkey for example
 * -as to resistance, sadly the available research shows that real resistance was a very tiny majority, we have to remember that around 51% of Germans voted for NSDAP and their political allies DNVP in elections. Even the most widespread resistance symbolised by Stauffenberg was influenced by fascism and nationalist ideas(for example while Stauffenberg did not want to exterminate Poles, he was quite in agreement that they are to be enslaved). True democratic resistance while it existed was very rare. Additionally the areas from which Germans were resettled were as mentioned before the centre of German nationalism.

However I might mention that the intentional or unintentional attempts to compare the two have actually been noted by historic community. Of interest is the remark that such process sometimes goes into trying to show everybody during WW2 as guilty in the same way, and by doing so erases all guilt in the line of “If everybody is guilty, then nobody is guilty at all”. Perhaps this would be good to add in post war events, of course referenced by scholary works which observe and study the issue. --Molobo (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To sum up-even a brief comparision between treatment of non-Germans by Nazi Germany and post-war treatment of Germans shows that the two are light years away and can’t be considered similiar. Where German state during Second World War engaged in industrial genocide aiming at extermination of whole nations, based on its core ideology of the time, the post-war resettlement of Germans was a population transfer based on previous similiar processes that were legal by current international law. One would need to really cut off several aspects of German made situation regarding Non-Germans.

=
================================================================== Comment to Peter: I served in the US Army in West Germany (1962-64, Gelnhausen). ALSO NOTE: Peter's paragraphs subsequently removed by an editor as being a quasi-forum.

1. I don't believe the bombing of civilians during war time is legally a war crime. 2. US President Roosevelt, Brit PM Churchill & Sov Premier Stalin approved what eventually became (via the Potsdam Agreement)an open-ended population transfer of all ethnic Germans from East of the Oder-Neisse Line. Roosevelt was dead and Churchill was no longer PM by the time of the finalization of the Potsdam Agreement. Per the Potsdam Agreement, theoretically all ethnic Germans were to be relocated to the West of the Potsdam Agreement determined Oder-Neisse Line (Stettin notwithstanding). The approved population transfers also covered all ethnic Germans to be transferred to Occupation Germany from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. 30 years later the Helsinki Accords (1975) made such ethnic cleansing against Human Rights, although it wasn't made retroactive to 1945. 3. The Nazis were well on their way to destroying Polish culture (which was one of their ultimate goals). Ca. 5.5 million Polish civilians were killed by the Nazis during the war (that figure includes 3 million Polish Jews). All of 1937 boundary Poland was intended to be ethnically cleansed (i.e., of all ethnic Poles and Jews) by the Nazis. 4. The policy in the US Occupation Zone of Germany between 1945 & 1947 had the effect of starving to death hundreds of thousands of Germans. The US State Department would not even let the Vatican send in supplies to starving German infants in the US Zone. 5. Most of West Prussia was assigned to Poland in 1919 following World War 1. ANNRC (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear ANNRC - the article by Professor Alfred de Zayas "Forced Population Transfer" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online since September 2008) explains why the expulsions were incompatible with international law in 1945. De Zayas analysed this issue at length in his seminal article "International Law and Mass Population Transfers" (Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 16, 1975) and in his book "Nemesis at Potsdam" (1-3 editions Routledge, 4-5 edition University of Nebraska Press, 6th edition Picton Press, Rockland, Maine ISBN-0-89725-360-4). The bottom line is that the Allies were not above international law, but had to abide themselves by it. The Allies broke general principles of law and numerous articles of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare (notably articles 42-56) when they displaced the German civilian population from the areas where their ancestors had lived for 7 centuries. It is interesting to note that there was no "causal nexus" between Nazi crimes and the expulsion of the German civilian populations. The Nazis committed plenty of crimes in occupied France, Belgium, the Netherlands, but the French, Belgians and Dutch did not expell the Germans of Cologne and Düsseldorf to the East, whereas the Poles and Czechs did expel the Germans of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, East Brandenburg, Sudetenland etc. to the West. This "forced migration" affected 15 million human beings, two million of whom perished (Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, 1958, "Die Deutschen Vertreibungsverluse"; Gerhard Reichling, "Deutsche Vertriebenen in Zahlen", 1985). Churchill himself referred to the expulsions as "tragedy on a prodigious scale". Bertrand Russell called it a crime against humanity, as did several US Senators and Congressmen. The socialist British publisher and philosopher Victor Gollancz condemned the expulsions in his books "Our Threatened Values" (London 1946, Left Book Club) and "In Darkest Germans" (1947). Churchill and Roosevelt bear responsibility because they "accepted" the principle of forced population transfer which originated with exiled Czech President Eduard Benes. There is no doubt that the expulsion of the Germans was many times worse -- and more costly in human lives -- than the "ethnic cleansing" we all abhor in the former Yugoslavia. As de Zayas elucidates in chapters 5 and 6 of Nemesis at Potsdam, the Western Allies did not want to have the Germans epelled -- this was, indeed, against their own interests as occupying powers, because, as Churchill aptly said, the millions of expelled Germans "brought their mouths" with them. Great Britain and the U.S. as occupying powers needed the Eastern German Provinces (which used to be Germany's bread basket) for food production. And the millions of German refugees from those provinces would need food and shelter in the West -- this could only come from the US breadbasket in the great plains of Nebraska. Indeed, the occupation of Germany cost the U.S. and Britain many millions of dollars. It is interesting to read in Chapter 5 of Nemesis at Potsdam that the drafter of article 13 of the Potsdam Protocol, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, and his American colleage Cavendish Cannon made it very clearly to the Soviets that they were against the expulsions -- but that since a situation had emerged in Eastern Europe whereby the Poles and Czechs were expelling the Germans in a cruel and disorderly manner, this should be supervised by the Allied Control Council and channeled into "orderly and humane" transfers. Article 13 was not a "blank check" to the Poles and Czechs -- on the contrary. It was, of course, ignored in Warsaw, Prague and Moscow -- as we know from General Eisenhower's and Robert Murphy's telegrams to the State Department in October 1945. Robert Murphy, by the way, wrote the preface to Nemesis at Potsdam, which has become a "standard" in Germany, having reached 14 editions, the last one "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" in a completely revised and enlarged version with Herbig Verlag, Münich. ISBN 3- 7766- 2454-K --Immerhinque (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) One account has it that the U.S. adopted the idea of debellatio (subjugation) in order to suspend The Hague Regulations in Germany by requiring unconditional surrender. In that specific context, population transfers (in 1945) did not fall within the specific context of the Hague Regulations.  Roosevelt announced the concept of unconditional surrender at the Anglo-American summit meeting at Casablanca in January, 1943.  That was well before the Tehran Conference in the latter part of 1943.
 * (2) Article 13 of the Potsdam Agreement put no limts on the amount of subject ethnic Germans to be expelled. Therefore, 100% was an operative concept.  So, the US & British signatures on the Potsdam Agreement accepted in effect the expulsion of 100% of ethnic Germans from east of the Oder-Neisse Line into Occupation Germany, which was West of the Oder-Neisse Line.  Some bureaucracy was involved, but that didn't change the significance of the US & British sign-off on the Potsdam Agreement: some lip service was given to the Allied Control Council (ACC) determining the numbers of Germans to be "resettled".  But, nothing was done when the ACC thus met, since it had no teeth unless the Soviet ACC representation agreed, for example, on any proposal brought up in ACC meetings (For general ACC information, see Allied Control Council).  The Soviet ACC representation never accepted anything less than the possibility of 100% German ethnic expulsion from  east of the Oder-Neisse Line into Occupation Germany i.e., west of the Oder-Neisse Line. So, the ACC (which comprised US, UK, & USSR representation) accepted the de facto specific wording and results of the Potsdam Agreement (including the sign-off by the US President and the British PM), namely that the Soviets, Czechs & Poles could expell 100% of ethnic Germans from their areas of Eastern Europe into Occupation Zone Germany (for the Poles this meant territory to include all 1937 German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the exception of northern East Prussia, which was destined for "final Peace Treaty" debate on incorporation into the USSR).  What the US President & British PM signed off when approving the Potsdam Agreement included the specific, stand alone words, "The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof . . . " : "German populations" is left open to legal interpretation as meaning 100% of the ethnic German population in any given area, to include virtually all areas under consideration.  The US & Brit members on the ACC knew by the end of their above indicated ACC meeting with the Soviet ACC representative(s) that that was precisely what the Soviets had in mind.  No influential member of either the US or British government stepped forward to effectively challenge the ACC in the direct aftermath of the ACC's roll over, and thus the Potsdam Agreement became a 100% solution, regarding ethnic German population transfers, and was completely controlled by the Soviets in that regard. (Note: I've noticed a pattern of contributers starting to pretend that the Poles had a certain amount of limited freedom in their aggressive behavior toward expelling ethnic Germans.  My advice to them: Get over it(!) . . . the Soviet Russians and their Army controlled EVERYTHING !! . . . there was no such thing as the Soviets later learning that the Poles had been harsh in some expulsion action and thus the Soviets (i.e., as a power center rather than individuals) were somewhat taken aback.  Those are FAIRY TALES!! -- the Soviets controlled what the Poles did and could have easily stopped any "outrage", whether it be caught in mid-process, or simply by preventing re-occurrences.  It is likely that the Soviets simply gave tacit approval to everthing the Poles did to expell the Germans -- both the Poles (in general) & Russians agreed upon the major issue: the expulsion of the Germans (not much room for sentiment in such proceedings).)
 * (3) In 1945 NOTHING COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE in the Eastern Europe countries "liberated" by the Soviet Army without explicit or tacit Soviet agreement. Specifically, this includes the "Wild transfers".ANNRC (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis committed plenty of crimes in occupied France, Belgium, the Netherlands, but the French, Belgians and Dutch did not expell the Germans of Cologne and Düsseldorf to the East, whereas the Poles and Czechs did expel the Germans Did you read on differences between occupation of Western and Eastern Europe ? For starters the French were not classified as untermenschen.--Molobo (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding (1) and most of (2) by ANNRC: When you de-contextualize the flight, evacuation, and expulsion of Germans (both pre-war inhabitants and post-1938 settlers) from Eastern Europe and the former Eastern German provinces, you completely eliminate one of the central reasons why it occurred (and was agreed to by all the Allies): namely that the German nation bullied, threatened, and finally subjugated other sovereign nations based on the concept that, simply because some of the population of those nations had German ancestry, Germany had the right to annex the territory of those nations. The expulsions were nothing less than a means of eliminating this "claim" from being a future cause celebre to a nation that had already been instrumental in causing two catastrophic wars in three decades, and acting barbarously (as a matter of official state policy) in the conduct of those wars.
 * Regarding the rest of (2) and (3): Making the USSR out to be an all-seeing, all-knowing big brother in 1945-48 is simply laughable. Historically (as opposed to your contrafactual argument), lots of things went on in this period that occurred "without explicit or tacit Soviet agreement". Or do you deny that armed resistance to Soviet occupation existed, not only in the nations 'liberated' by the USSR, but in areas of the USSR (the Ukraine, for one) as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.50.135 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Population transfers were recommended as a means to the end you described, but all parties except the Soviets sought them on a much more limited scale than what ensued. The Americans and Brits caved in to the Soviets at Potsdam under the (their own) guise that a final peace treaty would be forthcoming, at which the final outlines of land areas & associated population transfers would be determined.  The more the Americans and British faltered in the Potsdam discussions, the more the Soviets pushed and succeeded in their aims.
 * All of the mentioned resistance to the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe "in 1945-48" was minor (or "relatively minor" if preferred), given that millions of Soviet soldiers were in eastern Europe.  In the larger picture, for example, the Soviets controlled the Polish Communist apparatus - the Polish Communists did what the Soviets wanted done.  For example, if the Soviets had wanted all the Germans that were in Silesia in May, 1945 to remain there, they would have remained, regardless of what the Poles wanted.ANNRC (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Legality of the expulsions
re "Timothy V. Waters argues in 'On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing' that if similar circumstances arise in the future . . . [it] would also allow the future ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law...." Comment: "similar circumstances" would by definition involve "unconditional surrender". Likewise, de Zayas says nothing about "unconditional surrender" in his book "A Terrible Revenge".ANNRC (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights
RE: "Ayala Lasso gave the German expellees recognition as victims of gross violations of human rights at the memorial service at the Paulskirche in Frankfurt a.M. on 28 May 1995" Comment: Given the international organizational focus on human rights starting about 1949 (Geneva Convention) and on-going, the assumption must be that if a future war includes specifications of "unconditional surrender", that the international organizations will be more pro-active in safeguarding human rights than they were, say, in 1943 when Roosevelt pushed for unconditional surrender. And of course, the climate of 1943 was followed in the same vein by that of 1944, 45, 46, etc.ANNRC (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.N. Charter was signed June 26, 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 07:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added
Added on legal aspects in regards to UN Charter. Shortened the De Zayas quote. Although he is personal backer of BdV far more important people are not quoted.--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic sentence
Expulsions and resettlements of other ethnicities took place contemporary to the expulsion of the Germans. From Tito's Yugoslavia, not only the Germans, but also most Italians were expelled.[43] Poland did not only expel Ethnic Germans, but also expelled 482,000 and resettled 140,000 Ukrainians[44] (Operation Wisla).

What does this mean, expelled 482,000 Germans or 482,000 Ukranians? But it says it expelled "not only Ethnic Germans"...on the other hand, why would different figures be given for resettled and expelled Ukranians? Can someone clear this up?--Npovshark (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Both figures probably refer to Ukrainians. The 482,000 figure probably refers to the overall number of Ukrainians that were expelled, while the latter to those who were resettled to somewhere else in Poland (generally in the west), the remainder being forced to move to Soviet Union. That's my guess at least.radek (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah - look at Operation_Wisla.
 * Population transfer to Soviet Ukraine occurred from September 1944 to April 1946 (ca. 450,000 persons) and The second event occurred in 1947 under Operation Wisła . The Rusyn and Ukrainian population that still existed in southeastern Poland were forcibly resettled to western and northern Poland. The resettlement to West-Poland occurred from April 28 to July 31, 1947, and involved 130,000 - 140,000 persons who were internally relocated in Poland.
 * So 'expelled' here means expelled to Soviet Union. 'Resettled' means resettled internally within Poland.radek (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Condition of the expellees after arriving in post-war Germany
I did quite a bit of editing to this section to make it read better--fixed grammar and re-wrote sentences, but did not make substantive changes. Please give it a look and feel free to change or revert what I did. Again, I didn't change anything fact wise, just tried to make it read better. If anyone reading this likes what I did, let me know and I can work on other parts of this article. Or if I did something wrong with my editing, please let me know that as well for guidance with future editing. Thanks. Slgordon3 (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

thought this interesting
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,600216,00.html

67.220.47.150 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Evacuation to Denmark section
The entire "Evacuation and flight to Denmark" section is based on a single self published vanity press source Books On Demand. Per this talk ("they don't do any editorial review at all") the entire section should be removed unless reliable sources are found.radek (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the section is based on an English language article of the "Spiegel" news magazine, which is available online. Just some minor details are based on the BoD source, there's no reason to remove the whole section. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Self published sources
Actually, the entire section is based on self published sources, not some SPS "among others" - there's not a RS in the entire section. Furthermore, the usual criteria for inclusion of SPS material is that the text either a) is about the source itself - as far as I can tell this section is NOT about "Erwin Ay, Rettende Ufer" or b) if the source is produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications - neither is the case here. Without a single RS to support it this section simply needs to go. Here's the policy link radek (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Copypasted fork here)


 * As HM has already outlined above, the section also contains many other references, see: Manfred Ertel. "A Legacy of Dead German Children", Spiegel Online, May 16, 2005 Skäpperöd (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

== In view of the desire of ethnically homogeneous nation-states it didn't make a sense to drew borders through regions which were already inhabited ethnically homogeneous by Germans without any minoriti ==

This is currently in the section "A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states". Comment: There is a difference between "temporary borders" and "permanent borders". . . all borders in the 1937 land area of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse Line (including the Oder-Neisse Line itself) were temporary borders pending the final Peace Treaty for the European part of WW2. The Potsdam Agreement authorized the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from within the 1937 borders of Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please put a stop to this insanity...
I browsed into this page and I'm seriously confused. Since I'm native Polish living in Poland and I know a thing or two about both 20th century history and Wikipedia's structure it can't be a good thing. If I wanted to delve into the place of Poland in the subject I could read about it in this article, however that's but scratching the surface of the problem. At least it's apparent after seeing all this other pages that cover this issue in context of Poland as well:
 * German exodus from Eastern Europe - Almost identical to this article, not counting the countries the authors didn't manage to include in their definition of "Eastern Europe". The term is used very creatively as not even the article on Eastern Europe lists so many countries allegedly located there. Anyway, Poland is a country in Central Europe. The problem is that so is Germany. The article's title wouldn't make sense were it correct. Not to mention IMHO exodus implies voluntary relocation, which hardly was the case here.
 * Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland - Contains many passages from this article and the one above. Either of the two should be removed, preferably German exodus from Eastern Europe, which also has a flawed title.
 * Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century - Article very badly written, not even sourced properly. Were it deleted nobody would cry (except for the author maybe).

If redundancy could kill this bunch of articles could in time generate a higher death toll then Hitler and Stalin combined.

Seriously now - this here is a prime example of content forking, which in turn is grounds for deletion. The articles on more detailed subjects actually contain less relevant information on the then this parent article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewelyn MT (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you know a thing or two about 20th Century history will you agree that "The Potsdam Agreement authorized the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from within the 1937 borders of Poland."? A simple answer will suffice i.e., keeping the answer responsive to 1945 Germans living within the 1937 boundaries of Poland.  Lets call this "Step One" (& therefore it needn't address issues beyond the specific wording in the question).


 * As we can see in the preface of the article about ethnic cleansing the term was coined in 1990s for a very different thing. First of all it implies the active and aggressive role of the local population. There's no evidence anything like that took place on a large scale. The differences between German relocation of Polish people and relocation of Germans from Poland was that the Germans were allowed to pack their things before departure and didn't travel in railroad cars meant for cattle. I'd prefer to call it pressured ethnic emigration to avoid further confusion.
 * Also, the article seems anti-Polish to me. Poles didn't take part in drawing of the new maps for which they're held responsible. I find sentences like this annoying: "Another motivation was to punish the Germans who some argued were collectively guilty of the Nazi war crimes by ethnic association." "Some argue"? Duh. Of course we blamed the Germans. See why. Nazi Party was elected by nearly half of the voters and there was no meaningful opposition to the Nazi politics in Germany throughout the war. Llewelyn MT (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Whatever its label, what was accomplished in 1945 and beyond east of the Oder-Neisee Line was ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is done by governments, not "local populations" - the Potsdam Agreement provided a mandate for the ethnic cleansing of all German lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line (plus centuries-established German ethnic settlements in Czechoslovakia and Hungary).  (2) If you will do some research you will find pictures of expelled Germans stuffed into railway cars - it's not that difficult to find on the internet. (3) Poles did in fact take part in preparing proposed maps of shifting the boundary of Poland to the Oder-Neisse line.  Again, research will readily reveal such matters.  Such proposals date from early in the war and involve the Exile Polish government in London. (4) Several of the Polish contributers to the English language Wikipedia over the years have, via various outbursts, created the tone of the "collective guilt for Nazi war crimes by ethnic association."  Again, a little research will bear this out.  Note: Of course such ethnic Polish contributers could be located outside of Poland in any of several countries.  Caveat to #(1) above: the orginal mandate from the Potsdam Conference was for the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and from within the 1937 boundaries of Poland west of the Curzon Line.  But that fine print didn't stop the Polish Communist government from ethnic cleansing most of the German eastern territory that had been temporarily assigned to Polish Administration by the Potsdam Agreement, pending the final Peace Treaty of World War 2.  Caveat #2: Ethnic Cleansing: it is up to the governments to control/manage/represent "local populations" -- by not doing so in some situations the results lead to ethnic cleansing; in other situations the government deliberately incites one part of the population to engage in ethnic cleansing (this includes "participating" in the ethnic cleansing via use of government militas/police/other military). ANNRC (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Llewelyn that a sub-article should neither hold less nor just the same information as the respective section(s) in the parental article, and I agree with Llewelyn that the present structure needs to be optimized. I think the confusing structure contributes to the partial redundancy of the articles, and is caused by the unability to cut the masses of information along properly defined lines. Finding such lines however is difficult: Right now, the articles on "German history outside Germany" are split along the lines of settlement vs exodus on the one hand, and territorial definitions on the other hand, with the latter causing most of the difficulties. There just were no defined stable territories over history, including Germany itself. What kind of a hierarchy would you propose to solve this? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all I do admire the editorial balance of this article. It gives key points and sends you to many pages on subtopics for more info. We should create some logical structure to the whole series. The best would be to take the post-war borders into account. I'm pretty certain we could get rid of German exodus from Eastern Europe and Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century. Relevant parts from the first could be moved here. The other may not even be worth keeping, but I'm not a historian so it's not for me to decide. From a purely technical POV that's a substandard article. Llewelyn MT (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with your rationales. Regarding the "Exodus" article: that one is no more than a dab page filled with abundant masses of unsourced redundant stuff. I'd support turning it into a real dab page or even deletion. Regarding the unsourced "20th cty emigration" article, that could be merged to "German minority in PL" (in other words - deleted as well). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: The 20th cty emigration was turned by a dedicated editor into a sourced, solid article about post-war emigration. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi-occupied Warsaw
How does the unsourced paragraph about atrocities in Nazi-occupied Warsaw fit in this article? Of course it needs to be outlined that the expulsion of Germans was - among other reasons - justified by holding them collectively guilty of the preceeding Nazi atrocities. This is already stated and sourced, and the atrocities itself already have their own articles. What qualifies the Warsaw events to be in this article? How does the paragraph comply with WP:UNDUE? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Warsaw "events" as you call it, are a very important part of the countless crimes that the Nazi Germany commited in Poland therefore it has a place in the article. Loosmark (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it was a Nazi crime committed in Poland, but the question is why it is in this article? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? It was one of the biggest crimes against the Poles plus the capital was completely devastated by the Nazi bandits. It is therefore useful to explain why many Polish people felt they cannot longer live in the same country with Germans anymore. You know to prevent the casual reader of the article thinking these expulsion came "out the blue". Loosmark (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The casual reader should receive the message that the expulsions were agreed to at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. They should also be aware that Stalin outmaneuvered the gullible Western Allies at both those conferences.  Stalin didn't care about the Poles (he killed 22,000 Poles, mostly Polish military officers, at Katyn in 1940); Stalin was more concerned about gaining back lands lost in the early 1920s, namely lands within the 1937 Polish border east of the Curzon Line.  That land area had a population which included 40% ethnic Poles.  Stalin needed somewhere to dump those Poles, so he proposed that Germans be moved west & the Poles be moved west.  Roosevelt was dying in 1945 - he was easily outmaneuvered by Stalin.  By the Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945 Churchill had lost power and had to leave the conference early, and Truman was tied down by Roosevelt's commitments, so Stalin got his way again.   The casual reader should also receive the message that the "Wild" expulsions by both Russian and Polish authorities were begun east of the Oder-Neisse Line and long before the end of July 1945 Potsdam Conference which ONLY authorized the ethnic cleansing of Germans from within the 1937 borders of Poland, and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary.  The Potsdam Agreement separated all German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line from "Occupation Germany" (all of that German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line had been part of the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany prior to the Potsdam Conference).  Most of that German territory was placed under temporary Polish Administration pending the final Peace Treaty for World War 2.  The Potsdam Agreement also stipulated that Northern East Prussia to be  placed under temporary Soviet Administration pending the final Peace Treaty for World War 2.  Note: there is a distinction between "Occupation" and "temporary Administration" as delineated by the Potsdam Agreement. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill were in favor of Poland extending all the way to the Oder-Neisse Line.ANNRC (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the point of writting these long rants on this talk page? A lot of what you write is true however this is the expulsion of the Germans article not the territorial changes or the Potsdam Agreement article. Let me repeat again, the terrible Nazi-German crimes which caused countless victims were responsible for the anti-German feelings among Poles. This is crucial as otherwise the Germans could have remained in postwar Poland as Polish citizens of German nationality. Another thing is that nobody here is arguing that Stalin wish to grab as much teritory as possible wasn't the main driving force behind the teritorial changes but wihtout everything that happen before that he would have never been able to pull that off. Loosmark (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So-called "long rants" are better than short half-truths (which seem to thrive on such Talk pages). If enough short half-truths are assembled in, say, a conspiracy, then they are proclaimed as TRUE.  Boundaries are somewhat arbitrary re the background of such matters as "expulsions of the Germans" . . . so, "territorial changes", "the Potsdam Agreement", "Nazi-occupied Warsaw" could become boundary issues, depending upon their substance and how salient/germane such substance is to the matter at hand.  Re your point about Germans remaining in "Poland" (you use that term without defining which Poland you are talking about, whether it be the 1937 boundary Poland (minus, of course, the territory east of the Curzon Line), or the added on Potsdam directed Polish Temporary Administrative areas of German territory): you seem to be missing the point that it was not up to the Poles as to whether or not relatively large populations of Germans were to remain -- Stalin called the shots.  There was no separate Polish freedom that somehow skirted Stalin.  Poland was Stalin's flower bed - he didn't want any German flowers in his flower bed; rather, he wanted nice, obedient Polish Communists.ANNRC (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And what are these half-truths you are talking about? I really don't understand what point are you trying to make. I already agreed that Stalin was calling the shots, my point was simply that without all the sh*ts the Nazis did things would have been very different. And yes the Polish communist were indeed very obedient to Stalin (note that the German commies in the DDR were just as obedient) but a great part of Polish population was both anti-communist and anti-soviet so from that perspective there wasn't really much a difference if the Germans stayed where they were. Loosmark (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Polish German history was never too friendly but WW2 and what happened in Poland at that time was "SOMETHING"..Loosmark is right that if not for the war the anti-German sentiment in Poland would not be even close to what it was right after the war. It was probably hard to find people in Poland at that time who would feel sorry for the Germans driven out of their homes. Almost every Polish family lost somebody due to the German invasion...I hope our German editors here will understand how sensitive this subject is for Polish editors. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OFF-TOPIC: Regarding Polish family losses in WW2, the Soviets occupied ca half of Poland between Sept 1939 and June 1941. They contributed to the losses to Polish families - anyone who lived in that area during that time was aware of Soviet actions.  Here's from Wikipedia, Subj "Soviet invasion of Poland": "The 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland was a military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939, during the early stages of World War II, sixteen days after the beginning of the Nazi German attack on Poland. It ended in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army. . . . During the existence of the People's Republic of Poland, the invasion was a taboo subject, almost omitted from the official history in order to preserve the illusion of "eternal friendship" between members of the Eastern Bloc.[15]"ANNRC (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very right ANNRC. Anti-Soviet sentiments in Poland were also very strong after the war. I would like to say something positive here...Anti-Russian sentiments are still strong in Poland today but you can't say the same about the sentiments towards the Germans, they are rather positive. Looks like the old wounds are slowly healing. Thank you for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment below was somewhere else when I introduced it and got swept away when the thread "grew". It does NOT refer to the above comment. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are arguing collective guilt here, a concept that played a role in 1945, and as such is explained already in the article. The outdated collective guilt concept however must not be the basis for this article - the expellees did not destroy Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What a silly straw man; I'm not are arguing collective guilt and I most energetically reject such accusations. My point was the expulsion of Germans needs to be placed in the proper historical contex. Just consider this: after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor killing around 3000 people there were a lot of anti-Japanese feelings, they were put in camps etc. The Nazi Germany brutally killed many millions of Poles, almost everybody lost at least some family member etc. In that context it was impossible to expect that the German and Polish people would leave together as if nothing happened. It's very regrettable that many Germans were expelled but their expulsion was a direct consequence of the Nazis' atrocities and horrors. Loosmark (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Loosmark here. Anti German sentiment was very strong in Poland at the time. (not anymore) People were terrified by the sound of the German language alone. I remember my grandmother telling me that if I had ever suddenly shouted "halt!" behind her back she would have died. She was in real hell during the German occupation. You have to understand that Skäpperöd. On the other hand ordinary Germans can not be blindly blamed for everything. Wermaht soldiers for example just followed orders, even while burning Warsaw or shooting at Polish or Jewish civilians. They had no choice, they fought for their country and were tottaly brainwashed. I have heard many nice stories about Germans in Poland even from my Grandmother who told me about Germans she knew who were afraid of Gestapo themselves.--Jacurek (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacurek I think we should be carefull with the explanation they were following orders. To a degree that is correct but at some point that stops to be an excuse, most certainly when it comes to war crimes and horrible crimes against civilian population. Mind that many Nazis at the Nuremberg trials and elsewhere were saying that they were just following orders and didn't have other choice. The view of most post-WII tribunals like Nuremberg, Tokyo and more modern ones like Haag is that following orders can't be used as an excuse. Loosmark (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, you have a good point. I was talking about regular German soldiers, civilians, women, children etc... What could the soldiers do? Once ordered to shoot at the civilians they had no choice. And if the civilians were Jewish they probably believed that they are doing the right thing. Nazi propaganda thought them that the Jews are the biggest threat to them...threat to the "superior" race. We know how ridiculous that German superiority complex was, but many Germans at that time really believed that they are better and that the Jews or pure Poles have to go. I don't blame them for being brainwashed. Not all Germans were so stupid to follow Hitler blindly either. My concern here is the fact that sometimes people are trying to portray Germans as the victims of the war. German suffering was not even close to the suffering and the destruction their country (Nazi Germany) inflicted on other nations. Germany is  a democratic, prosperous nation now, nation full of happy people which are looking into the bright future. Polish Jews are no longer here…1000 years of rich culture and their people have disappeared... and this is the difference.--Jacurek (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, has somebody ever imagined that the statement "is a democratic, prosperous nation now, nation full of happy people which are looking into the bright future" could be made today (or could have been made earlier) about certain states if only they in 1918 (and again in 1945) had taken a less hostile stance towards the numerous Germans within their newly drawn borders? After all, these goverments took effective measures to make them Germans outside their borders. And, on top of that, desire for further territorial gains "recovery" at the expense of Germany (and other states) was expressed, at least by some factions. They sowed the whirlwind in the 1920s and reaped the hurricane in the 1930s. -- Matthead Discuß   13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well many Poles as well as other people had to live outside their borders too... As for this comment They sowed the whirlwind in the 1920s and reaped the hurricane in the 1930s. it's a bit out of place as nothing can excuse the brutality of the Nazi regime. Loosmark (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To Jacurek. So after the rich jewish culture of Poland and other countries was destroyed (at this point, I want to ask what happened to the last Jews in Poland which survived the Holocaust?), it was good and clever to destroy also the rich culture of the polish Germans, the rich culture of the Silesians, of the Pomeranians, of the East Prussians (the culture of the people which built cities like Breslau, Stettin, Danzig and Königsberg)? And also the culture of the Germans from Bohemia and Moravia, of Slovakia, of Russia, of the Baltic States, of Yugoslavia, of Transylvania and of Bessarabia (the culture of the People which were invited to make modern States of this countries)? And I don't think that the People which didn't survived the Expulsion are now happy People in a modern Germany full of happy People, they never arrived there, and may are buried somewhere anonymously. Jonny84 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnny..I knew that somebody will bring Polish post war anti-Semitism right away...I just knew it...What happened to Jews in Poland after the war was not mass genocide and it happened ONLY because of the the war and communist take over. Jews would never leave Poland and would still live there and prosper if not for the sick minded Nazis and their "brilliant" plans for Germany. With all the anti-Semitism that existed in Poland before the war, Poland was still the best place for the Jews to live in. Poland was their country and they loved as much as Germans loved Germany. People of Warsaw in 1939 fought to defend their city like no others and guess what...one third of them were Jewish. Now...do I think that it was good for the German culture of Stettin and Königsberg to be destroyed and that the German civilians suffered rapes and expulsions after the war. Absolutely not. But what I also think is that if not for the crazy German Nazism and if not for the war Germany started...Polish Jews would still live in Warsaw and Germans in Königsberg.--Jacurek (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You neglected to include all of the German cities identified by Jonny: it wasn't just "German culture of Stettin and Koenigsberg (that was) destroyed" . . . Jonny didn't just mention Stettin and Koenigsberg; he said, "cities like Breslau, Stettin, Danzig and Königsberg". What happened to Breslau's University ??????? ANNRC (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ANNRC, please do not try to provoke conflicts with unconstructive comments. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Polish Jews would still live in Warsaw" This is questionable after the bigger part of the last Jews in Poland which survived were discriminated and were forced to leave Poland between 1968 and 1970. Maybe you forgot about it? Does Jews blame you for this? Should you expel some Poles? Not? Maybe for the pogroms? Wouldn't it be justified? -- And your argument "it happened ONLY because of the the war and communist take over." is so good like "it happened ONLY because the Nazis take over." --Jonny84 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jonny, 1968 events are also connected to the war and the communist takeover after. And no, I did not "forget" about it. Perhaps you should read more about it so you can understand what happened. I can assure you that if Hitler was never born, there would be no need to build the Museum of the History of the Polish Jews in Warsaw because these people would be still there and not in heaven as they are now.... but thanks for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find comments like yours silly. Nobody here is arguing that the expulsions of the Germans were a good thing. The point is simply that after the Nazi Germany triggered the most brutal and horrifying war in hitherto history, a war in which 6 million Polish citizien died (many of them in most atrocious circumstances) and where the majority of Polish cities were devastated and destroyed, it is completely unrealistic to expect that the Polish people still wanted to live on with the Germans as it nothing happened. I'd say that Hitler and the Nazis are directly responsable for the distruction of the rich German culture. Loosmark (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody disputed what happenend in Poland? But... recompensing crimes with crimes is a very questionable thing. There is no law that links crimes with the expulsion of people as a punishment or there is no law that recompense crimes with crimes. Somebody who make crimes isn't better like Germans which make crimes. A crime is a crime. And a crime could never be a justification for another crimes and wrongs. - Maybe you find this silly, but for some people it's maybe silly to argue that expellees have a good life now (like nothing happened to them) and that there is nothing wrong with expulsions, "cause they're living now in a modern democratic state where everybody is swimming like in gold". And at last, Polish people hadn't to live on with Silesians, Pomeranians and East-Prussians, 'cause they lived by the majority outside of the polish settlement area, so what is your point? This is a silly argument. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnny, of course it was very wrong what happened to the German people who lost everything and had to leave their homes, but the question is: Who is there to blame for it? The Soviets? Three stooges in Yalta, Teheran and Potsdam? Poles, who could say as much as the bricks in the Berlin Wall and had to leave their Kresy homes behing as well?... or maybe the Germans themselves for starting this evil conflict in the first place?--Jacurek (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to blame somebody, but there is a possibility to undo. - Jonny84 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonny84, the expulsions of Germans cannot be compared in any way with the crimes that the Nazi Germany perpetuated on Polish and Jewish people. If you don't get that i suggest you take and read some good book about Auschwitz, Dachau or Treblinka. I don't understand what do you mean by Polish people hadn't to live on with Silesians, Pomeranians and East-Prussians, 'cause they lived by the majority outside of the polish settlement area. Perhaps you should elaborate a bit and try to make some sense. Loosmark (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a pause, take a deep breath and then read a second time: Nobody compared the expulsion with the Holocaust and the sufferings of the Jews. I only called the expulsion a crime, without any comparison. Think about this and if necessary also a second time. The only ones who tries to make comparisons are you and Jacurek. -- Jonny84 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you try to backpedal now. Nice try but you said this Somebody who make crimes isn't better like Germans which make crimes. A crime is a crime. Loosmark (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And where is the relation? --Jonny84 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Stalin was the main driver behind the expulsion of the Germans. Do you really believe that Stalin was concerned about the suffering of the Poles by the Nazis?????  Churchill and Roosevelt never envisioned the almost 100% ethnic German expulsion from east of the Oder-Neisse Line.  Again, Stalin was the driver in all of that (Polish Communists were Stalin's lap dogs). Stalin preyed on the dying Roosevelt at Yalta, and outmaneuvered Truman and Churchill's replacement at Potsdam.  You two are looking for Eternal Justice arising from what is really Stalin's outhouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 24 June 2009


 * IP 76.something could you please sign your comments? Just adding text makes it a bit confusing who wrote what. Now regarding your comment it is true that Stalin was the main driver behind the expulsion of the Germans but the suffering caused by the Nazis was still an extremelly important factor, without it he surely wouldn't have been able to push his agenda and neither would the Poles have supported the expulsion. Loosmark (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Often, a bot adds the missing signature, but when this fails, a regular user can add a signature like, like I did above. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the connection between the Nazis persecuting the Poles and Stalin wanting to get back the lands east of the Curzon Line that Russia lost to Poland in the early 1920s. Russia/the Soviet Union was going to get back those lands, period, at the end of WW2 & Stalin wanted somewhere to dump the 40% of that population that was Polish . . . the Germans could have treated all Poles as long lost Hun brothers during WW2 & Stalin would have still demanded former Russian territory east of the Curzon Line at war's end.  BTW, since the Huns "courted" the local ladies in both German areas and in Polish areas in ancient times there is a sense in which Poles & Germans share a certain level of Hunnish genetics -- some Germans reveled in the Hun label in WW1, since they self-identified with being modeled on such fierce warriors.ANNRC (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh but there is a connection; first Stalin would probably have never been able to push any teritorial demands on Germany if not for the Nazi crimes on Polish and all other people. And secondly without the crimes there wouldn't had been so much anti-German feelings and they could have still become Polish citizens instead of being expulsed. Loosmark (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, its not that simple: (1) Stalin and the Nazis agreed in 1939 to a phased attack on Poland, in order to partition it . . . but Stalin had to wait until 1945 to dump the Polish population of pre-war Poland from east of the Curzon Line into the extended area west of the Curzon Line.   (2) On your other point, only a small percentage of all Germans expelled starting in 1945 came from areas within the 1937 borders of Poland.  (3) As stated above, in the lands east of the Curzon Line within the 1937 borders of Poland, 40% of that population was Polish. ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking for arguments here whether or not the Nazis did evil things and with that created responding hatred. Neither do I need a confirmation here that this hatred (or sentiment) was by some applied not only to the perpetrators, but to the German people in general. And that this also played a role in respect to the expulsions, at least in Poland and Czechoslovakia. All this is undisputed, mentioned, and sourced:
 * The "Background" section already mentions lebensraum concept, Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, the infliction of a variety of evils on occupied people, involvement of ethnic Germans, and gives the respective links to Nazi atrocities.
 * The section "Punishment of ethnic Germans for Nazi aggression" is entirely devoted to the connection between Nazi atrocities and expulsions.

What makes the Warsaw events exceptional or important in respect to the expulsions? Why is this not WP:undue in this article? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you answer your question in the above. This is part of the background which as you yourself note is undisputed and mentioned. Removing it is un-mentioning it. Additionally - and why it's in the "Background" section rather than a different one is the (unsourced) preceding sentence which gives as an example the supposed attempts at changing demographics in interwar Poland. The Nazi Pabst Plan is another, and in fact, better, example of attempts at changing demographics.radek (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Include a link to Generalplan Ost in the background section, delete the specifics about Warsaw per undue/unsourced. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know...I think that the atrocities committed in Warsaw and in Poland in general are important here because they were (among other things of course) a justifications and excuse for the Allies in their decision to start massive population transfers. They knew that because of the German atrocities nobody will oppose their decisions. Kind of "we can do whatever we want now with these "terrible" Germans, they deserve it". This is my opinion at least. Maybe rewording somehow would work? But please be careful with this sensitive issues. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If a citation can be found linking Warsaw to deportations/expulsions, I support keeping it. Otherwise, remove. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, There are references in Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße to the relocation to the former German territories of residents of destroyed Warsaw and the employment of German forced labor in the clearing operations in post war Warsaw


 * Also the Polish census data from 1950 indicates that 480,000 former residents of pre war Warsaw city and Warsaw province were resident in the Recovered Territories in Dec 1950.


