Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 8

Highly Misleading
I find the first point of the reasons for the expulsions strongly misleading, because it insinuates that the majority of Eastern European Germans was people who arrived with the Nazi occupation. Yes, there existed German settlers in Eastern Poland where they were lured to by the Nazis, who told them there was free land for them to settle. But this land had been Polish land before the Nazis took it forcefully away from the Polish farmers. This is the truth. BUT the majority of expelled Germans were not recent settlers and lived in eastern Europe for centuries. As a matter of fact, Silesia was part of Germany, so was East Prussia and parts of Pomerania. It is very misleading for the person unfamiliar with this topic to excuse the expulsions with the assumption "the Germans all just came there in the last 5 years". A minority was settlers, yes, but the majority was not. It is very sad that some people still see history as a "threat", it isn't. If you only knew some expellees you would know most of them want friendly relationships with Poland and are not revengeful. But it seems as the fear that some parts of the media and politics stir, is working. However, reality is not the "shock effect" these media outlets promote.

Polish criticism of German "revisionism"
Jadger, your recent addition of the weasel tag to this ection with the edit comment ("I think this section should be deleted, POV fork") conflates three ideas.

1. The section IS POV but because it balances out another POV (the German view) in this article, it's OK. NPOV requires presenting all significant POVs that can be verified via a reliable source.

2. A POV fork is an article that is created separate from another article to express a different POV. Usually this is because the editors of the other article won't allow the POV to expressed in that article. Thus, an example of a POV fork would be if you took this section and put it in an article called Polish criticism of German "revisionism. The remedy to such a POV fork would be to merge it back into this article.  Attempting to delete this section would encourage frustrated editors to create a POV fork so I disagree with the proposal to delete the section.

3. There certainly are weasel words in this section. We need editors to put real sources behind these assertions. It's OK to say "some Polish historians" or "some Polish politicians" or "some Polish newspapers" but then you have to provide a citation to put a real person behind these vague generalities.

Finally, I do think this section is badly written and needs to have the prose tightened up. I'll try and look at it more closely in the next few days.

--Richard 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I understood it to be a fork in the article, like on the operation medak pocket article a few months ago the two sides gave their different POVs and I was told that was not allowed as it was a POV fork within the article. that was before the current version of that article was revamped. I agree with you totally, this section of the article does not meet your 1st point because of your third one, there are no reliable sources mentioned, and that needs done. thanks for looking into it, as I have no knowledge of the Polish language.

--Jadger 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the relevant Wikipedia policy ... Content forking
 * The editors on the operation medak pocket article used the wrong terminology and, in my opinion, were wrong about including opposing POVs. I will spare you the long lecture and say simply "Wikipedia is not about TRUTH, it is about documenting what other reliable sources say is the truth, even when there are multiple sources who disagree."


 * Being an inclusionist, I disagree strongly with the idea that you cannot or should not include opposing POVs. I do acknowledge that there are different ways to present opposing POVs in an article.  One is to present an entire POV and then then propose the opposing POV.  Another is to thread the opposing POV throughout the article.  This second approach especially works when there isn't a single majority viewpoint or there isn't a single integrated opposing POV but rather a bunch of discrete criticisms to individual points in the majority POV.


 * The truth is that POV forks do sometimes exist. For example, it is my opinion that Global warming controversy is a POV fork but it's probably a reasonable solution because otherwise theGlobal warming article would be a mess.


 * This article, if I may say so, was a mess three to four months ago.


 * I put a lot of work a few months ago into restructuring this article into its current layout. However, I'm open to discussing ways in which it could be improved.  It may be that this particular section (Polish criticism of German "revisionism") doesn't fit in the overall flow of the article.  I will try to take a look at it in the next few days.


 * --Richard 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Plural or not ?
Should this be "the expulsion" or "the expulsions" ? --Lysytalk 12:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I think it should be expulsion for the title, because it all happened in one time period (more or less), and the way I read it is as the act of expulsion. the expulsions does not quite sound right if you say the expulsions of Germans after WWII, it's not gramatically correct I think. I think both can be acceptable though, as you can say "the expulsions took place..." or "the expulsion took place..." the latter being used in describing a single specific case. what do others think?

--Jadger 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"the morality of the expulsions" (Lysy's edits)
OK, per Richardshusr's request, let's do it one by one. I'd like to change 3 things in the last sentences of the lead:
 * More than half a century later, relations between unified Germany and its East European neighbors remain somewhat difficult due to a heated and emotional controversy concerning the morality of the expulsions and the rights of expellees (the "Heimatvertriebene"). Much of the controversy is spurred by such unresolved issues as demands for official apologies, compensation for lost properties, and the proper characterization of the motives behind the expulsions.

--Lysytalk 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"unresolved issues"
Firstly I'd like to remove "such unresolved" words. I think that some might claim that they are unresolved while others might think that they are perfectly solved. If unresolved, then what would be their expected solution ? The issues in question are: The "unresolved" word suggests that they are awaiting solution. So, we contend that someone should apologize. Who should apologize whom now ? What about compensation, is this unresolved as well. Do we want to suggest that some compensation is expected ? Who should compensate whom then ? the Soviets ? Nazis ? Germans ? Poles ? I you see why I wanted to remove it now. What are your thoughts ? --Lysytalk 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) demands for official apologies,
 * 2) compensation for lost properties,
 * 3) the proper characterization of the motives behind the expulsions.


 * I see your point. However, I would change "unresolved issues" to "unresolved demands" or something else.  What I want to communicate is that this is not just dry, ancient history for scholars to read.  There are people alive today who care very deeply about this (on both sides) and there has not been closure on this.  As opposed, say, to the Roman invasion of Britain which is definitely dry, ancient history.  The British do not make any claims against the Italians for this invasion.  There is no hatred or vitriol exchanged because of it.


 * I definitely do not want to take sides on these claims and counter-claims and, to the extent that I do, I hope I will be so advised and I hope I will correct the error.


 * --Richard 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we use another word in place of "unresolved" then, to signify that this is still living history ? How about "contentious" ? Using "unresolved" in relation to the compensations suggests that compensation would solve it now. I can relate to this somehow personally. Part of my family (Polish) used to live in the part of Poland that was under German control before WWI but returned to Poland after it. They had a house there both during German and Polish times. During WW2 the house was taken by the Germans (you guessed it, without compensation). Germans lived there throughout WW2 and then the house was taken by the communists (because now it was German property). Of course the original owners never got it back. Now, should the Germans that took the house during WW2 be compensated for their lost property ? I don't want to start the discussion here, only want to give an example that suggesting that some compensation is due is clearly a matter of POV and we should avoid such wording. There are zillions of other similar or different examples of course. --Lysytalk 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I would approve this. This wording seems to me to be quite cautiously picked up here. R eo  ON   |   + + +  21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just boldly improved some parts, hopefully in the wikipedian spirit of nutrality and avoidance of weasel words, and taking above discussions into account. E.g. "unresolved demands" --> "unmet demands".  Also, I think I  focussed the initial section more and eliminated some distractions, bringing it a bit closer to the german wikipedia version, which, as a whole, seems to be of higher quality.  I'm not a registered wikipedia editor yet but there's a small bio about me in wikipedia: [Hartmut_Pilch], will register later.


 * Thanks, that's much better. --Lysytalk 13:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed "unmet demands" to "contentious demands". For explanation, see the "Changed last paragraph of intro" entry below. --Richard 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Contentious demands" is fine with me as well. Thanks for understanding my concerns. --Lysytalk 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The only demands I know about are: Xx236 10:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC) To Hartmut_Pilch - the German article is based on 2.1 millions victims number. There are many reasons to reject the number and some parts of the article. Manny German historians reject the number. Xx236 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * individual German material demands (and Polish demands as the result of the German ones);
 * 'moral' demands of the Union of the Refugees;
 * freedom of biased propaganda by the Center, supported by some German politicians.

"proper"
Now, I would like to remove the word "proper" from "proper characterization of the motives behind the expulsions." Everyone had or could have different, often contradicting motivations and it's not clear how "proper" should be understood here. --Lysytalk 13:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that it's a bit confusing but let me make clear what was meant by this and let's discuss how to get the idea across. This is really related to the "debate about morality".  Down in the "purported reasons" section, there are a number of reasons which we provide without editorial comment (i.e. we do NOT say: Reason X is valid and Reason Y is garbage).  The two sides of the debate over the morality are arguing about whether to characterize Reason X as valid or Reason Y as garbage.


 * You yourself would probably characterize any reason that is used to justify the expulsions as immoral. That is, in your opinion, the "proper" characterization of those reasons.  Others would characterize those reasons as perfectly valid reasons.  That is, in their opinion, the "proper" characterization of those reasons.  That is what I meant when I wrote "there is a debate over the proper characterization of the reasons for the expulsions".


 * This is a highly controversial topic for some people. The debate is not closed.


 * --Richard 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was also that it was quite likely, that the motivation of the Soviets was different from the motivations of the Western Powers, which was different from Polish government in exile which was different from Polish communist govt which again was different from "ordinary" Poles and so on. And then in each of these groups the thinking of person X (who wanted a revenge for his murdered family) could be different than person Y (who just wanted to grab a nice German house). What I'm trying to say is that there is not something like the "proper" characterization of the reasons as they can be very complex and very different. --Lysytalk 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's stop beating around the bush. There are a number of Wikipedia editors who feel that there is a "proper characterization" of the motivations - those that they agree with are "right" and those that they disagree with are "wrong".  As you point out, different people will agree with different sets of motivations as being "right".  All I was trying to say is that there is a continuing debate because different people will disagree (often quite vehemently) about whether a particular reason is a real reason or an excuse.  Even if it is a real reason, people will argue about whether the reason is a good reason or a bad one.  Now, if you have a better wording to get this idea across, I'd love to hear it.


 * All I want to do is to inform the reader that there is a lot of controversy about this topic and to give him/her a thumbnail overview of the nature of the controversies. The next few sections go into greater detail about the controversies.


 * --Richard 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the current wording do the job: "Much of the controversy is spurred by contentious demands of some of the expellees for revocation of expulsion decrees, official apologies, prosecution of perpetrators, compensation for lost properties. Underlying this controversy is disagreement about how to characterize the motives behind the expulsions." Do you find it acceptable ? --Lysytalk 08:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's acceptable but it doesn't completely say what I would like to say. It's pretty good but I still think I would like the second sentence to say something like "Underlying this controversy is disagreement about who was responsible for the expulsions, what the motivations were and whether the expulsions were justified and moral."


 * I want to give the reader an indication that some people think the Polish government was responsible, some think the Soviets were responsible and some assign some of the blame to the Big Three. I also want the reader to have an indication that not everybody agrees on what the reasons were for the expulsions and not everybody agrees that they were immoral and unjustified.


 * This will give me a firm ground to argue that this article is NPOV when somebody comes around trying to push the POV that the expulsions were not the fault of the Polish government and that they were justified by the German support of the Nazis anyways. I will then respond "Yes, that POV is included in this article.  Look here, here and here."


 * Of course, this won't necessarily satisfy everybody but, at least, I will feel that I am on the moral high ground in maintaining an NPOV stance.


 * --Richard 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just boldly changed the last sentence of the para, hopefully along what you suggested. --Lysytalk 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"morality"
Finally, I'd like to remove the "morality of the expulsions", hopefully this is not an issue of controversy between unified Germany and its East European neighbors, as everyone seems to acknowledge that morally it was not justified. The compensations are a different issue. If I'm wrong please provide sources supporting that Polish or Czech government states it was moral and disappoint me. --Lysytalk 13:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a question of the Polish or Czech government stating outright that the official position of that government is that the expulsions were "moral". It's a question, in my mind, of whether there is a significant minority of the populace that thinks that the expulsions were not "immoral".