 * The homeless folks of 1945 Warsaw needed a place to stay and somebody had to clean up the mess and rebuild the city


 * One cannot now deny that the Expulsions and the destruction of Warsaw are related.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job Woogie10w. Loosmark (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By "Recovered Territories" is meant the Eastern German provinces still (1950) under Potsdam Agreement-directed Polish Temporary Administration pending, per the Potsdam Conference, the Final Peace Treaty to end WW2 in Europe.ANNRC (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By support keeping "it", does "it" mean verbatim, or can you also support the proposal I made two days ago (below) and which I have already inserted this morning? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose. Skäpperöd did not provide any good reason for removing the specifics about Warsaw therefore WP:AINT applies. Loosmark (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I presented as reasons: Unsourced and WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all Jacurek said, the question is whether the Warsaw events should be prominently included in addition to all that is already there on this topic. That from a general perspective the Warsaw events were not - as it is put now - the "most dramatic ethnic cleansing" should be clear to everyone here. And obviously there is no source in any way supporting the prominence given to the current description of the events in respect to the post-war expulsions. All arguing above is for the general importance of Nazi atrocities in the background, on which there already is a consensus.

So how about ammending the paragraph dealing with the Nazi atrocities the following way:

After this sentence: "[...] Following the racist concept of lebensraum, the Nazis devastated Eastern Europe during World War II, introducing previously unknown ethnic cleansing practices.", we add "Local concepts like Pabst and Nisko Plan were in the course of the war replaced by the general concepts of Generalplan Ost and Final Solution, blueprints for the genocide on Slavs and Jews." Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Applied on 27 June. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No censensus was reached but you decided to delete it anyway?. Loosmark (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposed replacement stood unobjected for two days, I took that as a consensus since the replacement addresses all concerns raised above: Pabst plan is mentioned, but with due weight integrated in a bigger context. Also, the replacement, though unsourced, is not likely to ever be challenged because the information is thouroughly undisputed. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing conduct
Please everyone make sure that they have read Skäpperöd (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2
 * Why?--Jacurek (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish statistical sourcebook 1957

 * User:Woogie10w presented as a source Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße (most probably the Schieder report, 1953?) Polish statistical sourcebook 1957 saying "Polish census data from 1950 indicates that 480,000 former residents of pre war 1939 Warsaw city(150,000) and Warsaw province(330,000) were resident in the Recovered Territories in Dec 1950."
 * Given that in 1950 about 5 million people had settled the former German territories, this means that about 10% percent of them originated from the Warsaw Voivodeship including Warsaw City. Per the 1931 census, Poland had 32,108,000 inhabitants, 1,179,500 of whom in Warsaw City and 2,460,900 in the Warsaw Voivodeship, which is above 10% (see Voivodeships_of_Poland and Polish census of 1931 for the data). Thus, it does not seem that peolple from Warsaw and the Warsaw Voivodeship accounted for an exeptional proportion of the settlers. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1950 Polish census questioned people on their residence in 1939 or that of their mother in 1939. The data was published in the 1957 Rocznik statystyczny / Glówny Urzad Statystyczny Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej., For example one can verify that 1.1 million former German citizens lived in the Recovered territories and 2.1 million persons were born in the former Polish territories in the east(USSR). The data in the 1950 census for Warsaw city and province makes sense, 480,000 people were homeless refugees in 1945 and were resettled in the former German territories. Also remember that 8 million of the people in 1939 Poland remanined in the USSR, you can't compare 1939 and 1946 Poland--Woogie10w (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the complete figures for the 1931,1946 and 1950 Polish Census. Please ask if you have any questions.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is whether or not people from destroyed Warsaw settled the former German territories at a significantly higher rate than other Poles did. The numbers I have are most certainly the same you have, though cited in a different source: 1950, the former German territories had a population of 5.9 million, 4.8 million of whom were settlers, the rest "autochtones". Of the 4.8 million settlers, 480,000 came from Warsaw and the Warsaw voivodeship, that is 10%. Now if Warsaw people were more active in the settlement compared to other Poles, their percentage of the settlers' total would need to be significantly higher than their percentage of the Polish population. As noted above, the pre-war 1931 census indicates that well above 10% of the Polish population originated in Warsaw and the Warsaw voivodeship. So their distribution among the settler population just resembles their distribution in the total population. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to put this on a spreadsheet--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Per 1950 Polish Census

Former German/Recovered Territories-1950(By Origin 1939)

Total Warsaw origin 508,200 (8.6%) Population Recovered Territories Total East Poland(USSR) origin 1,553,512 (26.1%) Population Recovered Territories Total West Europe origin 152,000 (2.7%) Population Recovered Territories Total Operation Vistula Ukrainians 157,000 (2.8%) Population Recovered Territories Total Germans Remaining 1,165,000 (19.6%) Population Recovered Territories Balance other regions Poland 2,401,300 (40.4%) Population Recovered Territories Total Recovered Territories 5,936,000 23.7% Polish Population

Entire Polish Population 1950 (By Origin 1939)

The Total Warsaw origin population was 3,357,000 of which (15%)lived in Recovered Territories Total East Poland(USSR) origin 2,136,000 of which (72.7%)lived in Recovered Territories Total West Europe origin c.160,000 of which (+90.0%)lived in Recovered Territories Total estimated Ukrainians c.200,000 of which (+75.0%)lived in Recovered Territories Total Germans Remaining 1,200,000 of which (+95.0%)lived in Recovered Territories Balance other regions Poland 17,982,000 of which (13.3%)lived in Recovered Territories Total Polish Population 25 million

The 1950 Population for Warsaw region was 2.845 million, including the city, of which 199,000(7%) was from other Polish regions. The 1950 Warsaw city population was 659,000 compared to 1.4 million in 1939. The 1939 Warsaw region, including the city, population was about 3.8 million.


 * A summary indicates a total 1950 Warsaw origin population of 3.357 million- 2,645,000 79 % remained in the region, 500,000 (15%) migrated to the former German regions and 200,000 (6%) to other regions in pre-war Poland. The Warsaw region had a net decline in Population of 1.3 million from 1939-1950. 800,000 due to war deaths, a migration out of 700,000 and a migration in of 200,000 from other Polish regions.


 * The numbers are there--Woogie10w (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The analysis indicates the case for Warsaw is overstated, that's why numerical analysis is essential to understanding this type of problem. Also, please note well that the population of the former German territories can vary in different sources because the Polish administrative regions of 1939 and 1950 are not the same in the case of Posen and Kattowitz.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the statistics. Could you please explain how they support the points (1), (2) and (3) outlined and bolded above? I lost track. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted the figures so that editors will have a better understanding of the Warsaw issue. I always try to use original sources of statistics rather than relying on secondary sources for an interpretation of their meaning. The sole statistic of 500,000 people from Warsaw in the new Polish areas needed to be viewed in the context of the entire population of Warsaw from 1939-1950, as a component population of the former German territories and Poland's population as a whole. The figures tell us that Warsaw had a net decline in population of 500K and the German territories a gain of 500K from Warsaw. From a NPOV we can say due to the war that 500,000 displaced persons from Warsaw were relocated to the former German territories along with 2.4 million other persons from Polish areas that suffered war related devestation, there should be no need to use emotional rhetoric about German occupation policy in Warsaw. Please ask if you need a clarification of the data or further information.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I find all of the data useful. Though the source does not establish a special significance of the Warsaw atrocities in regard to the expulsion of Germans, I encourage you to use all the data above (and additional data from the source) to expand In these articles/sections, some of the data is already cited, but not all, so all these articles would benefit. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II
 * Recovered Territories
 * Historical Demography of Poland


 * Of course, that was my point the source does not establish a special significance of the Warsaw atrocities in regard to the expulsion of Germans We only need to mention that Poles displaced by the war were relocated to the German territories, there should be no necessity to use emotional rhetoric about German occupation policy in Warsaw--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is to decide what is "emotional" rhetoric? And what exactly is the point here, to avoid making the Nazis look worse than they were? Believe me given all the attrocities they did in Warsaw there is no such risk. Loosmark (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße
In my opinion we should cut out the emotional rhetoric about the destruction of Warsaw, it does not belong in this article. Just mention that persons displaced by the destruction were resettled in the former German areas. Let's keep it NPOV. The city was destroyed, people were living in the rubble of Warsaw, these people sent to the former German lands. German POWs cleared the rubble.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please clarify the following issues:
 * The source, is it Schieder? 1953?
 * What has the POW-issue to do with the expulsions?
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source, is it Schieder? 1953?
 * Yes for example - Band 2, s. 56 -"Mein Haus ist besetzt von Warshauer Polen"--Woogie10w (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What has the POW-issue to do with the expulsions?
 * See Band 2 s. 516 ""wurden wir wieder ins Lager gesteckt und kamen dann nach Warshau, wo wir Aufraumungsarbeiten in der fast vollig zerstorn Stadt zu verrichten hatte. Unterbringung ebenfalls hinter Stahldraht--Woogie10w (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * POWs were used for all kinds of work, but what is the connnection between of some German POWs subjected to forced labour in Warsaw and the expulsion of the German population? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some German civilians were held in Poland after the war to clean up the rubble and clear mines. They were later expelled.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They were civilian "POWs". Some persons were held in Poland as forced laborers and later expelled. I knew a man(Polish Volksdeutsch) who was kept as a coal miner in Silesia for 5 years after the war as a military POW and then expelled to Germany. His wife remarked that he returned on the verge of death. He was with the SS in Warsaw!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting story, now i'm gonna tell you one I heard from an old woman. During the Warsaw uprising Nazis entered the home where a classmate and a good friend of her lived, dragged her out, accused her of helping AK, her mom was begging them to let her go but they just shot her in the head. She was 17 years old. Loosmark (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting story. It's quite sad too. Did the old woman tell you any more stories, or was this the only one? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This story is sad and full of pathos. Is the old woman still living? Has her story been investigated by the IPN. Was she present herself during the atrocity, or did she hear about it? Do you consider her reliable? Perhaps her story can be included in this article too. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this source might provide some useful data. Though it does not establish a special significance of the Warsaw atrocities in regard to the expulsion of Germans, I encourage you to read and use any additional data you find in the source to expand that section. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II


 * I read the section, interesting. However, German Wikipedia does a much better job on this topic--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion
Are you contesting that the deliberate destruction of Warsaw really happened? If not then stop making drama all over this talk page. Your "coverage" of the Nazi atrocities is weak because it is not specific, it only mentions Nazis' concepts and plans without saying what exactly did they do. Local residents of Warsaw didn't care about Nazis' plans, ideas and concepts instead the countless people murdered and the total desctruction of the beatiful city is what counted for them. Loosmark (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep on topic! If you cannot bring reputable sources in article's context Piotr Konieczny's advice should apply If a citation can be found linking Warsaw to deportations/expulsions, I support keeping it. Otherwise, remove. - Elysander (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are references in Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neiße to the relocation in the former German territories of residents from destroyed Warsaw and the employment of German forced labor in the clearing operations in post war Warsaw


 * Also the Polish census data from 1950 indicates that 480,000 former residents of pre war 1939 Warsaw city(150,000) and Warsaw province(330,000) were resident in the Recovered Territories in Dec 1950.


 * The refugees of destroyed Warsaw needed a place to stay and somebody had to clean up the mess and rebuild the city


 * One cannot now deny that the Expulsions and the destruction of Warsaw are related--Woogie10w (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressed in the "sources" section. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have made myself very clear in the discussion above, but I will clarify again, in detail:
 * I do not contest that most of Warsaw was destroyed during the war, but view it as undue in respect to this article per WP:UNDUE. Despite this my view, I have already linked the Pabst Plan along with additional information for a broader perspective which should suffice.
 * I do not contest that during the war, 800,000 Warsaw residents, including 450,000 Jews, died, but view it as undue in respect to this article per WP:UNDUE.
 * I contest that it was "the most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing" per WP:NOR, WP:V
 * I contest that "the Germans" did that (=collective guilt) per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV
 * I contest the phrasing "racial and cultural annihilation of the city" as an emotionally loaded totally inadequate way to put it, and its inclusion in this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:V
 * I contest the phrasing "centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars",as an emotionally loaded totally inadequate way to put it, and its inclusion in this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:V
 * In general, I contest the inclusion of any part of the sentence beyond the Pabst Plan mention already included in the article, as there is no direct connection to the post-war expulsions.
 * In general, I further contest that editors - aware of the wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:3RR and the respective ArbCom rulings above - revert war to include unsourced material without even trying to provide the required sources as outlined above. I further contest that it is ok to not comment on compromise proposals for two days and after its implementation again add the contested unsourced stuff in addition to the already installed compromise sentence.

I really wish that the involved editors will find back to a concentrated and focussed atmosphere, and provide the necessary sources to determine if the Warsaw events really should be given more weight in the background to the expulsion of Germans as they are given already. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly Skäpperöd since you seem to have a very strong POV on this matter, you most certainly don't seem to be the right person to evaluate what is NPOV, undue etc. It was already explained to you why and how was what happened in Warsaw relevent but you keep having emotionaly loaded reaction with all this UNDUE repeating. I don't understand what do you mean by contesting that the Germans did that, who else then? maybe the martians? And why are you contesting the phrasing racial and cultural annihilation of the city as an "emotionally loaded totally inadequate way to put it"? On October 1944 the SS chief Heinrich Himmler said: The city must completely disappear from the surface of the earth and serve only as a transport station for the Wehrmacht. No stone can remain standing. Every building must be razed to its foundation. Suggesting that what the Germans did in Warsaw had no effect on the expulsions is bizzare to say the least. One last think could please reduce of the amount of ALPHABETSOUP a bit, that would be nice. Loosmark (talk)
 * Use of the phrase "the Germans" is an awkward shorthand for what it's intended to represent, namely the Nazi apparatus related to the location of the events. One connotation flowing from such named usage is the "German collective guilt" implication.  German collective guilt was rejected by the 1946 Nuremberg proceedings.  Implying collective guilt, in itself,  implies an agenda.  Note: By "Nazi apparatus" in the above reference is meant the broadest interpretation of line and staff.ANNRC (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Implying collective guilt? Don't be ridiculous, by the same logic one could for example never use "the Soviets" because it would "imply collective guilt". Another thing is that not everybody involved in the crimes was a Nazi, the Wehrmacht commited crimes on their own. Loosmark (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of "the Germans" - just think of these articifial analogy:
 * "In 1998, the Poles stole 654,321 cars in the Czech Republic."
 * This is of course false and offends all decent Poles who never steal anything, it should be "Polish gangs ..." or something similar. Likewise, Warsaw was not destroyed by "the Germans", but by "Nazi German forces" or something similar. Hope that helps. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is that during WW2 there weren't any other German forces of note so if one says that the Germans destroyed Warsaw it's clear what it means (nobody would really think that every German participated in that). There are countless books about WW2 which even use just the term Germans for events perpetuated only by SS for example as in "the Germans the rounded up the Jews and arrested them" and so on and so forth. And btw I hope you aren't trying to imply that all Wehrmacht members were Nazis? That doesn't make any sense. Loosmark (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't have it both ways -- sure there were non-Nazis in the Wehrmacht who committed crimes, but the overwhelming number of crimes were committed by "the Nazis", "the SS". "The Soviets" isn't an ethnic designation, so comparing the use of "the Soviets" with "the Germans" is an artificial construct.  Poles seem to be very sensitive to the implication that average Polish civilians participated in the ethnic cleansing of German civilians, especially the "Wild" expulsions . . . so, when "the Poles" are named as the expellers, various Poles have come forth to attempt to qualify that "it was mostly" Polish Communists/Militia. etc., and thus there were very few "average Poles" who were cruel (& they put a further caveat to that, namely that if in fact some average Poles were cruel it is somewhat understandable that they were, given the years they suffered).  So, "the Poles" don't like the generalization of "the Poles" to be used regarding the "Wild" expulsions, etc., but according to you it is perfectly acceptable to use the vague generalization "the Germans" regarding the destruction of Warsaw.  In the context used, it connotes collective guilt, regardless of how many books casually use similar wording.ANNRC (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are important differences, 1.) the communism was imposed to Poland from the outside (by the Soviet), the great majority of Polish population was anti-communists while the majority of Germans clearly supported the Nazi regime 2) the transfers of population were decided in the Potsdam Conference therefore there was some sort of international legal basis for those events while of course no international body ever agreed with the bandit destruction of Warsaw. Final about the books, I'm sorry it is not up to you to decide what word connotes collective guilt, if many books use it then it is acceptable to use it on wikipedia too since we are based on sources. Loosmark (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing what do you mean with the comment that "the Soviets isn't a racial group"? I hope you don't think that the Germans are a racial group!?!? Loosmark (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the majority of the Germans voted for the Nazis when they came to power? I used "racial" as in "human race" -- some participants don't seem to understand anthropological terms such as "ethnic", as in "ethnic group".  The Communist Poles in Moscow prepared to take over Poland as lap dogs of the Soviet Union upon the Red Army's 1945 takeover of all of Poland (just as they did in September 1939 in the Soviet sector of Poland).  The Soviets found a way to put pressure on the Brits to break their promises to the London Polish government in Exile.  However, the Soviets liked one proposal which came out early in the Polish Exile Government in London, namely the idea of moving Poland's western boundary to the Oder-Neisse Line.  This fit in well with the Soviet need to dump the Poles from east of the Curzon Line into rump Poland (actually, rump 1937 Poland plus the so-called "Recovered Territories" ... that title is a bit absurd: "Recovered" after 1,000 years????).  Finally, I didn't claim it was up to me to determine what word connotes collective guilt.  Those things are governed by convention.  Have you read anything on linguistics?  Note: Regarding your comment on "many books use it", Academia doesn't rely upon the book market to give that sort of guidance to scholarly research.ANNRC (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that the majority of the Germans supported the Nazi regime and almost nobody protested when they occupied Czechoslovakia, when they invided Poland etc. etc. I used "racial" as in "human race" -- some participants don't seem to understand anthropological terms such as "ethnic", as in "ethnic group". What the hell are you talking about? Neither the Soviets or the Germans are a racial group, I can only conclude that you originaly meant to say that the Soviets aren't an ethnic group and got a bit confused. The comments about the book market and Academia are absurd, many good books about WW2 by highly respectable authors use "Germans" all over when the meaning is clear from the context. The "collective guilt" cries we hear all over this page are both boring and out place. Loosmark (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the above to read "'The Soviets' isn't an ethnic designation". The Germans are an ethnic group; "the Soviets" is/are a political group.  The Nazis knew how to deal with protest, so it isn't surprising "almost nobody protested".  BTW, which "occupation" of Czechoslovakia are you talking about? (one part was internationally sanctioned; also, Slovakia was a separate issue.)  Are you saying that many good books about WW2 (to include "many good encyclopedias") use "Germans" all over [the place] when the meaning is clear from the context?  Are you saying that when Polish contributers attempt to qualify that very few average Poles participated in the Wild Expulsions, that their comments are "both boring and out [of] place"?  Most Sudetenlanders wanted to be absorbed by Germany.  The Austrian Germans voted following WW1 to join Germany but the Allies, in rejection of Pres Wilson's "self-determination" point (one of his 14 Points), denied their request.ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So basicaly your claim is that many Germans wanted to for protest for example the occupation of Poland and other Nazi's agressive policies but were just scared to do so? Interesting, do you have any source for this "revolutionary" claim? About Czechoslovakia I don't know if you are pretending or really don't know history that well but Czechoslovakia, after Hitler grabbed the Suddets from her, still existed and was occupied in March 1939. I already adressed the differences between German crimes in Warsaw and the postwar exchanges of popullation. Loosmark (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The average German became afraid of the GESTAPO in the mid-1930s. It was not Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939; Slovakia declared independence on 14 March 1939.ANNRC (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you if you have some sources to support the claim that a significant part of Germans were against the occupation of Poland. do you have it or not? Slovakia declaring "independence" was a joke and later events proved it. But even so that doesn't change the fact that Nazi Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia. Loosmark (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your logic: If most of the Germans were afraid of the GESTAPO how could there be contemporary measuring sources?  Is it documented that "most of the average Poles" were against the Wild Expulsions?  The 30 Sept 1938 Munich Agreement provided that traditional ethnic German lands within Bohemia and Moravia be incorporated into Germany.  Since that Agreement was governed by International law the land transfer is not referred to as an "occupation".  Both Bohemia and Moravia were subsequently de facto smaller due to the incorporation of the above referred transfer of traditional ethnic German lands into Germany.  So, the reduced Czech lands within Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by the Germans on 15 Mar 39, becoming the so-called "Protectorate".  This is all getting way off topic.ANNRC (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)  Also, I guess I don't understand the distinction between Slovakia declaring independence in March 1939 and again in January 1993.ANNRC (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well for example it should be in some book by some Germans how absolutely shocked they were when Hitler invided Poland and they wanted so much to protest but were afraid of the Gestapo or something. Your comments about the Munich Agreement are embarrassing, the Sudetenland were foolishly given to Hitler because he promised he won't have territorial demands but of course he eaten his word only a couple of months later. Loosmark (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it's you who doesn't seem to understand the distinction between a normal state as is Slovakia from 1993 and the puppet Nazi state from March 1939. Loosmark (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't read German, so I wouldn't know. Why was the Sudetenland included in Czechoslovakia in 1919 when those lands contained a vast majority of ethnic Germans?  Answer: the Brits and the French were engaged in some Victor's Justice, regardless of US Pres Wilson's 14 Points.  Again, this is mostly Off-Topic.ANNRC (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)  So, are you saying that the majority of Slovakians were Nazis in 1939?ANNRC (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm saying is that Slovakia in 1939 was a Nazi puppet state. We could of course elaborate further the circumstances of its creation but i don't see how is that relevant here. Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the majority of Slovakians in 1939 were not Nazis. The Slovakian Army attacked Poland in 1939, and then later in 1941 participated in the attack on the Soviet Union.  It is likely that the majority of Slovakians, whether Nazi or not, supported their Army in its attacks on Poland and the Soviet Union.  An army is typically comprised of a large body of infantrymen who come from a spectrum of political persuasions.ANNRC (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are so without serious arguments that now you are comparing the Slovakian Army with the Nazis? Ok the Slovak role in the attack of Poland was minimal, they weren't doing war crimes and crimes against civilian population and in fact they even refused to occupy Zakopane as Hitler asked them so. And btw there was a strong opposition Slovak National Uprising  Loosmark (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the same vein as you present, most of the Wehrmacht wasn't "doing war crimes and crimes against civilian population". Ref: The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality / Wolfram Wette ; translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. (BTW, are you aware of the status of Harvard University?)ANNRC (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh excellent reference. I searched that book in Amazon and here is the result: http://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-History-Myth-Reality/dp/0674022130 from one of the reviews: ''...Wette debunks the myth, created by former Wehrmacht officers and continued by their Allied counterparts, that the German military fought a "clean" war in the East 1941-45. He strips away the layers of obfuscation and cover-up to set the record straight: Wehrmacht and SS hand-in hand conducted a campaign of racial extermination in the USSR. --Holger H. Herwig, University of Calgary and another one In the history of WWII, the German army too often has been regarded as an unwilling tool of Adolf Hitler. Wette destroys that myth in his book, an indictment of the German army for its involvement in atrocities against Jews and people in eastern Europe. --K. Eubank (Choice)''. Congratulations ANNRC, with this reference you have just shot yourself in the leg ;) Loosmark (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured you would like parts of the book. You missed the part where it states, as paraphrased above, that "most of the Wehrmacht wasn't 'doing war crimes and crimes against civilian population.'"  You should have also noticed the dates 1941-45.ANNRC (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)  Sorry, I meant that the Amazon reviewers you quote limited their focus to eastern Europe.ANNRC (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And isn't it enough that a part of the Wehrmacht participated in the terrible crimes? Why are the dates 1941-45 relevant? Loosmark (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Partial participation should not be equated to Collective Guilt.ANNRC (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The collective guilt thing again, now even spelled as "Collective Guilt". Have you seen anybody in this thread arguing in favor of that concept? I, for example, have even already stated that I'm completely against something such absurd. What is exactly your point? Loosmark (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you agree that the Wehrmacht "in total" should not be branded as part of Collective Guilt? (Note: by use of the term "in total" is meant the on-balance behavior of the 1939-45 component of the 1935-45 18.2 million soldiers referred to in "Wehrmacht" in Wikipedia.)ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm against the collective guilt concept. What does that mean is that somebody just by being a member of the Wehrmacht as normal soldier isn't necessary guilty of anything. On the other hand the Wehrmacht did commit war crimes and if somebody was involved in that he's sure guilty. Loosmark (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected Expulsion of Germans after World War II for 24 hours. No more edit warring! I've reverted unsourced anti-German POV from the article. Please don't insert such things without any reliable source. Editors should discuss with each other to reach a concensus. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * anti-German POV, oh really? so now even mentioning the Nazi crimes has become anti-German POV? at least take some time to read the talk page, that sentence was contested on the basis that it was undue rather than being anti-German POV. Loosmark (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the Nazi crimes against the Poles is never an anti-German POV. But, inserting this sort of unsourced statement is an anti-German POV. It claims that "... the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars." The German carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city? Were they ordinary Germans or Nazis? Perhaps they were Germans who opposed Nazis! Which German scholar supervised such activity? Albert Einstein? Günter Grass? Loosmark, the English-language Wikipedia is not a computer game where one can insert whatever he/she wants. The statement was without any reliable source. See WP:RS. If you want to insert such statement, please add reliable source to back up your claim. We are here to create a neutral encyclopedia; inappropriate statements are erased from articles. AdjustShift (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to take a look at this AdjustShift - Planned destruction of Warsaw....and maybe this[][] Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The German carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city? yes. Were they ordinary Germans or Nazis Not everybody participating in those crimes was a Nazi, there were werhmacht units too so Germans is not bad describtion (please not that nobody wrote ordinary Germans and it is clear what does Germans in that contex mean). If your problem is with sourcing please say so, it can be sourced, corrected, rephrased, whatever. But the conclusion unsourced = anti-German POV is silly. Loosmark (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, my conclusion has never been unsourced = anti-German POV. This is a controversial article. Before inserting any controversial statement, you must add reliable source to back up your claim. As an editor, I try hard to maintain neutrality on en.wikipedia. If your statement agrees with the reliable source, the statement will stay on the article. AdjustShift (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It took me 2 minutes to find a source:  German architects carefully identified the historic monuments of the city: the most beautifully proportioned buildings, the buildings designed by distinguished architects, the buildings where famous Varsovians had lived, the places where important historic events had taken place, the buildings with gracious sculptural decoration, the buildings of symbolic importance, the best examples of different architectural styles, the most meaningful buildings of various periods, the proudest churches, the richest palaces, the most beautiful homes, and the neighborhoods where the architecture of Warsaw was knit into an artistic whole—the panoply of Warsaw's pride, built across seven hundred years of history. Then, having ascertained the patrimony of the metropolis, the German occupational forces sent out squads to rob these places, to strip them of their art and artifacts and, afterward, to dynamite the architectural accomplishments of Polish culture. The structural integrity of buildings was analyzed. Explosives were set and detonated from a safe distance. In World War II, it became German national policy that the culture of Warsaw be erased as a way to quash the spirit of resistance among the Polish people. Loosmark (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Same source also states that between 1939 and 1944 ~800.000 people in Warsaw were killed. Loosmark (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the source, Loosmark. Whenever you are inserting any controversial statement, please add reliable source to back up your claim. As a neutral individual (I'm not from Germany or Poland), I don't think this statement is neutral. The whole German people can't be blamed for the Nazi crimes. We have to remember that there are evil people (and good people) in every society. Calming that "... the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered ..." is not neutral. Chance that. You also have to specify which German scholars were involved in that activity. Some of the world's best know scholars were from Germany. Multiple German scholars strongly opposed the Nazis. So, be more specific. The protection will expire tomorrow. So, please discuss with other editors, and try to reach a consensus. After reaching a consensus, you can insert some info. AdjustShift (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear: I have not inserted that statement, which isn't controversial, I only objected to Skaperod's deletion. Btw tons of respectable books about the WW2 use the term Germans in that contex, so you have no special rights to deus ex-machina decide it is wrong to use it in the same contex on wikipedia. If you really want to push such a concept try to provide some source which explains how all the books using "Germans" should be rewritten. But don't forget to try to reach a consensus. Loosmark (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's from the on-line Encyclopedia Brittanica: " The invasion of Poland in 1939 by the U.S.S.R. and Germany precipitated World War II, during which the Nazis sought to purge Poland’s culture and its large Jewish population in the Holocaust." Only the terms "Germany" and "Nazis" are used i.e., there is no use of the term "the Germans".76.14.240.177 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Noone disputes that most of Warsaw was destroyed during the war, and that 450,000 Jews and 350,000 other inhabitants lost their lives. I maintain though that for the events be included into this article, sources are needed to I have created the sources section above to evaluate such sources, but if you can present such sources here for evaluation, it is also fine, if only the thread remains consistent and focussed. So far, it has been shown that in the course of the war, Warsaw was largely destroyed and an overall 800,000 people from Warsaw lost their lives. That part of the statement never was disputed. So (1) is now partially sourced, (2) and (3) have not been established. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) establish its factual accuracy (of all parts of the statement, per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR)
 * (2) establish its connection to the expulsions of Germans (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, if (1) can be established)
 * (3) establish its due weight in the background section (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, if (1) and (2) can be established, and taken into account that the following line has already been added to the Nazi atrocities coverage per the above proposal: "Local concepts like Pabst and Nisko Plan were in the course of the war replaced by the general concepts of Generalplan Ost and Final Solution, blueprints for the genocide on Slavs and Jews.")


 * As it was already explained to you a couple of times killing 800,000 people and destroying a beatiful city like Warsaw which happened to be the capital tends to make you "bit unpopular". I think about that we all agree. Now as we know Stalin was the main force behind the expulsions and he needed excuses to pull it of. The only logical conclusion is that 800,000 people killed, Warsaw destroyed, and the anti-German feelings which these events originated both among Poles and wider strengthened his position and gave him the necesary legitimity. To claim that the expulsion of Germans would have been the same without 800,000 people killed and with Warsaw intact is unlogical, bizzare and grotesque therefore the burden of proof is on you on that one. Loosmark (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. As for your argumentation: That is the big picture we are in, and all that is sourced in the article. The destruction of Warsaw was only one of the numerous Nazi atrocities that only via the collective guilt theory contributed to only one justification of the expulsions. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The expellees did not destroy Warsaw. There is a chance that a handful of them had participated, but if one was expelled or not had to do with one's residence and not with one's possible criminal past.
 * Revenge for Nazi atrocities was only one justification of the expulsions, among others. Others included the geopolitical and ethnic reconfiguration of Eastern and East Central Europe. That is sourced and I think undisputed.
 * Germans were not the only ones expelled after the war. Other ethnic groups were also shifted around to make the post-war peoples match the post-war borders. Warsaw did not influence either expulsion.
 * Germans were not only expelled from post-war Poland, but from all over. The expulsions from eg Hungary can hardly be explained with the destruction of Warsaw.


 * Straw man again. Nobody claimed that the expellees destroyed Warsaw, rather the destruction of Warsaw and all the people killed there contributed to the anti-German feelings. Comparing the expulsions from Hungary and Poland is ridiculous because the scales of the two things were completely different and Hungary didn't get any former German territory. Even if the revenge for Nazi atrocities was only one justifications for the expulsions it already makes it includable in the article. The destruction of Warsaw was exeptional and shocking (did the Germans devastate any other capital in Europe to the same degree, and killed 800,000 inhabitants?) Loosmark (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

 * This would solve the problem and is NPOV

''Poland suffered enormous destruction in the war, including the city of Warsaw which was completely destroyed. Up to 500,000 displaced persons from Warsaw along with 1.6 million Polish refugees from the USSR were relocated in the former German territories. – citation reference- The Polish census of 1950 indicated that the Warsaw region had a net out migration of 500,000 and that these persons were relocated to the former German territories. In addition 1.6 million Poles from the USSR were residents in the former German territories. These refugees made up 1/3 of the population in 1950.''

Readers will realize that Polish government had a practical problem in 1946 to house the refugees from Warsaw/USSR and relocated them to the former German territories. This is NPOV, it just states what actually happened, without pointing fingers--Woogie10w (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok maybe we can work something out, however your proposal fails to mention two things, who destroyed Warsaw and how, and how many Warsavians were killed. Loosmark (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this comply WP:SYNTHESIS and per the discussion we had above? To create the impression that need for housing was a reason for the expulsions should be substantiated with reliable sources. That former Warsaw residents made up for a significantly high amount of settlers was already shown to be not the case - they made up for 10% of the Polish population and for 10% of the settlers. What sources give the destruction of Warsaw so much weight as a background information that we have to mention it more than linking the Pabst Plan - which is already the case? What source connects the expulsions to the Warsaw events anyway? What source gives a need for housing as a reason for the expulsions? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a need for housing created by the destruction of Warsaw and these people were moved to the former German territories.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Woogie10w, your input is great and honest. (as always by the way)--Jacurek (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources give the destruction of Warsaw so much weight as a background information that we have to mention it more than linking the Pabst Plan - which is already the case? There is a big difference between mentioning a plan and mentioning of the events which did happen. The anti-German feelings were created by direct actions (read killings and destructions) rather than by plans which most people didn't even know about. Loosmark (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Polish "refugees" from the Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union were not homeless and had to be placed somewhere by the Polish government, they were expelled from their homes because Stalin, Churchill/Attlee and Roosevelt/ Truman decided so at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. Their fate was the result, not the reason to shift Poland to the west. Which role did the fate of Warsaw play at these conferences? Was the destruction of Warsaw mentioned as a reason to expell Germans? Does a reliable scholar say so? Does a reliable source say, the people of Warsaw had to be housed and that's why the Germans had to go? Just like User:Piotrus said above, unless a reliable source is presented, which argues like that, there's no reason to include it per WP:NOR. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have been over this again and again, everybody is in agreement that it were Stalin & comp who decided the territorial shifts and the transfers of populations, so what is the point to continuously repeat something we all agree on? The point here is that the Nazi German crimes in Poland were a, or one of, direct reasons which were justifiably or not used as an excuse for those events. The crimes in Warsaw were the largest single crimes against the Poles and are therefore mentioned as an example of what the Polish population had to go through and why there were strong anti-German feelings. (An abstract thing like a plan doesn't work too well to describe it). That there are some editors who deny the self-evident connection between these events, with lots of drama all over this page is, to put it mildly, weird. Loosmark (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to persons left homeless by the war Poland suffered emormous economic damage which can be documented. We should not seek to blame anyone, only state what happened.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but we need to keep in mind that this article is about the Expulsion of Germans and not about war-induced damage to Poland's economy. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Common sense dictates that Germany should be held accountable for the damage caused by the war, the Allied powers decided at Yalta that the German territories in the east would be part of the reperations.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To the victor goes the spoils, my GGGgrandfater served from 1777-1781 with George Washington's army, after the war he was given 100 acres of land confiscated from Loyalists. .--Woogie10w (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "To the victor goes the land spoils/options on population expulsion" was sanctioned in the Summer 1945 Potsdam Conference, but by the 1946 Nuremberg Trial the realization set in that population expulsions were a war crime.ANNRC (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the expulsions can fall into the war crimes category because war crimes are usualy commited during war or on war prisoners. But if you have a serious source which says that by the 1946 Nuremberg Trial the Nuremberg Trial the expulsions were considered a crime by all means include it in the article. Loosmark (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The already-agreed to expulsions sanctioned by the [July/August 1945] Potsdam Agreement (namely regarding all ethnic Germans from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and within the 1937 borders of Poland west of the Curzon Line) were excluded from war crimes consideration in the same sense that the Nuremberg litigation agreement specifically included no consideration of Soviet war crimes committed during WW2.ANNRC (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, the Nuremberg trials were organised to trial major perpetuators of ww2 war crimes and crimes against humanity. The expulsions, bad as they were, don't quite fall in the same category of crimes. Loosmark (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Nuremberg trials were to (& did) address not only major perpetrators of WW2 war crimes, but other war crimes as well. It was through the prosecution of the Nazis that the case was made against ethnic cleansing, but by then it was a bit late to introduce that issue on the agenda against the Polish Communists & militias re the Wild Expulsions which took place before 8 May 1945.  And of course the Soviets were immune for/from their participation, as mentioned above.ANNRC (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)  The "Wild Expulsions" occurred both before and after 8 May 1945.  The areas of the Wild Expulsions included (1) East Prussia, (2) within the 1937 border of Poland west of the Curzon Line, & (3) between the Oder-Neisse Line and the western 1937 border of Poland. Note: Regarding #(2): some try to focus on 1945 expulions of Germans transferred into #(2) after September 1939 -- that ignores the population of Germans who in 1937 lived in #(2).ANNRC (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Nuremberg trials could have trialed people for transfers of population agreed at the Postdam conference seems to be a "Alice in wonderland" theory. You can argue that those events were wrong from a moral point of view but suggesting that the Polish communists should have "shared the cells" with the Nazis at Nuremberg is crazy. Loosmark (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A war crime is a war crime. In addition to many others, the following war crime should have been sustained at the trials: Katyn.  The following is from Wikipedia: "Although it had been initially planned to hold more than just one international trial at the IMT, the growing differences between the victorious allies (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Union) made this impossible."ANNRC (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Also, as the Potsdam Agreement post-dated the Wild Expulsions, the Potsdam Agreement called for "orderly and humane" ethnic German population transfers in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and also within the 1937 border of Poland west of the Curzon Line.ANNRC (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Prior to the July 16 to August 2, 1945 Potsdam Conference, both of the areas (1) between the Oder-Neisse Line and the western 1937 border of Poland, and (2) all of East Prussia, were part of the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany.76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "The idea that the Nuremberg trials could have trialed people for transfers of population agreed at the Postdam conference seems to be a "Alice in wonderland" theory." : What does the Wild Expulsions, including those prior to 8 May 1945, have to do with your "Alice in Wonderland" statement in which you apparently sought to link, as an expression of absurdity, the (absurd) idea that the Nuremberg trials "could have trialed people for transfers of population agreed at the Potsdam conference"?  The Potsdam conference had nothing to do with the Wild Expulsions, which occurred in the time prior to the 16 July to 2 August 1945 Potsdam Conference.ANNRC (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really feel strongly about that point I suggest you go to the Nuremberg trials article and try to make your point there but i doubt anybody will agree with you that the expulsions, pardon me, "Wild Expulsions", should have been part of those trials. Loosmark (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the Wild Expulsions and Katyn should not have been part of the Nuremberg Trials?ANNRC (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, i'm saying that Katyn should have been included but the expulsions not. Loosmark (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wild Expulsions before 8 May 1945 and their associated deaths were just as much war crimes as Katyn. How many German civilians were deliberately killed in the Wild Expulsions before 8 May 1945? 50,000?, 100,000?ANNRC (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look I think this discussion has become circular and doesn't serve any purpose anymore, you have your opinion, I have mine. You are free to try to insert your (hopefully sourced) point that the expulsion should have been part of the Nuremberg Trials both on this article and/or on the Nuremberg Trials article. Just please be aware of one thing, that is a controversial view and other editors might oppose it. Loosmark (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The treatment of the ethnic Germans in France and Belgium, both democratic nations that respected human rights, should be contrasted to the policy of communist dominated Poland and Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia suffered relatively minor economic and human losses compared to Poland yet treated the Sudetendeutsch poorly. Post war Poland and Czechoslovakia would not tolerate a substantial German minority, it was politically unacceptable and in fact untenable.  The issues are complex, there are no easy answers. The Germans and Poles both suffered because of the war that was started by Hitler and his Nazi party. Anyway, I presented the facts. You decide and edit accordingly--Woogie10w (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the editors who think the Nazi atrocities in Warsaw must be included in the background can draft one or a few sourced proposals and we request a comment to evaluate their merit? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get over this nonsense, because enough is enough, "Nazi" atrocities in Warsaw had virtually nothing to do with the expulsion of the Germans after the war. The die was cast prior to the Warsaw uprising with Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt deciding on implementing this policy after the the defeat of Nazi Germany and demanding its unconditional surrender. Any desire to to otherwise skew this event with some absurd POV is not going to make it in the long run. It's been tried before at the Battle of Berlin, where the Polish Army was in the vanguard, and supposedly vanquished the Germans, and thereby getting revenge for for the three week war in 1939.Dr. Dan (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to keep your anti-Polish feelings under control would you? A couple of neutral non-Polish editors already agreed that having the Warsaw events in this article makes perfect sense. Loosmark (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a for-what-its-worth (that is, an interpretation of some of the positions argued above, and so the interpretation might not be worth much): it may be that it's about numbers of Germans expelled . . . in other words, if the Germans had been nicer in 39-45, not as many would have been expelled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point. Loosmark (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But, of course, specualtive. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that Polish Communist militas would have been less severe on the German civilians during the expulsions (in total) if the Germans had been less severe on the Poles during the 1939-45 war. Polish Communist militas as moral brokers??? . . . that's an absurd stance.ANNRC (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The destruction of Warsaw
Ok the version we previously had in the article was:

The most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars.