 * I used the phrase "debate over the morality of the expulsions" to capture the above idea because there are a number of Wikipedians who have made edits to the article and made comments on this Talk Page arguing (sometimes quite insistently) that the expulsions were morally justified as a consequence of the actions of the Nazis and their supporters in Eastern Europe.


 * I do not subscribe to this viewpoint however I presume that these editors represent at least a significant minority opinion in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries. Some of them have said things like "Trust me.  Lots of people in Poland feel this way."  My response was "No, there is no 'Trust me' in Wikipedia.  Provide sources to back it up."


 * I agree that this should be backed up with sources and citations. I would hope that those who feel this way would provide reliable sources that also express this viewpoint.


 * Finally, to argue that there is no debate over the morality of the expulsions is to assert that some of the "purported reasons for the expulsions" are not valid. Well, I personally believe that some are not.  However, the NPOV stance is to present them all without comment as to the validity or invalidity of each reason.  Doing this in this article is really difficult.  Keeping one side from pushing a particular POV is a constant battle.


 * Your attempt to remove "debate over morality" is, I am sad to say, a kind of POV-pushing. Your POV may be the majority POV and, as I've said, I agree with your POV in this case.  However, it is still a POV and there are plenty of Wikipedians who would disagree with you.  To maintain NPOV, we have to give them a voice in this article.  (Not necessarily equal voice but a voice that is commensurate with the significance of the POV.)  I would really like to see sources that provide an assessment of how people in Poland and Czechoslovakia think about this issue.


 * --Richard 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is set currently, it concerns the "relations between unified Germany and its East European neighbors", so its relationship between countries, hence we are speaking about the governments and not "significant minority of the populace". Maybe this could be reworded then. I hope this addresses your concerns about my kind of POV-pushing, as you put it politely. If we're speaking about parts of the populations (but not the countries), then I'm afraid you'd be right. Poles had good reasons for enmity if not hatred towards the Nazis ("the Germans") already during WW2, and then the Soviets (later Polish communist government) had no problems in strengthening these feelings and maintaining them without much effort for practically two generations. The purpose of this was probably the old divide et impera principle but of course it had its long-lasting impact on the perception of both Poles and Germans. As for the stated "purported reasons" I believe that all of them require proper citations. --Lysytalk 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't write the sentence about "relations between... remain difficult" for the reasons that I set out in the section on that topic below. I think the paragraph should be changed to say that public sentiment has been strong on this topic and that it sometimes affects government deliberations and political speechmaking.


 * I think the comments you make about the Soviets and Polish Communists should be documented somewhere in Wikipedia and that this article should make some reference to it although it is tangential to the main subject of this article (the expulsions).


 * --Richard 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect there's much research on this yet, so documenting this one would be difficult, also because it's quite subtle and on the border of conspiracy theory. I agree this is tangential and do not think it should make it into the article without proper citations. I only wanted to explain myself better here. Obviously I agree that the paragraph should be changed along the lines you just proposed above. --Lysytalk 09:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Preventing ethnic violence

To Churchill comments: Their where nearly no ethnically mixed areas. Actually the ethnical mixed areas where already cleanest after the first world war. Poland used the times in between the wars to purify West Prussia, witch was 1914 about 50 % German. Only East Silesia and East Prussia had some mixed areas, all together not
 * Actually, a little above 40% (not whole West Prussia, but this part which was given to Poland)

more than 10 % of the former German area in Poland. So, 90 % of the land taken after the second world war was pure German. What Churchill, as European, must have known. It was not ethnical cleansing it was something new ethnical shifting and genocide of an historical grown population. So, as if you would make Ireland to be Russian in six month. That should explain, why the feelings are still rising high, on this issue. Every second German where ever he lives has now relatives witch come from this areas.
 * Well, you see, the problem is that it was Germans who started the very idea of the expulsions. After all, it were Prussian intellectuals during first world war which proposed expulsion of Poles from West Prussia and Pomerania into Polish kingdom; and then it were Germans who expelled hundred of thousands of Poles from their homes (while siginificant part of local German population was busy occupying their houses and cheering and spitting on heads of their former neighbours).
 * The second problem is that a lot of Germans were evacuated or escaped before the Polish administration took over the area. Of course, it's always wrong and immoral to punish innocent people for deeds of their friends, compatriots or even uncles or fathers, it's wrong to expell a person only because he supported genocidal policy etc, but if I would live in 1945, and if my family endured hardships of occupation, I wouldn't care about things moral or not. Sitting now comfortably in my chair I can think about good and wrong, I can feel pity for the suffering of thousands of expelled. But I have the feeling that in 1945 I wouldn't care about that. I've read accounts of some people filled with hatred, who lost their families during German occupation, who postulated things much more brutal and final than just the expulsions. And I think that many, many people in Germany seems to forget about this very context which made such tragic events possible.
 * Finally, With milions of Poles expelled from their homes in Kresy and transferred into new gained territories, the possibility of ethnic conflicts were almost sure, since this territories would surely stop to be 90% German.Szopen 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Aswer

First I want to tell you it is not about the Polish or Germans; it is about a general wrong view in the west and in the east. WHAT IS MORALY TAKEN ON US FROM THE HOLOCAUST IS, THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER GENOCID AS SINGULAR CASE, THAT MEANS YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE AND YOU CAN NOT COUNT ONE CRIME UP WITH AN OTHER, IT IS A PURE MORAL ISSUE:

This moral standards itroduced by the west after the second world war, has been set in the heads of the Germans and partly Austrians end even Swiss since the Second World War. Now we call on the Politicians and Historians that our victims are seen in the same way, on the same moral line, like the people the German authorities killed. If you come up with this, suddenly there are two moral lines. That means the west, and at most the jewish organisation and the polish and other people in the east tell us, there are two moral laws the one is for the people the German Authorities are responsible having killed and the other for the polish Russian, Serbian, Czech (OR in the case of POW US, British, French) authorities and their killing. ( German victims or others)

That is the one problem and the view witch is common thattheir are two types of victims the good and the bad one is by any intellectual European standard completely unacceptable. It is normal by a middle aged Christian view witch buts the peoples in a sort of collectiv moral perspective. I can only warn to follow this concept of worldview because it would be but on yourselfe too in the future. Allreade in the middle east conflict it is seeable how the moralisation of politics is falling back on the people witch widly use it as propaganda.