If i understood Skaperod and other German editors they were unhappy with two things:

1.it wasn't the most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing

2.the sentence risks to introduce the collective guilt concept

My proposed change is:

A dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the various German units carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars.

sources:  Loosmark (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to keep your anti-German feelings under control would you? You seem to be unable to understand that the destruction of Warsaw was not the reason nor the basis for the expulsion of the German after WWII. It's addition is absurd and is not relevant. You might as well put the sinking of the Hood in the article for good measure. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In case you have missed it, a rough agreement was already reached to include the events, now we are in the process of trying to find the proper phrasing so it's not clear why are you trying to sabotate the consensus and re-ignite disagreements. Actually, wait, i can imagine it... Loosmark (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously this "rough" agreement has not been unanimously agreed upon. If other opinions are considered to be "sabotage" by you, when they diverge from your own, is not my problem. As for your imagination and what that is capable of, is apparent by your insistence to include the "destruction of Warsaw" as being pertinent to this article. Sorry, it remains undue, POV'd, and irrelevant. The decision to expel the Germans was made prior to the destruction of Warsaw. After its destruction there were not additional amendments to this decision. No one at the time said ,"Oh, they destroyed Warsaw now we REALLY have to expel them. Previously we were only thinking about it." Dr. Dan (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man, i've never claimed anything like that. Loosmark (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The main concern is undue weight, but the points you mentioned above were additional points (factual accuracy, implying collective guilt, emotional style, lack of sources). I am glad that the latter points are now addressed, so the issue with the undue weight (i.e. mention at all? mention as wikilink? mention in detail?) can be discussed on a proper basis (i.e. respect for basic policies like RS and V). If the Loosmark phrasing is ok to the other editors who want to introduce the Warsaw atrocities we can call for comments. I am open to include the sinking of the Hood as well if Dr Dan insists. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the sinking of the Hood would be as ridiculous as adding the destruction of Warsaw into this article. They are two separate events related only by the fact that they occurred in WWII. The simple fact is that the Germans were expelled because they lost the war. Adding their defeat at Stalingrad into the article would be as relevant to this article as that totally unrelated event. The question is whether some people would like to add Katyn into this article if they could find a way. Dr. Dan (talk)
 * Having destruction of Warsaw in this article is not ridiculous at all Dr Dan. Please refer to my and others comments because I don't want to repeat myself 100 times.--Jacurek (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your not wanting to repeat yourself 100 times. Nor do I. Without you having to read my comments or others again, who disagree with you, just re-read about "Undue" again right here. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek and Radeksz, do you agree with Loosmarks proposal or do you draft your own? Woogie10w, do you stick with your above proposal? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I changed my mind. I see no sources here that will allow us to include Warsaw in this article. Unless somebody can produce a reliable source that will link the two events it is OR. Older Poles here in Brooklyn told me that people left Warsaw and returned after the city was rebuilt, a family member lived in the celler of a building to hold a spot in Warsaw for the family. Also people lived in the suburbs and comuted to work on the reconstruction so that they would get an apartment-Budujemy nową Polskę--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Roman Herzog explicitly linked the two events in his speech in Warsaw but I can't find it online atm. However this I think  (pg. 86, bottom) alludes to it.radek (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Loosemark's proposal.radek (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with it, thanks Skäpperöd.--Jacurek (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a good number of editors agreeing with each other, I think that at this point it's worth reading the actual policy on consensus, in particular:

''Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.''

''Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system.''radek (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Jacurek is thanking Skäpperöd (dunno for what), and Woogie10w says he changed his mind, perhaps a re-examination of "Since we have a good number of editors agreeing with each other"... is in order. Just who is in agreement to what? Certainly not that the destruction of Warsaw was any kind of a substantial reason for the Germans being expelled after WWII. No one is suggesting unanimity is necessary here. What is the consensus you're talking about? Btw, bad as filibustering can be, ramrodding something down people's throat is much worse, especially if it is untrue and contrived information. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thanking him for this discussion Dr Dan. We do that where I'm from, you know...--Jacurek (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Where I'm from we attempt to connect our thoughts to our words. To wit, I remember the lines from the play going something like this:
 * Radek- "I'm fine with Loosemark's proposal".
 * Jacszurek- "I'm also fine with it, thanks Skäpperöd".

So, where you come from, this represents thanking Skäpperöd for this discussion. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * N.P. Dr Dan. To be very clear now: I'm also fine with Loosemark's proposal. Thank you Skäpperöd and the rest for this discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Dr. Dan, you too...:) I sometimes think that you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing (I may be mistaken...:)) but I thank you for the conversations anyway.--Jacurek (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion by Piotrus
Whether this belongs here or not, may I suggest that contributing to Planned destruction of Warsaw, Pabst Plan or related articles may be more productive than beating a dying horse here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Dan's reservations, concerns, explanations, theories, etc. etc. etc
Dr.Dan can you please write your objections here? The section above is dedicated to trying to find a consensus on the phrasing and weight to events in Warsaw. Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding the sinking of the Hood would be as ridiculous as adding the destruction of Warsaw into this article.

Are you serious? Loosmark (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm serious.


 * My objections are:


 * 1. This is only related to that in the same way that a thousand other events in WWII are, i.e., extremely peripherally
 * 2. Therefore it is "UNDUE".


 * 3. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a forum for POV'd interpretation of events, nor theories, etc. etc. etc.

Dr. Dan (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok i don't know if you cared to read all the discussions on this talk page (admittingly it's very confused and messed) but we are not talking only about the destruction of Warsaw but also the criminal massacres and killings of its population. Those events are in large part responsible for the anti-German feelings among the Poles which in turn helped Stalin to pull off his demands and their implementations. Claiming as you did somewhere above that the Germans got expulsed just because they lost the war is IMO completely crazy, going by that logic every war would end up with max expulsions in every losing country. Please also note that the events in Warsaw were also unique both in the nature and the scale (unless maybe you can prove that there were other capitals in Europe devastated by the Germans to the same degree.) Finally, dr.Dan can you please point out to us when exactly were the expulsions of the Germans decided according to you? Loosmark (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have read them, and calling them "confused and messed (sic)" is quite an understatement. Many wars and rebellions have caused the expulsions of people and destruction of cities. Or read this. No, I'm not claiming any logic to your statement claiming then "every war would end up with max expulsions in every losing country". And please don't kid yourself that Stalin was "influenced" by Polish sentiments, and thereby "helped him (Stalin) to pull off his demands and their implementations". And "finally" in answer to your last question. The incipiency of the policy to expel the Germans was at the Tehran Conference, eight months prior to the Warsaw uprising. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have to be precise here, at the Tehran Conference only the change of borders were (roughly) agreed. Check the article there was no mention of the expulsions. Loosmark (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The seed was planted there. The final decision to implement this policy was here, by him and no "permission" was sought after from anyone by him either. Least of all, Polish considerations. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please concentrate Dr.Dan, that the final decision was Stalin's is a general consensus, mentioned on this talk page already 250 times. The point is that he needed some sort of rationale for the expulsions to make Churchill and Roosvelt agree. German attrocities in Poland was an argument against having a two-ethnic Poland. Loosmark (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concentrate on what? Maybe it's you who needs to "focus like a laser". The decision to expel the Germans was not based upon the the destruction of Warsaw. That is the bone of contention in this discussion. Where in the 250 mentions of Stalin's decision has it been shown that the destruction of Warsaw, let alone Hitler's maltreatment of Poland, influenced Stalin's decision to expel the Germans? "German attrocities (sic) in Poland was an argument against having a two-ethnic (sic) Poland". Was that Stalin's "argument"? If so, where and when? Or is this your belief? Btw, I remember that the rationale in the PRL for the expulsion of the Germans was that they were merely "recovering" their territories, not because of atrocities. That wouldn't have played out too well during the "Braterstwo" celebrations which included Ulbricht and Honecker. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, i'm not saying that the destruction of Warsaw influenced Stalin's decision to expel the Germans (it might have or it might have not, we can't read his mind) i'm just saying he used it as an excuse and legitimation for his demands. Are you trying to argue that had the Germans not completely devastated Warsaw and had 800.000 Warsawians not been killed his ability to get his solution accepted would have been just the same? Tell me then why did the allies directly oppose the expulsions of all Hungarians out of Czechoslovakia? They also lost the war. Loosmark (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"i'm not saying that the destruction of Warsaw influenced Stalin's decision to expel the Germans " ...followed with " i'm just saying he used it as an excuse and legitimation for his demands" - comment by Loosmark. Stop with the WP:OR. Where did he use it? When did he use it? thanks Dr. Dan (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What OR it's total common sense. Mind also that they explicitly stated that one of the reasons for the expulsions was also to punish Germany for its actions during World War II. The horrible events in Warsaw surely one of the worst things they did. Anyway it seems to me that you don't move from your position for 1mm in regards with the inclusion of those events in the article so lets agree to disagree for now. Loosmark (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is "they"? I'd be happy to change my position much more than 1mm. All I need is some answers instead of evasions. Some scholarly evidence would also be nice. Until that time, the POV'd entry does not belong in the article. Just like the Hood. Agreeing to disagree does not solve the problem. Building a factual encyclopedia does. Answers to above questions concerning Stalin: Nowhere. Never. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors of this of this page may find this interesting, especially German.
--Jacurek (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of the Germans, Potsdam, Oder-Neisse Line, etc.
Here is what is missed in most perceptions of the events of the times: (1) There was general agreement via the various war time conferences that there would be German land and population transfers after the war, and that these would be covered by legal language either before and/or after war’s end. What seems to be widely misunderstood is that the 16 July to 2 August 1945 Potsdam Conference was really an expedient, interim conference, intended to set the stage for what was assumed to be the pending Peace Treaty Conference ending World War Two. It is likely that the British and the Americans both felt that the Peace Treaty Conference would take place in late 1945 or early 1946. That expectation led to various tentative and ambiguous language contained in the Potsdam Agreement. (2) Neither the British nor the Americans initially supported the Oder-(Western)Neisse Line proposal (see the Churchill and Roosevelt Partition Plan division of Germany maps in Wikipedia, subject Yalta Conference). The British and Americans eventually agreed to the Oder-Neisse Line as a temporary demarcation line pending what they felt would be the (impending) Peace Treaty Conference (although the British were surprised by the American short-circuiting of the negotiations with the Soviets on this matter{See Wikipedia Subject Oder-Neisse Line, including, "[on the next day, U.S. Secretary of State James] Byrnes told the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov that the Americans would reluctantly concede to the Western Neisse.[15] Byrnes's concession undermined the British position"); the Americans claimed they were being "practical", since after all, the "real" western border of Poland would be decided in just a few weeks/months anyway, at the assumed impending Peace Treaty Conference.). Therefore, the context of the British and American acceptance of the Oder-Neisse temporary demarcation line included the prospect that the Oder-Neisse Line was not necessarily the final demarcation line for Poland’s western border. It was assumed that the final adjustment on German lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line would be made at the Peace Treaty Conference e.g., to include the prospect that some of those German land parcels might stay attached to Germany.

(3) However, the Potsdam Conference and Agreement did address issues which were unambiguous even before the assumed impending Peace Treaty Conference, namely that ethnic German transfers were to be effected in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and within the 1937 borders of Poland west of the Curzon Line (Caveat: most of the former 1937 Polish lands east of the Curzon Line were ceded to the Soviet Union on August 16, 1945, 14 days after the Potsdam Conference). The above referenced ethnic German transfer actions were stipulated by the Potsdam Agreement to be undertaken in an “orderly and humane” manner.ANNRC (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, prior to the Potsdam Conference, the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany included all 1937 border German lands east of the Oder-Neisse Line. The Potsdam Agreement removed those lands from the Soviet Occupation Zone and reassigned them to temporary Soviet and Polish administration pending the assumed (impending) Peace Treaty Conference.ANNRC (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Another area of confusion is the distinction between "occupation" and "administration". For example, per the Potsdam Conference the Soviet Occupation Zone was reduced to the land area which eventually became the DDR ("East Germany"), and the area of northern East Prussia was detached from the pre-Potsdam Soviet Occupation Zone to become an area under temporary Soviet administration pending the assumed (impending) Peace Treaty Conference.ANNRC (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is in part from History Department at the University of San Diego on Teheran Conference 1943
Here is in part from History Department at the University of San Diego on Teheran Conference 1943 http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Europe04a.html Note:  FDR’s map of 5 smaller Germanies (it is on Wikipedia Subject Yalta Conference) obviously was prepared before he agreed to “moving the German border back to the Oder”.

•	FDR in private talks with Stalin agreed to a Curzon line for Poland in the east and moving the German border back to the Oder, and agreed some transfer of population would be necessary "on a voluntary basis" to allow Russia to take back Ukraine and Belorussia from Poland. •	FDR proposed dismemberment of Germany into 5 smaller parts (surprised Churchill) and Stalin wanted to take part of East Prussia to get the warm water Baltic port of Konigsberg (became Kaliningrad). •	FDR willing to accomodate Stalin; Churchill was isolated; Stalin joked at dinner that Churchill was soft on Germany and that it may be necessary to execute 50,000 German officers; Churchill replied that he would never agree to such "barbarous acts" but FDR joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw
Schould the Nazi atrocities in Warsaw be included in the background section, and if yes, how much weight should they have?

In the preceeding discussion, some editors proposed the introduction of the following statement into the background section:
 * "A dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the various German units carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars."

Other editors think that, absent a solid establishment of their relevancy for the expulsions, the atrocities committed in Warsaw should not be included. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Exclude per WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Include it is important to give to the casual reader some minimal background about the general atmosphere at the end of the war and why were the anti-German feelings so strong. Just imagine how 9/11 triggered anti-arab feelings. And now imagine Warsaw, a city which was completely and systematicaly destroyed under orders by Himmler and Hitler (95% of buildings gone) plus 800.000 people were killed. That was an unprecedented event in modern European history plus no other European capital was devastated by the Nazis to nearly the same level. Isn't a complete no brainer that these events have some relevancy for the expulsions of Germans from Poland? We only want to include 1 sentence about it in a long article. Loosmark (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Include per Loosmark, Space Cadet (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Include - there is a reason why this is in the 'background' section (I would understand concerns about it being in the lede or in some inappropriate section). The article already discusses that the expulsions weren't just limited to the "official" ones ordered by Stalin (and others) but included also the flight of Germans from Western Poland and the "Wild Expulsions" - hence, including this information provides some necessary background. I've also provided a source [ (pg. 86, bottom) which explicitly links atrocities in Warsaw with the expulsions, made in a speech by the German president [[Roman Herzog]]. If someone could find an online text of that speech I think that would easily put this controversy to rest.radek (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Include - The nazi atrocities certainly did not justify what happened to the Germans post war but they explain it. It is unlikely that anything comparable would have occurred without the nazis.Dejvid (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Include - see my earlier comments on this talk page.--Jacurek (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude - There's no reason to point it out and there's no direct connection. Jonny84 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Include it is relevant, and now radek has it sourced. Ostap 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Include IF there is a clear ref that links Warsaw to expulsion of Germans (if such a ref was given above, I cannot find it - I suggest adding it to the RfC explanation above and informing editors who voted about that important fact). It makes sense to me, per Loosmark, to note that it was Nazi's atrocities which fueled sentiments behind the expulsions, but such a statement needs refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Include Warsaw If a reliable source can be found to link it’s destruction to the Expulsions, otherwise definitely include a passage that mentions the undisputable fact that Nazi war crimes made Germans  Persona non grata in postwar Poland and Czechoslovakia.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Include with the same caveats stated by Woogie10w, above.Faustian (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude. First of all, the expulsion of the German population from the areas assigned to Poland per the Potsdam Agreement took place due to the Allies' decision (to be more precise, Stalin's decision with the consent of the others). The expulsion of the Germans as a whole was a result of the war Germany began. It was not the result of any specific acts the Germans committed in any particular place in Poland. Therefore, going into details about Warsaw would give it undue weight in this context. Regarding Piotruś's statement above - even if there was a "a clear ref that links Warsaw to expulsion of Germans", this wouldn't mean that such a linkage objectively exists, but that some author(s) claimed it existed. People claim all sorts of things, and just that someone verifiably claimed something doesn't mean it's notable in a given context. Regardless of the question whether the situation in Warsaw warrants a special mention, the proposed wording is unacceptably sloppy. There's no point calling the destruction of Warsaw "ethnic cleansing" - there were no concrete attempts at replacing the Polish population with Germans, so "ethnic cleansing" is out of place. "Over 800,000 people murdered" - "murdered" is too emotional and non-encyclopedic. "racial [...] annihilation of the city" - what is that supposed to mean? "under the supervision of German scholars" - how do "scholars" come into this? Overall, the proposed wording is unacceptable not only because it implies a direct connection between events where there is none, but because it does so in an incredibly sloppy and emotional manner. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude. I've waited patiently several days before casting this vote. I would not have done so if any evidence to the contrary had been presented. The entry seems to be biased POV, violating WP:Undue and WP:OR. No evidence refuting the rationale or objections to include it into the article has been demonstrated. Those votes for inclusion with caveats and IF'S, and claims that the entry is "sourced now", should probably retract their votes, or make some other adjustments. Certainly one needs to examine such a vote before considering it as a vote for inclusion. (Please read the discussion section top to bottom, for a full explanation and rationale for this vote. Not an easy task) Dr. Dan (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude as per Piotrus: there's no clear ref that links the 1939-1945 history of Warsaw to the expulsion of Germans. I was waiting for someone to bring a source of at least one Polish politician clearly stating "We expelled the Germans because they began to destroy Warsaw in 1944. If they hadn't done that, they could have stayed in their traditional home lands, in Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia". The attempt by Radek to use a Roman Herzog speech, or a discussion of his speeches, as a source, is clumsy. If the Nazis were so bad, why did they destroy the relatively young Warsaw after the Uprising of 1944, but not other, much older cities and buildings with cultural importance to Poles? Why are Wawel Castle and the cathedrals in Posen and Gnesen still standing, after 6 years of German occupation? Systematically destroying cities is what Allies have done with their bombing to all German cities, well before 1944, and to non-German cities, too. Besides, in 1945, the Poles had already over 600 years of experience with expulsion of Germans, by open violence, or by more subtle methods. And well before WW2 or Hitler, Poles have clearly expressed their desire to get rid of Germans within their reach, and to "recover" German and Czech lands, simply because these areas had temporarily been occupied by one of their ancestors almost a millennium earlier. And that is what the background section needs to cover. -- Matthead Discuß   13:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude - The "discussed" introducing of a personal opinion into article is so obviously against wikipedia principles (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE,WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH) that survey and discussion are waste of time, senseless & fruitless. What happened&happens is a caricature of encyclopedic work: One editor had inserted an opinion which has obvious great importance for himself. But instead to look for supporting reliable sources and then making edits he prefered the contrary way and therefore the wrong way: He was editing and then after controversy started (rv because totally unsourced) he et al. began to look for sources which support his personal opinion. And he is still looking for any sources. IMO all Include IF must be counted as Exclude. - Elysander (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude per NPOV and sythesis. Sounds more like a poor attempt to justify the expulsions. Splette :) How's my driving? 08:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Please vote at the survey, please put your commentary here. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Herzog speech?

 * Note, Woogie found the text of the speech online and as far as my crappy German can take me, there's nothing in it on the Expulsions. I assumed the original source I gave [] was referring to this particular speech (since it's sort of the most famous one on the subject) but it could be a different one (Herzog made several speeches broadly related to these topics). Since the source still characterizes it as "setting off the Expulsion of Germans from their now Polish birthground against the killing of People of Warsaw and the destruction of the city" - I still think that's sufficient for an explicit connection (of course in this case an implicit connection should be sufficient).radek (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is an article about a speech Herzog made commemorating the Warsaw uprising (chapter 4, full title: The search for acceptable perspectives. German president Roman Herzog commemorates the Warsaw uprising.).
 * The quote you gave is an explaination given by the authors on how the German term "aufrechnen" can be understood, which Herzog not even used. It does not mean that Herzog made a connection between Warsaw and the expulsions, nor does it mean that the authors really meant that there is one. The full quote is:
 * "The rather implicit act of 'Aufrechnen' [9] (i.e. setting off the Expulsion of Germans from their now Polish birthground against the killing of People of Warsaw and the destruction of the city) that is implied in the discussion..."
 * The cited footnote [9] says: "Amid the echoes of sacrifice and suffering, we can feel the sense of pride that survived the physical surpression of the Uprising and understand that the soul of your people still resonates to the themes of that historical event." Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the connection is made by the authors of the source, not Herzog. Which makes it a secondary source rather than a primary source. As it should be.radek (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The authors are linguistically examining a speech made about the uprising which did not mention such a connection - this is not a history book. The "connection" made during the speech's elements' analysis is a mention put in parenthesis to explain a German word. "Aufrechnen" means that if two people owe each other something, they substract each others debts and the difference remaining if there is any is the "new" debt. The authors of the speech's analysis do not claim that Herzog did that, they said that this is "implicit" and "implied in the discussion". And, even if Herzog explicitly did it, which he did not, there were no causal argument, but a retrospect substraction of the misdeeds of post-war Poland from those of Nazi Germany. Which would be kind of political suicide for a president. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the original discussion is about whether the info belongs in the BACKGROUND section - i.e. is it a notable component of the background to the expulsions and their nature? This idea that someone was arguing that there is a causal connection between destruction/murders in Warsaw and the Expulsions is a STRAWMAN (as Loosemark already pointed out above), successfully set up by Dr. Dan in his hijacking of the discussion. But a strawman is still a logical fallacy. Even IF the actual and cultural genocide in Warsaw didn't in any way directly lead to the expulsions, as long as it affected how 1) the expulsions took place and/or 2) how the expulsions are/have been perceived in Poland, Germany and anywhere - since both of these are discussed in the article - it is relevant. The source making that connection is sufficient, whether or not Herzog did. BTW, there are also numerous Polish sources which link the two events (again, not nec. causally) but I was trying to stick to English lang sources for the benefit of non-Polish speakers.radek (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "'....STRAWMAN (as Loosemark already pointed out above), successfully set up by Dr. Dan in his hijacking of the discussion. But a strawman is still a logical fallacy." Look Radeksz, I am offended by your insolent and uncivil tone. Perhaps whenever your viewpoint is challenged and an alternative one is presented you consider the discussion "hijacked". We can dance around this issue all day long. The Germans lost the war. They were expelled. Poland had nothing to do with it. Poland had no influence over the matter. The fate of Warsaw had nothing to do with it. Stalin, who had everything to do with it, did not consult his new acquisition, Poland, regarding it. Polish anti-German sentiments did not influence him, nor did they matter in so far as implementing this policy. The entry undue. It is undue. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dr. Dan sums it up nicely. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- Let me repeat: "Yes, but the original discussion is about whether the info belongs in the BACKGROUND section" - i.e. is it a notable component of the background to the expulsions and their nature? This idea that someone was arguing that there is a causal connection between destruction/murders in Warsaw and the Expulsions is a STRAWMAN ... Even IF the actual and cultural genocide in Warsaw didn't in any way directly lead to the expulsions, as long as it affected how 1) the expulsions took place and/or 2) how the expulsions are/have been perceived in Poland, Germany and anywhere - since both of these are discussed in the article - it is relevant. The source making that connection is sufficient, whether or not Herzog did." Where exactly any of this has been addressed?radek (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay we went over this a couple of times but lets try again. We are not, i repeat not, claiming that Stalin made his decision because the Polish anti-German sentiments influenced him, what are we saying is 1) he used those Polish anti-German sentiments and 2) it made it much easier for him to do the expulsions. Frankly, that is helpfull when you want to expel millions of people, to have native population who also want that, is so obvious that i don't understand why are you guys still in denial on that. Loosmark (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the paragraph you're defending here is unsuitable to that end, as I just pointed out above. It is inaccurate, misleading and moralizing. Also, the fact some of what it says is "so obvious" is a part of the problem - stating the obvious makes it look as it it weren't obvious. However, if you formulate a neutral and factually accurate paragraph that helps uninitiated readers understand the situation without patronizing them I'm sure nobody's going to object. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "...what are we saying is 1) he (Stalin} used those Polish anti-German sentiments and 2) it made it much easier for him (Stalin) to do the expulsions. Frankly, that is helpfull when you want to expel millions of people, to have native population who also want that, is so obvious that i don't understand why are you guys still in denial on that". Let me respond to all of the fallacies Loosmark has presented in that statement. Point #1 Where and how? (source it), Point #2 How? (source it). When Stalin expelled tens of thousands in the Baltic States to Siberia, the general populace was not "helpfull" (sic), it was appalled and dismayed to say the least. Yet Stalin did what he wished without an accommodating "native population". Nobody is in denial about Polish anti-German sentiment after the war, nor that it existed prior to Warsaw's destruction either. Once again, some are simply in denial by insisting that Warsaw had something to do with the German expulsions, even though it didn't. Or in denial that Stalin's decision was in any way influenced by Polish public opinion, or what happened to Poland after September 17th, 1939. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been too involved here and don't know the details. But as long as there is any reliable source claiming some sort of connection between Warsaw and the expulsions, it would seem obvious that this belongs in the article. It's not up to us as mere editors to second-guess reliable sources.Faustian (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek's, Radeksz's and Loosmark's Reply to Matthead's Vote in the Survey
Matthead's comment being replied to from above (reposted by Radeksz):

"''there's no clear ref that links the 1939-1945 history of Warsaw to the expulsion of Germans. I was waiting for someone to bring a source of at least one Polish politician clearly stating "We expelled the Germans because they began to destroy Warsaw in 1944. If they hadn't done that, they could have stayed in their traditional home lands, in Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia". The attempt by Radek to use a Roman Herzog speech, or a discussion of his speeches, as a source, is clumsy. If the Nazis were so bad, why did they destroy the relatively young Warsaw after the Uprising of 1944, but not other, much older cities and buildings with cultural importance to Poles? Why are Wawel Castle and the cathedrals in Posen and Gnesen still standing, after 6 years of German occupation? Systematically destroying cities is what Allies have done with their bombing to all German cities, well before 1944, and to non-German cities, too. Besides, in 1945, the Poles had already over 600 years of experience with expulsion of Germans, by open violence, or by more subtle methods. And well before WW2 or Hitler, Poles have clearly expressed their desire to get rid of Germans within their reach, and to "recover" German and Czech lands, simply because these areas had temporarily been occupied by one of their ancestors almost a millennium earlier. And that is what the background section needs to cover.''" User: Matthead


 * "Poles have clearly expressed their desire to get rid of Germans within their reach" - Are you suprised by that? You must be kidding !!For all what the Germans did to the Poles such as countless mass murders, Auschwitz, cities burned to the ground? Wow! "Bad" Poles. In your opinion, Poles should love the Germans after the war, right?--Jacurek (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, your entire comment just blows my mind away...--Jacurek (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait did I understand you correctly, are you really saying that the Nazis "weren't so bad" because they didn't destroy every single Polish city!? Are you normal, what kind of argument is that? And what does that "relatively young Warsaw" mean? Warsaw was the capital, the most important city with countless beatiful historical buildings. The Nazis completely devasted it in a most barbaric possible fashion. Loosmark (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be careful Loosmark, less you be accused of not assuming good faith in someone who says "If the Nazis were so bad...", implying that, you know, they really weren't that bad. I mean, really, we should all thank the Nazis for not destroying Krakau, Posen and Gnesen. Someone should quickly write Nazi Beautification of Posen, or better yet Nazi Beautification of Warschau - these very important topics have been neglected on Wikipedia far too long.radek (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd's reply to Radek
Herzog did not make such a connection, the source is two linguists analyzing one of his speeches concerning the Warsaw uprising and make one mention of the expulsions in parenthesis to explain a German term ("aufrechnen") they used, saying this aufrechnen was implicit in the discussion. See below. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

re Piotrus/Tehran

 * Re Prokonsul's above comment: "Include IF there is a clear ref that links Warsaw to expulsion of Germans (if such a ref was given above, I cannot find it - I suggest adding it to the RfC explanation above and informing editors who voted about that important fact). It makes sense to me, per Loosmark, to note that it was Nazi's atrocities which fueled sentiments behind the expulsions, but such a statement needs refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)":
 * My comment: It's really about the DEGREE of expulsions, since the prospect of post-WW2 "expulsions" per se can be traced back to the 1943 Teheran Conference.  There were going to be expulsions post WW2 regardless of whether Warsaw was destroyed or not . . . whether realized or not, the debate seems to center on the degree of expulsions, with the inference that the Warsaw destruction contributed to more extensive expulsions than would otherwise have been the case. To repeat: the subject of expulsions came up at the 1943 Teheran Conference, and thus needed no prompting of a 1944 Warsaw destruction to introduce or ratify or validate the topic.ANNRC (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)  To continue:  Some sort of Oder-Neisse boundary line was suggested at the 1943 Teheran Conference . . . however, as a general suggestion it didn't get into the specifics re Eastern or Western Neisse River as potential border line: again, that, along with other German-Polish boundary issues, was to be left up to the Final Peace Conference and Treaty ending WW2.  It is unlikely that anything related to the 1944 Warsaw destruction led US Secretary of State James Byrnes at Potsdam to change the temporary western boundary of the Polish administered territories from the Eastern Neisse River to the Western Neisse River: as with most others, Byrnes felt that the Final Peace Treaty ending WW2 was just a few weeks/months away from the Potsdam Conference, and all matters would be negotiated in final form, and settled legally there.  Lastly, the idea that the Polish Communist Militias would have been less harsh and less far reaching on expelling ethnic Germans if the 1944 Warsaw destruction hadn't occurred is absurd.ANNRC (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in Article #12 of the Potsdam Agreement which addresses the Eastern German territory placed under (temporary, pending the Final Peace Treaty) Polish administration. Article 12 follows:


 * 12. Orderly transfer of German Populations

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.
 * The "Poland" referred to is the 1937 bordered Poland west of the Curzon Line. The Germans referred to are both (1) the ethnic German population living, for example in 1937, within the 1937 borders of Poland; & (2) the ethnic German population moved into what was the 1937 borders of Poland following the division of Poland between the Nazis and the Soviets in 1939.ANNRC (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the Potsdam Agreement was an ambiguous document since it was intended to serve as both an interim document and as applicable to some extent following the Final Peace Treaty ending WW2, it obviously was intended to eventually cover expulsions from former German territory awarded to Poland at the Final WW2 Peace Treaty (Note: The precise location of those territories was to be decided at the Final Peace Treaty). Another indication of the Potsdam Agreement's interim nature was the fact that it didn't mention anything about the "orderly and humane" transfer of the ethnic German population from northern East Prussia, which had been assigned to Soviet administration pending the peace treaty.ANNRC (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

interesting this claim that "expulsions came up at the 1943 Teheran Conference". You might want to check this:. Loosmark (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What would be even more interesting is showing any claim, anywhere, linking the expulsions to this. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ok i note that the fact that in the Teheran conference declaration there is no mention of the expulsions is now established. Loosmark (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In Tehran, Churchill said that Poland should be shifted between Oder and Curzon line, and this meant "possibly disentanglement of population at some points" (just copypaste into googlebooks searchbar to get refs). He also made that statement if Poland takes a step sidewards she would step on German toes. Roosevelt also proposed the transfer of German populations - in 1943 . And Stalin was used to ethnic cleansing anyway. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so fast, Loosmark. The consensus on what happened at the Tehran Conference, concerning this survey, hasn't been "established" by your telling us that that's now the case. If at the conference an incipient agreement to dismember Germany was implemented, it seems much more relevant to the expulsion of its inhabitants than anything relating to Warsaw. Do you have any sources mentioning these expulsions relating to Warsaw? As I remember this survey is specifically related to that question, not the Tehran Conference, nor if you brought it up first. You asked me when I thought the impetus to these expulsions first occurred. I gave you my answer. The historical facts speak for themselves. The emotional ones on Wikipedia also speak for themselves. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't bring up the Tehran conference, somebody else did. For now lets just stick with the facts and the facts are that the Tehran conference didn't officially define the expulsions. Informal agreements are open to interpretations and the German actions in Warsaw most certainly didn't help their cause. And in any event the destruction Warsaw and the mass killings still remain very relevent for the anti-German feelings which most Polish people had. Loosmark (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Potsdam Agreement didn't officially define the [full extent of the] expulsions either. It doesn't say a word about expulsions from territories "administered" by the Poles and the Soviets.  Reason:  The expulsions were to be legally defined by the Final Peace Treaty.ANNRC (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't do the homework. The Potsdam Agreement has a section titled Orderly transfer of German population: 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. . note: the text 'full extent of the' was sneakily added 10 hours after i wrote this comment. Loosmark (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the "full extent" caveat because you seemed to miss the point that the Potsdam Agreement said nothing about German population transfers from northern east Prussia. Your comment that I didn't do my homework is completely off the mark.  I have cited Art 12 of the Potsdam Agreement numerous times.  I say again: The Potsdam Agreement [PA] didn't officially define the expulsions either, since the boundaries of post-war Poland had yet to be determined at the time of the Potsdam Conference.  The PA did legally define the ethnic German expulsions for Czechoslovakia and Hungary, namely that within the 1945 boundaries of those two nations the expelling "authorities" were given a mandate by the PA to expell 100% or less of the population they determined to be "ethnic German", regardless of how many generations those German families had lived within the 1945 bounaries of Czechoslovakia and Hungary.  To repeat, the PA was an interim document which wasn't intended to address the full scope of the Final Peace Treaty. The intent was that the Final Peace Treaty would determine Poland's borders.  At that point the "orderly and humane" transfers of ethnic Germans was to take effect from whatever percentage of the temporary Polish administered Eastern German lands which had been permanently assigned to Poland in the Final Peace Treaty.  The "Poland" mentioned in Art. 12 of the interim Potsdam Agreement document pending the Final Peace Treaty was the 1937 land area of Poland west of the Curzon Line.  In that area, and that area alone until the Final Peace Treaty, the "orderly and human" transfers of ethnic Germans applied, and therefore Polish authorities were empowered by the PA to expell 100% or less of ethnic Germans living in that land area, regardless of how many generations those German families had lived within that 1937 land area of Poland west of the Curzon Line.  The "destination" of those "orderly and humanely" transfered ethnic Germans could have been the Eastern German provinces temporarily administered by Poland pending the Final Peace Treay, or "Occupation Germany", or both.ANNRC (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the boundaries of Peace Treaty Poland were unknown at the time of the Potsdam Conference, the only legally applicable Polish entity to which the "transfer" provision could be applied (at the time of the Potsdam Conference) was the 1937 bordered area of Poland west of the Curzon line. As previously stated, the Final Peace Treaty would define the permanent borders of Poland, and would legally identify the transfers of ethnic German population from both the Soviet and Polish administrative areas of German provinces east of the Oder-Neisse Line.ANNRC (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what exactly is your point. I wanted to note there is a complete difference between the Tehran and Potsdam declarations in that one doesn't mention the transfers of populations and the other does. Loosmark (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both conferences were more than their texts. For example, the U.S. Dept of State reference  http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/104429.htm states in part, "At Tehran, the three Allied leaders also discussed important issues concerning the fate of Eastern Europe and Germany in the postwar period. Stalin pressed for a revision of Poland's eastern border with the Soviet Union to match the line set by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1920. In order to compensate Poland for the resulting loss of territory, the three leaders agreed to move the German-Polish border . . . " (Note: The Neisse River was mentioned, but not which one . . . besides, everyone knew, just as they did later at Potsdam, that the final determination would be made at the Final Peace Treaty.)ANNRC (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