The second problem is, a game with numbers. It is played by historians and politicians they but the number of the people witch have bin killed on our side down and the number witch have been killed on the side of the people attacked from us up, and they do this mainly over the media in unbelievable way. Partly even people witch are German and depending on the west are working against their on country in this case. They want to cleans history because they think this is good for a future Europe. But bad habits will creat other bad habits. One nice evidence is the bombing of Dresden where it was hindered to investigate scientific numbers, instead by announcements of the politicians the number is but on 25.000 dead witch is an insult against the dead people, because it could have been, nobody knows, because their are played political games by the west too, ten times higher 250.000 so this it is. It is about lies and political games, not so much about the relationship between polish and German. ( There where aproximate 500 000 refugees, together with the other People between 700.000 or 800.000, in the town and their is no way only 25.000 could have been killed )

The polish communist Autorties claimed once, their are 7 Million civilian casulties on their side without jewish people. That is not possible, such numbers are pure political and are a typ of agression to cover the own crimes. Their where 9 Million germans expelled from German Land under polish administartion and 2 to 3 Million from the polish east witch where People witch had their historie on supressing Ukrainian and Bielorussian between the war .The area witch are to the northeast was historicly the Lituanian part of Poland. Poland had not more claim on this area as Germany on Bohemia. If the Polish Refugees mixed with the Germans, their would have been 6-9 Million germans and 2-3 Million Polish. And by the way the Polish settelt in the polisch administrated German Land ( witch was by international law illegal, by the way and would make all further treatys to be illegal on strikt terms of international law) In this Lands settelt with the Polish a lot of other peoples like Ukrainian, Greek, Macedonian ( expelled themself) and so on and this ethnical mixture till now ( you will know that the Ukrainians have special schoolsclasses still) is no Problem for Poland. So the argument is a little bit strange because ethnical pure areas where changed into ethnical mixed areas with the argument to purify them for security. And mainly as second group next to the polish where Ukrainians witch where seen partly as German collaborators

answer end J.

The comment of Churchill was neither correct nor moral and you must understand this things where supported by democracies not like in Germany ore Russia by dictators. The talkes about shifting the population, witch the exil groups had with Churchill and Roosevelt, where going on the whole war, I read once that already in 1940/41 Roosevelt promised polish exile groups East Prussia, that is to be verified but the comments of the Teheran and Yalta meetings are easily to be verified and their was already spoken a lot about this issue. Always when I as a person think on this my longing for being part of the west is very reduced.

An other point is, that in case of the slavic Masurian ( East Prussia) the Polish and Russian where as brutal as against the German's. So it was not only about to be slavic you must have the right typ of Slavic background. So it was with the Ukrainian they too where punished by the Polish. Often this had no historical background and the saying that they where German Colaborators was in this way not correct as their had been Polish collaborators too. The West has overtaken this mainly communistic lies as historical facts, so that along with the Germans a lot of other eastern peoples are punished for something they did not do in the way the west and Russia and its former allies but it.

actively pursued by the Polish exile government ?
I'm concerned about the sentence: "The Oder-Neiße Line had historically been a border of the Polish dynasty of Piasten, had been object of nationalist dreams and was actively pursued by the Polish exile government in London". As far as I know the Polish government in exile actually stated that it was not interested in having Breslau or Stettin within the borders of Poland and it was the Soviets and their puppet Polish government who pushed the border further west. (I understand that "Piasten" used above is German word for the Piast dynasty). --Lysytalk 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The script from Frankfurt University which I referred to there says that the Polish exile government would have preferred to have Poland in the pre-war borders, but, under the Soviet pressure, also drew up plans for incorporating Breslau, Stettin etc, which went further than the British government envisaged at that time and actually created concerns that this would have to mean a really massive transfer of populations.

With all the respect, I think we should look for some better research sources than Frankfurt Uni scripts. Of course they are zillion times better than my sources which are presently none. I'll try to find something but probably not within next days. Maybe others could help on this in the meantime. What I remember is that the PL exile government actually pressed the other way round, and that the Western allies started to revise their plans when they realised that Poles were not so happy with "the gift" but it was too late already and the Soviet pressure was too strong for them to withdraw. Any comments anyone ? --Lysytalk 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This would be really worth documenting in the article if it could be tied to a verifiable reliable source. --Richard 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be really worth documenting that the opinion of the London government influenced the participants of Potsdam conference. Xx236 09:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Did it ? --Lysytalk 09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let those who claim it prove it. Xx236 09:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, here is one reliable source that I found, the letter of US ambassador Averell W. Harimann to Secretary of State Edward Stettinus (December 19th, 1944), published in "Sprawa polska w czasie drugiej wojny światowej na arenie międzynarodowej. Zbiór dokumentów" (translation back into English mine): [...] during his stay in Moscow, Stanisław Mikołajczyk expressed a view, that he was not sure if moving the Polish border to Oder, particularly beyond Stettin and Breslau, would be a wise move, as these cities and some of the regions were almost completely German. --Lysytalk 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish dreams of borders and history, before the war

As Polish citicen one should know, that their where two political Movements the Piasten and the Jagellonen Movement. They existed even before the First WW and connected with this two Movements where two wished borderlines. The one border was the Oder-Neisse Border, witch was briefly the border of Poland between 1000 and 1030. It can not be compared with todays borders, because it ment that the local duke exepted for 30 years that the Polish king was his king and shortly after and before they exepted the German king or the Danish king. And the other political movement where the Jaggelons witch wanted the former eastern borders.As the Jaggelon movement was the one witch was sucsessful between the wars the Exilgoverment of the Polish did not like the Piasten-idea of the communists.Why because the east ment big farmes and nobel live and the gaining of big cities like Breslau,Danzig, Stettin, Upper Slesia urban area, ment citylive and proletarian live that was behind, so the Exilgoverment in England did logicaly not like the idea

The most radical polish wanted a greater Poland reaching from Berlin to Moskau but I dont know how influencual this group was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk • contribs)

Controversy over reasons and justifications for the expulsions
Isn't the recently added reason - "A desire to consolidate the new borders by creating ethnically homogeneous nation states" a duplicate of the previously existing "Preventing ethnic violence" ? --Lysytalk 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is getting to be a bit of a mess. The "preventing ethnic violence" reason is subsidiary to the "desire to consolidate new borders by creating ethnically homogeneous nation states".  That is, "preventing ethnic violence" is one reason to "create ethnically homogeneous nation states".


 * As someone mentioned, this article is too long and spends too much time setting up the background and context of the expulsions. We might want to start thinking about creating a new article titled something like Reorganization of national boundaries in Eastern Europe following World War II.  Much of this stuff could be pushed into that article and then we could just reference these points with one-line summaries in this article.


 * --Richard 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that we should draft the "expulsion" article anew ? This is something that Sca suggested if I understood correctly. While the the current content of the article may be not the highest quality, I'd rather prefer not to throw it away, but reuse it somewhere. However Reorganization of national boundaries in Eastern Europe following World War II would be a huge article by itself (and a arena for even more heated disputes). --Lysytalk 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to consider a revised outline for a rewrite of this article. I think we should keep the proposed outline and first draft of the new article in a sandbox so that we don't discard this version until we have a good sense that the new article will be a significant improvement over the current one.


 * The fact that the "reorg of national boundaries ..." article would be an "arena for heated disputes" is not a good argument against creating it. I think one problem with this article is that we wind up trying to explain too much context and background.  We do need to provide a summary overview of the context and background but we also need to be able to refer the reader to a place where the reader can fill in the background and context as his/her interest dictates.


 * --Richard 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed last paragraph of intro
Well, I agree that, pending someone actually coughing up sources documenting a "debate about the morality of the expulsions", the phrase can go. That phrase was a compromise crafted as the result of a short edit war between me and another editor who was pushing the "expulsions were justified" POV.

I changed the last part of the last sentence to change "unmet demands" to "contentious demands" because "unmet" has a faint suggestion that the demands should be met. I don't feel strongly about this but I think "contentious" is more solidly NPOV.

More importantly, the grammatical construction of the sentence was such that it implied that there were "unmet demands for the characterization of the reasons for the expulsions". In a convoluted way, this is sort of true in that the Federation of Expellees is demanding that the Polish, Czech and other governments officially characterize the reasons as being "immoral" and therefore apologize for them. However, this line of reasoning requires the reader to jump through too many mental hoops and it's preferable to just say what we mean outright. I pulled this idea out into a separate sentence so that "characterization of the reasons" would not be associated with "demands" in the way that the previous version had it.

--Richard 15:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Relations between Germany and other East European nations
Thanks, I appreciate the changes. Let's work towards changing the wording of "relations between unified Germany and its East European neighbors remain somewhat difficult due to a heated and emotional controversy concerning the morality" so that it addresses what I've just tried to explain above. How about "relations between some Germans and their East European neighbors remain somewhat difficult due to a heated and emotional controversy concerning the morality" ? I know it's not perfect either. Any better idea ? --Lysytalk 16:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the self-revert. There is no doubt in my mind that the expulsions were not justified by modern day standards although I think we have to evaluate them in the context of the times.  This bad thing was being done a lot in those days.  However, as explained above, the main reason for having the phrase "debates about morality" is to acknowledge that there are others who feel that the expulsions were justified.


 * That said, I have always had a problem with the sentence about "relations between Germany and its East European neighbors..." However, since this is not an area where I know a lot, I've let it slide.  Here's what I want to know... How difficult have the relations been between Germany and its neighbors?  Is this a minor point of contention or are there angry words exchanged at the diplomatic level?  Does it affect trade relations, Poland's membership in NATO or the EU?  Or, is it just that there are noisy, vociferous protests in the media and on the floor of the Polish parliament?  I'm guessing that it is a minor issue and that the two governments don't really pay much attention to the controversy.  But I could be wrong.  I know little about the current controversy so I look to others to enlighten me as to how serious an issue this is.


 * If diplomatic relations and trade relations are minimally impacted, then the "relations between..." sentence should be modified to indicate that we're saying that some Germans and some Poles are upset about this but the official relations between the two nations remain (what? cordial, warm, cool?)  I would appreciate it if someone who is more knowledgeable could fill in the blanks.


 * --Richard 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there's some tension between the governments regarding the Federation of Expellees, and the alleged German government (parliament?) support for the Centre Against Expulsions, but the expulsion itself is not a point of contention. Let's wait to see what other editors have to say about this. However if there are any claims of ongoing conflict between the countries/governments on moral aspects of the expulsions, I'd like to see sources to support these. As I said, I really hope I'm not mistaken on this one. --Lysytalk 20:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

casualties between 1 & 2 millions as "general consensus"?
I thought some of the major scholars quoted here talk about 2.1 millions or slighly more, and some sources talk about three. So I think it would be fair to say "between 1 and 3". I edited this, but it was reverted.


 * --User:Phm


 * I believe it was me who reverted. I thought that 3 million is a bit on the extreme side. If you think that 3 million is widely accepted would not mind having it back, especially if we can support it with some sources proving that more researches agree on that number. --Lysytalk 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of victims include frequently victims of: I don't see any rational reason to call victims of three above cathegories - victims of expulsions. According to recent German papers the number of victims in Poland (which includes also some victims of Soviet soldiers and NKVD) is below 500 000, which means that the total number of victims of expulsions is about 1 million. Any higher estimate has its agenda and I don't think that Wikipedia is a place for agendas. Between 1 and 3 millions means 2 millions which is absurd. Where and when did 2 millions die? According to the German Wiki about 80 000 died in camps in Poland (not all victims were German). The same the number of Auschwitz victims is 'between 1 and 4 millions', i.e. about 2.5, even if it is about 1.
 * German evacuation (Flucht)
 * Allied war actions (including RAF and USAAF bombings)
 * Deportations into the SU.