re Thorsten1/emotional language

 * reply to Thorsten1: "murdered" is too emotional and non-encyclopedic. Yes murdered is too emotional, when we talk about the Nazis victims we have to be as cold as possible, perhaps we should use over 800.000 had their existence terminated, sounds more neutral and encyclopedic. There's no point calling the destruction of Warsaw "ethnic cleansing" - there were no concrete attempts at replacing the Polish population with Germans, so "ethnic cleansing" is out of place. The Nazis wanted to do just that, see just because they for whatever reason didn't complete their sick plans it doesn't mean that phase 1, the ethnic cleansing, to a degree didn't take place. Loosmark (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * reply to Loosmark: "when we talk about the Nazis victims we have to be as cold as possible" - not cold, but neutral, as with anything else. "perhaps we should use over 800.000 had their existence terminated, sounds more neutral and encyclopedic." - no, it just sounds stupid. "Killed" would be just fine. "The Nazis wanted to do just that [...] just because they [...] didn't complete their sick plans it doesn't mean that [...]  ethnic cleansing [...] didn't take place." The Nazis wanted to take over all the world, attack New York with long-distance bombers, raze Berlin for World Capital Germania, and what not. We should limit ourselves to what actually happened (that's more than enough), not what could have happened, based on things the Nazis dreamed up and put in their drawers. "Ethnic cleansing" is a good term to describe what happened in other parts of occupied Poland, but not really in Warsaw. Even if it were, it wouldn't be in any causal connection with the postwar deportations of Germans (except in the sense that both were results of WW II), which is the only question we're really concerned with here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In this noble quest for absolute neutrality which seeks to replace "murdered" with "killed" shouldn't we also rename this article from "Expulsion" to "Movement westward".radek (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your insinuation that "expulsion" relates to "movement westward" like "murder" relates to "killing" is absurd (as I assume you know well enough). In Polish, the established term is wysiedlenie (resettlement or, more literally, "settling out"), while wypędzenie (expulsion, the literal translation of the German Vertreibung, both literally "driving out") is rejected as too emotional and accusatory). In German, it's the other way round; Vertreibung is the established term, while Aussiedlung (the counterpart of wysiedlenie) is interpreted as trivializing or apologetic. Germans often don't understand that when Polish speakers say wysiedlenie/Aussiedlung, they are not trying to justify these events, but just using the common expression in their language. Conversely, Poles often don't understand that when Germans say Vertreibung/wypędzenie, they're not being revisionist or accusing anyone, but just using the common expression in their language. English is, so to speak, neutral territory for Poles and Germans, and they shouldn't try to continue their bitching on it. Instead, they should use whatever the most established term is. I don't assume to decide what it is, but "expulsion" is definitely more common than "westward movement". Having said that, there's a number of alternatives to "expulsion", such as deportation, population transfer, displacement, forced migration, (forced) resettlement or relocation.
 * However, none of this has anything to do with the issue of "killed" vs. "murdered". "Killed" is the standard English term used when the circumstances are not specified, "murdered" always requires a specification, otherwise it sounds moralizing and patronizing (because it doesn't trust readers to make their own moral judgment based on the facts). To give you an example, English newscasters saying that "10 civilians were killed in a suicide attack" are not making any statement about the moral justification of the killing, or lack thereof. However, if they were saying "10 civilians were murdered in a suicide attack", it would sound very strange to English ears - as if anyone needed to be educated that taking innocent lives in suicide attacks was wrong. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * question for Thorsten1 I advise you to check the definition of murder on wiki: Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent. Are you really trying to claim that in Warsaw the Nazis didn't unlawfuly kill people with intent? Loosmark (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * answer for Loosmark: "Are you really trying to claim that in Warsaw the Nazis didn't unlawfuly kill people with intent?" This is completely irrelevant. People killed in wars are usually called "people killed in wars", not "people murdered in wars". Using "killed" instead of "murdered" doesn't imply any moral or legal justification of the killings. Conversely, using "murdered" in this context sounds patronizing, as if talking to children that can't be expected to make their own moral judgments based on the facts. We don't do that here at Wikipedia. Quite apart from that, you're confusing legal terminology and everyday language. The definition you're advising me to read is a legal definition based on which a court decides whether or not a killing was legally a case of murder or not - this obviously doesn't apply here (BTW neither Poland nor Germany are common-law countries.) --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what people who are killed in wars are called depends on who they are and why are they killed. Civilians or POWs killed are "murdered", combat soldiers are "killed". If we were saying that Polish pilots shot down in the Battle of Britain were "murdered" you'd be right. But we are talking about civilians. And that whole business about how it "sounds patronizing", "we don't do that here" etc. - you're just making stuff up, as in Original Research, which ... we don't do that here on Wikipedia. What do the reliable sources use: "German troops in Warsaw had murdered masses of AK soldiers and civilians", "troops murdered between 30000 and 40000 civilians" , and so on... Here on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources not what someone feels is "patronizing" or not.radek (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "what people who are killed in wars are called depends on who they are and why are they killed. Civilians or POWs killed are "murdered", combat soldiers are "killed"." Not quite. "Killed" is an umbrella term covering both "fallen" soldiers and "murdered" civilians. BTW, in contrast to what you seem to believe, "murdered" is not the standard term for all civilian casualties - unless you're saying that German civilian victims were "murdered" as opposed to "killed". Of course, the term "murdered" may be absolutely correct to describe specific situations - such as the illegal executions of prisoners of war and civilians. This is exactly how your sources, Włodzimierz Borodziej and Robert Forczyk  use the term "murdered". Neither source uses "murdered" in reference to the entire 800,000 wartime casualties in Warsaw, contrary to what you're saying. Your selective (not to say manipulative) use of sources would get you kicked out of any undergraduate class in history at any Polish university. As for the rest, you seem to be having a hard time that it's not necessary here to educate anyone that the Nazi regime was evil. This knowledge should be taken for granted, not taking it for granted is patronizing - period. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thorsten, please stick to the topic instead of trying to lecture other editors (speaking of "patronizing"...) on whether or not they'd pass undergraduate courses. You have neither the qualifications nor the mandate, here on Wikipedia. And you're splitting hairs - sure, not every single of those 800,000 was "murdered" strictly speaking. We could word it something like "killed 800,000 civilians, most of whom were murdered in cold blood" - this is in fact how the sources use the term. And no - in contexts that directly deal with Nazi Germany, it is sometimes important to restate the fact that the Nazi regime was evil. I think we've seen users on this very encyclopedia who seem to forget that fact, while others, while saying "of course the Nazis were evil" then proceed to try and whitewash Nazi crimes. If it is obvious and true as you say, then there really is no cost to restating it (and even here, we're only doing it indirectly, by being specific and factual about what the Nazis did). You've pulled this notion that somehow this is "patronizing" out of thin air and now present it as a knock-down argument which it isn't. By far.radek (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need any "mandate" to point out that your use of references is manipulative - you implied that the sources used "murdered" in reference to all wartime casualties in Warsaw, when they don't. Pointing out obvious mistakes (not to say blatant attempts at manipulation) isn't patronizing. What is patronizing is assuming that readers will be unable to understand common neutral wordings. "[I]n contexts that directly deal with Nazi Germany, it is sometimes important to restate the fact that the Nazi regime was evil. [...] [W]e've seen users [...] who seem to forget that fact, while others [...] try and whitewash Nazi crimes." I think now we're getting nearer to the crux of the matter. No one is denying that Wikipedia is vulnerable to Nazi (or other) POV pushers. However, that doesn't mean that we have to preemptively fortify our wordings against them. We're writing for the reasonable average person here, not for totally ignorant and morally immature hypothetical readers that must be protected against Nazi propaganda. " You've pulled this notion that somehow this is "patronizing" out of thin air". No, in fact, I have gone to great length to explain this - I just did it again. If you refuse to understand this, I can't help it. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mandate" - what exactly gives you the right to lecture others? And no I was not "manipulating" sources - and saying so borders on a personal attack - I didn't say that the sources used "murdered" in reference to ALL wartime casualties, just that this term is a frequently used, by the sources, to describe the wartime killing of CIVILIANS in Warsaw. What you seem to be asking for is a source which explicitly states "all 800,000, every single one, was murdered" - which is of course a ridiculous request. The sources use the term to refer GENERALLY to the civilian casualties of Warsaw. And again - the idea that somehow being factual about Nazi crimes is "patronizing" (to whom? experts in Nazi atrocities?) is your own invention. You seem to be mistaking a strongly worded assertion for an intellectual argument. It doesn't matter whether you think that this is "patronizing" or not. What matters is what the sources say. So please drop it.radek (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by your comments. A lot of civilians killed in Warsaw were murdered and I fail to see why we should use the more neutral term, killed can basicaly mean anything. But anyway as usual lets agree to disagree. Loosmark (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it "puzzles" you that someone wants to keep moralizing, patronizing language out of here, you're definitely in the wrong place. The 800,000 victims mentioned in the paragraph died in a variety of circumstances; executions, combat, exhaustion, starvation - you name it). So using a term that "can basically mean anything" is exactly what we should do. In no way does "killing" imply that the killing was in any way morally justified. That everything about Nazi policies was morally corrupt can be taken for granted and doesn't need to be hammered home to our readers. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling the text "moralizing, patronizing language" is your particular POV. I personally don't see it that way. So we should use the term that the sources use. Which is "murdered".radek (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have pointed out above why using an emotional term when a neutral term is available is patronizing and nieency. "I personally don't see it that way" (emphasis mine). No further comment necessary. "we should use the term that the sources use. Which is "murdered"." No, they don't, as pointed out above. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this "emotional term" that you refer to? "Murdered"? Yes, it is a strong term, but in this instance it is also a factually correct one. Just like it is in many other instances. Or are you going to go and lobby to change Mississippi civil rights workers murders to "Mississippi civil rights workers killings" because "murders" is too POV and emotive? You need a far better argument than just your own personal emotions on the subject.radek (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that I know absolutely nothing about Mississippi civil rights workers murders. But from the sound of it, "murder" seems to be a correct word. Anyway, using an article name like Mississippi civil rights workers murders to justify a wording like "Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered" is extremely far-fetched. But by now, I've stopped expecting anything else. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- Well, you were arguing that "murdered" is an emotive and POV term. I've been arguing that it isn't, as long as it is in fact what happened and that fact is verifiable through the use of reliable sources. You appear to be backing down from your extreme earlier stance (that "murdered" is always POV) now, though you're also abandoning consistency in the process. So let me say it again, there's nothing POV about using "murdered" to describe unlawful killings of civilians, whether this is perpetrated by individuals or states.radek (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that ca 2 million of the German expellees "died" as part of the expulsion, what is the politically correct way of referring to, for example, the sub-population of that total which met their doom via direct physical action (e.g., shooting) by Polish Communist Militias? There's a whole string of word candidates: "simply died", "eventually died", "likely died", "simply killed", "likely killed", and last, but not least, "murdered". . . . Oops, almost forgot: "indeterminant deaths".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IP 76.14.240.177 could you please start to sign your posts? If you don't know how to do it: it's simple just type 4 type four tildes at the end. Thank you in advance. As for what you write I don't know what exactly is the purpose of your continuous anti-Polish provocations but I'll try to answer you politely anyway: if some German civilians were illegaly shoot then that needs to be called as it was and not with another name. If however you are trying to imply that the Polish Communist authorities were similar to the Nazis then your are only wasting your time. Loosmark (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting concept: the Polish Communist Militias as Altruists on Horseback during the Wild Expulsions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An even more interesting concept is an anonymous IP trying to bait Polish editors to overreactions. Nice try but unfortunately: Loosmark (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they over-react? I'm sure that not all the Polish Communist Militas on Horseback during the Wild Expulsions were altruists . . . . maybe only a few were.
 * Although off-topic, here's where I would expect "Polish editors" to have multiple opinions: I think that some of the Polish Communist Militas were perfectly capable of carrying out Stalin's ordered Katyn massacre against their own people.  Communism poisoned the mind just as much as Nazism did.  All Stalin had to say was "enemy of the people" and all his lapdogs jumped to do his bidding, for reasons to include self-preservation, fear, etc.       —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, by comparing the Polish communists with the Nazis you are only discrediting yourself. Loosmark (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certain comparisons are easy to make. For example, the Nazis wanted to eventually do away with the Roman Catholic Church.  Likewise (repeat after me): the Communists wanted to eventually do away with the Roman Catholic Church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what I think you are on to something, the commies in the DDR might have had some similarities with the Nazis, the secret police Stasi was maybe similar to the Gestapo, but I'm not sure. Maybe we should research the Berlin 1953 events and the role of the East Germany communist militias. Since you seem to be an expert on these comparisions maybe you can research it for us. Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I say again, "some of the Polish Communist Militas were perfectly capable of carrying out Stalin's ordered Katyn massacre against their own people." Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk)11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe you could explain what you mean by "the german POV".ANNRC (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's not get bogged down in these semantics. This issue remains whether the events in Warsaw either instigated, contributed to, or in any other way, based on scholarly sources, influenced Stalin, who in the final analysis acted alone in deciding to expel the Germans, not these arguments about semantics. Furthermore these debates and lengthy expostulations belong in the discussion section, not the survey section. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The problem is that the paragraph under discussion has so many issues that you don't even know what to start with. Anyway, as long as there are no scholarly sources that say that "the events in Warsaw either instigated, contributed to, or in any other way [...] influenced Stalin" we can save ourselves this tedious discussion. That the Poles were, understandably, more than happy to see the Germans leave is perfectly obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be obvious to you but remember we are building an international encyclopedia and the casual reader from Zimbabwe, Cambodia or Venezuela doesn't know these things too well. Adding a single sentence to help readers who are unfamiliar with the topic most certainly doesn't hurt. Loosmark (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Adding a single sentence to help readers who are unfamiliar with the topic most certainly doesn't hurt." No, not when it's worded manner-of-factly and doesn't confuse facts and judgments. "the casual reader from Zimbabwe, Cambodia or Venezuela doesn't know these things too well." Please don't underestimate the schools and common sense of people in poorer countries. That's what I meant with "patronizing". --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not underestimating or patronizing anybody but I've traveled the world a bit and I can tell you that the general knowledge of history is poor, very poor. Even in countries much richer than those like for example in the US. Anyway adding a sentence which describes a little bit what was going on in Poland IMO isn't patronising at all and we have 10000x more patronising stuff on wikipedia anyway. Loosmark (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I can tell you that the general knowledge of history is poor, very poor." Yes, especially knowledge of Polish history, of course. Poles are history buffs. ;) However, ask the average Pole a question not relating to the history of Poland, and in particular, the treatment of Poles at the hands of Germans or Russians, say the Spanish Civil War, and the picture won't be much different. "Anyway adding a sentence which describes a little bit what was going on in Poland IMO isn't patronising at all" - again, not if it's worded matter-of-factly. The paragraph under discussion isn't. Quite apart from the fact that it implies a causal connection that just isn't there. "we have 10000x more patronising stuff on wikipedia anyway." Fair enough, but two wrongs don't make a right, even 10,000 wrongs don't. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent) Again, please stop the with the semantics over murder and with the assesment of the educational systems of Zimbabwe, Cambodia or Venezuela . There's a plethora of examples of military forces committing murder throughout history. The Germans at Warsaw, the Americans at My Lai, the Poles at Pinsk, and so on, and so on. Let's not get bogged down here over this and return to the question of the survey. Did these events have a direct bearing to these events? The only reason I haven't voted is I've been waiting for further evidence. I think its been five days now. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The scale of Pinks events (according to your link 35 people killed) and the events in Warsaw (+100.000 civilians murdered) is completely different. It's out of place to compare the two, but we all know why you did that, don't we. Loosmark (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, please don't attempt to read my mind..."we all know why you did that, don't we..." A psychic you're not. But it's an interesting comment just the same. A more interesting comment is..."Pinks events (according to your link 35 people killed) and the events in Warsaw (+100.000 civilians murdered) ". That speaks for itself, in so far as your non- neutral POV is concerned, and it's revealing as well. After that ridiculous and tedious debate over the semantics concerning murder, you come back with the statement that the Germans "murdered" Polish civilians, while at the Pinsk events "people" were "killed". Truly interesting.

Just to give you an insight into my actual thinking, and I'm telling you this from the perspective of a Pacifist, morality is not, IMHO, predicated on the number of times it is deviated from. Whether you murder one person or a hundred thousand you're evil and dammed. And it's probably harder to kill 10 people with a knife than 1000 people with a machine gun, or 100,000 people with incendiary bombs. Mans inhumanity to man unfortunately goes back a long way, and it continues even as you read this. What happened in Warsaw is not the axis of the world view concerning the subject. It was a great tragedy, everything about it was, not least of all the "heroic" foolishness of the Uprising. Whereas the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was heroic, as that was their only option, many Poles understand that the Warsaw Uprising was not. But the issue remains whether the events in Warsaw are related to this article in anything but the most peripheral manner. I believe they do not. I'm trying to be patient and still waiting for the evidence demonstrating this. Oh, and do please tell me why "we" know why I brought up the examples of Pinsk and My Lai. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments: I don't oppose calling the Pinsk event a murder, secondly i disagree with your comment above, if you murder a person you are sure evil and damned however if you murder 1000 people then you are 1000 times damned, so there is a big difference between murdering 35 people or 100,000 people. Finally I find your comment on the foolishness of the Uprising "unfortunate" and even offensive, those people were true heros, they did what they thought was right at the risk of their own lives and they could not have possibly known that Stalin would order the Red Army not to help. Loosmark (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my "offensive" remarks, Loosmark, in relation to the Warsaw uprising, I would be very interested in pursuing the matter at the Uprising's talk page, as it would be OT to do so here (like a lot of other stuff being posted at this thread). If you care to join me in this, please do some homework, and let me know if you'd like to pursue it. We can start by exploring the views of Zdzisław Jeziorański and some others, since their interpretations would give all a greater non-biased analysis of the events that took place during the Uprising than either one of us could. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of the 2 million German civilians who died during the expulsions is it an exaggeration to say that Polish Communist Militas murdered between 50,000 and 100,000 of them?ANNRC (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "they could not have possibly known that Stalin would order the Red Army not to help": the following is from Wikipedia, Subj Warsaw Uprising: "The insurgents aimed to reinstate Polish authorities before the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation could assume control." The two statements are mutually exclusive.76.14.240.177 (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like, how? No wait don't tell me I got tired of reading your anti-Polish provokations. Loosmark (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reason & Logic 101: YOU CAN'T STRATEGIZE TO "WIN" (as in the Warsaw Uprising) BEFORE ANOTHER FACTION (i.e. the Red Army, accompanied by the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation) SHOWS UP, AND THEN, WHEN THEY (namely the Red Army) DON'T SHOW UP IN TIME ENOUGH TO ESSENTIALLY SAVE YOU FROM LOSING, BLAME THEM (i.e., that other faction, namely, Stalin/Red Army) FOR YOUR NOT WINNING. The logic involved contradicts itself, any way you want to examine it. The only way to reconcile this inconsistency is to disconnect the statement and then claim that no such interconnective ever existed i.e., that there was never any such strategy to (quoting from Wikipedia, Subj Warsaw Uprising) "reinstate Polish authorities before the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation could assume control".76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: today, 1 week after it was written, IP 76.14.240.177 made modifications to his comments above, my reply below was made to the original text. Loosmark (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the "comments" were simply capitalization for clarity. Nothing was done to change the "position" or substantiveness of the paragraph.  Here's a PARTIAL excerpt from Wikipedia Subj "Warsaw Uprising: "The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The Poles' chief objectives were to drive the German occupiers from the city . . . Secondary political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty . . . The insurgents aimed to reinstate Polish authorities before the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation could assume control."76.14.240.177 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You completely changed the wording of a sentence a week after i replied to it, and you have done that in a very sneaky way. Loosmark (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did this "complete change" occur? THE ORIGINAL STATES: "Reason & Logic 101: You can't strategize/hope to win (as in Warsaw Uprising) BEFORE another faction (i.e. the Red Army, accompanied by the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation) shows up and then, when they (namely the Red Army) don't show up in enough time to essentally save you from losing, blame the other faction (Stalin/Red Army) for your not winning. The only way to reconcile this inconsistency ..." THE REVISION: "Reason & Logic 101: YOU CAN'T STRATEGIZE TO "WIN" (as in the Warsaw Uprising) BEFORE ANOTHER FACTION (i.e. the Red Army, accompanied by the Soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation) SHOWS UP, AND THEN, WHEN THEY (namely the Red Army) DON'T SHOW UP IN TIME ENOUGH TO ESSENTIALLY SAVE YOU FROM LOSING, BLAME THEM (i.e., that other faction, namely, Stalin/Red Army) FOR YOUR NOT WINNING. The logic involved contradicts itself, any way you want to examine it. The only way to reconcile this inconsistency ..."76.14.240.177 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are making no sense but whatever. Loosmark (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help if you read up on syllogisms (try Wikipedia Subj Syllogism)76.14.240.177 (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 76.14.240.177, I'm trying my best to follow this confusing diatribe. Do you want Loosmark to read this or something else? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, when Loosmark resorts to ad hominem arguments at times it would be helpful if he understood syllogisms. Note: by your use of the words "confusing diatribe" you have just given him the ammunition for him to claim that he was the consistent breath of clarity . . . a stance likely sustained by some of the substance in the above statement prior to this "Note" i.e., the statement which begins "Yes, when Loosmark . . . "76.14.240.177 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, Out of the 2 million German civilians who died during the expulsions is it an exaggeration to say that Polish Communist Militas murdered between 50,000 and 100,000 of them?ANNRC (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it True that both the Wild Expulsions and the Post-Wild-Expulsions were conducted by the Polish Communist Militia?
They apparently worked both sides of the street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there really a need to start a new section just to write that? Loosmark (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Polish Communist Militias seemed to be overlooked in the debate. Were these the folks that were going to be discriminating (i.e., "reflecting the will of the Polish people") in determining which Germans were allowed to stay and which Germans had to leave, carrying whatever would fit into a sack carried over their shoulder?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

apparant copyvios
There are numerous copyright violations in the "Evacuation and flight to Denmark" section - basically, everything from the Spiegel Online source (i.e. everything that is not from a self-published source) is taken verbatim. For example:

Article: "the refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by military personnel.[22][29] The largest camp, located in Oksbøl on the west coast of Jutland, held 37,000 refugees.[22]"

Spiegel: "The refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by heavily armed overseers. The largest camp was located in Oksboll, on the west coast of Jutland, and had 37,000 detainees."

But pretty much every sentence from that source is very close to being verbatim. Likewise in the Poland section, the sentences taken from Gibney and Hansen are also copyvios.

There may be more and the whole article should be checked.radek (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, rephrased. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Can you also take care of the ones that come straight out of the Gibney and Hansen book?radek (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you point out the problematic sentences and/or phrases? Thanks, Novickas (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Glasnost and historiography
thumb|200px|Eastern Europe before and after glasnost and perestroika. Choose, please! - A 1990 political poster by [[Fidesz, depicting Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker performing a traditional and widely known communist-style kiss-greeting (archive photo, above) and a kissing contemporary young couple (below).]] "The fall of the Soviet Union, the spirit of glasnost and the unification of Germany opened the door to a renewed examination of these events." - Did "glasnost" really have anything to do with it? Is there a source for this claim, as well as for the others in the sentence?radek (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "The fall of the Soviet Union and the spirit of glasnost opened the door to a renewed examination of the Katyn event(s)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk • contribs)

The linked events could be exchanged with "The fall of Communism and thus the fall of regime-dictaded, -censored and -fabricated historiography in the USSR and her satellite regimes including East Germany" To cite Claudia Kraft, Ruhr University, Bochum, analyzing the situation in Poland: "'For many years, there were strict limitations on dealing with the expulsion of Germans in a scientific manner in the People's Republic of Poland. It was considered the inevitable consequence of the German extermination policy in Eastern and Central Europe and the territorial reorganization following World War II. Since the 1960s, the integration and settlement of the new Polish territories was intensively studied. This meant that the 'forced resettlement' or 'transfer' of the Germans was also studied - but only as a precondition for the successful integration of these territories, without asking about the responsibility of the Poles involved or about the impact of these events on the country's political culture. In addition, historians fell back on traditions found earlier in Polish historiography, traditions according to which the former Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostgebiete) were considered as originally Polish territories. The disappearance of the Germans from Poland thus was regarded as a more or less logical consequence of historic developments. Only once historiography was no longer subject to political limitations after the political turnaround of 1989 was it possible to use a more comprehensive approach when dealing with the complex of theme that was 'expulsion'. Sometimes in co-operation with their German colleagues, Polish historians seized the opportunity of more liberal access to the archives to reconstruct the sequence of events during the expulsions and the activities of the decision-makers and players involved. The topic of expulsion was considered one of the 'blank spots' which had been caused by the restrictions that the science of history had been subjected to during the existence of the People's Republic of Poland and which Polish historians now began to reappraise with great vigour.' (cite from Claudia Kraft: Germany, its Neighbouring Countries, and the Expellees: History and History Policy since 1949. Debates on the Expulsion of Germans in Poland since 1945. Changes in Historiography.)" Emphasis added. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the german POV. Loosmark (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "German POV". Skäpperöd (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another, non-German source: "The operation of double resettlement - Poles by the Soviets, resettled onto a territory from which Germans were expelled by other Poles and the Soviet Army - had a clearly precarious status. It had to be ideologically defended, mostly by spreading anti-German sentiments and propaganda, and it certainly was not supposed to be questioned under any circumstances. A debate about the Soviet annexation of the Polish eastern territories was unthinkable during the Cold War. Thus, the injustices in the Polish east and the German east were "balanced-off", as it were, in the conciousness of many Poles, and were understood as "just" acts by the Poles and the Russians, with regard to the Germans. Moreover, the expulsions of both the Poles and the Germans became a taboo in Communist Poland, not addressed politically or publically, or educationally, for decades, except for the official anti-German (or later on, anti West-German) propaganda. [...] The ideological freeze on any open discussion of the status and manner of the expulsion of the Germans and the Poles lasted practically until the changes of 1989 in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe." (Arie Marcelo Kacowicz, Pawel Lutomski: Population resettlement in international conflicts: A comparative study. Lexington Books, 2007, pp.102,103, ISBN 073911607) Skäpperöd (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's better, although it's still not clear to me what exactly does that has to do with the glasnost policy (wasn't that an internal Soviet thing?) Loosmark (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole Eastern Bloc was an "internal Soviet thing" - until glasnost and perestroika changed just that. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much glasnost and perestroika changed that, the fall of communism in 1989 brought real changes. Loosmark (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Glasnost and perestroika were the fall of Communism. At least the decisive steps on the Soviet side, which deprived the Eastern European regimes of Soviet military and - even more important - ideological support. That's why these regimes collapsed one by one within months, and there was no re-occurrence of Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, and Prague 1968. That's how it had ended without glasnost. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- I think it's possible to make a connection between the fall of Communism and the study of expulsions though care should be taken to do so in a NPOV way (something like "systematic and scientific study of the expulsions became easier and more comprehensive after the fall of the Soviet Union"...). However I don't see a link between "glasnost" and the "expulsions" - and no, "glasnost and perestroika" were not the fall of Communism - they were a last ditch effort to save it by making some compromises, which didn't work. But that's off topic actually. Bottom line is - need sources linking "glasnost" to this article.radek (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed the fall of communism as a factor (in wider discussions of the issue) with a ref and quote. The ref uses the phrase fall of communism; if editors object to the specific term Glasnost in this regard, they could take that out; I'd think there wouldn't be much argument. In the event some outsider happens on this, the term G. implies the whole thing originated within the SU rather than without - that makes it sensitive. Novickas (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Batch rename for all World War II evacuation and expulsion articles
Articles on those subjects are chaotically and confusingly named. Please see a proposal to standardize all names here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet puppet Polish Communist provisional government
Instead of constructing phrases like that, we should link the Provisional Government of National Unity and let the reader decide how to attribute it. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Polish Committee of National Liberation was the late-war government-like institution (1944), succeeded by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland (early 1945), which in turn was succeeded by the Provisional Government of National Unity in June 1945. If any, the latter should be linked if the post-war expulsions are concerned - though the provisional government played a role in the pre-Potsdam expulsions. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Casualty figures
Please do not alter the figures sourced to the federal German government, verifiable here, especially do not source statements to the federal German government it never issued. If there is something to add, add it and include the respective source in a different sentence. Rephrasing to match the source is not an NPOV violation. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Skapperod I see you are again POV-pushing. My German is not good but if i'm not mistaken the guy in your source say that the historian Ingo Haar demonstrated that the casualty figure has been inflated for "political reasons". Loosmark (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is an interview of a Deutschlandfunk correspondent, Koldehoff, with the respective secretary of state of the German government, Bergner. The questions and answers are indicated in the link with the names "Koldehoff" and "Bergner", respectively. The correspondent in the first question compares numbers of Ingo Haar and other numbers, and asks the secretary of state for clarification. In this first question, while citing the claims of Ingo Haar, the correspondent says that Ingo Haar "claimed" that "for political reasons" some estimates are too high. In the third question, he details the "political reasons" Haar claims, saying Haar monitored that population balance methods were used while counting verified death was "politically unwanted" in the post-war period. The secretary of state replied that there was no such political preference, and that the numbers resulting from different methods don't exclude each other. I have attributed the respective numbers to the method they result from. Now where did I push what POV?! Skäpperöd (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The POV is you didn't mention in the article that the historian Haar thinks that the numbers were "inflated for political reasons". The secretary of state Bergner seems to have a different view but the article should present both views to our readers and let them form their own opinion.Loosmark (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The casualty section mentions the "controversy" in much more detail already. You are free to initiate a discussion whether the fact that one historian with a preference for one specific counting method once claimed that this his preferred method was politically unwanted after the war is notable enough for inclusion or not. It is certainly not lead stuff, and certainly there is nothing wrong with replacing a sourced statement which is not supported by the source with a statement supported by the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ingo Haar's oppinion about political motivation in the lead?
The sentence:
 * "A historial expressed his view that the number is inflated for political reasons."

does not belong in the lead, per WP:UNDUE and WP:V. It has a factual flaw: Haar does not say that the number is inflated for political reasons. All the source says is that Haar said the method of counting verified deaths only (as opposed to population balance methods) was "politically unwanted" after the war. It furthermore has to be established that his views are notable enough to be included (a) in the article and (b) in the lead. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So only what matches your POV is ok, but everything else is "undue" again? I used google translator for this sentence: Mit mehr als zwei Millionen, so behauptete der Historiker Ingo Haar, sei diese Zahl seit Jahrzehnten viel zu hoch angesetzt, aus politischen Gründen. = With more than two million, it claimed the historian Ingo Haar, this figure had been much too high for political reasons. Loosmark (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As already stated above, Koldehoff specifies this "political reason" some lines further down in in the source:
 * "Genau das wirft Haar ja den Zahlen auch vor, dass eben statistisch erhoben worden sei, dass man ermittelt hat, wie viele Menschen haben mal in den Gebieten gelebt im Osten, wie viele sind anschließend im Westen angekommen, und die Differenz dann zu Opfern, zu Toten erklärt hat. Er sagt, es habe auch andere Zählverfahren gegeben, das der so genannten verbürgten Opfer. Das sei aber damals politisch nicht gewollt gewesen."
 * Translation: "That exactly Haar accuses the numbers of, that they result from statistical methods, that it had been researched how many people once lived in these territories in the East, how many arrived in the West afterwards, and the difference declared victims, deaths. He [Haar] said, there were other counting methods, that of the so-called verified victims. But that would have been politically unwanted back then."
 * Regarding the other source rp.pl Gra w ofiary: Where does this source say other historians claim the numbers to be inflated out of political motives? Skäpperöd (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right here:

''Kluczową rolę w podważeniu wiarygodności liczb podanych w 1958 r. przez Federalny Urząd Statystyczny odegrał oficer Bundeswehry, a zarazem wybitny specjalista w zakresie badania strat demograficznych, dr Rüdiger Overmans. Odkrył on, iż statystyki Wehrmachtu nie obejmują około 2,5 miliona niemieckich żołnierzy poległych w dwóch ostatnich latach wojny. Ponadto, analizując straty wojenne w zachodnich Niemczech, Overmans stwierdził, iż tak zwane niewyjaśnione przypadki dotyczą w większości nigdy nieistniejących osób, wygenerowanych przez nieprecyzyjne informacje świadków lub błędnie opracowane statystyki. Uwzględniając te wyniki badań oraz fakt, że pracownicy Federalnego Urzędu Statystycznego dysponowali jedynie fragmentarycznymi danymi zarówno o osobach niewysiedlonych, jak i o wysiedlonych, ale przebywających w NRD, Overmans twierdzi, że rzeczywista liczba śmiertelnych „ofiar wypędzeń” nie przekracza w znaczący sposób 600 000 osób, a olbrzymia większość „niewyjaśnionych przypadków” to niezewidencjonowani polegli żołnierze, osoby niedotknięte przez wysiedlenia, wysiedleńcy żyjący w NRD i postaci w ogóle nieistniejące. Inny niemiecki badacz dr Ingo Haar potwierdza w swoich publikacjach wnioski Overmansa i wskazuje na wyniki pracy Niemiecko-Czeskiej Komisji Historyków, powołanej przez rządy obu krajów. Po drobiazgowych obliczeniach w 1995 r. zweryfikowała ona liczbę niemieckich ofiar wysiedleń z Czechosłowacji z dotychczas w Niemczech funkcjonującej liczby 250 tysięcy do zaledwie 15 – 30 tysięcy, a więc dziesięciokrotnie. Ówczesny minister spraw zagranicznych RFN Klaus Kinkel z uznaniem wypowiedział się o wyniku prac komisji, ale znaczna część niemieckiej opinii publicznej ze Związkiem Wypędzonych na czele do dziś je ignoruje.'' Loosmark (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)::::

If that is translated with an engine like, it does not even back up that Haar says "the numbers are inflated for political reasons". It just shows what is already stated in the sentence before: If you count verified deaths only, you get up to 600,000 casualties, and if you use population balance methods, you get some 2 million or more.
 * No, that's not what it says - and it's about Overmans, not Haar. Translation of the relevant portions:


 * A key role in undermining the truth of the numbers given by the 1958 Federalny Urząd Statystyczny was played by the former officer of Bundswehr, and a well known specialist in estimating demographic losses, dr. Rudiger Overmans. He discovered that the statistics given by the Whermacht do not include around 2.5 million German soldiers who died in the last two years of the war. Futhermore, Overmans found, that the so called "unexplained cases" mostly concern individuals who never existed, were made up through unreliable testimonies of witnesses or faulty statistical methods. Taking the results of his studies into account, as well as the fact that the employees of the Federalny Urząd Statystyczny only had access to fragmentary data both in regard to the number of non-expellees and expellees who had settled in NRD, Overmans stated that the actual number of deaths among the "victims of expulsions" does not exceed in any way 600,000 individuals, and the overwhelming majority of the "unexplained cases" are killed soldiers, individuals unaffected by the expulsions, expellees who actually ended up living in NRD and persons who never existed


 * So what it says is that the difference between the 600,000 and the 2+ million number is NOT made up of the difference between the verified deaths and 'population balance methods', but rather it is made up of killed soldiers, individuals unaffected by the expulsions, expellees who actually ended up living in NRD and persons who never existed.


 * Here is the part on Harr:


 * Another German scientist, dr. Ingo Haar, confirmed in his publications Overmans' results and pointed to the work by the German-Czech Commission of Historians, which was called by the governments of both nations. After very detailed calculations in 1995, the commission verified a number of German victims of expulsion from Czechoslovakia, based on a number 250,000 expellees then present in Germany, as only 15-30 thousand victims. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs of West Germany, Klaus Kinkel, expressed himself positively about the work of the commission, but a significant portion of German public opinion, with the Federation of Expellees at its lead, to this day continues to ignore these results.


 * So the Haar numbers apply mostly to just the numbers from Czechoslovakia although he agrees with Overmans. Nothing in any of this about 'population balance methods'.
 * The text and information should be reinserted. And as long as the 2+ million is in the lead, so should this be.radek (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even Steinbach (as per source) is presenting different numbers depending whom she talks to and what suits her political agenda at given moment. The point of this sentence is that the full research has not been done yet and the numbers are disputed and may be inflated. I personally think that the number of deaths was very high but some say (as per above source) that not as high as claimed by some nationalistic groups(again, as per source).--Jacurek (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Steinbach has nothing to do with the sentence, and the range given is not based on any nationalistic group. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)/07:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course she does.--Jacurek (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues after the rewrite
The sentence as it reads after Jacurek's rewrite: "Some historians view that the numbers are inflated for political reasons and have never been fully verified." The issues remaining with this sentence are Skäpperöd (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Who except for Haar says numbers are/were inflated for political reasons? That still needs to be verified.
 * (2) Where does Haar say that numbers "are" inflated for political reasons? The Deutschlandfunk interview says Haar claimed a post-war political dislike of the method of counting verified deaths only.
 * (3) What is "the numbers"? The sentence before gives ranges for both the numbers as resulting from the verified-deaths-counting as well as the population-balance methods.
 * (4) What numbers were "have never been fully verified"? The numbers resulting from the verified-deaths-counting method can't be meant, they are verified by definition. And the population balance method per definition does not turn out "verified" deaths.
 * (5) How does the sentence comply with WP:UNDUE? Is Dr. Haar's oppinion notable enough to be included (a) in the article (I think maybe, if his oppinion is at least stated factually accurate - see points 1-4) and (b) in the lead (I think definetely not)?


 * my god, not WP:UNDUE yet again!? see the source Jacurek provided, it's not just Dr.Haar's opinion and if you insist on having the pumped up 2 millions number in the lead then we also need to point out that there is no universal agreement on the numbers and that some historians disagree. Loosmark (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you just clarify the issues pointed out above? Skäpperöd (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why you keep talking about Haar only??, what about Rüdiger Overmans, Klaus Kinkel and others from the source? The sentence needs to be there for full balance and the full picture.--Jacurek (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please verify that Kinkel and Overmans stated that the results of the population balance method are "inflated for political reasons". Skäpperöd (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just raed the article and the other source I'm inserting now, thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also room to expand this sentence(see my second source) much further or even add another line or two but I will stop as it is for now...Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The other source of the Israeli politician does not say anything about politically motivated inflation of casualties, or historians who say so, or about any of the other issues pointed out above, which still need to be addressed. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is there, right in the sources. If the politician such as Steinbach chooses to point out to the highest numbers of victims and then to the lower estimates depending of whom she is speaking to, what is behind it? Of course her political agenda and nothing else. What would be the other reasons for advertising numbers as high as possible? Any thoughts? We could replace it with historical revisionism as a reason, would that be better? I don't think so. Now be honest.. What are your reasons for neglecting opinions of scholars who do not agree with such high numbers of victims? Maybe what you are looking for is right there.--Jacurek (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If "it is right there", why don't you just address my above concerns? Steinbach has nothing to do with the numbers cited in the article, and nothing with the issues pointed out above. 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * by the way Skäpperöd..stop reverting because all we need now is another trigger-happy administrator to block you or even "better" block us all. Remember what happened the last time? Stay here and let's hope somebody else will show up to help us with this. DON'T SHAKE THE BOAT please.--Jacurek (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just finished typing and you reverted again..I am giving up. Insert whatever you want and whatever suits your agenda. So long for neutrality of this page. Bye for now.--Jacurek (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't let your emotions get the best of you. I know you wrote the above with the best intentions, but if you change the piped link to this discussion in the inline template, the discussion will simply not show if you click on "under discussion". That's what the template is for. Please view my reverts as housekeeping and nothing else. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK ... in contrary to the last debacle debate I'm watching more or less serious efforts to look for sources before editing but it seems to me that the interpretations of the found sources by Jacurek don't meet the sources' content. Obviously the phrase search as such was more important than what the author had written. Jacurek's source 1) The author Cohen describes in this snip above the German view and bottom down the Polish view on this topic (espec. quoting a Polish source). Cohen doesn't leave the level of description: the words which Jacurek finds interesting are being used by Cohen to circumscribe the Polish view not his own. Jacurek's source 2)  Once more it's interesting what Jacurek couldn't(?)find - in particular what the author Ahonen did write in main text: The enormity of the events is reflected in the fact that up to 1.5 million Germans may have died in the course of the flight and deportation. The attached foot note points to the known discussions about the figures.
 * Elysander (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another source that CLEARLY states that Germans politicians use subject of expulsions for their political agendas: Temat wysiedleń powraca wciąż w dyskusjach politycznych (Subject of expulsions comes back in political discussions- by Wladyslaw Bartoszewski. Elysander, your analises of my sorces are completely wrong it is kind of embarrassing to read them.--Jacurek (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quote Bartoszewski saying "the numbers [which? the ranges given in the previous sentence?] are inflated [by whom] for political reasons". Otherwise, the source is just as displaced as all the other ones also not supporting the sentence. That the topic "expulsions" is discussed in politics does not mean that the numbers given in the previous sentence, resulting from different methods, are inflated for political reasons, and it neither unravels the contradiction about the "unverified" numbers pointed out in (4) above. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The editorial dispute here is not about whether or not different historians use different methods and get different results: That's why we have introduced ranges attributed to the respective methods and not "the one and only true casualty figure". It is also a non-issue whether or not some historians say their numbers are more precise than the numbers of anyone else, that is pretty natural. And that out of the ranges given, different historians/politicians/whoever are using different figures is not surprising at all - otherwise, there would be no ranges. The numbers given are the result of various different scientific approaches. The issues with the sentence are the ones bolded above, and since no sources support the sentence as it is, it needs to be taken out. Adding ever more booksearch results containing the words "inflated" and "politics" has no merit if the actual written text in the source does not support the sentence. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NO. All 4 sources support the sentence. The sentence has to stay for the full picture and not for the picture some people like it to be.--Jacurek (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Elysander and me have had a close look at the sources and have not found them supportive. Maybe you outline unambiguously how the sources support the sentence, best do so by quoting the relevant lines. I can only repeat what I told you on your talk: Please understand that it is a very serious matter if (a) the historians on whose works the ranges given in the sentence before are based, and (b) the federal German government to which these ranges are referenced, are wrongly accused of inflating numbers for political reasons. If such a claim is issued, there needs to be an unambiguous solid basis. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)/08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well.. I and Loosmark looked at them and we find that the sources sopport the sentence. Now what?--Jacurek (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you get someone %100 neutral to look at teh issue? But, please not the same usual people, (German and Polish) just somebody very neutral.--Jacurek (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask for a 3O or a mediation, I am open for both. However, an RfC or sth similar on whether a sentence is in a source or not seems silly. Either it is there, of course not necessarily verbatim but unambiguously supportive, or it is not. The burden to show that is on you. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden is on every editor to insure that they represent reputable unbiased sources fairly and accurately. V ЄСRUМВА  &#9742;  19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Skäpperöd can you please provide the translation of this passage from the source you provided? Mit mehr als zwei Millionen, so behauptete der Historiker Ingo Haar, sei diese Zahl seit Jahrzehnten viel zu hoch angesetzt, aus politischen Gründen. If this does not mean that the numbers were inflated for political reasons then i agree with you that the part has to go. Anyway I have just noticed there is a section which deals specificaly with the casulties so i deleted those estimated from in the lead. Loosmark (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already given a translation of the above quote and its follow-up specification here and here. I have also already pointed to the dedicated section . All these comments are right at the beginning of this discussion, and it is pretty disturbing that you seemingly answered posts you did not read. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think the casualty estimates, properly attributed to the respective methods, belong in the lead. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If we don't get somebody neutral here this article will never be accurate and will be always influenced by POV's. Sorry Skäpperöd this is just my opinion on this one. In addition, Skäpperöd, you cannot give Elysander (no offence Elysander, just looking at your history and restrictions) as a somebody who just happens to agree with you. We need some third very neutral person if we want to get anywhere here. To me right now it is Skäpperöd's way or no way. I'm not saying that it is always wrong way, no, but not always right either. Just like the above case.--Jacurek (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Two different issues
There is two different issues here. One is whether or not the numbers have been inflated - the sources provided by Jacurek; Overmans, Haar, Kinkel etc. definitely show that this was likely. The second issue is why the numbers were inflated - through standard academic disagreement and imperfect statistical methods or for political reasons. Some of the sources suggest that both were at play, for example the statement that "a significant portion of German opinion, with the Federation of the Expellees in the lead has continued to ignore these results". Let's get the fact that the numbers currently given in the article have been extensively criticized into the article first and then we can discuss about whether or not this was done for political reasons.radek (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Political reasons
Actually, now that I'm looking at it, the fact that these numbers have been inflated for political reasons is right there in the Bergner source ; "With more than two million, then the historian Ingo Hair maintained, is this number much too highly set for decades, for political reasons. Actually 500,000, perhaps 600,000 humans at the consequences died." (crude babelfish translation).

Also Bergner doesn't state that this is "the official estimate given by the German government" rather he calls it a "official number" - attributing it to the German government based solely on Bergner's statement is OR. Finally, it basically sounds like Bergner is misunderstanding or misrepresenting Haar's methodology - the difference between the old and new estimates is NOT between "direct physical effect" and inclusive of things like hunger and disease, but rather the difference between counting soldiers killed during the war and not counting them, counting people who never existed and not counting them, and counting those who actually made it to NRD but were missed, and not counting them.radek (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read my translations above for how according to this source Haar's "political reasons" are specified. As for whether or not Bergner (secretary of state) speaks for the government or not: Bergner in the source says "ich habe die damit befassten Referate konsultiert" = "I have consulted the respective institutions". Skäpperöd (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is still OR. Is there an "official" document which specifically states the "official" position of the "German government"? Or is it just politicians making personal statements? These are two completely different things.radek (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the secretary of state after explicit consultation with the respective governmental institutions makes a statement, then this can be taken as the stance of the government. Bergner further says "Es gibt amtliche Zahlen." = "There are official numbers.". Skäpperöd (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is this "explicit consultation with the respective governmental institutions"? Bergner makes this statement in a media interview. Is there an official document from the German government which says "these are the numbers we believe are official"? No. This is just a politician giving his own opinions. And sure, he calls them "official numbers". But that's just him expressing his opinion. We could just as easily call Kinkel's support for the Czech-German commission's numbers "official" since he was also a member of the government. Calling this "official position of the German government" is very clearly original research. Attribute it to Bergner, not "official German government" since that entity never made that statement.radek (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Overmans
If there is some kind of discrepancy between Overmans' research and how it has been reported please discuss it here first. We have a Polish language source and a German language source. I've taken the trouble to translate the Polish language, so if there is some kind of objections it's only appropriate that a full translation - and how it contradicts Zurek - is provided before any major revisions are made.radek (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, this is something that Woogie10w could help us out with.radek (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Radek, in a nutshell, Overmans wrote that the official demographic statistic of 2 million has no concrete foundation and has been brought into doubt in recent years.  He points out that hardly 500,000 are confirmed deaths, the balance being undetermined. He noted that his research on military casualties found an additional 344,000 military deaths in the region of the expulsions, he believes that this should reduce civilian deaths.
 * Radek, I am here if you need additional info. By the way, Theodor Schieder was a Nazi party member during the Hitler period. His report never mentions the crimes or victims of the Nazi era. Please note well that the demographic methodology of Schieder's report includes civilian deaths in the former German territories due to Nazi genocide and repression with “natural” deaths. But the Schieder report lists the civilian deaths due to allied bombing in the war on a separate line. Nazi genocide and oppression in the war included German Jews and German citizens of Polish ancestry. Dr. Schieder considered these “natural” deaths not worth mentioning. Another point about Schieder's report, he lists 1,381,000 ethnic Germans living in Poland prior to the war. The Polish census data from 1931 listed 740,000 ethnic Germans.  Schieder's report lists 185,000 civilian expellee dead among his estimated 1,381,000 ethnic Germans in 1939 Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * German Wikipedia has this to say about Schieder: During the war Schieder encouraged the expulsion of Jews in occupied Poland. He was active in the program to Germanize the East and to prevent the intermingling of ethnic Germans with the peoples in Eastern Europe. His recommendations were included in the Nazi Plan Ost. He was praised by the Nazi gauleiter Eric Koch for the confiscation of documents from Jewish Synagoues--Woogie10w (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. The 2-million-more-figure is for all German deaths, not for the expulsion area. I thought (and still think) it would make more sense to have only the latter included, as it is not related to this article how Wehrmacht deaths statistics for let's say Cologne have changed, only what has changed in the expulsion areas. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)/23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not according to Overmans, who says 600,000. He is specifically disputing the 2 million + figure. Unless that by "all German deaths, not for the expulsion area" you mean expellees+German soldiers and others during the last two years of the war, in which case, there's no reason for it to be included. Obviously the numbers are related. Can you provide the direct German text of the Overmans source you're relying on and an adequate translation (since I've done the same)?radek (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can give a full translation, but I ask for your patience until tomorrow. I have given the url in the source, but it is in German. I will translate tomorrow. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2-million-more is the additional overall Wehrmacht death toll (regardless of soldiers' origin) Overmans has computed. In the url to the Overman source you find a table on top of the page, that in its first columns names the different expulsion territories, in the second column the people who lived there and got KIA per Overmans, and in the third column you find the data Schieder had used. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, do it tomorrow. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you also articulate what you mean by "The 2-million-more-figure is for all German deaths, not for the expulsion area"? The 2 million + figure is presented as the number for the expellees, which is what this article is about - not for "all German deaths".radek (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, with "2-million-more-figure" I referred to the surplus of overall German military deaths Overmans revealed, not to the expellee figure. Of this overall military deaths surplus, 344,000 are from the expulsion areas, so this number has to be substracted from the original figure issued by Schieder et al. (which is somewhat above 2 million). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

'''Translation of [http://www.google.de/books?id=q4L9p1T0m1EC&pg=PA299 Overmans (2004). Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. pp.298-300]:'''

4. Results

4.3. Relevance of the results

page 298

4.3.2. Expulsion losses

This is an aspect which in its content and method is closely tied to the research at hand. While the now concluded project focusses on the military losses, this does not mean that soldiers were the only victims of the war. Let aside the losses of [Nazi] Germany's enemies, there had to be abstracted the German civilian victims of aerial warfare, deportation to the Soviet Union and flight and expulsion resp. from the former eastern territories, to whom the present data compilations provide no information. Yet, there are relations which now will be investigated.

[*] The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight [pagebreak]

page 299

and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.

[*] These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In recent years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified.

At this point exactly the results from the research at hand show an effect. As has been shown in Table 71, the number of males from the expulsion areas who died in the course of the Second World War according to the conducted research amounts to 1.44 million deaths, i.e. it is about 330,000 higher than the authors of "Bilanz der Vertreibung" have calculated. The question how this discrepancy had come about is easy to answer. Lacking precise documents, the authors of "Bilanz der Vertreibung" had to make assumptions about the death quota of the soldiers which today turn out to be false. The consequence of the construction of the [statistical] investigation as a balance is now that the number of civilian deaths lowers at the same rate the number of military deaths rises - because the number of the unexplained fates decreases. There- [pagebreak]

page 300

fore the previously issued data can not be maintained anymore.

In addition, there is a second issue. The research of the fate of the civilian deportees - of only marginal interest here - which is closely tied to the fate of the prisoners of war, shows that to this day the quantitative denotation of this process is not yet sufficiently explored. Also from this issue, there are clues which might be an impetus to critically revise the assertions about the losses of flight and expulsion. [end of chapter]

[Note: The two paragraphs marked with an asteriks ([*]) are translations transcluded from the Demographic estimates subarticle. I tried to maintain the original structure of the chapter and to translate as literal as grammar rules permit for easy verification.] Skäpperöd (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)/09:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)/09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but this just confirms what I was saying earlier. Overmans states that the number of deaths is no higher ("can hardly have been higher than") than 500,000. The adjustment of 330,000 is to one particular number out of all the numbers. It is the correction of one of many problems in the 1950s study. This is how these studies are done - if you have a study that's weak methodologically usually it has a number of problems and different parts of a criticism are going to focus on different problems. But that doesn't mean there is only one problem, as the suggestion is being made here. Hence it is inappropriate to write the text as if the entire revision that Overmans is making is just the 330,000 rather than a revision from 2-3 million to 500,000 (or 600,000).
 * Also, it's pretty clear from all the sources provided that Overmans and other newer research supports a number of deaths that's either 500,000 or 600,000. The exact criticism of the older numbers are at a level of detail that properly belongs in Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans (and that article needs to be revised accordingly as well).radek (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Overmans' correction of the military deaths figure in the population balance and his research/support for "studies about the sum of reported deaths" (>500,000) are two different issues. I hope that comes out more clear with the improved structure of the section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All Overmans has done is to point out the estimated losses and their sources.


 * The 1958 demographic study which lists losses of 2.2 million


 * The 1965 Church Search Service accounting which lists 467,000 confirmed dead plus 1,906,000 missing


 * The 1974 German Archives study which gave a figure of 600,000 dead


 * Overmans DOES NOT take a position on which source is correct he points out their flaws and contradictions, he believes new research is needed to determine the fate of the missing persons.

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Source: Dr. Rűdiger Overmans- Personelle Verluste der deutschen Bevölkerung durch Flucht und Vertreibung. (A parallel Polish summary was also included, this paper was a presentation at an academic conference in Warsaw Poland in 1994), Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI-1994

?
What are "Wehrmacht-related deaths"? The "Thus Overmans says..." seems like OR since this is just one aspect of his research and only one way that the figures have been inflated. What he says is that the figures are at most "600,000" overall. 2-3 million minus 600,000 is way more than 334,000 so this appears to be admitting one aspect of his criticism just to ignore the others. Yes I know, this is ORing on top of somebody else's OR. But without a specific translation there is no way to make sense of this.radek (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With "Wehrmacht-related death" I wanted to summarize deaths in German military service, maybe that could be put better.
 * Overmans says that from the Schieder figure, 330,000 have to be substracted. Of course, the figure will then still exceed <600,000, because the <600,000 figures are based on counting the positives, while the higher figures are based on excluding the negatives. Both methods have their obvious merits and flaws. What is left as the discrepancy between both methods' results is the number of fates yet unaccounted for. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Thus Overmans says..." seems to be a pretty clear indication that this is an extrapolation, or in other words OR, since this is reffed to Overmans himself. An author would never refer to himself in the third person. This emphasizes a need for a direct translation. Woogie?radek (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Overman actually says so, see translation above. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Overmans does not thus say "the Schieder figures have to be lowered by 334,000". What he is doing is illustrating a particular methodological problem - one of many - with the original numbers. Saying that he thus says that the Schieder figure of 2+ million has to be lowered by ONLY 334,000 is original research, and in fact, badly done original research as what he actually says is in fact that the actual number is 500,000 not 2+ million (2mill-500,000>334,000).radek (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Overmans is saying that hardly 500,000 deaths are confirmed and the fate of the other 1.5 million still need to be clarified. He also points out that he found 344,000 additional military dead that would reduce civilian losses.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is how see the numbers 1958 Report 2,225,000 less 515,000 equals 1995 Report 1,710,000 less 344,000 found by Overmans 1,366,000 less 600,000 confirmed dead from 1974 report gives us 766,000 still missing. These numbers do not include 310,000 Soviet Germans in the 1995 Report

Note well the 1958 Report claimed 1,381,000 ethnic Germans living in Poland in 1939, that is his basis to compute the figure of 185,000 expelee dead. The Polish census of 1931 lists 741,000. The math gets real fuzzy when Dr. Schieder is in charge!!--Woogie10w (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the numbers:

 * The the German government figure of 1958 using demographic methodology was 2,225,000, not including ethnic Germans in the USSR. They also estimated 1.1 million military deaths prior to the expulsions. Note well the 1950 figure for expellees living in the GDR was an estimate, since the GDR census figures did not include perons born after 1939 in the former eastern German territories with expellees.


 * The German Church Search Service report in 1965 for losses in the area of the expulsions found 473,000 confirmed civilian dead and an additional 1,906,000 unsolved cases of persons missing persons after the war. They also found 972,000 other deaths prior to the expulsions, which includes military dead.


 * The German Federal Archives in 1974 was able to confirm the deaths of 615,000 civilians.( 260,000 killed by Soviet military & their allies; 205,000 dead in USSR as forced laborers; 160,000 in the Expulsions) (400,000 in Poland; 130,000 in Czechoslovikia and 85,000in Yugoslavia)


 * A revised demographic estimate from 1995 by Gerhardt Reichling was 2,020,000, including 310,000 of Soviet ethnic Germans not covered in the 1958 report. He also estimated 1.250 million deaths prior to the expulsions(including military). The introduction to the report was written by an official of the German government Statistical Office who gave the report his endorsement.


 * Overmans found 1,444,000 military deaths in the area of the expulsions, 344,000 higher than the 1958 report


 * Overmans believes new research is needed on the fate of the missing, he does not support any of the above sources to be the final word on the topic.

This is what the sources are saying, We should not give undue weight to one source. We should present each one of them them for readers to review--Woogie10w (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by ANNRC

 * Use of figures in such matters contribute to both further clarification in some areas and to further confusion in other areas. The approach obviously has to employ quasi-legalistic terminology because of all the ambiguity.  Since there were no Wehrmacht (& SS) veterans around during the expulsions, it is a matter of perspective that the "civilian" expellees were women, children, and old men.  Mixing expellee originating "areas" obviously leads to further confusion - as an example, the partial or complete mixing of figures from such civilian expellee populations originating in (1) Southern East Prussia; (2) the 1937 borders of Poland (which obviously included German resettlements during the WW2 timeframe); (3) Danzig and the German 1919-39 areas between the Oder-Neisse Line and the Western Border of 1937 Poland; and (4) Northern East Prussia.ANNRC (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  Of course, German expulsions from northern East Prussia were a wholly USSR undertaking with not a lot of patience for some future Final WW2 Peace Treaty (Note: Nowhere in the Potsdam Agreement is reference made to German population transfers from northern East Prussia -- only three country names are associated with German population transfers in the Potsdam Agreement: Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary).  Northern East Prussia was the only one of the above posted itemized areas unaffected by Polish Communist Militias as expulsion "authorities".ANNRC (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  Here is the Potsdam Agreement reference to northern East Prussia: "V. CITY 0F KOENIGSBERG AND THE ADJACENT AREA.
 * "The Conference examined a proposal by the Soviet Government to the effect that pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement, the section of the western frontier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is adjacent to the Baltic Sea should pass from a point on the eastern shore of the Bay of Danzig to the east, north of Braunsberg-Goldap, to the meeting point of the frontiers of Lithuania, the Polish Republic and East Prussia.


 * "The Conference has agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet Government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the City of Koenigsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above subject to expert examination of the actual frontier.


 * "The President of the United States and the British Prime Minister have declared that they will support the proposal of the Conference at the forthcoming peace settlement."


 * ANNRC (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Caveat: "East Prussia" is referenced in the Agreement above rather than stipulating "the area of East Prussia under temporary Polish Administration pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement."ANNRC (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ANNRC could you stop writting these long, boring off-topic rants? wikipedia is not a discussion forum. thanks. Loosmark (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, you must be an expert in German expulsion statistics in order to find background material boring. How many German civilians were killed by the expelling Polish Communist Militia "authorities"?  Somewhere between 50,000 to 100,000?  Or maybe more?  You once said that if the Germans in general had acted nicer towards the Poles during WW2 that not as many Germans would have been expelled.  Since the Polish Communist Militia "authorities" were so-called "acting in the name of the Polish People and Nation" as the expellers, does this mean that Polish Communist Militias contained many hundreds of altruists?ANNRC (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Loosmark (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, maybe a compromise is in order. What about a figure of 75,000 German civilian expellees killed by Polish Communist Militias?ANNRC (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOOSMARK: Such personal and judgmental attacks are not conducive to a rational and dispassionate discourse on what should be a serious topic of discussion.  No matter their nationality, any episode of (state-sanctioned) mass killings resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of people deserves a full and complete evaluation; your comments seem to have been made with the intent of stifling further discourse, and are not appropriate here. See WP:PA " Comment on content, not on the contributor."   NDM (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure of the casualties subsection
To avoid unnecessary conflicts and further misunderstandings, I restructured and expanded the casualties section as follows:
 * Subsection "Research employing population balances": Here, all data (without interpretation etc, just the actual research) involving population balances is listed, in chronological order.
 * Subsection "Research tracing individual fates": Here, all data (again without interpretation) resulting from mutual addition of the tracing/confirmation/verification of individual fates is listed, in chronological order.
 * Subsection "Current citation and criticism of estimates": Here, it is listed how the data derived from either methods are cited in literature, interpreted and criticized.

This structure allows data to be sorted both according to how they were compiled and in chronological order (subsections 1-2) and separates uncontroversial stuff (listing of data) from potentially controversial stuff (interpretation of data). I hope that we shall soon come to a stable version that way.

I encourage Woogie10w to compare his above list to the data already included, and add the missing as well as give additional sources to what is already in there. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with your restructuring.


 * There already is an article on Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans where this sort of level of detail belongs. This article should present general numbers.
 * The numbers as well as the criticism is not understandable without the methods used to get these numebrs. The dedicated article has this in much more detail already. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok sure but it should be clear that the 2+ million numbers found by the population balance method represent(ed) unaccounted for cases, not deaths.


 * At the end of the day Overmans says no more than 500,000. Explaining in detail his methodology while misrepresenting his conclusion ("Thus, Overmans says, the population balance figures have to be lowered by 334,000") is not going to avoid (necessary) conflicts and it's OR - what he says is that this is ONE of the problems with the original numbers and this is only ONE of the reasons why the population balance figures have to be lowered. Presenting this as the final conclusion of his research is misleading.
 * Overmans is doing two different things: He says that the military deaths figure in the population balance has to be raised, and he is summarizing the number of verified deaths. One has nothing to do with the other. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Overmans explicitly states that the lower number (400,000-600,000) is the best estimate of deaths available with current data. He does NOT state that "thus the pbf have to be lowered by 334,000" - he thinks it's 400,000-600,000 not 2+million-334,000.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why the "population balance methods" section should be given prominence. Scheider's numbers should probably be mentioned first for chronological reasons but that only suggests that the kind of organization you implemented is not the best way to discuss the issue.
 * The population balance method's results are the ones most abundantly cited in literature, so it deserves prominence. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source which says they are the most abundantly cited in literature or is this more OR? They do seem to be cited a lot by some politicians and in some newspapers but I doubt, based on Overmans and Haar, whether they're taken seriously in the academic literature. Please note also that half the refs given for "they're cited in the literature" (which I changed to "discussion") only cite these numbers in order to criticize them. This is sloppy mis-characterization of the situation at best.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise, moving Scheider's Nazi past and views way way down the section, rather than keeping it up front when his commission is first mentioned seems merely like an attempt to bury this fact where no one where read it. First time Scheider is mentioned should be the first time his Nazi past is mentioned. Both the sources I provided and a half dozen others which I can easily provide consider his Nazi past to be relevant to his historical work.
 * Schieder was the head of the commission, and he had a Nazi past. Yet there were also other people in the commission with not such a past, eg Oberländer had broken with Koch already in 1938, and Lukaschek was in the anti-Nazi resistance. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but Schieder was head of the commission. Regardless, reliable sources deem it important enough to mention his Nazi past but not the past of others. We follow reliable sources. There's also apparently quite a discussion in academic literature on Schieder's past and its links to his subsequent work as a historian.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the restructuring has negative value added. It introduces OR into the article. It makes the issue more difficult to understand (by discussing methodologies rather than conclusions). It introduces an unwarranted level of detail. It misrepresents some of the conclusions. It tries to bury unpleasant facts or relegate them to the tail end of the section. It fails to present the sources in a balanced way.radek (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly was wrong with my version? Did it misrepresent anything? Was it unsourced? Did it have OR in it? No? But all these problems are present in the present version and the new organization and level of detail are unwarranted and unhelpful to this particular article.
 * Yes there are other sources which repeat the Scheider figure. But it should be made explicit that that is what they're doing. Also not all these sources given (should I really include every single source out there for the fact that Scheider was a Nazi?) cite these numbers commendably - some are citing the numbers in order to criticize them.
 * The intend was to eliminate OR and SYNTHs, and it would be nice if you point out what exactly you think is OR. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I already did. Saying that Overmans' adjustment to Wehrmacht figures is the only necessary adjustment to the 2+ million is OR. Saying that the 2+ million is "the most cited in the literature" is another instance. Saying that the difference between the 2+ million and the "best estimate available" (Overmans) of 400-600 thousand represents deaths due to hunger, disease and allied bombing - where as this is not actually true and appears to be based on a non-academic work of an extreme far right author, described by German historian Martin Broszat as "polemical work written from a far-right nationalistic point of view, which have ridiculously exaggerated the number of deaths" - without attributing where this "misinterpratation" comes from and presenting it without qualification is also OR.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And we even haven't gotten yet to the Haar criticisms which include the fact that the 2million + figure includes German Jews and other individuals killed by the Nazis who were then counted among the dead-by-expulsion. radek (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand your stance correctly, you are saying that the population balance is old outdated stuff and that the current state-of-the-art is the counting method.
 * In an perfect setting, both the population balance and the individual-deaths-counting would turn out exactly the same result. That they do not is because the settings of both are not perfect:
 * The population balance is based on exclusion of all other factors until only the civil deaths are left. It is thus prone to turn out false positives if any of the assumptions about the factors that are to be excluded is too low. This is what Overmans' chapter translated above is about - one specific factor (military deaths) was assumed to be 344,000 lower than it actually was, so the result of the balance included 344,000 false positives.
 * The counting methods are not very likely to include false positives, as this can only happen by multiple counts of the same person or a mistaken verification. This method however is prone to be too exclusive, because it ignores deaths that have gone unnoticed.
 * Research is done to close the gap between the results of either method already. It is possible that some or even all the ~1.5 million difference are false positives of the balance. It is also possible that the death count rises if additional data becomes available, and that the number of verified deaths will approach the number of the balance. The in my view most possible scenario is that the actual death count will rise a little, the balance will be further adjusted a little, and that the difference, though smaller than it is now, remains uncertain and unaccounted. The way to go for the article should just be to document that, and not tell the reader what method is right and what method is wrong. We should rather document how the results of both methods changed over time due to respective research. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)/14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)/14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1.5 million missing figure there are "Germans" that exist on paper only. Schieder claimed 1.381 million Germnans in 1939 Poland of whom 185,000 are counted in the 2.2 million figure, yet the 1931 Polish census put the figure of ethnic Germans at 740,000. Overmans touches on this issue in his article in the Polish Journal. Schieder has an interesting resume. In 1943 Schieder was on the Plan Ost team to Germanize the east, ten years later he was head of Expellee investigations.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We should present the methods, but also present the criticisms of the methods made by respectable scholars. The thing is that the population balance figure do not just include deaths that have gone "unnoticed" but rather include: Wehrmacht soldiers, German Jews killed by the Nazis, people who never existed, expellees who arrived in East Germany rather than West, etc. This is all in the sources and it most definetly should not be excluded.radek (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Schieder's Nazi Background
Theodor Schieder was a Nazi party member during the Hitler period.

German Wikipedia has this to say about Schieder: During the war Schieder encouraged the expulsion of Jews in occupied Poland. He was active in the program to Germanize the East and to prevent the intermingling of ethnic Germans with the peoples in Eastern Europe. His recommendations were included in the Nazi Plan Ost. He was praised by the Nazi gauleiter Eric Koch for the confiscation of documents from Jewish Synagoues

The respected German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had this to say about Schieder.

In 1939 Dr. Schieder was a proponent of ethnic cleansing in the Polish regions annexed by Nazi Germany.

"Volksgeschichte" entwarf er Ende Oktober 1939 eine Denkschrift, welche die "brutale Entdeutschungspolitik der Polen" in Westpreußen und Posen dank des deutschen Sieges mit "Bevölkerungsverschiebungen allergrößten Ausmaßes" zu korrigieren forderte. Dazu gehörten für ihn, der in Berlin als ihr "eigentlicher Bearbeiter" galt, die "Enteignung", "Ausweisung aller zugewanderten Polen", die "Wiedereindeutschung" und "Entjudung Restpolens", um den "Aufbau einer gesunden Volksordnung" --Woogie10w (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhode
The sentence "Also in 1953, Gotthold Rhode estimated the casualties to be 3.14 million", sourced to Haar, has been tagged as "clarification needed", yet it remains unclear what needs to be clarified. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide the passage (in English) where Haar discusses Rhode? Does he say anything about his estimate?radek (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Haar in Herausforderung... p.271 (as sourced in the footnote): "Gotthold Rhode, who had issued the first balance of expulsion losses with 3.14 million victims [28], ...", where footnote [28] reads "Rhode 1953, 387"


 * Yes, but can you provide a translation of the whole passage (paragraph or two) for context? In other words, what are the "..." about and what comes before it. This is why it's a clarify not a verify tag.radek (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He was referring to the preliminary estimates of the Church Search Service.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Can you just GIVE say the ten sentences preceding and ten sentences following the sentence that you're reffing? In German is fine, I'll get it translated myself. But I want to see the actual text, not your description of it.radek (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil
Heinz Nawratil was attributed in the article as "the extreme far-right nationalistic author". This is a strong claim that needs to be sourced well or left out. Mind the BLP policy. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already well sourced to Haar. Specifically, Haar, invokes the renowned German historian Martin Broszat's view of Nawratil's work:


 * (It is a) ""Polemical discussions, written from a right wing nationalist point of view which through absurd methods tries to exaggerate the extent of crime associated with expulsion of Germans (Broszat's scare quotes)". Broszat has a complete right to judge the quality of these studies and also the political danger associated with them. It was he, together with Hans-Ulrich Wehler, as editor of a Romanian edition of "Documents of Expulsions" who broke with the usual practice (among some German statisticians), instituted by Wilfried Kraller, former statistician of the SS, later working for the West German government, of adding to the casualties of expulsions, a number of Jews killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust."


 * (Yes, the 2+ million number DOES include many Jewish victims of the German Nazi Holocaust, counted as if they were Germans who died at Polish hands)


 * Then Haar gives an example of Erika Steinbach approvingly quoting Nawratil - and at the same time mischaracterizing what the actual scientific research on the number of deaths from the expulsions says, "even though the exaggerated numbers of Nawratil have been rejected" (Haar). More explicitly he says in reference to Nawratil:


 * "Undoubtedly the president of the Federation of Expellees (Erika Steinbach) uses this mistaken interpretation of numbers, compiled by a man (Nawratil) who is not an expert, and who is associated with the extreme far right only because she finds such numbers convenient (for political purposes - here there's an idiom).


 * So all four of "extreme right", "nationalistic", and "author" are directly in this reliable source.radek (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So far, we have one translation of one work by Haar where he says Nawratil "is associated with the extreme far right". A google book search with nawratil rechtsextrem OR far-right gives one hit that does not put the words into a context. The Broszat evaluation is from the same source, so it is "the translation says Haar says Broszat says Nawratil is supposed to be".


 * I think you also missed this one which does hit for Nawratil and rechtsradikale and neofaschistishe". Could Woogie or someone else fluent in German help with translation here - I'm doing it from Babel and it's slow going (especially since you can't cut and paste) - especially the first paragraph on page 35, starting with "Nawratil publizierte auch mit Jorg Haider..." (That does say what I think it says, don't it?)radek (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will remove the association again, and propose raising this issue at the BLP board if there is any, or ask a BLP specialist how to proceed. The claim is strong, and the source is an isolated translation. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, I think he also writes stuff for the Institute for Historical Review radek (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Between writing for IHR and the earlier sourcing, this seems like enough sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there another, related, article on...
the expulsion of Poles after World War II? Part of the reason Poles were given German territories by the Allies was the unwillingness of Stalin to give Poland back the territories taken in the east by the USSR in 1939. The Poles that left areas like Grodno, Wilno, Lwow, Tarnopol, etc. went to places like Breslau, Oppeln, Stettin, Allenstein, etc. I'm not trying to open a pandora's box hereBold text. I just want to know if this type of article exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochamanita (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is Polish population transfers (1944–1946) and there has been/is some discussion as to standardizing the terminology ("population transfers" vs. "expulsions" vs. "repatriation") for this, that, and other articles.radek (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also Nazi–Soviet population transfers.radek (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "Part of the reason Poles were given German territories by the Allies was the unwillingness of Stalin to give Poland back the territories taken in the east by the USSR in 1939": Those "territories taken in the east" were the areas in 1937 boundary Poland east of approximately the Curzon Line.  In that territory people of Polish ethnicity comprised approximately 40% of the population (the balance was composed of ethnic Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc.).  So, the 3-4 million Poles transferred out of that territory into the eastern German territories (which, per the Potsdam Agreement, were under temporary Polish administration pending the final Peace Treaty ending WW2) replaced (pick a number) 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 million Germans, who were expelled from eastern German lands.ANNRC (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)  Also, the Potsdam Agreement mentions nothing about transfers of ethnic Polish populations.  Accordingly, nothing is mentioned about transfers of ethnic Polish populations from ANY areas east of the Curzon Line.ANNRC (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

From Polish population transfers (1944–1946): "The document regarding the resettlement of Poles from Ukrainian and Belorussian SSR to Poland was signed 9 September 1944 in Lublin by Nikita Khrushchev and the head of the Polish Committee of National Liberation Edward Osóbka-Morawski (the corresponding document with Lithuanian SSR was signed on 22 September)." Note: Since, as stated, the document was signed 9 September 1944 the reference of resettlement to "Poland" in the provision referring to "the resettlement of Poles from Ukrainian and Belorussian SSR to Poland" means the 1937 boundary area of Poland west of the approximate location of the Curzon Line. In September, 1944 no one knew when the war would end, nor when even an "interim Victory Conference" (such as Potsdam) would be held, much less a Final WW2 (European Theatre) Peace Treaty Conference.ANNRC (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks
Jan Hofmann i'd suggest you stop launching sickening personal attacks on radeksz as this one:. thanks. Loosmark (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And please note that it's not Haar who describes Nawratil as "extreme right wing" but Martin Broszat who most definetly DOES have the authority to define him as such. The fact that Nawratil writes for the #1 Holocaust denial organization in the world doesn't help his case either.radek (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil's Right Wing Background

 * In the Journal of Historical Review Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination mythThe Journal of Historical Review is a soapbox for Holocaust deniers--Woogie10w (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-posted the matter at the BLP board: radek (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzbuch by Nawratil

 * Let's don't discuss Nawratil as a person but rather his texts. Here is an academic opinion about the Schwarzbuch....
 * According to the Polish translation of Ingo Haar's article - Broszat described Nawratil's methodology as absurd. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've included both of these in the BLP report. The fact that Nawratil has written for Holocaust denying publications is also noteworthy.radek (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

German state propaganda is anti-Polish. If Nawratil is Nazi or leftist doesn't change anything.Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

lol at taht sentiment. anyway there are good arguments towards nawratil being someone catering towards the right wing. but he himself took an acceptable stance on the german wikipedia. maybe one should include this into his page? Kalifat (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalifat (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"German state propaganda". . . is that concept similar to "Collective Guilt" or "Collective mentality" or "Collective outcome" or "DNA controlled behaviour"?ANNRC (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"German government propaganda" is O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How can the German government be anti-Polish when they pushed (when others didn't) for Poland's membership in NATO? Please spare me a "conspiracy theory" answer (example of a conspiracy theory: the German capitalists saw a bonanza in selling military equipment to the Poles after Poland was to be accepted in NATO, since the Poles needed to change out much equipment to become fully NATO qualified).  Also, I don't think the Germans were too concerned about having Poland as a NATO buffer from an attack by Ukraine.ANNRC (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have I written that "the German government be anti-Polish"? Where exactly? There are different aspects of German politics toward Poland.
 * Several German governments after WWII supported the "Vertreibung" ideology. In 2006 Christoph Bergner (CDU), Staatssekretär im Bundesinnenministerium, answered Ingo Haar that the German government still knows better than historians.
 * Poland is allegedly the main guilty. If it isn't anti-Polish propaganda - what is it?

Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. There was no Final Peace Treaty immediate follow-on to the Potsdam Conference, so years of tentativity ensued.  The reference to territorial "administration" is a conditional reference, not intended to be permanent (again, this focused on some assumed impending Final Peace Treaty follow on from the Potsdam Conference).
 * 2. Identification of land areas having a 700 year intervening period as somehow being "Recovered Territories" is both absurd and borderline stupid.  Why would such an absurd position deserve respect?????  Why not instead call them "Compensatory Territories"?? (at least, that is being realistic)ANNRC (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is different - Germany describes flight, war and expulsion of Germans in the East as "Expulsion" ignoring comparable facts is the West. The main criminal was allegedly "Poland" (what was Poland in 1944 or 1945?), even if the Red Army committed more than 50% of the crimes. This propaganda returned after the 4+2 treaty.
 * 700 years? Silesia was part of Prussia 200 years, Dazig about 100 years. BTW "Recovered" was Communist propaganda, no serious writer uses the word today. Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Are you saying that the Poles constructed the cities of Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, Koenigsberg?
 * 2. Did the Poles or did the Russians expell the 4,5,6, or 7 million Germans from Silesia, Pommerania, Danzig, southern East Prussia?  Please spare me the business about how all 7 million of those Germans "ran away" before the war was over.  It appears that the resettled Poles in those territories numbered about half of the original German inhabitants.
 * 3. Does any "serious writer" today use the correct term "Compensatory Territories"? (Please, for example, provide a name of a recent Polish respected author using such a term.)ANNRC (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1.Koenigsberg is in Russia. Wratislav was created by Czech prince and local Slavs and Gyddansk by Slavic Pommeranians. I don't know much about Szczecin.
 * 2.I'm not going to "spare you" the German flight, including thousands of dead Breslau people or Gustloff victims.
 * 3. Did UNESCO or EU decided that your "Compensatory Territories" is the only valid name? Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Koenigsberg was never in Russia prior to 1945. Breslau, Stettin, Danzig and Koenigsberg were all completely of German architecture until 1945.  Overwhelming majority of Germans had lived in those cities for hundreds of years.
 * 2. The dead civilians of Breslau & the torpedoed Gustloff victims were just a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of German civilians remaining east of the Oder-Neisse line in Spring 1945. Some Silesian Catholic Germans remained, but hundreds of thousands of Germans were "deported" by the Russians and the Poles; mostly by the Poles.  How about a figure of 400,000 to 600,000 deaths during the so-called "Wild" expulsions?
 * 3. "Compensatory Territories" were invented by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at the Tehran Conference in November, 1943. See the book "World War II: Behind Closed Doors" by Laurence Rees, London: BBC Books; NY: Pantheon, 2008.ANNRC (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1.Still, you haven't explained what is the connection between Koenigsberg and me.
 * 2.How about stopping your fantastic stories? 600 000. Where exactly did the nasty Poles kill the 600 000? How? Why do you write 75 000 in another place?
 * 3.I'm sorry that the world doesn'y use the "Compensatory Territories" name. Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the comment about English usage as it relates to interpretations of context. Such interpretations involve nuances. I will try this another way:  all of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line were considered "war prizes".  They were parceled out as SU and Polish "administered" territories.  As such, they were considered compensatory territories i.e., in compensation for "something else" that happened in the SU and in Poland during the war (that "something else" varies).  Caveat: It is doubtful that the implied and assumed impending Final Peace Treaty following the Potsdam Conference would have expanded the size of the ultimate disposition of those territories to the SU and to Poland, although there was an expectation by some in the West beyond Germany (& obviously by many Germans also) that the final land-transfer codified by a 1945 or 1946 Final Peace Treaty would have been less in places than the full size of the combined Polish & SU "temporarily administered" territories.
 * Look at the context: I didn't say the Poles killed 600,000 German refugees. I said "hundreds of thousands of Germans were 'deported' by the Russians and the Poles; mostly by the Poles.  How about a figure of 400,000 to 600,000 deaths during the so-called 'Wild' expulsions?"  It does not imply or state that because the Poles expelled more Germans than the Russians (Soviets), that the Poles killed more German refugees than did the Russians (Soviets).  There were hundreds of thousands of German refugees easily available for killing by both the Soviets and the Poles.
 * I assumed you were knowledgeable that the Duchy of Prussia was once a Polish fiefdom, since one of the mentioned in passing subjects above involved Polish historical claim to territories to the north and west of the 1937 Polish border.ANNRC (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) WP:TALKXx236 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy from BLP Noticeboard:Heinz Nawratil (again), per suggestion made there
''There was a suggestion made at BLPN that there was too much information in this discussion for it to disappear in BLPN archives and that it should be placed here as well. Doing so accordingly.''radek (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am re-posting this request for comment relating to Heinz Nawratil in the Expulsion of Germans - last time it was here but it didn't manage to attract much attention. Now the page has been protected pending the resolution of the BLP issue.

There are two questions here. 1) Can Nawratil be described as "extreme right wing author" (or "nationalist") and 2) can it be mentioned that he has written articles for the Holocaust denial/revisionist Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review (which has been described as a "an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations").

Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat
The "extreme right wing" is sourced to an article by Ingo Haar, a respected German historian. Haar in turn is relying on Martin Broszat, one of the most well known and prominent German historians of the post war period. The article is in Polish (though the author is German) and I have provided the relevant translation at the talk page. The source itself is here:  (pdf). The claim has been made that this is only an "indirect connection" and not enough for a BLP statement.

Writing for Holocaust denial journal
One of Nawratil's articles for the Journal of Historical Review is here. In the article Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as "the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth" (this should probably be enough to call Nawratil a Holocaust denier)

So far the only outside comment has stated that this is enough to source the claim and not violate BLP.