The mortality among German refugees should be compared to the moratlity among Polish refugees of the same period. Xx236 09:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh. We've had a loooong discussion and debate about this question a few months ago.  In fact, the treatment of this issue got so long that we created a separate article about it.  Read this article and then let's talk some more.  I have to confess that I'm not fully able to discuss all the details especially since it's been a few months since we had the debate.  I think the reasonable range is 1.2 to 2 million although the 3 million number comes from a speech by U.S. Congressman Reece in 1957.  I do not believe that we found closure on the debate between 1.2 million and 2 million.  Let me leave it at that.  It's way past my bedtime.  Talk to you later.


 * --Richard 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The only source available for Mr. Reece in 1957 was West German speculation. East German and Soviet document weren't available. Any serious discussion should revise the speculations after 1989. Xx236 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For now I think we should dismiss the 3 million figure. A political speech even by a U.S. congressman is not a scholarly research, especially in the cold war period. So claiming that it is "generally accepted" is a clear overstatement. As for a more detailed discussion of the numbers, I believe it belongs to talk:Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII rather than here. --Lysytalk 10:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think there is general agreement that the range of "reasonable estimates" is between 1.2 and 2 million. Trying to narrow it down further is really Original Research.  I do wish we could get at the "study" that Congressman Reece cited in his speech.  It would shed some light on how the estimate has evolved over time.  Perhaps it was West German speculation but I'd like to know what the basis of the speculation was. --Richard 16:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article itself quotes some newer reports on this subject with figures such as 2,1 or 2,2 million. I have no opinion about the accurateness of any of these estimates, and I think the question of whether the 3 million figure can be dismissed or not is not relevant to the point at all.  What is relevant is that there are serious proponents whose estimates are above 2 million, and that the claim about a "wide consensus" of 1-2 million is therefore plain wrong and also weazelish.  If you think 1-2 million is right and 3 is wrong, then say so in your  own name and don't claim a "consensus", whose existence has not been shown  but can in fact be refuted on the basis of the wikipedia article itself. user:phm


 * When I wrote 1-2 million above, I was writing very loosely. If you wish the article to say 1 million to 2.2 million, I have no problem with that.  There does not seem to be anybody today who is asserting that the number was as high as 3 million.  That seems to have been a number asserted by Congressman Reece in 1957 but not used in recent years.  If memory serves me correctly, I believe there are some who assert the number could be as low as 500,000 but I don't think this estimate is a mainstream number.  I could be wrong about all this.  At this point, I'm just summarizing what I've read here on this Talk Page over the last few months.  If anyone has a more informed perspective, please share it with us.


 * --Richard 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Migration movements orchestrated by victorious allies?
This it overstated, it seems to introduce a POV saying that all this was not wanted by Poland or Czechia but rather imposed on them by Uncle Joe and Churchill. I had changed this, but it got reintroduced.

I had also added some more expulsions, such as those of the Hungarians and Italians (from Istria), but they also were reverted. Why leave them out and only focus on "Poles, Ukranians and Jews" who were all victims of Uncle Joe? If the wide context has to be inserted here, why then again narrow it down to Poland?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phm (talk • contribs)

You have to prove that opinion of Poles was important at that time. The main problems for the Poles were: We haven't obtained either. So don't tell me that Poland designed the borders. Xx236 09:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * independence
 * Lwów, Wilno and Grodno.


 * Those who write "orchestrated by ..." have to prove what they write. My proposal was to leave this question out of the lead paragraph.user:phm


 * first of all: sign your comments, second: whether or not they wanted it is irrelevant I think, as some would of wanted the acquisition of new lands, others would not have, so it should be left out (not that the borders where changed, but that people did/didnt want it). that last question will have to be answered by a Pole, not me, as I am for inclusion of all whom were expelled.


 * --Jadger 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about Czechia, but for Poland the situation was certainly more complicated, as you had potentially two governments at that time, the government in exile and the puppet communist government. They both of course would fight each other but in reality neither of them had any significant influence on what the Big Three planned for Poland. The government in exile had no real power with the Western Allies ignoring it, and the commies would just follow whatever the Soviets ordered them to do. So it seems rather pointless to claim that "Poland wanted this". --Lysytalk 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, so there are two main arguments that I know of that have been advanced by Polish Wikipedians. (1) The expulsions were justified as revenge against traitorous Germans who chose the Nazis over the Poles during Nazi the invasion and occupation of Poland. (2) The Poles had no say in the matter anyway since the Potsdam Conference was negotiated by the Big Three and the Polish government (Communist) was taking orders from Stalin.


 * In essence the two arguments are: (1) The expulsions were justified and, if they weren't, then (2) the Poles aren't responsible because Poland was occupied by the Soviets and ruled by a puppet government.


 * There may be other arguments but these two are the ones that are most prominent in my recollection.


 * I actually give some credence to both of these arguments. However, I also think that some locals took advantage of the expulsions to take personal revenge,  to vent general anger against the Germans, to indulge in violence, theft and rapine with impunity and/or enrich themselves opportunistically.  Now, postwar Eastern Europe was probably not a pleasant place to be and there was probably a difficult distinction between despicable behavior and the struggle to survive.


 * We have to be careful in judging people who lived in different conditions and different times from our own.


 * We have the difficult task of saying something along the lines of "From the viewpoint of the 21st century, these acts were reprehensible. However, in the context of postwar Europe, we understand although we do not sanction the decisions and actions of desperate and powerless people."