I would very much appreciate it if further outside editors could take a look at the provided links and sources and comment on the articles' talk page or here.radek (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a BLP problem. Sourcing being in other languages is not a problem under WP:V. The sourcing is clear and sufficient. The matter is also relevant to the subject at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil is misquoted above, the "quotes" from the Journal of Hist. Rev. are taken from the (italicized) introduction clearly not written by Nawratil, as the intro is referring to him as a third person. Further, I don't either see a problem with the language of the source, my problem is that if Nawratil is a neo_nazi, then many sources should say so, not just one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, he is writing for the major Holocaust denial journal/institute and praising a Holocaust denier. And we're not writing that he is a neo-nazi, rather that he is associated with the extreme right, which he obviously is, as the sources show.radek (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I'd like to note that we are not putting in the article that Nawratil is a 'neo-nazi' - since the sources don't say that. What is proposed that in the article he is referred to as 'associated with the extreme right' and a 'nationalist' - which the sources DO say, and that he writes for a Holocaust-denying journal - which he clearly does.radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the German "nationalist extreme far-right" is exactly what is colloquially referred to as (neo-)Nazis. I agree that in the far-right there are people believing in all kinds of fringe stuff, not only the verbatim Nazi ideologies. Yet, at least in German media, "far-right"/"extreme-right" etc and "neo-Nazi" are redundant terms. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but we are not proposing to put anything about the colloquial use of the word "neo-Nazi" in the article - we are proposing to put in the article that he is a associated with the extreme right, a nationalist, and a revisionist who writes for Holocaust denial journals which is what the sources say - readers can draw their own conclusion as to whether this makes him a neo-Nazi or not.radek (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

h-net.org/reviews
Here is another source which clearly takes a similar view of his writings : ''By far the most cited secondary source for the DVD-ROM's "background" passages is Heinz Nawratil's Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, first published in 1982 and re-issued almost annually ever since. It is an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization. An excerpt titled "Prelude to Expulsion," for example, placed in the midst of video clips about the fall of Breslau, provides an account of German-Polish relations from 1918 through 1939 that consists exclusively of Polish mistreatment of Germans. The bibliography provided by the DVD-ROM is taken directly from the (then) most recent addition of Nawratil's Schwarzbuch. It includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime but none published in eastern Europe, either before or after 1989. Read as a text document, in other words, Die Grosse Flucht is jarringly dated and one-sided, a kind of time capsule of the rhetoric of the Bund der Vertriebenen circa 1955''radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is a review of a Guido Knopp documentary that used one of Nawratil's books as a source. The reviewer says that this book is an "unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization", not that Nawratil is far-right. That Knopp used Nawratil as a source indicates that Knopp consideres him reliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a review of Knopp's. But it says that Nawratil's book includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime'.11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

gew-huf-kassel.de and Grabert website
My German's next to non existent but thanks to the wonders of technology and babel fish a few relevant German language sources can be added here. For example this. As far as I can make out on page 35 it states that Heinz Nawratil published together with Jorg Haider (who, according to Wiki's own article was known "for comments that were widely condemned as praising Nazi policies or as xenophobic or anti-Semitic") and Gerhard Frey ("politician and chairman of the far-right party Deutsche Volksunion, which he founded in 1971") through a publishing house of Grabert (here's google translation of German wiki on what is "one of the largest and most well-known extreme right-wing publishing houses in the Federal Republic of Germany" and which as it happens, also launched the career of David Hoggan who's the guy who brought Holocaust denial to America) and which is described as a "central organ for revisionists" (i.e. Holocaust deniers) and something of a platform for writers of the "spectrum from radical right to neo-fascist". That last part I could use some help with if we have anyone who's fluent in German, but it's pretty clear what the gist is.


 * Not a RS: The source is an anti-fashist subgroup of a student organization. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the fact that they are an anti-fascist German watchgroup does not make them unreliable since that's the most likely source to list this kind of organization.radek (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the ASTA is the Allgemeine STudentenAusschuss, the elected representative body of all the students at a University, not just any student organization. Zara1709 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the website of Grabert publishing house (the major publisher of Holocaust denial in US and similar materials in Germany, see above) confirms the fact that Nawratil, Jorg Heider and Gerhard Frey all published from it in the same volume, together with the ALFRED Schickel we keep running into here (the guy who called the Holocaust "the extermination myth"): The Genocide of the Germans with foreward by Jorg Haider, chapters by Nawratil, Alfred Schickel, Gerhard Frey and Rolf-Josef Eibicht (according to German wiki an author from the extreme right wing spectrum. I'm sure other names on that list have some nice pedigrees as well.radek (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

imi-online.de
Since I'm doing this through online translators it's slow going but there's also this (crappy google translation here  - but you can copy paste relevant passages into babel fish) - on page 18 it says (translated through Babelfish) apparently that Nawratil used to belong to the Wiking-Jugend ("a German Neo-Nazi organization modelled after the Hitlerjugend") and is listed among "the names of constituted right-wing extremists".

If anyone fluent in German wishes to provide more exact translation, I'd very much welcome it, but I think it's pretty obvious that if anything, the description that is being considered in the article text UNDERSTATES the degree of this guy's involvement with the extreme right.radek (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the IMI source (an NGO) counts Nawratil as a "known right-wing extremist", and says he was an official in the Wiking-Jugend. Rd232 talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Does the other one say that he wrote articles with Jorg Haider for a Holocaust denying publisher?radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The other source says Nawratil published with Haider and Frey in the "50 years of expulsions" book published by the Grabert Verlag. It adds that Grabert Verlag published "Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart", which the source describes as the "central organ" (sometimes trans "mouthpiece") of revisionism in Germany. The document gives as a source for these claims the Handbuch deutscher Rechtsextremismus, p412. Note that the book "50 years of expulsions"  is a collection of work by different authors, so Nawaratil didn't collaborate with Haider and Frey, only publish in the same collection. Rd232 talk 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS: The source is an organization dedicated to unveal the "creeping militarization of Germany" (self-identification at http://www.imi-online.de/). --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that this is an NGO does not disqualify it from being a RS. Please note that the source does not engage in any hyperbolic claims, merely notes that Nawratil used to be in Wiking-Jugend.radek (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

apabiz.de and Nawratil's publisher

 * Oh, and here's another one. Apparently Nawratil works for Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt as can be seen on this website: . The ZFI is, according to Wiki, "a historical revisionist association", which of course means Holocaust denial and it "is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany. On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied". And out of the three functionaries of the association the other one is no other than the Dr. Alfred Schickel that we've met above, the same guy who talks about the "extermination myth" and whom Nawratil praises in the pages of the IHR journal. Again, someone fluent in German may wish to provide of the organization's mission statement as found under "Aktivitäten" on their website.radek (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The link you give is not the website of the ZFI, it's of an anti-fascist NGO which lists Nawratil as a board member of the ZFI in its profile of the ZFI. I can't find a website for the ZFI. Rd232 talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right it's not their website - I caught that and corrected my statement above. It looks like a site that keeps track of right wing extremists and groups.radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell the website says that the ZFI is a right wing think tank dedicated to the trivialization of Nazi war crimes. They also research war crimes against the Germans in the expulsions. I am busy now, let me check this out on the German internet later today--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pointer, since the Nazis and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany, these folks set up front organizations that use code words to communicate with the extreme right.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This link is informative, the ZFI is apparently mainstream in Bavaria, kein wunder!! A SPD delegate in Bavaria, a stronghold of the CSU, is questioning why the ZFI is not being sanctioned by the government. He questions why government officials sent greetings to the ZFI --Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS: The source is a self-identifying anti-fashist information center. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get a feeling that any source I provided will be called not RS. Again, there's no extreme claims made here, just that Nawratil works for ZFI.radek (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And again, it turns out that Nawratil's own book was published by ZFI ("one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany"):, so he's clearly associated with them.radek (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redrawing nations
This source clearly states Nawratil has produced "nationalist writings": Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948, by Phillip and Siljak.radek (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expelling the Germans
This source clearly states that Nawratil is a "revisionist", which of course means here what it usually does: Expelling the Germans: British opinion and post-1945 population transfer in context, by Matthew James Frank.radek (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Extreme right wing fraternity
According to its own web page Nawratil is listed as an associate of the student organization Burschenschaft Danubia Munich which German wikipedia describes as "often associated with the extreme right spectrum": .radek (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's listed as a speaker, not an "associate". That's an informal form of association, I guess, but not a formal one. Rd232 talk 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment
(There are so many minor headings here that I can't leave a comment without adding a new one.) "Extreme right wing" may well be an accurate description, but I don't think there is anything close to a consensus in German society to call him that. Otherwise it would be reflected somehow in a German Google News search or the German Wikipedia. (He complained about his biography there, but his complaints were very minor compared to calling him an extremist.)

I believe there is a general consensus in German society to be antifascist in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. And there is a similar general consensus to be anti-Vertreibung (i.e. expulsion [of Germans from formerly German areas after WW2]) in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. The media observe this quite carefully, especially the part about not talking too much – presumably because they would lose a part of their audience otherwise. As a result there is a large political spectrum of opinions which somehow form part of this "consensus", in spite of any contradictions. People at either end only begin to be seen as extremists if they start doing something or at least come with specific demands.

Nawratil may well be operating right at the border between respectability and just representing this "consensus", and being a right-wing extremist. If this is the case, then talking about it involves breaking the taboo, i.e. organisations that talk about it are automatically considered left-wing extremists. In this case the sources seem to be things like an AStA (official students representation of a university, traditionally ranging from mildly socialist to sending money to revolutionary groups, now sometimes being taken over by right-wing extremists; this is all related to extremely low voter turnout) and a peace group.

All of this doesn't answer the question what to do here, but perhaps it gives some perspective. Scholarly sources or sources from outside Germany might help to get a more neutral view. Hans Adler 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! For the purposes of this discussion it's of course not necessary that a consensus in German society exist that he is an extremist - just that there are reliable sources that call him that. I want to note that we do have German reliable sources - Martin Broszat - that refer to him specifically in that way, as well as non German ones, we also have evidence based on his own writing for JHR and ZFI and we have the sources cited to the student organizations and NGOs which document further links (some of which have been independently confirmed here). I think for calling him an extremist we have more than enough.radek (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. It looks to me like there's clearly enough sourcing to label him a right-wing extremist. I don't know if there is enough sourcing at this point to label him a holocaust denier. It may make more sense for now to just quote him directly. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion should be moved to the article talk page, or at least to an archive of it. There's too much info here, I think, to let vanish into the BLPN archives. Rd232 talk 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it ok if I just copy and paste all but this comment and your suggestion?radek (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really a BLP issue
This is not a BLP issue. What we have is a controversial topic, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where one would have to expect that at least some literature is written from a partisan poin-of-view. We have one author (Heinz Nawratil) who has written about the topic; if this author has a partisan view, this is directly relevant for the article. Disputes over this should be directed to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Fringe theories/Noticeboard, however, I think, the case is clear. If h-net describes a work of Heinz Nawratil as "an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization" H-Net Review, and other source say something similar, then the article has to make clear that Nawratil has a partisan view, everything else would violate wp:NPOV.

Just as illustration: A BLP issue would be a case of an article on a person notable for something a-political, say an actor or athlete. If this person had been, in his youth, a member of a far-right group (Viking Youth or whatever), then we would have to discuss whether this belongs into that person's article. But here we have a case of someone who has written a non-fiction work. If every time we have to discuss the reliability of a source and the due weight that it deserves someone would make a BLP issue out of that, this noticeboard would be stuffed. Not that is isn't anyway, but we would have even more cases here. Zara1709 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil doesn't write "opinions", he pretends to write historiographical books, even if he isn't a historian and he uses "absurd" methodology. I haven't found any academic review of his books, it proves that he is a hobby writer. He shouldn't be quoted in this Wikipedia as a serious author, but rather in "Far righ in Germany" or "German nationalistic propaganda after WWII". Such discussions have been continuing here since several years. Either this Wikipedia is serious or a place for anyone to write anything.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingo Haar
Ingo Haar is a revisionist, and his extreme views are rejected by any serious sources. Citing Ingo Haar in this article is equal to cite people who argue that only one million Jews died during the war. UweBayern (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have written - a German official "knows" better than a German historian.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That German source does not support the claim that Haar is a "revisionist", has "extreme" views, or is rejected by "any serious sources". The link documents a radio debate which seriously (though not in any depth) discusses Haar's claim that the numbers have been inflated by poor methodology, including Haar's claim that it rests partly on estimating population numbers before and after, numbers arriving in post-war Germany, and assuming all the rest died. It suggests that Haar focusses on the numbers directly killed (c 400,00 - 600,000), while the conventional number of 2m includes those killed by disease, starvation, etc. Rd232 talk 14:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second that. Though Haar questions methods and motives of other scholars, "revisionist" is not the best term to describe him because of its negative connotation. Haar's style is sometimes provocative, but that does not make him an extremist, and he does back up his positions very well. He does not cross the line of what is regarded acceptable. To apply terms like revisionist and extremist to Haar (or anyone), you need good sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He clearly aims to diminish the number of victims of The Expulsion, claiming the conventional number of 2-2,5 million victims is "exaggerated". As such, he is by definition a revisionist (Holocaust deniers employ exactly the same methods, by questioning conventional numbers and claiming the number of victims is "exaggerated"). The point is that Wikipedia should rely on mainstream sources, not on fringe views. The mainstream view in this case happens to be that 2-2,5 million died during The Expulsion. The excessive use of Ingo Haar as a source is inappropriate. Furthermore, the source is in Polish and is not really a source in an English-language encyclopedia because non-Poles are not able to understand its content. UweBayern (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * UweBayern i'd politely ask you stop comparing a respected historian with holocaust deniers. Also please stop attacking Polish sources, if they are reliable as is the case here, they are good for the project. Loosmark (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not a respected historian, he is someone who pursues a political agenda. He is not a reliable source, he represents a fringe view. UweBayern (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "He clearly aims to diminish the number of victims ... As such, he is by definition a revisionist"??? What a weird definition of "revisionist". If the claim made were that he aims to diminish the number for biased, ideological, reasons, that might be a reasonable conclusion, but to define the word "revisionist" as including anyone who thinks the numbers have been exaggerated, irrespective of their grounds for doing so, is bizarre, and quite clearly tends to introduce a bias. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a person who attempts to revise history is by definition a revisionist. And I think it's agreed that the mainstream view is that there were 2-2,5 million victims. A person who claims something else hence is a revisionist. UweBayern (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the ~2 million number is the "mainstream" one, but I think the other one is an equally valid result calculated with a valid method. Both methods have pros and cons. I think that the way these numbers are presented right now is biased, as it implies that the population balance is not a valid method, and that the verified deaths only counting method is the state of the art. I'd prefer to have both methods presented that way, and not label either one as invalid. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm no, 2-2.5 million is not a "mainstream" number (maybe in some circles in Germany). Just think a bit about it, during the hollocaust the Nazis killed around 3 millions Polish Jews and everybody knows that the Nazis had by far the most perfected killing machine in history. Now are you really trying to claim that the Soviet and Polish authorities managed to kill roughly the same amount of people on roughly the same teritory in just a couple of months? Such a claim is completely out of this world and downright absurd. Loosmark (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody attributes these DEATHS directly to being KILLED by Poles and Soviets. The amount of 2 million losses of lifes includes results of the expulsion, afaik. I think that your statement is mixed up. Kalifat (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, according to mainstream historians and demographic historians Ingo Haar, Overmans, as well as folks like Broszat, the ~half-a-million figure ALREADY INCLUDES deaths from disease, malnutrition and so on, as well as those killed directly (per sources given in article). What it DOES NOT INCLUDE - that is included in the 2-3 million number - is German Jews who were actually killed by the Nazis, people who were never born (due to lower wartime fertility), people who wound up in East Germany rather than West but lived, Wermacht deaths during the last two years of the war and so on.
 * To clarify further, "official" and "mainstream" is not the same thing. Up until the mid 70's or so, the 2-3 million figure, first constructed in the 50's by a commission composed and headed mostly by ex-Nazis (who before the war agitated for "removal" of Poles and Jews from occupied territory) was more or less "official" (while other more realistic estimates were buried for political reasons). Starting in the late 70's this started to change and especially after 1989, in the 90's the 2-3 million figure was neither "official" nor "mainstream". Currently, again for political reasons, SOME German politicians have brought back the 2-3 million figure, as if it had never been sucessfully challanged by genuine scholarship, and have tried to make it "official". But even then, that does not make it "mainstream".
 * And before any more crap about "Polish nationalism" or "Polish POV" gets slapped on this talk page, I'd like to remind everyone that these are respectable, mainstream, non-extremist, academic GERMAN historians and demographers who carried out the research that led to the ~half-a-million figure, not Poles.radek (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if the loss of life includes "the results of expulsions" the number is ridiculously high. The reality of the matter is a great number of those civilians were killed in the war because the Nazis foolishly prevented evacuations almost everywhere (even civilians were considered deserters). An example is here: Siege of Breslau, depending on the source 29.000 or 170.000s civilians killed during war operations just in Breslau. So basically it's clear that many of those included in the 2-2,5 million number were actually already killed in war operations before the mass expulsions even started. Loosmark (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not denying the possibility of your last statement. But is it our task to find the amount, or should this article explain the different perspectives and findings of historians and other involved parties?Kalifat (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the last months of the war were so completely chaotic that it is almost impossible to estimate the number of German civilians killed because the "war-zone" reached them so to say. IMO the best thing we can do is to make it clear that a large number of those 2-2,5 millions were killed in the war or to state that the 2-2,5 millions killed include those who died in the war. Loosmark (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree, these killings were part of the Expulsion in its wider sense. Many people fled because of war-time war crimes committed by the Red Army. People murdered by the Red Army obviously were victims of the Expulsion as well. UweBayern (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this POV, the USAAF participated in the expulsions bombing Germany, see Świnoujście.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For you English as not your Mother Tongue'rs, the USAAF bombed Stettin & Dresden, and both cities were full of refugees. Whether the "originally from further east" component of those refugees had arrived in Stettin & Dresden as a result of any of the three alternatives, (1) flight immediately before the arrival of the Red Army, (2) "in-effect" expulsion by the Red Army, or (3) flight in anticipation of the eventual arrival of the Red Army, is moot.ANNRC (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Caveat: The refugees were likely in Stettin & Dresden as a result of some percentage combination of two or more of #'s 1, 2, 3 above.ANNRC (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain, what do you mean? Why does the Świnoujście example suggest my English be wrong? Do you have any proves that the Red Army expelled Germans through the front line? Strange idea. The USAAF bombed and killed German refugees, it's a fact. The Soviets demanded some bombings, but they weren't responsible for any USAAF bomb.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You must not be very wide-read on WW2: pushing refugees into the opposing army's front lines was a common tactic by both the Germans and the Russians.ANNRC (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTXx236 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter how they were killed? They were killed, that's the end result. UweBayern (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, obviously it matters, if somebody was already death when the expulsions started saying that he was killed in the expulsions is.. well false. Loosmark (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Ingo Hass some numbers of Jewish victims of German Holocaust were added to numbers of victims of the "expulsion".Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess
This article seems to be a mess with dubious sources, many of them Polish nationalist propaganda, in Polish, and hence impossible to check for non-Poles, while other sources are representing revisionist fringe views aiming at diminishing the number of victims of The Expulsion, which is comparable to Holocaust denial. Someone would need to go through this article. Dubious sources should be replaced by quality sources, preferably official German sources. I think all sources should be in major languages like English and German. Sources in languages not widely understood (Polish) should be avoided. UweBayern (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * wow, do you have a clue how condescending and arrogant you sound in some of your statements? it doesnt actually help your cause or generate any sympathy. and one doesnt get the impression, that you really want to improve this article... --Kalifat (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to write the same. I might add that for the average reader here, a German source is as Chinese as a Polish one. Instead of writing posts like "I am frustrated with your fringe propaganda sources, get a language", you can ask someone to verify/translate a source, or you can include sources that say something different. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly there is, other things being equal, an advantage in using sources which are likely to be understood by a large proportion of users of Wikipedia. However, to suggest that Polish sources should be avoided and German sources should be preferred to all others would in itself suggest a possible bias, whether intentional or not; the suggestion that we should prefer to restrict ourselves to official German sources is difficult to read as anything other than a deliberate attempt to favour a particular point of view. If it is not deliberate then it is remarkably unperceptive. In a case like this, where there are different groups with differing points of view, and where there are certainly some people with biased nationalist approaches, it is essential to be able to consider sources from different backgrounds, and, despite the language difficulties, in order to be able to do this we cannot rule out sources in any particular language. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "German sources should be preferred to all others", who said that? I prefer English sources, but if English sources aren't available, German sources would be OK. German is a major international language, Polish isn't. Sources in Polish are completely useless to anyone except the Poles. We write an English encyclopedia, not a Polish one, and the sources should be in a language other editors, and ideally readers, understand. Also, Polish sources on this topic are generelly known for their strong Polish nationalist bias/intellectual dishonesty (long experience). UweBayern (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop with such nationalistic superiority claims. All other things being equal Polish sources are just good as the German ones. Loosmark (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is an English encyclopedia, this should be the only preferred language which stands above all others. To impose a hierarchy on all the other languages seems arbitrary. How do you want to define what is a major language and what not? And especially at this topic - a topic that includes two different countries, with two different writings of history, perspectives and conflicts - it should be self-evident to include both perspectives - and thus both languages - into an article, if people are interested in producing a consensus somewhere in the future. Kalifat (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it includes several countries. Some perspectives, including the pre-1989 official Polish perspective and the East German one are evidently propaganda. Also, the views of eg the post-1989 Polish and German far-right are, moderately put, problematic. Language/country should not be a determining factor here, but reliability of the author regardless of language used. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Views from Poland are propaganda; Nazi views are problematic. Nicely put. Feketekave (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the wording says or even implies. It associates "some perspectives" from both Communist Poland and Communist East Germany with the possibility of being propagandistic.  It states that post-1989 views of both the Polish far-right and the German far-right are "moderately put, problematic."  Connotation and Denotation.ANNRC (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are not two equally valid "points of view", just like there is only one acceptable view on genocide against other peoples. Ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder and crimes against humanity are never acceptable. Denial or justification of murders and crimes against Germans have no place in this article.

Mainstream German sources, like government publications, generally are quite neutral and scholarly, some might even argue they downplay the expulsion crimes to some extent. Polish sources, especially from before 1990 but to a large extent also many more recent ones (there are exceptions), generally take a strong Polish nationalist POV due to 50 years of strong anti-German propaganda by the communist regime. Scholarly, third-party English-language sources would be best. UweBayern (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are comparing the expulsion of a (largely Nazified) population of so-called Germans - including Polish citizens who believed themselves to be German due to racial propaganda - to the mechanised slaughter of more than ten million civilians at the hands of the German state - not counting the victims of the war machine of the Third Reich. This is obscene. Feketekave (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream German sources, like government publications" create and support the "Expulsion" (German Vertreibung) ideology. They aren't in any way "neutral".
 * I agree that pre-1989 Polish texts are frequently unreliable. Exactly like the GDR ones.
 * It's not true that Polish texts printed after 1989 are generally nationalistic. In reality many Polish writers were at least partially supported by German institutions or worked in German academic institutions (Krasnodębski, Musiał). Many of them has some Communist background or published Communist-influenced texts (also in Germany - Borodziej).
 * I also want a neutral English language source. However contemporary English langauge texts are generally based on German sources. Western historian don't read Polish and don't know Eastern Europe (see Norman Davies' texts about the ignorance).
 * Summarizing - you are of course not right.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are of course right, Skäpperöd, but in the end it boils down to a struggle between those two countries. A struggle of who dominates this discourse, this process of finding and generating 'the truth'. I simplified my statement to make clear, that i am in favour of giving at least these three languages of English, Polish and German a status of equality when it comes to accept them as a veritable source and that in this case here neither German nor Polish should be a reason for exclusion per se. Kalifat (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rudi Rummel as a "source"
Rudi Rummel quotes German "sources", the same sources we perfectly know. You can probably still find somewhere his ignorant and biased "explanations". Please, don't destroy this article using your Hawaiian ally. Read German historians.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "largest mass expulsion of a population in history" - really? Germans expelled during WWII more people.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Off topic: the Poles suffered more than 12 million "mass expulsions" (both in the war and in the aftermath of the war) if the 12 million figure includes the 6 million Polish civilians killed in the war, half of them Jews (this of course uses a unique context for the term "expulsion").ANNRC (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rudolph Joseph Rummel seems like an excellent English expert source. Please outline why exactly you think Rummel is not credible. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well.."hold your horses" Skäpperöd, I will challenge your opinion on Rummel being an excellent English expert. According to Journal of Peace Research he hardly used any sources to complete his work. I personally don't consider him credible AT ALL.--Jacurek (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief, now the professor emeritus of political science from the University of Hawaii, is not credible AT ALL, because Tomislav Dulic, had issues with Rummel's work concerning Tito? Are you suggesting that it is improper to use him as a source? Are you sure? And really now, "Rudi", that's offensive. I don't think we should refer to Anna M. Cienciala as "Hanka" either. It would be in bad taste as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rudi Rummel pretends to use mathematics in his works about the democides. He uses unrelable data and becomes unreliable results - "Garbage in, garbage out". Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources? Anything justifying this ? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored - no sources provided that prove Rummel's balance unreliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide the part of the text, translated into English, in which Rummel discusses Overmans' and Haar's work?radek (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rudolph Joseph Rummel does not need to be translated, he is an American. Rummel does not discuss Overmans, but has Overmans included with his sources (page 452). Skäpperöd (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rummel does not discuss Overmans, but has Overmans included with his sources (page 452)" - any comments needed to the "method" of Rudi Rummel? Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC) "500,000 to 3.7 million deaths" - in another words "Let's collect any existing garbage, add a frog, mix up and as a result you have science". It's a shame for this Wikipedia to use such sources and such immoral ways.Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the sources quoted by Rummel - they were published in:
 * 1946
 * 1948
 * 1956
 * 1963 - two
 * 1966
 * 1970
 * 1979
 * 1983
 * 1990

It means that no source written after the Cold War has been used by him. It's the same German "method" - the Poles were guilty, because everything took part in "Poland". Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rummel does not discuss Overmans, but has Overmans included with his sources (page 452)" - This is wrong. On Page 452 of Death by Government Rummel uses Overmans as a source for the deaths of German POWs in Allied hands NOT the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Rummel uses only English language sources for this work on the Expulsions. I own the Rummel books if there are any questions. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In an E mail communication with R J Rummel a few years ago, I told him that I believed his figures for Democide were way too high because they did not agree with the population balance method. His answer was that he did not trust the population statistics from the communist era. He said they were falsified by the various communist regimes to cover up population losses due to Democide. That is why he does not use the population balance method to calculate losses--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect - Poland isn't Communist since 1989. Polish archives are available, many books have been published by Polish and German historians. If Katyn crime can be reconstructed what is the problem to document killings of German civilians?


 * R J Rummel blames the communist Lublin government for the deaths, not the Polish people as an ethnic group. The same communist Lublin government suppressed the AK and democratic groups while expelling the Germans, they deported the ethnic Ukrainians out of Poland to the USSR. Their Soviet allies forced 2.1 million Poles out of the eastern regions as refugees. Germans and Poles shared the same fate under the communists.  We can improve the article by pointing out the fact that the German as well as the Polish people suffered under the totalitarian Nazi and communist regimes. I see no need for this article to defend the actions of the Polish communists or to point fingers and blame the Polish people.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rummel gives fictional giant numbers, uses them as the basis to classify Poland (not Communist Poland) as a megamurderer. I support my opinion that Rummel has an anti-Polish obsession. Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-Communist Poland can't be a megamurderer since it has only existed in recent times since 1989.ANNRC (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow this is intense, R J Rummel believes there is a threat that Congress and President Obama will turn the country into a one-party, authoritarian state—a tyranny.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod and his "work" on the article today
ok we are having difficult discussions about this difficult topic and i though we managed to hit a very delicate balance. But alas, today Skäpperöd makes 29 edits to POV-reshape the article. Loosmark (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Is it possible to ask for an arbitration? This article has been rewriten several times. Enough is enough.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you please outline what exactly you feel is wrong with the sources I added? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the source but the way you reshaped the article. Loosmark (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, you push German POV here- the "expulsion" (which in fact was mostly part of WWII) being an exceptional crime. Exceptional comparing to what? Not to the German crimes.Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please give the sentence(s) you refer to, and please outline what you think is the "German POV" pushed here - is it the sum of the POVs of Haar, Nawratil, and Horst Schlämmer from Grevenbroich? Or the median? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, please discuss, don't impose your anti-Polish POV. Nawratil isn't any "source", it's propaganda. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And where did I use Nawratil as a source? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And where did I "impose an anti-Polish POV"?! Skäpperöd (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be patronising. We aren't Germans and this discussion is about the expulsion of Germans after WWII, not about hundreds of other subject including Horst Schlämmer. Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just exemplarily named three random Germans with opposite POVs to show that a "German POV" does not exist. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So O.K. - "extremal German POV" as opposite to "rational German POV" represented by Haar.Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to argue further, but you did not answer any of my questions. Please do so and outline the POV dispute you see. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong title of this article
The article is about the flight, war and expulsion, not about the expulsion only. Either the article will be edited according to the title or the title should be corrected.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is forced to flee/evacuate and prevented from returning they can consider themselves expelled. If someone is blocked while logged out he is still blocked. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion from France
Some GErmans were expelled from France and allowed to return only later. I believe the subject belongs here.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? This should definitely be included, but needs to be sourced. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the link does not carry any information other than a book on the special fate of Kehl exists. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added, but not as "France", but as "Kehl" (AFAIK Kehl was never formally annexed to France). Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Children of German soldiers in Norway
Children of German soldiers in Norway were persecuted in Norway and some of the left the country. It's also "an expulsion".Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Section "War children" covers this, feel free to add. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

respected historians,[115] including Werner Conze
Werner Conze was a Nazi, see de:Werner Conze. The quote shows the quality of your "sources" and your bias.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is a Hungarian German expert source. De:wiki (not a reliable source btw) indicates that he was not regarded to be involved in any evil Nazi stuff until recent research had disovered two sentences of him which follow the Nazi racial ideology. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that Conze was a Nazi is easily verifiable (which is probably why German wiki doesn't even bother with it) - I'm sure, since unlike me you speak German, you'd have a much easier time finding the sources which confirm it. But here's the English language ones:
 * "delibaretly ignoring the Nazi affiliations of their mentors, especially Theodor Scheider and Werner Conze" and "the ethnographic methods of Scheider and Conze, whose purpose was to justify German supremacy and expansion".


 * Or this : "Scholars and institutions active in this field (i.e. Scheider and Conze) had supported the Nazi regime's expansionistic, colonial agenda in the east. They produced scholarship which was designed to validate German historical, cultural, and racial claims to the lands of the east and, perhaps more disturbingly, recommended drastic demographic measures be carried out against both Poles and Jews. Between 1937 and 1940 Conze published several articles in which he pointed to "dejewification" as one possible option for addressing the problems arising from the Jewish economic role (in areas to be occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany)". And that's just from the first two hits off of Google books. Respectable historians indeed!


 * But perhaps calling for "dejewification" of Poland, Belarus and Lithuania and recommending "drastic demographic measures" (which is a Nazi codeword for...) against both Poles and Jews does not qualify as being "involved in any evil Nazi stuff", or at least not evil enough.


 * Want to move on to the next on the list of the so called "respectable historians"?radek (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vertribenenliteratur
Vertribenenliteratur has ... highly partisan, distinctly revisionistic flavour... , Examples - "Die Schwarzbuch...".Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd imposes speculations by Rummel
Skäpperöd, don't do this. Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Make a case that Rummel is not reliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd, I'm not going to play your games. You don't know the subject, you refuse to accept obvious facts, you want me to teach you. Learn the subject of German crimes during WWII and return to discuss with me.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

From Skäpperöd to me
You use the page Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II as a blog to air your personal grievances against me and several sources, without saying anything constructive. You don't point to any specific problems and make a case with these, but only make cryptic, general and defamatory comments. Please don't continue that. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, I find you intensive editing of the article very controversial, and many sources quoted in the articile biased, presenting German nationalistic POV. P,lease explain your edits here, before you wage an editing war. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anothing thing to consider is that Skapperod keeps adding stuff to the article which makes it grow out of proportions. Loosmark (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of classification
 Rudolph Joseph Rummel describes it as the "largest mass expulsion of a population in history". During the Cold War, representatives of the expellee community in West Germany presented their plight as one of Stalin's mass crimes. In the last fifteen years, it has been discussed by historians and politicians as well as scholars of international law as an example of "ethnic cleansing." Some scholars, like Felix Ermacora, consider it to be a genocide and crime against humanity. Rummel refers to the expulsions as a democide.

How the expulsions are classified (ethnic cleansing, genocide, democide etc) is an important info that must not be removed. It was sourced and attributed to schlolars saying so. Please outline why the sources are not reliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The classification you cite is not universaly agreed therefore it does not belong in the lead. Loosmark (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources classifying these expulsions as ethnic cleansing:

Additional source classifying these expulsions as a genocide: Skäpperöd (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Skapperod stop with manipulations please, the text was removed because it said it was the "largest mass expulsion of a population in history" which is clearly a german nationalistic POV. Loosmark (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidently not, it is sourced to Rummel, an American. And what other, larger mass expulsion of a population do you have in mind to prove Rummel wrong? One example is sufficient. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have to prove anything, one source is not enough for your controversial claim. Loosmark (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional source classifying these expulsions as the "largest in history": Skäpperöd (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "largest population transfer in history", citing


 * Population transfer is not the same as mass expulsion. Loosmark (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, population transfers do not only include mass expulsions, but also other things. Which does not make the statement wrong. The phrasing "mass population transfer" is used eg here I do not object to use largest population transfer in history. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "the expulsion of the Germans constitutes the largest mass transfer of a population in history"

According to your Rudi Rummel the biggest democides in history (in Europe) were committed by Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. So I object your absurd claimes about the "largest population transfer in history". Aren't you ashamed to write such lies?Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources that this was not the largest transfer of a population in history. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, any fact can be described in many ways. The deportation of Germans, called here an expulsion, which is a German POV, was a part of WWII and post-war mass transfers. Claiming that tranfers of Germans were "special" means that you believe that German were Uebermenschen. It's a Nazi ideology. Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with Nazi allegations. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "ethnic Germans"
Ethnic Germans were also expelled. Why was that fact removed? The article has numerous sections on it (Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary etc pp). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's back now.--Jacurek (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it back to where it formerly was, because you accidentally moved "ethnic Germans" on the Reich's territory, and the definition of national vs ethnic Germans is that the nationals are in Germany, and the ethnic Germans are outside Germany. I think that was just an accident and you don't mind. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Military personal and suspected Nazis
After recent changes, the Germans that were sent to labour camps and deported to the Soviet Union are now classified "Military personal and suspected Nazis". In fact, it were all kind of Germans. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * pg corr 29-->28. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * pg corr 29-->28. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The German civilians were not round up on the street to be sent to the labour camps in the Soviet Union or Poland as the Nazis did with the Poles for example. To my knowledge most were military personnel or suspected Nazis. Was there any civilians in the labour camps for no reason, just because they were German? How did they get there if yes? It is hard to see clearly from the sources you provided.--Jacurek (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Without getting into any comparisons with the Nazis, yes the Germans were rounded up on the street and sent to camps. Maybe you confuse these camps with the NKVD special camps? In those camps, the Soviet indeed often justified internment with Nazi ties. I corrected the page number in the Kamusella paper (it was 28, not 29), additionally, you might to have a look here or here.Of course, most certainly there were "suspected Nazis" among the interned - after all, the Nazi Gleichschaltung and the allied collective guilt concepts made nearly every German a suspected Nazi. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then in this case is has to be added to the article that the random civilians were arrested and sent to the camps as well. Can you do it? Backed up by the sources of course.--Jacurek (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair most Germans cooperated full throttle with the Nazis and supported their ideology and plans. Kudos to those who opposed the Nazis but they were few and far between. So while it is regretable that everybody was threated as a potential Nazi it is also understandable. And even so many Nazis managed to evade the "net" and escape to Argentina or even rebuilt their life in Germany after keeping a low profile for awhile. Loosmark (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "most Germans cooperated full throttle with the Nazis and supported their ideology and plans" mean? Are there reference sources to your statement, or is it just a declaration or "appeal to common sense"?  My belief is that most Germans, like "most Poles in Communist Poland" and "most Russians in Communist Soviet Union" were somewhat mentally removed from state ideology and plans, and did what was required of them in a totalitarian state, since it was easier to conform than have to be visited by the GESTAPO.  Most Germans were either Roman Catholics or Evangelical German Church Protestants . . . I believe that "most Germans" maintained their somewhat compromised Christianity throughout Nazi times.  To be a Nazi "Nut" as you describe (i.e., "full throttle") they would have had to become atheistic, or bought into Hitler's "German Nordic Church", ruled by Odin and Thor.ANNRC (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that the Germans did what was required because of some fear from the Gestapo is downright comical. Unfortunately the enthusiasm of a large part of the German population for the Nazi ideology is well documented. Anyway would explain sth to me, 109 out of your last 112 edits were made on this talk page, would mind explaining why do you have such a shocking obsession with this talk page? In 3 years of wikipedia I've never seen anything remotely similar. Have you joined wikipedia just to argue on this talk page or is there something more sinister at work here? Loosmark (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could say my "obsession" is with individuals who submit vague generalities, whether on purpose, or simply by happenstance or misunderstanding of semantics within the English language. Re your statements about the GESTAPO being comical and the "well documented" enthusiasm of "the German population for the Nazis" I must admit amazement, since I've not come across such specific reference examples. (I also noticed that you steered clear of commenting about German religious affiliation.) What is your education level?  College degree? (major/minor?); post-bac or grad studies?ANNRC (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is your contribution on wikipedia limited to this talk page? 109 out of your last 112 edits were made on this talk page. Such abnormal behavior requires an explanation. Loosmark (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to read between the lines: your use of the term "abnormal behavior" leads me to believe your higher education was in psychology? Please provide even one reference example supporting the statement "most Germans cooperated full throttle with the Nazis and supported their ideology and plans".ANNRC (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you avoiding to answer? Loosmark (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a Psychology forum, but you already knew that with your advance education in psychology.ANNRC (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in the psychology behind your actions i just want to know why do you only edit this talk page which in conflict with usual wikipedia practices. The way i see it there are two possibilities, either you are only interested to argue on a talk page while your contribution to the project is a big fat zero.. or well we all know what is the second option. Perhaps there is some other reason i am missing and that's why i wanted to give you a possibility to explain before i bring this to the attention of the administrators. Loosmark (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, that's very decent of you to call this matter to my attention. Before you "bring [the matter] to the attention of the [Wikipedia] administrators", could you please provide even one reference example supporting the statement "most Germans cooperated full throttle with the Nazis and supported their ideology and plans".  I say this because ca half the Germans were of the Roman Catholic Faith and the ca other half were Evangelical German Church Protestants.  In order for them to "cooperate full throttle" with the Nazis, including "support[ing] their ideology and plans", they would have had to abandon Christianity.ANNRC (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right and nobody supported the fascism in Italy because they were 99% catholic and neither the militaristic-expansionist mentality in Japan because they were all buddhists. Please spare me these 5 y.o. style arguments. Loosmark (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, is this as close as we're going to get to even one reference example supporting the statement "most Germans cooperated full throttle with the Nazis and supported their ideology and plans"? (This is within the above context that ca half the Germans were of the Roman Catholic Faith and the ca other half were Evangelical German Church Protestants. In order for them to "cooperate full throttle" with the Nazis, including "support[ing] their ideology and plans", they would have had to abandon Christianity.)ANNRC (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the christians never commit crimes, I mean hell they'd first have to abandon christianity, right? A totally laughable argument. Now if you don't mind i don't have time for these stupidities anymore, unlike you i actually do serious work on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, you missed the point: in order for "most Germans" (your words) to, using your words, "cooperate full throttle" with the Nazis via support of "their ideology and plans" they would have had to join Hitler's non-Christian Aryan Church. "Full throttle" means buying into the racial extermination of the Jews and the Poles, etc.  I can find no reference in sources such as, The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany By Susannah Heschel indicating that German Christians supported racial extermination of the Jews and the Poles.  For half the Germans, Poles were seen as fellow Catholics.  Of course, the Catholic part of Germany (Bavaria, etc.) was separated by a considerable distance from Poland.ANNRC (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Caveat: Hitler's Aryan Church was to worship Odin and Thor.  The focus of Heschel's book is on the Aryan Jesus concept, not on Hitler's Aryan Church.ANNRC (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Schreider
With this edit, was changed to with the summary No, no, the sources very clearly refer to Schreider and explictly state the factor of 10 The source says "Inny niemiecki badacz dr Ingo Haar potwierdza w swoich publikacjach wnioski Overmansa i wskazuje na wyniki pracy Niemiecko-Czeskiej Komisji Historyków, powołanej przez rządy obu krajów. Po drobiazgowych obliczeniach w 1995 r. zweryfikowała ona liczbę niemieckich ofiar wysiedleń z Czechosłowacji z dotychczas w Niemczech funkcjonującej liczby 250 tysięcy do zaledwie 15 – 30 tysięcy, a więc dziesięciokrotnie. Ówczesny minister spraw zagranicznych RFN Klaus Kinkel z uznaniem wypowiedział się o wyniku prac komisji, ale znaczna część niemieckiej opinii publicznej ze Związkiem Wypędzonych na czele do dziś je ignoruje. (source)" Where does the source mention Schreider's numbers? Is Schreider a misspelling of Schieder, and if so, where is the connection in the source? Where does the source say 25000? Is it really necessary to explain to the reader that 250000/25000=10? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1995, a joint German and Czech commission of historians revised the previous estimate of 250,000 civilian deaths in Sudetenland to between 15,000 and 30,000 deaths
 * In 1995, a joint German and Czech commission of historians revised the number of civilian deaths in Sudetenland, from Schreider's previous estimate of 250,00 down to between 15,000 and 30,000 deaths (or by a factor of 10), based on Overmans' earlier work


 * The 250 thousand number comes from Schieder. Yes, it's a mispelling. Yes, it is useful to explain to the reader that it's a factor of ten. In these kinds of estimates being off by a factor of 2 is seen as pretty bad. This is much worse. It puts the overestimate in proper perspective.radek (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does the source attribute the 250,000 to Schieder? Why did you change 250,000 to 25000? Skäpperöd (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Haar and population balance - request for clarification
Can we get the relevant passage in which Haar objects to population balance methods in general (of course, translated into Engllish). From what I've read it's not that he objects to this approach in all cases, just when it's done badly, or twisted for political reasons.radek (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph, first sentence starting with "Ohne Zweifel...": "Without doubt, the discussion about the number of Polish victims shows that the method of population balances is questionable."
 * Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but where does he say that he objects to this method "in general" rather than in that particular instance?radek (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the cited sentence, he already does object to the method in general - providing an example that "shows" his point does not reduce his point to this example. Furthermore, he puts the very word, population balances (=Bevölkerungsbilanz in German), in quotes in the chapter's title, and the chapter is not limited to the Polish balances, but primarily challenges the German population balances (didn't you introduce this source yourself? I thought so), and the Polish population balances are just used as the preface to illustrate how questionable Haar thinks population balances are (only first page of the chapter). Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The IPN has published recently a revised number of Polish victims, so a "historical" dispute of this problem shouldn't be included here.Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The very IPN is part of a national project going on in Poland right now (www.straty.org) to verify as many victims as possible - so no this is not "historical", and I have not heard of a "dispute" either, just of research and discussion. While historians have lowered their estimates to about five million war victims, research is not finished yet. Still an unbelievable number btw. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) said its researchers now put the figure at between 5.62 million and 5.82 million rather than the estimated figure 6.028 million used in communist-era Poland. 30/08/2009


 * The figure of 5.0 million war dead includes only Jews & ethnic Poles, excluding ethnic Ukrainians & Belrussians. The IPN figure includes ethnic Ukrainians & Belrussians who were Polish citizens in 1939. The original discredited estimate from 1947 of 6.028 million war dead included only Jews & ethnic Poles, excluding ethnic Ukrainians & Belrussians. --Source explaining this is Czesław Łuczak, Szanse i trudnosci bilansu demograficznego Polski w latach 1939-1945''. Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI- 1994


 * So we can say that the IPN estimates 5.6 to 5.8 million war dead, 1.5 million have been verified by the IPN, the balance being a demographic estimate. The German government estimates 2.0 million Expellee dead, 500,000 have been verified, the balance being a demographic estimate.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article, the introduction
National minorities and the European nation-states system‎ Jennifer Jackson Preece - 1998 uses the name "forced transfer". "Expulsion" is a direct translation of the German "Vetreibung". This is an English language Wikipedia, not a German propaganda division.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the flight, war and expulsion. Calling the evacuation or war crimes "an expulsion" is German government POV.
 * The introduction is too long. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Germans?
The basic problem was, who was "German". Many expellees were Slavs (Silesians, Kashubs). Calling them "Germans" is German POV. People were sometimes imprisoned and/or deported from Poland because they had big farms/houses.Noone checked the ethnicity of Upper Silesian miners kidnapped by the Soviets.Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources on how many of the expellees were non-Germans? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The largest transfer
Stop yopur lies. The deportation of Germans (the word "expulsion" being German POV should be removed or introduced in any article about forced migrations) was the third in modern Europe after the Nazi deportations and Soviet ones. It wasn't even the biggest deportation of one ethnicity, because the idea of "Germans" as applied when selecting people to be deported was very fuzzy. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide verifiable sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasserstein is misquoted in the article. He has written abouta transfer "between European countries", not universally. One of many manipulations and lies of the editors here. Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please outline how and where Wasserstein is misquoted. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW - which "countries"? If the "Recovered Territories" were German (under Polish administration), so the deportations were local, in Germany. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot eat the cake (Polish administration till the Peace treaty) and to have it (transfer between countries).Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The expulsions have been classified as ethnic cleansing,[7] democide[8] and genocide.[9]
The deportations have been classified in many ways. The author selects German POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In what other ways by which sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

By hundreds of sources not written from the POV of the BdV.Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vaclav Havel about the deportation of Sudetengermans from Czechoslovakia: http://old.hrad.cz/president/Havel/speeches/1995/1702_uk.html " a sad consequence of the evil which preceded it"Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * expulsion for peace Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Joseph Stalin "the Germans run away and no Germans are left"Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Eisenhower Telegram to the War Department, 18 October 1945 (National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG165)
States in part: WAR DEPARTMENT

CLASSIFIED MESSAGE CENTER

INCOMING CLASSIFIED MESSAGE

TOP SECRET TOT

PRIORITY

From: CG US Forces European Theater Main Frankfurt Germany

To: War Department

Nr: S 28399..... 18 October 1945

S 28399 to for action War Dept for G 2 attn Major General Clayton Bissell from Hqs US Forces European Theater Main from Connor from Sibert sgd Eisenhower cite ETGBI. TOP SECRET.

Detailed reports from reliable observers including an officer from G 2 Div confirm indications of critical situation developing. ..

In Silesia, Polish administration and methods are causing a mass exodus westward of German inhabitants. Germans are being ordered out of their homes. . . Many unable to move are placed in camps on meager rations and under poor sanitary conditions. Death and disease rate in camps are extremely high. Germans who attempt to hold onto homes and land are terrorized into 'Voluntary' evacuation. Methods used by Poles definitely do not conform to Potsdam agreement. . ..

Due to mass migrations into Brandenberg and Saxony, health conditions in these regions tragically low. There is unprecedented lack of food, medical supplies, and doctors. Reasonable estimates predict between 2.5 and 3 million victims of malnutrition and disease between Oder and Elbe by next spring.

WAR DEPARTMENT

CLASSIFIED MESSAGE CENTER

INCOMING CLASSIFIED MESSAGE

TOP SECRET TOT

Page 2

From: CG US Forces European Theater, Main Frankfurt Germany Nr: S28399 18 October 1945

Breslau death rate increased ten fold, and death rate reported to be 75% of all births. Typhoid, typhus, dysentery, and diphtheria are spreading.

Total number potentially involved in westward movement to Russian Zone of Germany from Poland and Czechoslovakia in range of 10 million. Estimate 65 to 75 per cent already departed or on the road westward. No coordinated measures yet taken to direct stream of refugees into specific regions or provide food and shelter. Tendency of refugees is to move into cities, and cities of Saxony, especially are becoming dangerously over crowded. Attention is invited in this connection to serious danger of epidemic of such great proportion as to menace all Europe, including our troops, and to probability of mass starvation unprecedented scale.

Copies of special reports for your information are being forwarded by Mail Annex Nbr 3 to our Special Intelligence Bulletin Nbr 3 gives of preview of this problem.

End

ACTION : Gen Bissell

INFO: Gen Arnold, Gen Hull, C of S

CM-IN-8742 (18 Oct 45) DTG 181435A da

TOP SECRET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What nerve! - to impose to Poles an administration and to criticise this administration as a "Polish" one.Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But they were Polish i.e., Polish Communist (even though a few Russians were wearing high ranking Polish military uniforms). For example, 10,000 ethnic Polish members of a Polish Communist region are 10,000 ethnic Poles, just as 10,000 ethnic German members of an East German Communist region are 10,000 ethnic Germans.ANNRC (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW - any TOP SECRET documents about Katyń or Nazi crimes in Poland?Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve often wondered how the East German Communists explained away the substance behind the Eisenhower telegram. Maybe they defined it as a fortuitous event gifted from their Polish Communist brethren, providing the EG Communists with 10 million more “converts”.76.14.247.204 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Population Transfers in the Potsdam Agreement
Since, for example, the ultimate disposition of the Polish administered areas of eastern Germany was left at Potsdam to the presumed upcoming Final Peace Conference, the reference to "Poland" in the context of the Potsdam Agreement-related population transfers was to within the appropriate 1937 boundary areas of Poland.

Expulsions from Polish administered territories were against International Law, nor were the expulsions authorized by the Potsdam Agreement at any time prior to the pending Final Peace Treaty.

Expulsions from Soviet Union administered territory were against International Law, nor were the expulsions authorized by the Potsdam Agreement at any time prior to the pending Final Peace Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And who did destroy the Europe allowing such moves possible? Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo: "Marking the new Polish-German border in 1945"
Not quite sure what the picture caption represents. I assume it was taken either on the northern borderline or on the western borderline of the 1937 Polish border, since in 1945 the 1937 boundaries of Poland were reestablished. However, it may be that the picture was taken on the northern boundary or the western boundary of the Potsdam assigned Polish administrative areas of eastern Germany pending the final Peace treaty (the administrative assignment was temporary pending the Final Peace Treaty).ANNRC (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter. To avoid complications arising from de-jure vs de-facto (it is just an image caption), I altered the caption into Polish boundary-post at the Oder-Neisse line in 1945. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please cooperate
I have criticised the title and noone defended it. When I change the title, Skaperod knows better. Please, discuss here instead to waging edit wars and discussing in another forums.Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Expulsion of Germans after World War II → Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII &mdash; The article is about the flight and expulsion. It isn't about Expulsion only, the title "Expulsion" is a literal translation from German "Vertreibung". Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed the new title seems better because the article covers everything: expulsions, flights, war-deaths.. etc etc etc. Loosmark (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the old title. The majority of the article pertains to expulsions, and do many academic references and at 153 kb other topics should really be forked off into different articles. - Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In another words - let's continue the German propaganda, because it exists. The division between cultural Europe and wild Slavs is O.K. When French people kill lovers of Germans it isn't an Expulsion, but when Nazis run away from the East, it's an Expulsion.Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So when you say "support", what do you actually mean? Should the other article be renamed, so as to free up the title? Should this become Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII (Version 2)? Or should the two articles be merged? Are they too large to be merged, or is some of the content duplicated? Given the circumstances mentioned above, a simple comment in favour of a rename isn't particularly helpful. Please elaborate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Non-Dairy Creamer, sources in "Use in sources" section below, and my rationale in "Expulsion happened to the refugees, too" section below. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)/15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note that a similar page move was discussed in March at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 15, which may be of interest to editors participating in this discssion. I also note that there already is an article entitled Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II - is what is being proposed here a move or a merge?  And, Xx236, please do not move the article until there is consensus to do so - much thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - since most of the German civilians actually fled the advancing Red Army I thing this could be renamed.--Jacurek (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. Sorry I don't fully understand what are you after?--Jacurek (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Sorry to be a bother.  As Skäpperöd kindly pointed out to me, I was mixing up a redirect to this article and the article pertaining specifically to Poland.  Your post made sense -- mine, not so much.... --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - makes sense. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold This debate should be conducted as an omnibus discussion for the entire family of articles. The naming convention being employed is terribly inconsistent. I think a move before a consistant structure is established in premature. Since the topic concerns forced migrations and population transfers during World War II, the basic structure should be decided in a central location. I suggest a hold on this discussion until Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion is completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Google book search (publishing years 1980-2009)
The search indicates that as a headline or reference, expulsion is used as a label for the whole process.
 * "expulsion+of+the+germans" 659 hits
 * "The+expulsion+of+germans" 617 hits
 * "flight+and+expulsion+of+the+germans" 17 hits
 * "flight+and+expulsion+of+germans" 37 hits

Books that use "expulsion" as primary label for the process
The following list contains recent Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge publications that use "expulsion" as primary label for the processs, as opposed to "flight and expulsion" or "population transfer". Though the sources may use these phrases also, the catchphrase is "expulsion of Germans":

Oxford

 * "The expulsion of the Germans from East Central Europe took a number of forms. Many Germans [...] fled to avoid ending up behind the Soviet front. [...]"
 * "The expulsions took place in three broad phases. First, refugees fled East Prussia, Pomerania [...]" Gibney's website at Oxford
 * "and the expulsion of Germans"
 * title; p.99:"the mass expulsion of Germans"
 * "the expulsion of Germans from territory occupied by the Red Army"
 * "crimes committed on the invasion of Germany and during the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe"
 * "the expulsion of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary"
 * (title)
 * "the mass expulsion of Germans"
 * " the expulsion of Germans from all non-German territories (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary)"

Harvard

 * "IV: The Expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia."
 * p.274: "the expulsion of the country's Germans"; p.291: "the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans"; pp.269, 294: "the expulsion of the Germans"
 * "The expulsion of Germans from East Prussia and the eastern part of Germany began whith the Soviet invasion of these territories, when millions of Germans began to flee."
 * "the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe"
 * "They [the Allies in Potsdam] further legalized the expulsion of Germans from the areas east of the Oder-Neisse line and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, a process that was already well under way.''"
 * "the division of Germany and the expulsion of Germans"
 * "the complete expulsion of Germans"; p.210: "the expulsion of Germans from Poland"
 * "the massive expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia."

Cambridge
Skäpperöd (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "postwar expulsion of Germans"
 * "the expulsion of Germans" (in reference to another work)


 * what point exactly are you trying to make? Loosmark (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources tend to use "Expulsion of Germans" for the process. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some sources do, some other don't. Even the quoted German politican says Flight and expulsion.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Polish Wikipedia uses the word Wysiedlenia, which means Expell--Woogie10w (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vertreibung = Expulsion = wypędzenie.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion happened to the refugees, too
The refugees were expelled in absentia, since they were prevented from returning. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct--Jacurek (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Related major move proposal
Please see and comment at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"including territories occupied by the Nazi Germany"
This phrase does not make sense to describe the expulsion area in the first sentence. Most of Europe was once occupied by Nazi Germany, and was not anymore occupied when the expulsions took place. I understood Jacurek's concern to be that some areas were annexed by Nazi Germany during the war. The paragraph below already details that:"The area from which the German population was expelled comprised pre-war German provinces transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union after the war (East Brandenburg, East Prussia and most of Pomerania and Silesia); pre-war Polish areas, during the war annexed or occupied by Nazi Germany; Czechoslovakia, re-created from pre-war Czechoslovak areas occupied during the war and the Sudetenland, annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938; Hungary, Romania, northern Yugoslavia (predominantly in the Vojvodina region), and other states of Central and Eastern Europe." Nazi-occupied Europe is also linked already in the lead. Thus I see no need to keep that unspecific phrase in the first sentence. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)/14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anywhere Germans were expelled from that wasn't occupied by Nazi Germany? Perhaps some of the Volga basin... (If the answer is, as you suspect, that this is intended to distinguish Warsaw from Koenigsberg and Breslau and Carlsbad, then it fails; it should be removed as unclear and unidiomatic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some ares were pre war territories of Poland or Czechoslovakia and were annexed into the Nazi Germany with local population expelled or murdered[]. Occupied lands were repopulated with German settlers over the course of the war. These German civilians also fled or were later expelled after the war. Why not having this in the lead? --Jacurek (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So? The clause quoted does not convey either point to the reader; and, as Skäpperöd said, that many of these lands were not German in 1937 is already in the lead. (Some of them weren't in 1914) . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you. Let's wait for others to state their opinions.--Jacurek (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Germans were expelled from Latin America and the U.S. in the wake of the Seccond World War and those terrirories were decidedly outside of the nazi empire. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Germans were expelled from the U.S. When did this happen? My mom had top secret clearance and worked on the Manhattan Project, my dad was a US GI--Woogie10w (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 3; We deported a couple thousand German Americans throughout the war, often in exchange for American internees or other interned allied nationals and then right after the war we deported a couple thousand more. Clearly the actions of the United States pale in comparison to the Soviets but we did some pretty shadey things, especially in Latin America. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can recognise this as standard revisionist boilerplate. I know rather well how things worked out in several South American countries at the time. If you happened to have been born in Germany, but were not - unlike much of the German colony - a Nazi, and were not enough of a claustrophile to lack two non-German friends, it was essentially trivial to get certified as loyal. Otherwise, you were still pretty safe. The bulk of the German colonies in southern South America was not even remotely bothered; the bulk of the German colonies at that time in those places was solidly pro-Hitler. Talk to any honest person who had connections in those colonies at the time and he or she will tell you as much. Feketekave (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd is right, Germans had lived in Poland for generations before the Hitler period--Woogie10w (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I didn't mention that here, it is correct.

@Jacurek: "Why not having this in the lead" - That the expulsion areas were occupied by Nazi Germany during the war, just like most of Europe is in the lead, maybe you missed it in the paragraph quoted above?: pre-war Polish areas, during the war annexed or occupied by Nazi Germany; Czechoslovakia, re-created from pre-war Czechoslovak areas occupied during the war and the Sudetenland, annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938 - and Nazi-occupied Europe is also linked. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased and clarified the phrase, I hope. Does this meet your objections? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Though it is now more factually correct, it is still not suitable for a first sentence to include that information: I thus object to having half of the first sentence of the article dealing with Nazi occupation. The first sentence should give the reader an idea what the article is about.
 * How these areas were occupied by Nazi Germany during the war is already detailed in the second para of the lead, and also referred to in other places in the lead.
 * That these areas were occupied by Nazi Germany during the war is not a distinct feature of these areas, nearly all Europe was.
 * The expulsions of Germans are a feature of Europe under Allied occupation, not of Europe under Nazi occupation. The Nazi German occupation had ended before the expulsion started. Evacuation and first spontaneous flights occurred when Nazi German occupation/administration broke down.

What about changing "(current) The flight and expulsion of Germans (German: Die Vertreibung or Flucht und Vertreibung) was the mass migration of German nationals from the former eastern territories of Germany and ethnic Germans from territories across Europe (including many of the lands occupied by Nazi Germany during the war) to the western and central areas of Germany towards the end and in the aftermath of World War II." into"The flight and expulsion of Germans (German: Die Vertreibung or Flucht und Vertreibung) was the mass migration of German nationals from the former eastern territories of Germany and ethnic Germans from territories across Europe to the western and central areas of Germany towards the end and in the aftermath of World War II, when Allied administration and occupation replaced the former Nazi German one." ? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some POV problems with that proposal. First "Allied administration and occupation replced the former Nazi German one" equivocates between Allied "administration and occupation" and Nazi "administration and occupation". The word "occupation" has or at least should have a completely different meaning here. The two were not equivalent and should not be linked together in such a manner. Second, there's still no mention of the numerous colonists that moved to previously Polish or Czech areas, or even the GG (including families of Wemrmacht soldiers and other services which were stationed there as part of the occupying forces) who were also "expelled" (or rather, more accurately "force to return").radek (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the average reader will know the difference between "Allied" and "Nazi"? Anyways, ANNRC and Jacurek already agreed on another wording. Regarding the colonists, see below. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they will or maybe they won't, but either way, that's no excuse for the article to deliberately confuse the two.radek (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about, " . . . western and central areas of Germany towards the end and in the aftermath of World War II, into the Allied Occupation Zones of Germany which replaced the Nazi administration." This change is suggested in view of one of the Allies, namely the SU, having an administrative zone (Northern East Prussia) from which it was illegally deporting Germans.ANNRC (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fine this way but I still have a problem with with not mentioning the German settlers on occupied Polish territories incorporated into the Third Reich after the invasion of Poland. Remember, millions of Poles and Jews were expelled by the Nazis into GG and replaced with German settlers. I don't think I will ever be confident not having this mentioned in the lead.--Jacurek (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, 250,000 Poles and 110,000 Jews from the annexed territories were deported to the Generalgouvernement. Another 400,000 Jews from these areas were later sent to extermination camps, and some 200,000 Poles were subjected to forced labour. There were plans to expell more Poles later, but this "later" fortunately never came. The settlers were for the most part ethnic Germans who fell victim to the Nazi-Soviet population transfers, most of them from just east of the Curzon line and thus covered in the "Soviet Union" section. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I 'm not sure if you are right with your numbers, look at this...[]
 * What is your source for these claims, or more specifically, numbers?radek (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Luczak 923,00 Poles were deported from Annexed Territories and another 788,000 deported from General Gov as forced laborer--Woogie10w (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Luszak, who published his book in 1979 in a country subject to a totalitarian Communist regime (censorship and propaganda alarm), gave 923,000 as his estimate of all those who had to leave their homes in the annexed territories. Not all of these were deported to the GG or to the Altreich, many spent the war years in "Polenlager" camps. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Jewish Poles? Now we talking millions.--Jacurek (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Nazis murdered millions of Jews. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: The settlers were for the most part ethnic Germans who fell victim to the Nazi-Soviet population transfers, most of them from just east of the Curzon line and thus covered in the "Soviet Union" section. - They were settled in Poland not in Soviet Union, so information about them should be also covered in the Poland section. There's also no mention or estimates of the numbers involved. And these are that there were about 400,000 to 500,000 Germans who were involved in the administration of the occupation of Poland and that by 1942, up to 2 million Germans had been settled in these areas (Polish_areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany).radek (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...that is A LOT of people, this has to be included in the lead, we can not just ignore it and I don't think this fact will take anything away from another fact that there were a lot of other Germans who suffered legitimate expulsions from their lands and houses they owned for centuries.--Jacurek (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2 million "settlers" figure includes those who already lived there, many since the Middle Ages, those who had been displaced there by the Nazis, and the estimated 400,000-500,000 who actually moved there from pre-war German areas. It must however be taken into account that about 600,000 Germans had left the very same area only in the decade before, when the area became Polish. Do you know how many of the estimated 400,000-500,000 settlers from pre-war Germany were actually returnees? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, what is your source for the claim that most of the 400,000-500,000 were "returnees"? Even that term is very POV. Nothing in the source indicates that this was indeed the case, so this is basically OR. It's actually pretty bad OR at that since most of the 400,000-500,000 were administrators and Nazi party officials who were involved in occupation of Polish territory rather than the farmers and regular people who may or may not have left this area during the interwar period. So first, the 600,000 figure is unsourced and sketchy. And even if, these were not the same people as the Nazi bureaucrats and personnel that the text is referring to. At this point it sounds like you're just making stuff up (at least I'm not seeing any reliable sources to back these claims up).radek (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I did not "claim that most of the 400,000-500,000 were 'returnees'". The 600,000 figure is on the lower edge of a range of up to a million, see here for more estimates. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Germans from Reichsgegiet(like Erika Steinbach) made up 560,000; and 1,320,000 ethnic Germans from other nations (mostly Soviet territory ie. Romania, Baltic States USSR & Eastern Poland) per Gerhard Reichling--Woogie10w (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ethnic German figure most probably also comprises the Germans who already lived there? Estimates of several German and Polish scholars put the number of native German residents in the annexed areas at about 600,000. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointer: included in the figure of 2 million Expellee dead, supported by the German government, are 108,000 Germans resettled in Poland by the Nazi's.


 * Pointer: included in the figure of German born persons in the US in 1940 are legal residents who were not US citizens as well as US citizens born in Germany. Note well that 1940 figure includes German Jewish refugees that fled Hitler Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course for every sane person "German" includes "Jewish German", only the Nazis had their own definition of "German" which we don't want to follow here. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That whole section on German Americans is borderline trivia, the issue never comes up in the historical liturature on the Expulsions, only on Wikipedia are the two issues linked together. OR or not? You tell me.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote Of course for every sane person "German" includes "Jewish German", German Jews I have known over years in New York always considered themselves Jews and would be highly offended if you called them a German.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are talking about Jewish Americans with roots in Germany who don't self-identify as Germans. I was talking about Jewish Germans. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am taliking about a friend who survived Auschwitz, he lost his whole family, his father who was gassed at Auschwitz was a decorated soldier in the WW1 German Army. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am pretty sure his father first could not believe that the Nazis did not accept him as a German and redefined him as an alien, and when he realized what was going on, it was too late to get out. That was a common and very sad experience. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans actively participated in Nazi crimes in Poland since September 1939. Very many of them preferred to live in Germany after the war, to not be punished. SO much about gthe unhappy "Orphans of Versaille".Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing debate about classification?
This edit states that "There is an ongoing debate as to the classification of the nature of the events". That is OR. Please show where there is a debate, and show that the classifications are mutually exclusive. The sources used for different classifications are sometimes the same, showing that the classifications are not mutually exclusive and that there is no debate. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Every single one of those is sourced which itself shows that a debate exist.radek (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. No source points out a debate, and "population transfer" and "ethnic cleansing" etc pp is not mutually exclusive. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question as to whether or not it was 'genocide' is most certainly under debate and not representative of most sources. This needs to be noted.radek (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Potsdam Agreement borrowed from the Nazis style of racial classification: In giving authority to the "authorities" in such places as Czechoslovakia and the appropriate area of 1937 boundary Poland to define who/what constituted an "ethnic German", such "local authorities" had the power to define, for example, a person with one German greatgrandparent as an "ethnic German" and therefore suitable for expulsion.  The Potsdam Agreement empowered such "local authorities" not only with such power of "racial determination", but also with the power to expell virtually 100% of those so-determined.ANNRC (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing the Potsdam Agreement (flawed as it might be) with the Nazis style racial classification is simply sick. In the real world such things would be unthinkable but i've learn that lots of people use wikipedia as some sort of valve to release every kind of weirdness. Loosmark (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That comparison comes from an academic source (i.e., a source, right or wrong, from a university library). The Communist militias took strength from the Potsdam Agreement, to include justifying various actions they had taken prior to the Potsdam Agreement.  I agree that lots of people, including many who have learned English as a second language, tend to use Wikipedia as a platform to battle what they apparently perceive to be vestiges of Nazi thinking.  Part of the shared technique in such matters is to challenge much, but not get involved in responding to too many specifics, since the focal point seems to be in a constant flux (almost an hourly flux at times), and thus the claim can be made that it is unproductive to respond to a superceded comment or question i.e., superceded by simply more word flow.ANNRC (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya, but comparing ANYTHING to what the Nazis have done will set up "fireworks". You just made a mistake equaling Potsdam Agreement with the Nazi polices, you can't compare these two things.--Jacurek (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated, I wasn't the original source for that assessment - it was in an academic work & was used primarily as an analogy in that work. Obviously what the Nazis did was on a much greater scale than what happened to the Germans in Czechoslovakia and Poland after the war.  The latter includes Germans having to wear the letter "N", and Nazi concentration camps re-used for, in cases, ordinary German civilians.  Some Germans who refused to vacate their premises were forcibly taken to camps.ANNRC (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand everything, but again, NOTHING can be compared to Auschwitz-Birkenau, just to give you one example. Not even so tragic events such as mass rape of German woman by the Soviet troops. Therefore it will never be easy to find sympathy for the German civilian hardship and there will be always accusations that by emphasizing this suffering one is trying to turn the German Nation into the victims of the war rather than the oppressors. Of course the facts of German civilian suffering should be told and should be acknowledged but because there is such a fragile line between recognition of these facts and historical revisionism, editors,  especially the German ones should be more than careful while editing pages on the subject. I hope you understand.--Jacurek (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rapes of German women in the future GDR are rapes, but rapes of German women in future Poland belong to the "Expulsion". Jewish vengeance in Germany proper is Jewish vengeance, Jewish vengeance in Poland is the "Expulsion". Poles transported to Soviet camps in Siberia aren't mentioned in this Wikipedia, Upper Silesians transported to Soviet mines are classified as "Germans" and included in the "Expulsion", punished Nazis are qualified as victims of the "Expulsion". German occupants running away from Poland are "expelled", eg. Erika Steinbach's family, the same for Czechoslovakia. German people running away from Paris aren't "expelled". This Wikipedia shouldn't present German POV as a "fact". The "Expulsion" was a part of post-war population transfers. German editors are active, write fluent English and they create the image of German victims of WWII. Millions of Slavs were mistreated after the war in DP camps, transported to Soviet Union, raped and murdered. Their fate isn't described by academic historians or not described here. The "Expulsion" wasn't the biggest population transfer in Europe, shame on editors who push such propaganda. It was however the biggest liberation of people, who were able to impose their POV till today. Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the biggest ethnic population transfer in Europe? (caveat: "population transfer" is a term which could describe either a singular ethnic population, or it could be used to describe mass movements involving more than one ethnic group.)
 * Since most of the German expellees ended up in the DDR how can that be called a liberation?ANNRC (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What is you source? Many refugees went to Austria.Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC) You are wrong, see de:Heimatvertriebener.Xx236 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the expellees arrived initially in the Soviet Zone of Occupation; there was no guarantee they would go beyond that. There was no feeling of "liberation" at the time - too many people were dying.ANNRC (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You select certain period and certain population and want to extend to 12 000 000. No, no, no. And we aren't talking about feelings but about facts - Mercedes or Volkswagen cars in which the expellees travelled to Poland later. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, much of the discussion on these pages falls into subject categories of "Morality" and "Legality". Sometimes those two provide a good fit together; other times not.  Legally (& especially as evidenced by the Potsdam position of no assessment of German collective guilt), the German expellees were defined as victims.  That assessment does not interfere with the same definition applied to the Polish nation as a result of the 1939-45 war, and the consequences thereafter.  Things get a bit hazy when Polish Communists and Polish Communist militias, who one could argue arose to some extent via the consequences of victimization, extracted a revenge by victimizing others.  Morality always is available to provide a response to legality -- the response constitutes a "moral judgment" on the part of those making the response.ANNRC (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The "local authorities" in Poland were Communist, not Polish. The ones created by the governement-in-exile were persecuted like Germans and sometimes imprisoned with Germans.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "local authorities" in post-war Poland were a mix of SU & Polish communists, with of course the SU having the ultimate power. Understood about the persecution of 16 prominent non-Communist Poles from Warsaw (including Gen. Okulicki & Jan Jankowski) who were invited to Moscow from Warsaw in March 1945; and also later for London Poles who went to Warsaw.ANNRC (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)  Polish Communist militias participated in the "Wild Expulsions" of the Germans prior to the Potsdam Conference.ANNRC (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article says that it was the army (BTW directly controlled by Moscow). Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Many "expelled" weren't allowed to emigrate till 1970ties.
 * Many "expelled" were transported to Soviet Union, later liberated and transported to Germany. They never demanded to return to their homeland and never met a Polish or Czechoslovak "expulsor".Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic libraries have "Mein Kampf", it doesn't make the book "academic".Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat once again: the expulsions cannot be compared with the horrible attrocities commited by the Nazis. That's a point that's not even debatable. Loosmark (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BdV propaganda in the article
Ústí massacre doesn't support your 1000 victims story. This is one Wikipedia, not a BdV division. It's one of several examples of the strategy - lets write so many lies as possible and maybe they won't find our lies. Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Area in the lead
The struggle to get the area properly defined by a short mention within the first sentence can in my view be regarded as failed. The last version, where Jacurek wanted to resolve that mess, turned out to be factually incorrect, as it read "of most German nationals and ethnic Germans from the former eastern territories of Germany including lands conquered and occupied by the Nazi Germany across Europe". The former eastern territories of Germany of course don't stretch that far, even the war-time annexes are part of them only in sensu lato, and the ethnic Germans per definition did not live in the former eastern territories, but outside these territories.

Instead of defining the area by agreeing on a short phrase describing them, which I think has failed, I first defined the area by exclusion, that is "areas outside the territory of post-war Germany and post-war Austria", to get the reader a first impression where in the world that happened, and followed by a detailed list of these areas that is the undisputed former third paragraph.

That way, every area is defined by both its wartime and post-war status, and the respective main articles are all linked. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a small group of German revisionists who monitor pages on subjects touching German nationalism and the war; their influence has unfortunately been pervasive. What would be the proper way to catalogue their edits and their interactions? Feketekave (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to the expulsions from other states, the expulsion of the Germans from Hungary was dictated from outside the nation
False statement. Polish government and it's policy were dictated from outside the nation, mostly from Moscow, but also Washington and London. Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two completely separate sources in London (each operating from different perspectives): British Government & Polish Government in Exile . . . also, the London Poles "pushed" for expulsions from an early date (both from within the 1937 boundary Poland, and also pushed for expulsion of Germans from territories east of the Oder into territories west of the Oder). The word "Dictated" can't be applied to efforts of Polish Government in Exile in London to have Germans expelled -- those Poles weren't in a position to dictate anything to anybody . . . rather, they sought to persuade (or "push") others to their position.ANNRC (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The government in Exile had no influence on the Polish communist authorities who were in turn under the control of the Soviets. It is necessary to note that prior to the war the Poles were not interested in any territorial changes, instead it was the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler who desired to grab Polish territory, kill all the Jewish people and turn Slavic people into slaves. Later, after the fortunes of war changed and the Nazis were defeated, Stalin sized the opportunity to grab as much Polish territory as possible compensating it with former Third Reich territory. It was of course bad he did it but claiming that the Poles triggered territorial changes or pushed for it in the first place, is not correct. It was then (understably) concluded that after 6 million Polish citizens were killed, many of whom were gased in death chambers organised by the Nazis, the SS and the Gestapo the relationship between the Polish and German communities were broken to such a degree that any futher cohabitation was impossible. Thus the decision to repatriate the Germans into the post war German borders. Loosmark (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen documentation of/that the London Polish Government in Exile made a map in the early 1940s showing Polish boundary extended to the Oder. Stalin made the decision to push the Germans to the west of the Oder (he got Roosevelt & Churchill to sign off on that) - that would allow him to expell the Poles from areas east of the Curzon Line.ANNRC (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The government in Exile didn't demand Breslau and Stettin, so the number of deported Germans would have been much lower. We can only speculate if the London government would have allowed murders and rapes.Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SPS
Isn't it about time though that the SPS problem on that section was addressed? It's been tagged for a long time.radek (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Americas
I have failed to found the "information" on Latin America in the given pages of the given source. The wording was, moreover, NPOV, and recurred to anti-Latin stereotypes. There is a source that gives a rather different picture (see below).

Allow me to tell you: the German colony in Chile (for example) was majoritarily pro-Nazi - not just due to Nazi propaganda, but often avant la lettre. Obviously, living abroad, most of its members were not NSDAP members. Still - what was exceptional, in Latin America, was not fascist activists among the deported, but non-fascists among both those few who were deported and those many who were not at all bothered. Feketekave (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We should think of adding some quotations from chapter 19 ("The Nazi Drive in Latin America") of Latin America, its place in world life, by S. G. Inman. You can look part of it up online. Feketekave (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the blanked section, it is properly sourced. You might want to have a closer look at the citenote, it says "Volume II". You might also want to use the "verification failed" tag and outline your problem at talk instead of blanking sourced material. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For an amusing intersection, see http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1064 Feketekave (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You reminded me of something, seems that this article doesn't address the fact that during the last months of the war many the Nazis tried to mix themselves into the civilians population to escape. I don't know if this Nazi infiltration should be mentioned in the article, but maybe it did play some role. Loosmark (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My father said the the GIs had orders to round up all German adult males, including the ones in a suit and tie, carrying a briecase. He was in the Battle of Aachen on the first day we went in.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow that's a bit extreme, what were they exactly afraid off? Loosmark (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to want to turn this into a blog on WW2 & my father- but he said if you turned your back they might shoot or throw a grenade. They left booby traps on dead bodies and other mean tricks. War is war. Lets drop this line and stick to the topic.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That whole section on the detention of a small number of German Americans never comes up in the historical liturature on the Expulsions, only on Wikipedia are the two issues linked together. The source deals only with the detention of Japanese in the US. Is this OR or not? You tell me--Woogie10w (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Feketekave (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pointer: included in the figure of German born persons in the US in 1940 are legal residents who were not US citizens as well as US citizens born in Germany. Note well that 1940 figure includes German Jewish refugees that fled Hitler Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With at least twelve million[1][2][3][4] Germans directly involved, it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history
It's not true, even if you quote hundred of "sources". Germans and Soviets implemented the largest movements in modern European history. If you can prove your thesis, it means that your prove is invalid.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, my interpretation of the 12 million "largest movement of any European people in modern history" means "largest movement of any [one type of] European people in modern history" (Caveat: "people" in this context means men, women and children). The "one type of European people" in the mentioned case is "ethnic Germans".  So, since the Nazi Germans didn't relocate, for example, 12 million ethnic Frenchmen or 12 million ethnic Russians, the claim is made for the 12 million movement of ethnic Germans.  Proportionate to the country's total population, the Poles lost the proportionately greatest amount of people (which included more than one ethnic group in Poland)in World War Two; caveats are made that 3 million of those Poles were ethnic Jews.ANNRC (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly i don't understand why would the difference between one "type of European people" or more than that be so important. But in any case i doubt very much that in those 12 millions all were ethnic Germans. In fact come to think of it some German speaking Silesians and Pomeranians were surely expelled among those 12 millions so i suggest to remove this "record" from the article because it appears to be untrue. Loosmark (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced, if you have sources saying otherwise, insert them. How are speculations about how many German expellees had Slavic ancestry relevant here? About a million were granted Polish citizenship and allowed to stay in post-war Poland, primarily the Silesians and Masurians. Many emigrated later and are not included within the "at least twelve millions" figure. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a huge movement of people all over Europe at the time, after the war especially. Is that figure of 12 millions for sure correct? If it is true then that was a lot of people, but it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history is a quite strong statement and has to be based on something very reliable.--Jacurek (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The 12 million figure comes from the 1958 Bonn report, note well this has been disputed as an understatement because the GDR did not count Expellees, only persons born before 5/1939 in the former territories. That means the death toll will be lowered.


 * Re Bilinguals in Germany: The 1950 German census data lists 672,000 Expelles from Poland(39 borders)of whom 49,000 were Bilinguals. They also listed separately 84,000 Polish nationals resident there.


 * I have detailed stats on Polish citizens accepeted as German expelles after 1950, if they are needed.


 * Re Germans Expelles from prewar Germany who were bilinguals there is no data. They were considered Germans.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "They were considered Germans" i'm afraid it's not as simple as that, it is possible that they declared themselves as Germans to avoid Nazi persecution. Those were difficult times and people were forced to do such thing just to be on the safe side. Anyway we just can't be sure of it so the 12 million ethnical Germans figure remains a bit dogdy. Loosmark (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark


 * Per Bonn in 1958, the 12 million were in Germany as Expellees in 1950- 2.7 million remained in Eastern countries and 2.225 million were considered dead and missing after May 1945


 * The 12 million alive in Germany may be understated because GDR figures are Bonn's estimate


 * The 2.7 million alive in the East is an estimate and is disputed as an understatement. For example, Bonn’s 1939 figure for Germans in Poland is 1.381 million. The Polish census of 1931 listed 741,000 ethnic Germans and the 1950 Polish census did not count by ethnic group, For 1950 Bonn made it’s own estimate of surviving and dead ethnic Germans from prewar Poland. p.52-53


 * Bonn claims all 2.225 million died after May 1945, they did not consider deaths due to the 1945 military campaign and the forced labor in the USSR. Poland and Czechoslovakia were blamed for all these estimated dead.