 * --Richard 07:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. And I don't think that Poles should be depicted as blameless here (also as you said it is very difficult for us to relate to what happened then for the reasons that you have stated). I find it even difficult to imagine how it felt first being invaded by the Nazis and Soviets, having family members killed (remember that one in every five Poles perished during WW2), witnessing the Holocaust, then being ruled by the Soviets and then given the opportunity to take revenge on the hated Germans, while trying not to get yourself killed or deported to Siberia and all this in 5 years. Still I believe that "orchestrated by victorious allies" is justified and should stay. The Poles are not blameless but its not them who set up the masterplan. --Lysytalk 08:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, I will agre to keeping the phrase until I have a chance to re-read the whole article since I haven't done that in a while. I haven't been able to keep up with recent edits and every so often I'm surprised by a phrase that I didn't know was in the article.


 * My primary concern here is that I don't want the "orchestrated by victorious allies" phrase to wind up exculpating the Poles from their involvement. I don't want to blame all Poles of that era for the expulsions and I don't want Poles today to feel like their national honor and morality is being maligned.  However, we must not let anybody push the POV that the Poles were totally innocent and simply victims of Potsdam and the Soviets.  There is blood on the hands of some Poles and even if we don't know the identities of those Poles, we cannot simply wash away the blood and ignore it.


 * I think we agree on this but I figured I'd make it explicit.


 * --Richard 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Still the "blood on the hands" will have to be documented in order to avoid unfair generalizations (similar to "all Germans were Nazis"). --Lysytalk 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the problem is that some of the Poles obtained later another citizenship, so the statement should be rather blood ont he hands of some Poles, Russians, US, UK, Israelis. Xx236 10:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who write "orchestrated by ...". My proposal is not to write that major forces in Poland wanted this. The question of who wanted this is not relevant in the first paragraph. But to claim that this was just imposed by the Soviets is absurd, both in the light of historic evidence and in the light of the vehemence with which public opinion in Poland and among Polish wikipedians today is trying to justify the actions of 1945-48. --User:Phm

Kilings only due to force majeure, "crime" and "senseless" activities?
The text goes to great lengths to enumerate all sorts of non-human conditions which caused the killings. There's a long list, including "famine", "cold winters", etc, and, when it comes to human factors, they are only "criminal" and "senseless". That sounds like a POV trying to deny or distract from the consideration that the killing might have been an important means of enforcing the migration during that "chaotic period", thus it was, to some extend, the result of planned action of governments in collusion with paramilitary groups. I had introduced some concise wordings that suggest this possibility while leaving open all the others, and this got removed in favor of this text that reads somewhat apologetic to me.user:phm


 * please explain what you mean. Instead of calling human factors "criminal and senseless", do you mean we should specifically state that people were beaten, women and girls were raped, and that many people were tortured and shot? like in other articles about atrocities? then I am all for it. We need to cite sources for things as serious as that however.


 * --Jadger 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * what I mean should be clear: the killings were probably not "senseless" or just due to "chaos, famine, ..." (and a long list of other pardonable factors of force majeure, that is burdening the lead paragraph and that keeps reappearing because some wikipedia editors insist on it). From a point of view of political common sense, one must assume that the killings served a purpose, namely that of making the german population disappear from the annexed territories. If anyone wants to claim that the killings were not purposeful, then he must provide some substantial evidence.   In any case, the discussion of to what extent the killings were purposeful/intentional and to what extent just the result of some infortunate circumstances does not need to be conducted, let alone conclusively answered, in the lead paragraph.user:phm


 * Unless we have really reliable sources to support this, I'd rather be reluctant to believe that 2 million (or 3 million as somebody claimed here) people were shot dead after the end of the war. I'd rather expect that most died because of the terrible conditions like the ones mentioned (famine, cold, diseases etc), which of course does not make this less horrible. One more thing (and this question borders on original research, I admit): a million people being killed within a year would mean 3000 deaths daily on average. What happened to the bodies ? As we know the Nazis had quite some logistics and "performance" (pardon using that word in this context) problems with their attempt to exterminate the Jews, despite many efforts to optimize their "death factories". How would the disorganised commies in the post-war years achieve similar performance without noticeable effort ? Again, I'm sorry for asking this question that way but it occurred to me some time ago and maybe there is a simple explanation. My expectation is that many of the victims that died during panicked evacuation in winter 1945 were counted as the victims of later deportations. --Lysytalk 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The question of how many were killed is another issue. The concerned US senate committee at the time spoke of 3 millions and that figure has also appeared in some documentations such as "Schwarzbuch der Vertreibungen".  Other weighty documentations speak of 2,1 or 2,2 millions.  Regardless of what you think of these figures, you simply cannot honestly claim that there is a "consensus" of 1-2 million casualties, as is done in the lead paragraph (in spite of my correction efforts).  ---user:phm

the "commies" were much better at it then the Nazis were, in Stalin's purges (see Great Purge) it is estimated that up to 100 million people were murdered. In the chaos of the immediate postwar era, it was relatively easy to "lose track" of someone, families are still to this day finding each other and reuniting for the first time since the war (I admit, in less numbers now than in the past). many people disappeared without a trace, it was not systemic like the Nazis where they massed the victims before shooting them, but rather upon encountering them on the street it was practically automatic for the Soviets to shoot them. It is a lot easier to lose track if you see 50 dead bodies spread out over 100 miles, but if you see 50 bodies in 100 yards, well thats different. In the late '90s in Poland a forest was finally discovered that was planted in the early 1940s in the shape of a swastika (deciduous trees in the swastika shape, coniferous trees around it to make up the rest of the bush). if something as large as a forest could go unnoticed, I'm sure an infant's body could as well.

--Jadger 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still I believe we are confusing here the expulsions with the earlier bloody chaos of Soviet "liberation". I expect most of the deaths happened in this earlier period, before the actual expulsions started, either because of ill-organized chaotic German evacuation in difficult conditions or later Soviet army brutality (rapes, shooting civilians etc). Again on the border of original research but I wonder how many of the Volksdeutsche preferred to pretend/think they were Polish now and therefore were not accounted for during the expulsions (and later counted among the 2 million dead/missing). I know some did, the question might be how many. --Lysytalk 09:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of organised crimes victims in Poland was about 80 000 (camps) plus pogroms, let's make 100 000. As I have written above the German government doesn't research mass execution places in Poland to not blame the Russians. Xx236 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lot of room for speculation and original research here. Please stick to assertions that you can source.  Remember, we're not actually after TRUTH.  We're after documenting verifiable assertions by reliable sources. --Richard 10:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Richard, the estimate 60 000-80 000 of victims of the Polish-communist camps is German, quite old and published in German Wiki. There are no other big numbers of victims. The majority of Germans died because of ilnesses and starvation. If one wants to condemn Poles, he/she should compare the situation of Polish and German refugees.