 * In 2000 the German military historian Rudiger Overmans found an additional 344,000 miltaty dead in the area of the expulsions, thus reducing Bonn's total of civilian dead.


 * Also one must consider the fact that post war Europe was devastated. The 1945-46 death rate in Poland(among Poles), and in Allied occupied Germany was also elevated, not only among the Expellee’s.  One million died of famine in the USSR in 1946.  Bonn ignored these points in their analysis.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In another words - Germans are a big nation, so they are the main victims and small nations aren't important. Let someone writes this openly, not in a fuzzy way of "it was the largest movement".
 * Maybe I have misunderstood, but ANNRC claimed that the number of "expelled" citizens of Poland was about 12 million. And I support the thesis.
 * I don't claim that the 12 million were "Germans". Let the author proves his thesis. There were Slavic Kashubians and Slovinians among refugees and more or less ethnically Polish Warmiaks. And there were Upper Silesians of fuzzy ethnicity. Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

the largest transfer of a population in history
The top of lies. Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Collectivization in the Soviet Union: "According to official Soviet figures some 24 million peasants disappeared from rural areas". It was only one of many Soviet "projects". 24 is much more than 12. Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectivization is not a population transfer, source is also invalid. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The population transfer during the Soviet collectivization wasn't a population transfer, decided Skapperod. And please, don't play with me in your "invalid source" game, because I'm adult. I don't claim that the total number of transferred peasents was exactly 24 million, but that it was bigger than 12 million, which is obvious. Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Small private farms in the USSR were dissolved during the Collectivization in the USSR, the farmers who resisted were forcibly deported to work in labor camps. Sources in post communist Russia put the number of deported at 2.5 million, of whom 950,000 died.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 24 million(16%) of the 1930 population of the USSR is absurd and makes no sense at all.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The direct result of the collectivization was the Great Famine, during which millions died, not only in Ukraine. The victims were victims of the collectivization in exactly the same way as Germans who starved after WWII were victims of "the expulsion". It's not the problem of documented "deported" but millions who perished.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided a single source stating that the Soviet collectivization was a population transfer, or a larger one than the expulsion of Germans. On the other hand, there are several sources saying the expulsion of Germans was the largest transfer of a population. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Poland again"
Contributor User:UweBayern described his latest edit as follows:

"(cur) (prev) 08:47, 17 September 2009 UweBayern (talk | contribs) m (153,929 bytes) (Undid revision 314496606 by Jacurek (talk). Poland again.) (undo)"

Please explain. Feketekave (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Will "Germany again" description of edits valid since today?Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of tags
The unexplained removal of necessary tags is unacceptable. I asked the user to self revert on the talk page but did not get an answer. I will restore the tags and then please discuss.--Jacurek (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek, you are correct to restore. The neutrality and content of the article is in fact disputed.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no unexplained removal. The template usage notes that I explicitely referred to in my edit summary should be followed, or the tag may be removed, as the template documentation also says. If the respective instructions are not followed, the tags must be removed again. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd big NO. The article content is disputed, the article is written with VERY STRONG German POV and is not neutral. Tags must stay sorry. Fact that one of the users who was in dispute with you got topic banned and can't edit the article any more does not make this article problem free it actually made things worse. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you please just follow the instructions for template usage, or leave the template out. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Instruction are followed, changes to the articles are being made etc.. Again, tags was placed there for a reason and you can not "time" editors who you challenging. The tag is also there to inform and encourage other editors to contribute. The article was rewritten mostly by one editor...you[]. Please allow a little criticism here, this article is FAR from being neutral, accurate and POV free.--Jacurek (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From template usage instructions Template:Disputed: First add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. Then place  at the top of the disputed article. If the talk page discussion is not in a section named "Disputed", use  (for a talk page section named "Disputed information", use  in the article).
 * From template usage instructions Template:NPOV:

Not followed. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight

The article is obviously disputed. So if it bothers you so much why don't YOU follow these instructions and fill up missing areas of the template instead of removing the template to create an illusion that there is nothing wrong with the article. YEST IT IS, see the talk page. Tags stay until dispute is resolved and judging by the developments it will take very long time to achieve that.--Jacurek (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind and just follow the instructions above, else the tags will be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the present time there are ongoing active discussions that dispute the content of this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please take up the task and link these sections in the template. I fail to see any serious discussion of sources here. "They are all liars" is not a valid dispute per NPOV. You are also free to create a new section for to discuss the problems you see. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN: The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This article was rewritten mostly by one editor user Skäpperöd[]therefore represents ONE View of ONE editor backed by sources chosen by ONE EDITOR. Refer to the unresolved topics on this talk page. Please do not remove these tags until ALL disputes are over and other editors had a chance to voice their opinions. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Poland again", again
I asked for an explanation from User:UweBayern above. None has been given yet. In case it is not clear:

"(cur) (prev) 08:47, 17 September 2009 UweBayern (talk | contribs) m (153,929 bytes) (Undid revision 314496606 by Jacurek (talk). Poland again.) (undo)"

This appears to me to be condescending, offensive and - speaking in loose terms - borderline racist. I am not myself Polish, but an apology to all users would seem to me to be in order. Feketekave (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * UweBayern is known for his extreme views and false/racist comments. He nominated page Holocaust survivors for deletion for example[]. He aslo was recently banned from the German Wikipedia. I still do not know how he is getting away with this behavior but it is partly because the most active user of this page has defended him[] (VERY disappointing) very recently and UweBayern got way with just a warning for edit warring. But we should discuss content not users therefore I will end this conversation Let's administrators catch up on it.--Jacurek (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Largest transfer of European people in question
One idea how to resolved one of many issues of this article... I think that the German exodus from E.Europe should be described as one of the largest and not the largest movement of people in European history. There were other large movement of people and this is one and tragic example of it. Collectivization in the Soviet Union displaced some 24 million peasants from rural areas for example. Adding one of the largest would solve problem number one of this article. Other OPINIONS (not just one) are welcome. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory the Polish administered areas of 1937 Germany east of the Oder-Neisse were in effect from 1945 to 1990 i.e., when the Final Peace Treaty of WW2 was negotiated. So, technically, Germans forcibly moved FROM "non East Prussia" Polish administered areas east of the Oder-Neisse Line TO west of the Oder-Neisse line did not cross an international boundary.  There was no "state policy" or "international authority" to do so; the only "international authority" was for Polish administration of those areas east of the Oder Neisse Line pending the Final Peace Treaty for WW2. ANNRC (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union, a lot of people were displaced from their homes, easily adding up to several millions. However, according to the article, definitely not as many as 12 million. 84.194.225.72 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph from Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union referred to earlier in the discussion:
 * Between 1929 and 1932 there was a massive fall in agricultural production and famine in the countryside. Stalin blamed the well-to-do peasants, referred to as 'kulaks', who he said had sabotaged grain collection and resolved to eliminate them as a class. Estimates suggest that about a million so-called 'kulak' families, or perhaps some five million people, were sent to forced labor camps.[13][14] Estimates of the deaths from starvation or disease directly caused by collectivization have been estimated as between four and ten million. According to official Soviet figures some 24 million peasants disappeared from rural areas with only an extra 12.6 million moving to state jobs[citation needed]. The implication is that the total death toll (both direct and indirect) for Stalin's collectivization program was on the order of twelve million people.[15]
 * Here 24 million people are mentioned "disappearing". 12.6 million of those apparently moved to state jobs. The rest, around twelve million, seem to have vanished, and are assumed to have died. However, it is disputable whether either the twelve million that reappeared with state jobs or those that didn't can be considered part of a population transfer. Notice that population transfer is defined as "the movement of a large group of people from one region to another by state policy or international authority". 84.194.225.72 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on long enough. No single source was provided for a larger movement of a population, multiple sources have been provided that it was indeed the largest. You had plenty of time to provide sources and did not do so. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would qualify that statement by saying in modern European History. The population shifts after the collapse of the Roman Empire had a far greater impact on the course of European History. The movement of 12 million Germans out of the 550 million total population in Europe was not that great. Consider the movements of the Germanic peoples into France, the UK, Italy and Spain after the collapse of Rome; the Slavic invasions of the Balkans; the Magyars coming from the borders of Asia. The Turks displaced the Byzantine Greeks in Asia minor. The invasions of the Huns and Avars set in motion a chain reaction of population shifts. Skäpperöd, you study Medeival history and I am sure would agree with that assessment--Woogie10w (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Going back a mere 1500 years seems chronologically shortsighted, as some 3 millennia before that, exactly 100% of the world's population was expelled from their home, according to one source considered very reliable by many: Moses, Genesis. If the movement of 12 million Germans out of the 550 million total population in Europe was not that great in your opinion, one wonders how many people would have to be moved today, or tomorrow, for you to consider the movement great in todays 830.4 million total population in Europe? The break-even is at 18 million, so even if all the 15 million inhabitants in 7 of 16 Voivodeships of Poland, from Silesia clockwise to Warmia-Masuria, would go recovering Early Slavs territories elsewhere, it would still be not that great according to your standards. Godspeed! -- Matthead Discuß   20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood my comments, I never say Gdansk, I always say Danzig.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about two different things: The population movements of the migration period, and the population transfer or rather exchange of the Pontic and Istambul Greeks (and some other Asia Minor Greeks), and the transfer of the (re-defined) Turks from what is now Greece. The sentence in question and the sources given acknowledge such a distinction, the current phrasing is:
 * [...] it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history, the largest transfer of a population in history, [...]

The other issue you raised, to evaluate the expulsions according to their impact on history, is a separate issue. "Largest" certainly does not cover that, and the sources do not say it was the "most important", but the "largest", for a reason. If something was the largest or not is an empirical value, if something is rated according to its importance/impact however this rating must be a variable, a view. Eg in my personal view, the expulsion of the Germans was not the mass expulsion that had the strongest impact on history - neither was it the population movement with the strongest impact on history. I think that there is a better chance to rate the expulsions and movements of the Jewish, Mongol/Turk and Arab peoples as the ones with the greatest impact on history, because of the Central Asia and Middle East issues they caused that last until today, and because of their impact on the emerging main religions and the feedback loop that these religions had on (secular) history. This view is of course biased by my perception of contemporary history. Historians of the 19th or 25th century might evaluate things in a completely different way, and that is why I would prefer not to rate the impact. If however many sources do so, we should mirror whatever they state. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google search on "largest European movement of people"[] points only to this article written by Skäpperöd[].--Jacurek (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the sources provided for the sentence, provide yours. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about two different things, the Hunic invasions forced people westward. Rome did not have a great wall like China--Woogie10w (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The huns did not only push and kill, but also integrate lots of people/tribes/peoples. The huns were more like the borgs, they certainly did not have something ethnically homogeneous in mind and did not follow a policy of ethnic cleansing. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hunic invasions set off a chain reaction of population movements that transformed the ethnic map of Europe . The Angles and Saxons displaced the Britons; the Franks invaded Gaul and co-existed with local population, each having a separate system of laws; the Lombards conquered the Latin peoples in north Italy setting up a state based on Germanic law; The Visogoths reached North Africa. The Slavs swept south and conquered the Balkans and Greece;  The Bulgars, Magyars and Avars followed them in the 8th century. The Byzantine Empire was besieged and on the defensive. There was in fact a sweeping transformation of the ethnic character of Europe during this era. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that easy. The Huns were one cause of many. I agree that their run was a top significant event in a chain of events that transformed Europe, don't get me wrong. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Woogie10w provided many examples suggesting that you many be wrong with "the largest" clam already, I agree with him and I don't "buy" your arguments against it AT ALL. Therefore we need an expert opinion on the whole issue.--Jacurek (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the sources provided for the sentence, provide yours. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You repeating yourself then I will do the same. Woogie10w provided many examples suggesting that you many be wrong with "the largest" clam already, I agree with him and I don't "buy" your arguments against it AT ALL. Therefore we need an expert opinion on the whole issue.--Jacurek (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not about what I "claim" or you "buy", but about what sources say. Sources say it was the largest. No other sources have been presented. Do you have any sources saying otherwise? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'd say that all sources who don't make that point should count because it is unlikely that the sources will explicitly say "the expulsion of Germans was not the largest". Loosmark (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am not asking for sources saying "it was not", but for sources saying "foo was the largest" or "the expulsion of Germans was the third largest after foo and foo" or sth similar. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some points that should be considered


 * Assuming these were the largest transfers, readers will ask the question, what were the other lesser transfers? We need a Wkiki link to these articles.


 * R. J. Rummel compares the expulsions of the Germans to internal Soviet deportations of ethnic nationalities.


 * Mention should be made that ethnic Hungarians and Italians were also subject to expulsions after the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The other post-war expulsions are linked right within the same sentence:
 * [...] and the largest of several post-war expulsions in Central and Eastern Europe which displaced a total of about twenty million people.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The post war transfers included people who refused to return to communist east europe. Many of the figures on post-war expulsions are wrong and are poorly sourced. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is quoted as saying the "largest ethnic cleansing" not "population transfer". There is an important distinction between the two, lets quote the source --Woogie10w (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which source are you refering to? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gibney, Matthew J; Hansen, Randall (2005). Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present. pp. 196-197. ISBN 1576077969. "the largest single case of ethnic cleansing in human history- --Woogie10w (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, I asked because others use population transfer. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But could "ethnic cleansing" not also refer to the Holocaust (which I think involved more people than the expulsion of Germans)? 81.165.226.56 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did it? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is most certainly a greater population transfer
Namely, the Partition of India. 81.165.226.56 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * True you made a good point, many people in the west have no clue about these events that have a lot in common with the expulsions.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the sentence should be changed to "the largest transfer of a population in European history" or "one of the largest population transfers in history". 81.165.226.56 (talk)


 * R J Rummel puts the total nr refugees at 14 million and dead at 400,000--Woogie10w (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)--68.237.78.187 (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The partition of India involved several populations "transferred" both ways, unless you propose something like an ethnic Indian for both the Indian Republic and Pakistan. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rummel has already compared these two transfers, as both are covered by the same source, and said that it was the expulsion of Germans which constituted the "largest mass expulsion of a population in history". Are there any sources coming to a different conclusion? Or that refer to the India-Pakistan population exchange as the largest in history? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting point.--Jacurek (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need refer to any special sources to conclude that 14.5 is greater than 12. :) --Lysytalk 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we do: We do need sources that 14.5 million of one population were expelled/cleansed in India and Pakistan, and if that can be established, we do need sources to determine the range. The 12 million German expellees are a "at least" value, there are plenty of sources that give higher numbers. That still would border or be OR and SYNTH, as there are already sources cited saying the expulsion of the Germans was the largest ever. In my view, the India/Pakistan population transfers are best compared to the post-war East and East Central European population transfers as a whole. Sources would be a good idea. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find other source other that Rummel's, I'm trying to dig something but unsuccessfully. We need other sources, especially more non German sources to make this article %100 reliable. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look at the citenotes behind the statements? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rummel is an American, like Ike. All his sources are in English--68.237.78.187 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes that is fine. Non German sources are especially welcome. I'm reading al lot lately on the subject...--Jacurek (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In your e-mails I guess. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I think it is impossible to talk to you..:) Remember Skäpperöd, this article DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. Yes, you wrote the entire article but because it was written by one person (YOU)[] who has a STRONG German POV the article needs now significant input from other user with different points of view. Do you understand that?--Jacurek (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

People - isn't this sort of competition simply something that does not belong in the wikipedia? What about we just describe the events, rather than focusing on whether they were largest or worst in any sort of way? Feketekave (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this discussion is silly as long as it is sources vs no sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now for some American history: Hatfield-McCoy feud Bye--Woogie10w (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal again
Skäpperöd, please do not remove tags until the dispute is over. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem number 2 - ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Problem # number one is still being discussed but I think we can move to problem #2 at the same time (lots more to come) Article suggests that the exodus of Germans was an ethnic cleansing and genocide. I can't believe that you can put that in the same category as the Holocaust, for example, can you? Inputs welcome perhaps less form the usual, I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Where are your sources? (2) Holocaust is a category of its own, and noone applied this category to this article's subject. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right here[] I don't believe that expulsions of Germans are even close to what is a genocide..--Jacurek (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Genocide Stage 8.: Denial. "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..." Preventive measures: "The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts." After 6 decades, its about time. -- Matthead Discuß   03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey people, in between the yelling and know-it-all-ing, you're forgetting to listen to real arguments. 84.194.224.170 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the definition of "ethnic cleansing" can also include population transfer and since the population transfer was selectively directed at one ethnic population and caused a massive amount of deaths (still not as many as the Holocaust of course), one might argue the expulsion of Germans can in fact be referred to as a genocide. Though that would be sort of controversial, for obvious reasons. 84.194.224.170 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

no consensus on this one--Jacurek (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic cleansing
Based on the removal of this category from this article by Feketekave, I'd like to know the rationale why this article should not be categorized as such, while numerous sources refer to it as an ethnic cleansing? I restored the category for now. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * According to you the flight and expulsions were "a genocide", "ethnic cleansing", "war crime", "biggest transfer of population" etc etc etc etc. The WW2 didn't start in 1945, much more terrible things happened before that. Loosmark (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to me, but according to the sources cited. I know WWII did not start in 1945 btw. Do you object that the expulsions were an ethnic cleansing? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" is a label created long after the fact, in a very different set of situations. That aside, there are some ways in which this collection of events do not seem to quite fit the label. For one thing, there seems to have been no attempt at deporting (or classifying as Germans) all Polish citizens with German last names, or with some German ancestor. The point of the deportations was never to "cleanse" Poland from some sort of imagined impure blood. If somebody were to apply the level "ethnic cleansing" to the flight of pied-noirs from Algeria, this would be considered highly controversial; it is quite unclear why the same shouldn't be the case here, only more so.

Those matters aside, there is a basic issue of procedure at play. Sources are there to provide facts. We cannot use a non-neutral label simply because some source uses it as well. If that were allowable, then every single event would be automatically laden with every non-neutral label available: it would be enough for one editor to find one source that uses that non-neutral label as well.

To give an extreme example: you will find an enormous number of sources that classify the Shining Path as a terrorist organisation; however, you will find that the Wikipedia page on the Shining Path does not call it such (though it does state that "X and Y consider them terrorist") and does not use a category "Terrorist organisations" at the bottom. This was a matter that was discussed and settled a long time ago. Feketekave (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also do not agree that this article should be categorized as an Ethnic cleansing and fully agree with Feketekave comment above. I know that this is a very difficult subject. The truth is that these people were driven from their homes, many beause of fear (approaching Red Army), many because they were simply "kicked out" but the new authorities of the area, many died in a process, it was a huge human tragedy but going as far as calling it an Ethnic cleansing like Rwanda for example is too much.--Jacurek (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RE "there seems to have been no attempt at deporting (or classifying as Germans) all Polish citizens with German last names, or with some German ancestor": this apparently refers to the Potsdam Agreement provision allowing the expulsion of up to 100% of "authority determined" "ethnic Germans" within the appropriate 1937 Polish borders to some place outside those 1937 borders.ANNRC (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, ANNRC i see your only interest on wikipedia is still only this talk page: . Care to explain this anomaly? Loosmark (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Loosmark, I'm pleased to see that you agree with the assessment: "this [i.e., in response to "there seems to have been no attempt at deporting (or classifying as Germans) all Polish citizens with German last names, or with some German ancestor"] apparently refers to the Potsdam Agreement provision allowing the expulsion of up to 100% of 'authority determined' 'ethnic Germans' within the appropriate 1937 Polish borders to some place outside those 1937 borders".ANNRC (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with anything as I've stopped reading your provocations months ago. Loosmark (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that you find a legal interpretation of the Potsdam Agreement provisions to be provocative . . . however, I agree that it didn't provide much of a "nation-building" mandate, since it was all contingent upon an assumed impending Final Peace Treaty of WW2. And of course the Potsdam Agreement can be construed as sanctioning the ultimate expulsion of the Poles from east of the Curzon Line simply by virtue of it not addressing such specifics i.e., and therefore by default treating it as "settled law".  It may be that some participants in the Potsdam Conference [unrealistically] hoped that the London based Polish Government in Exile would somehow ride a tide (or ground swell) of support from the Polish people into Warsaw thus displacing most of the Communist supplied Polish leadership coming from Moscow, and that such an event would be somewhat coincident with the impending Final Peace Treay of WW2.ANNRC (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Feketetave: The subjective component of "terrorism" (vs freedom fighters) is much higher as the one in "ethnic cleansing". Britannica defines ethnic cleansing as follows:"the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship." So we have a definition that fits and multiple sources applying this term. Is any source critical of using that term for the expulsions? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd: this pinpoints it well - "the attempt to create homogeneous geographic areas". This is precisely what this was not about. I forget who it was that called the end result of WWII in Poland the "ironic fulfillment" of interwar Polish right-wing fantasies; the key word here is 'ironic'. The aim of the administrators who put the removal of the German population into practice was not to create a homogeneous area, but rather to remove from the area those who identified and behaved as Germans rather than Poles. If the two aims seemed anywhere near similar, it is simply because of the destruction of other minorities in pre-war Poland at the hands of a regime supported by a clear majority of people in the easternmost regions of Germany and by an overwhelming majority of Volksdeutsche. For that matter, the newly acquired areas were resettled by the Polish government not just with people from the Polish heartland, but also, to a very considerable extent, with people of Ukrainian or partly Ukrainian origin. (It goes without saying that there were injustices associated to that process, but that is another matter entirely.) So much for homogeneity. No doubt the (sizable) far right was glad for its own far-right reasons, but that, again, is another matter. Feketekave (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That ethnically homogeneous nation-states were a desired outcome of the expulsions is already referenced to multiple sources, the dispersion of the Ukrainians was part of that process. That thereby Dmowski's dreams were fulfilled is not just an irony, as post-war Poland adopted what is afaik described by the self-contradictory term National Communism. I agree that their definition of who was a German and who was a Pole differed from how the Nazis defined these ethnicities - "Polish soul" vs " German blood" - but only for the bi-/trilinguals (incl. "autochtones") who were somewhere "in between" these nations in territory as well as in cultural identification, did this matter in any way. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me say that the two matters you address in your final sentence (namely, the issue of definitions and the situation of bilinguals and trilinguals) are matters of great interest that should be addressed in much more detail in the article. On the main matter - "ethnically homogeneous" may not be quite right; what is well documented is the steps that were taken so that Ukrainian self-identification would eventually dissolve. "National Bolshevism" is a much later construct, as is Gomułka's more or less unrelated "Polish road to socialism". I'll try to fetch a book I have in mind on this later. Feketekave (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya...just like Feketetave said: We cannot use a non-neutral label simply because some source uses it as well.. (Sources picked by the author of this article.) Perhaps Skäpperöd should read it again and again since he/she is repeating himself/herself. We know your opinion already and many of us do not agree with you. Looking forward to comments from other editors. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we know your opinion, and that it does not agree with reliable sources. So are the sources at fault, or are you? Besides, there is no Nie pozwalam! here.

-- Matthead Discuß   04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One more anti-Polish slur. Feketekave (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. no consensus on this one either, still disputed then (Same as on #1). Moving on to the next problem, shall we?--Jacurek (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What's not been talked about anywhere as far as I can determine is how the scholars have danced around the reality that the Potsdam Agreement [PA] only specified that "authority determined" "ethnic Germans" be expelled from (in the matter of Poland) the appropriate 1937 boundary area of Poland (the 1937 qualifier "appropriate" is used since obviously Poles were victims in areas east of the Curzon Line). Likewise, not much mention is made regarding how in 1945 the assumed impending Final Peace Treaty seemed to take on qualities of a panacea. . . . . Regarding the PA reality, it may be that the victimization of the Poles (to include the then on-going victimization of the Poles east of the Curzon Line) makes it awkward to dwell on certain legal aspects of the PA.ANNRC (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are already plenty of sources, but I'd like to call your attention to Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements, which explicitly mentions the expulsions of Germans as a case of "ethnic cleansing". I don't think we should disagree with the UN definition. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all beyond the point. We might as well state that we should not disagree with the US Department of State as to who is a terrorist or not. We can state that an encyclopaedia published by a United Nations body uses the label; we cannot use the label at the bottom of the page ourselves. Sources are there to provide facts.

If we are dealing with an alleged fact, we can try to find sources that support or do not support the alleged version. Labels are a different matter. If a source is sufficient for a label, then all one has to do is hunt for a source that uses the label; obviously, sources that do not use the label will not say explicitly that they are not doing so, but will simply use other labels instead. Thus, the system that works for facts cannot and will not work for labels. Feketekave (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked fo a WP:Third opinion. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem #3
Next problem: [] I would like to continue following the link above but if editors are interested in expanding this section then comments are welcome. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you summarize this horse for me? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, I think she has lost her voice--Woogie10w (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

no consensus on this one--Jacurek (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem #4 - Article categorized/described as Genocide
Is there any justification to have this article in the same group/category as as the Holocaust in Poland? (Holocaust in Poland was the officially sanctioned genocide that took the lives of three million)[]. Of course this is absurd in my opinion, but just wanted to ask.--Jacurek (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacurek, you're overreacting. This isn't some sort of political game. Millions of people who are left to die because of their ethnic background is almost as bad as purposely murdering them, and the latter definitely corresponds with genocide. However, I do understand your concerns. Therefore, I propose replacing the current sentence with "The events are commonly considered as an example of population transfer and ethnic cleansing. R. J. Rummel has classified these occurrences as democide and Martin Shaw even goes as far as calling it genocide." or something in a similar vein. Truth is relative, understanding is limited (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, this is a little better. What do others think, please.--Jacurek (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Millions of people left to die? Now that's debatable, were they really left to die or was the just a total shortage of everything due to the war? But in any case population transfers can't be in the same league as the gas chambers. Well unless maybe on wikipedia because here, I've learned, everything is possible. Loosmark (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Oh boy...I have to agree with Loosmark here...I just can get it how this population transfer could be in the same group as the Holocaust or Rwanda genocide..Can anybody else comment? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacurek, I think you meant to say that you just "can't get it". The above discussion begs the question as to precisely how the ethnic Germans were turned out of their own houses, & how their progression was "monitored" by what might be called "authorities".  Of course, such a turn out from their houses was in two times: the Wild Expulsions & the post-Wild explusions.  There was likely much variance in what happened to the Germans after they were 100 meters from their abandoned house - maybe some were eventually put on trains, maybe some were told to simply "walk west" (how many kilometers were involved depended upon the situation).  Here's what I suspect: the International Red Cross (Headquartered in Switzerland) wanted to monitor those expulsions, but was prevented from doing so.ANNRC (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take a closer look to the articles. Neither Holocaust, The Holocaust in Poland nor Rwanda genocide share a single category with this article. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jacurek is presumably referring to the labels in the lead paragraph, rather than to the categories at the bottom of the page. Feketekave (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The events have been classified by some as population transfer,[8] ethnic cleansing,[9] democide[10] and genocide.[11] ?? These views exist and WP should mirror them regardless of whether we agree or not. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * HerkusMonte, the text said that for a short while because I edited it! Jarucek is commenting on the version before my edit - there was no "by some" back then. Feketekave (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * genocide!? classifying the expulsions on the same level as the holocaust is just crazy IMO. Loosmark (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that User:Truth is relative, understanding is limited's proposal seems quite reasonable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Was German civilian suffering during the Expulsion of Germans after World War 2 equal to the Holocaust in Poland and Jewish suffering ???????--Jacurek (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in the article is such a phrase? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was German civilian suffering during the Expulsion of Germans after World War 2 equal to the Holocaust in Poland and Jewish suffering ? WAS IT OR NOT? Looking for an answer YES OR NOT.--Jacurek (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does the article say so? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please Skäpperöd...it does AND YOU KNOW IT. Let me remove that sentence which compares this even to the genocide and suggests it was one and there will be no more questions. As the matter of fact I will do it right now so you "will know" what sentence I'm referring to.--Jacurek (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we wait until the sentence I just removed that it suggests that it was a genocide will be restored by you or one of your allies or you you will answer my question: Was German civilian suffering during the Expulsion of Germans after World War 2 equal to the Holocaust in Poland and Jewish suffering ? Thank you--Jacurek (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting silly, we don't compare Bosnian Genocide with Holocaust to decide if its "good enough" for being "genocide" or not. But obviously describing this event as genocide is not really mainstream view and wording should reflect that.--Staberinde (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to in-text attribution. I object to overtagging and pointy removal. Maybe Staberinde we say something like "... by Rummel as democide and by some as genocide."? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd, for the first time I see you "bending" a little on the issue... you still did not answer my question please: Was German civilian suffering during the Expulsion of Germans after World War 2 equal to the Holocaust in Poland and Jewish suffering ? You restored the problematic sentence and you are avoiding this question. --Jacurek (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing 3O
Here from WP:3O. My opinion is based on the following information:
 * There is no consensus.
 * The debate arose after the article was removed from the ethnic cleansing category.
 * Some sources use the term "ethnic cleansing", some do not.
 * The term "ethnic cleansing" is not neutral and should be used with extreme caution.
 * In the case of actual ethnic cleansing, ignoring the label is just as bad as using it inappropriately.

My opinion, based on this information is as follows:
 * The inclusion of the label seems to be the previous consensus.
 * In the spirit of WP:BRD, the removal of the label was bold, but it was reverted, and the label should remain until consensus is reached, however
 * The NPOV box should remain on the article until consensus is reached.
 * Also, note that including the category does not mean the article takes the position that the events were ethnic cleansing, just that the article is related to ethnic cleansing.

My suggestions for reaching consensus:
 * Discussing whether this event meets the definition of ethnic cleansing constitutes original research and should be avoided.
 * How many neutral sources discuss these events at length as an example of ethnic cleansing?
 * How many neutral sources refute at length claims that these events were ethnic cleansing?If

Please let me know if any of my assumptions are incorrect or if there are any applicable policies I have not taken into consideration. --Elplatt (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very constructive comment.--Jacurek (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Some sources use the term ethnic cleansing ie A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 while others find the term extremely offensive. Wikipedia articles must include all major points of view - what Elplatt is proposing amounts to revisionism.   We can't use nice terms to describe ugly events.  Bobanni (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@Bobanni: The sources categorizing the events as an ethnic cleansing currently used in the article are: Sources discussing/critizising that label have not been presented. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for the helpful comment, we should indeed avoid OR here and simply use reliable sources.
 * @Bobanni: Which reliable source "finds the term extremely offensive"? Which reliable source says a, b, c was an ethic cleansing, the expulsion of Germans was not? Not a single source has been provided yet while even the United Nations Encyclopedia uses the expulsion as an example of ethnic cleansing (which source might be more neutral?) just like Norman Naimark a fellow of the Hoover Institution and professor at the Stanford University.
 * Unless reliable sources are provided, which deny the character of the expulsion as an ethnic cleansing, there's simply no reason not to use this category . HerkusMonte (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above:

If we are dealing with an alleged fact, we can try to find sources that support or do not support the alleged version. Labels are a different matter. If a source is sufficient for a label, then all one has to do is hunt for a source that uses the label; obviously, sources that do not use the label will not say explicitly that they are not doing so, but will simply use other labels instead. Thus, the system that works for facts cannot and will not work for labels. Feketekave (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can those templates be removed please?
I can't see anything wrong with this article. 81.165.227.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
 * What are the tags about this time? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the disputes resolved yet, then I'm sorry but not. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Skapperod there are still things which needs to be ironed in this article. For example the caption for this map says "Czech territories with a significant German population in 1945". what exactly does "significant" mean? It's a big vague. Loosmark (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare this map (Newman 1972:382) - "significant" means 50-100%. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When the US Army entered western Bohemia in 1945 and found that most of the residents were German and not Czech, the average US soldier assumed that the Germans had all been transferred in by the Nazis. When some of the Germans told them that their families had lived there for hundreds of years the US soldiers didn't believe them.  Nothing was said at the time about the fact that most of those ethnic Germans had voted to join either Germany or rump Austria following the Nov 1918 ending of the First World War, but that the Versailles meeting turned them down -- so much for President Wilson's 14 Points (specifically, that historic ethnic group areas on both the winning side and the losing side would have a say in their own destiny).ANNRC (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah and nothing was said at the time that those Germans were partying like crazy when the Nazis invided Czechoslovakia either. Loosmark (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a picture available showing the Sudeten Germans celebrating the March 1939 Nazi invasion of the Czech lands? There might also be a picture showing the Slovaks celebrating in March 1939 of their separate country.ANNRC (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a picture available showing the Sudeten Germans celebrating the March 1939 Nazi invasion of the Czech lands? Yes as a matter of fact there is, i have seen in it the past however i can't be bothered to find it now. Anyway I've never said there weren't places in Czechoslovakia with German majority, i only questioned if the map in question is accurate because it doesn't seem to be sourced very well. And of course you appeared and tried to derail the discussion with long rant trying to prove there were areas with majority of German population, something nobody disputed. Congratulations, really. Loosmark (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am delighted that you agree that the Sudeten Germans should have been allowed to join either Germany or rump Austria following 1918 (actually, the Austrians in rump Austria voted to join Germany after 1918 but were prevented by the Versailles gang from doing so). In reality, the map under discussion shows much of the long term German ethnic areas between Germany and rump Austria which wanted to come under rule by a German speaking nation after 1918.  History can't be whitewashed -- it is what it is.ANNRC (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record I don't agree with anything like that, most certainly not with the Nazi dearest dream that Austria joins the Third Reich. The map is problematic because it is not clear on what data it is based. Loosmark (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood about the map. However, I was talking about the immediate years following 1918 (there was no Nazi Party in 1919 or 1920).  The Austrians voted to join Germany following 1918; the Sudetenlanders voted to join either Germany or rump Austria following 1918.  As I said, history can't be whitewashed -- it is what it is.ANNRC (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

de.wikipedia.org
Incidentally, is there a page parallel to this on de.wikipedia? I've taken a look and haven't been able to find it.

If there is one, it would be good taking a look - articles there are often useful for bringing articles here impinging on German history back from the farther national reaches. Feketekave (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there is one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertreibung#Flucht_und_Vertreibung_von_Deutschen_1944_bis_1948 --84.194.227.151 (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Minor note: that is a section of an article on the wider subject of deportations; it provides a link to a (very brief) article on the German deportations. Feketekave (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in question
Neutrality of this article is in question. Article is written by one editor based on majority of German sources. Dispute tags are also being repeatedly removed by the author of this article (see talk page and edit history). Comments of the uninvolved editors apriciated.--Jacurek (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, most sources are Anglo-Saxon. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Skäpperöd, I'm interested in comments of uninvolved editors and not of the author (you) of the article. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see that this article is not based "on majority of German sources". It is an obvious mistake on your part. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let OTHERS to make a judgment, o.k.?--Jacurek (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As a one example of MANY MANY problems of this article that question its neutrality: This event was not the largest movement of people in the European history. Larger movement happened just 4 years before, when the Soviet citizens fled German invasion of Soviet Union. Contemporary Soviet military affairs: the legacy of World War II, Page 4 Jonathan R. Adelman,Cristann Lea Gibson "Another 17 to 25 million people fled eastwards in the path of the German advance in 1941 and 1942" The Bread of Affliction: The Food Supply in the USSR During World War II William Moskoffm on pages 30-31 analysis numbers and comes to conclusion that around  16,5 milion were evecuated US intelligence perceptions of Soviet power, 1921-1946 Léonard Leshuk on page 182 writes "In fact though, 20 million was close to the true number of for the post-Barbarossa formal evacuation"

Thus the sentence "it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history" is untrue and should be removed. However if you look at the endless talk page, the author of the article supported by one or two other people does not even agree to anything other than his own views and his own sources.--Jacurek (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another obvious misinterpretation: The 20 million were (a) not one, but of several peoples and (b) returned (the dead excluded, of course). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have added this and other tags so many times now, you should know that you need a valid rationale to do so. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and as a example of TOTAL lack of respect and prove of bias intentions of the author of this article (Skäpperöd) the neutrality tag has been removed[] by him as we speak. Could an administrator please look closer at this? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I will bring the fact that you constantly removing tags without even giving other people a chance to comment to the attention of the administrators, how about that?--Jacurek (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This tagging has been going on for months now, without ever citing a valid rationale. No rationale is given here either - contaary to your claim, most of the sources are non-German (and even if they were, there still would not be an NPOV dispute). The "it was not the largest" discussion is a dead horse. Numerous sources say it was, none says it wasn't or that there was a larger one. I will remove the tag now, there is no NPOV dispute outlined here. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh, not one, but of several peoples what the hell is that supposed to mean!? really Skepperod you should not go for records on this one. Another problem which I've already pointed out before is that map of Sudeten Germans which is poorly sourced. Loosmark (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, sources provided by me (above) show that there was a larger population movement in Europe and that was of Soviet citizens but you keep edit warring/claiming ownership of the article by removing the neutrality tags--Jacurek (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC) The data concerns one group of people, Soviet citizens. As to their later fate whetever they returned or not, this does not change the very fact of the scale and existence of such largest movement of people in Europe.--Jacurek (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your OR. Sources do not say so. There were mass evacuations of parts of several populations in endangered Soviet-held territories who returned once the fighting was over. Of course, that was not a vacation, but neither was it the permanent removal of a population as it was the case with the Germans three years later. Does any source attribute the Soviet evacuations as the largest movement/transfer of a population in (modern) history? If yes, you have a case, if not you don't have a case. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the very notion of this sort of competition a little silly. If we simply refrained from making a worst-or-largest-ever sort of statement, we could concentrate on more substantial matters.

As for controversies: it is clear that this article is controversial; otherwise we would not be speaking here. Note that the parallel text in de.wikipedia.org is a section on a general article about expulsions - including expulsions of Poles at the hands of Germans. (The text there also links to a brief article on the particular events discussed in this page.) Feketekave (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, how do you propose to solve the neutrality problem with this article ? --Lysytalk 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Feketekave you are quite correct, German Wikipedia does a much better job covering this controversial topic. The current article is a poorly written hodgepoge of edits. The section covering the internment of a small number of German Americans is not related to this topic and should be deleted because it is original research. There is absolutely no support in historical liturature for including German Americans. The source cited deals with the internment Japanese in the US not the expulsions in Europe. When reading this article I smell a strong sent of JabolWoogie10w (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Constant removal of dispute tags by user Skäpperöd
This article is disputed, with many unresolved issues by other editors, (see talk page) however user Skäpperöd, the author if this article, constantly keeps removing dispute tags (see edit history of this article). This problem should be addressed. I'm under impression that user Skäpperöd "claims ownership" of this article since almost no changes can be made (again see talk page for unresolved problems) unless the changes are "the way he wants it". --Jacurek (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is rather the constant addition of tags without a valid rationale. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you just removed this tag as well, anyone who reads this talk page will see that there are many unresolved and disputed issues in this article. You keep removing however all tags (in my opinion) to create impression that this article is problem free.  I hope you will stop that.--Jacurek (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please outline who has a WP:COI here and why, instead of just adding tags without giving specific, valid rationales on talk. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SEE TALK PAGE ABOVE.--Jacurek (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No COI outlined there. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This article is DISPUTED, YOU are removing tags. This is the problem not "COI outline". --Jacurek (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you add a COI tag you should outline what COI you are referring to. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should I repeat myself if it all clear just by reading the talk page?--Jacurek (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the COI?! Skäpperöd (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arrival in the "post-war German states"
Should be changed back to "post-war Germany", the post-war German states were founded only in 1949. If there is a rationale I missed, let me know, otherwise I propose Jacurek self-correct and restore the original header. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for Soviet occupation zone and East Germany - the latter is the successor of the first, not its synonym. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * YES MADAM! :) How did I dare to touch anything in this "undisputed" article...sorry, I "forgot" that there was just "one Germany" after the war.:)--Jacurek (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)