Xx236 11:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean confusing it with the earlier Soviet "liberation"? they happened at the same time, expulsions started immediately as soon as the Soviets had "liberated" the lands. perhaps you are only referring to the organized government-authorized expulsion. But that is not the only expulsion of Germans after WWII, we are talking of all expulsions here. the RAVs (random acts of violence) perpetrated against the Germans was one of the many "push factors" forcing this people out of their lands.

--Jadger 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They did not happen at the same time. First there was German evacuation in 1944 and early 1945, then there was the terror and violence of the Soviets, followed by population transfers organized initially by Polish military and then by Polish communist administration. I've just browsed an interesting book, "Armia Czerwona na Pomorzu Gdańskim 1945-1947" by Grzegorz Baziur, IPN, Warszawa 2003 ("Red Army in Eastern Pomerania, 1945-1947") and it seems there was a complete chaos there. There was no coordination between Soviet and Polish actions (the Soviets tried to send part of German population to factories in Russia while Poles attempted to send them West), and many different local and/or private initiatives. At the same time Russians and Polish communist forces were hunting Polish Home Army members. The Red Army soldiers were stealing everything, raping every woman and shooting civilians at random. I don't know about the Germans but the Poles there organized self-defense units to defend themselves against Soviet regular units (and marauders). In other areas (Wartheland) the local Poles were initially (early 1945) hiding Germans and protecting them from deportation to Soviet Union. Altogether a complete mess. --Lysytalk 06:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, the Red Army mistreated Germans almost the same East and West of the Oder-Neisse Line, but the crimes in the East were allegedly part of the expulsion, the ones in the West weren't. Many victims weren't German - Polish, Jewish, even Soviet women were raped and killed, including liberated KZ-inmates. I believe there are no simple, ideological descriptions of those tragedies. ~

Soviet and Polish-Communist policies were sometimes different. The Red Army wanted to keep German workers, local Polish authorities too, the central government wanted to expell the workers. Xx236 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Evacutaion and deportations
Is the expulsion both the evacuation process and the later deportations ? They seem to be two distinct processes, the first one was organised by Germans, the latter by Poles. Is it just my poor understanding of English ? --Lysytalk 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Correspond to" ethnic cleansing
I just wanted to quickly comment that this is pretty awkward language and I'm not sure the meaning is right. I hesitate to make a change, as I'm just looking to clean up prose and there are obviously some dedicated editors here who know much more about the subject than I and who are paying particular attention to word choice. As I understand the phrase, "correspond to" expresses the concept that objects which are classified in different sets are similar in some aspect, whether in their relation to other members of the set or in terms of their characteristics. I don't think either is what is intended here. Rather, I think the point is that "ethnic cleansing" is a general category describing various means and methods which all have the effect, and intent, of changing the distribution of ethnic groups within a population - this is how it is described on the ethnic cleansing page. Part of the problem I think is that "ethnic cleansing" is not a very-well defined word in English, at least gramatically-speaking. Sertorius 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing along similar lines. "Crime against humanity" is a legal term with a specific meaning (see the article on the subject). Something is not "commonly understood" as a crime against humanity; it either is or is not, in the same way that a premeditated killing is "murder." I think the phrasing is particularly awkward since it simultaneously refers to international law already in force in 1945. if there is a desire to avoid the implication that this issue was adjudicated - as Nazi crimes against humanity were by the Nuremberg Commission - then maybe the sentence could be hedged in a way like this: "Though no international judicial body has considered the issue, the expulsions of populations under such conditions can be defined as crimes against humanity under international law as it was understood at the time and as the International Criminal Court applies it today." that's a really awkward sentence, but you get my drift. Sertorius 14:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that these sentences may be awkward and tricky but are contentious at the same time. They may need improvement but it is difficult as the current wording is a result of a fragile consensus. I understand your arguments but claiming that something "can be defined" as crimes against humanity, where in fact it was not [defined as such], would beg for some support in sources. Otherwise it'd be again only Wikipedia editors' opinion that could be easily challenged. --Lysytalk 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

commonly understood to be crimes against humanity

 * Such conditions were standart conditions of life in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.


 * The expulsion of Germans isn't commonly considered to be crimes against humanity.

Xx236 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, these may have been standard conditions but for Jews, Poles or Russians, not for Germans. Anyway, it seems a poor excuse. --Lysytalk 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

although I don't agree with Lysy's comment as to it being standard for anyone, I think "commonly understood" is wrong, it was a crime against humanity, not just thought to be.

--Jadger 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should inform about facts, rather that start with crime against humanity. Does any article about German and Communist crimes start with crime against humanity? If the words will stay here, I'll edit 1 000 articles about KZ and mass executions, obvious crimes against humanity.

Jadger, you start one new war in WIkipedia. I doubt it helps the Wikipedia. Xx236 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While I don't think that we need to "start one new war in WIkipedia", there's a good point that starting the article with allegations of "crime against humanity" is not up to current wikipedia standards. I've randomly checked a couple of articles, including Warsaw Uprising (e.g. using civilians as human shields), Bombing of Warsaw in World War II (bombing hospitals) or Łapanka (deporting random civilians to labour or concentration camps) to see if any "war crimes" or other criminal behaviour against civilians is similarly discussed there. Why is it so important to mention it in the lead of this particular article then ? --Lysytalk 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, all we need to do is to find a WP:RS to confirm that assertion. --Lysytalk 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have posted the links. Expulsions are clearly "crimes against humanity" under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.  Part 2, Article 7, section 1(d).  http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm#2.  As to international law as it existed in 1945, as long as we don't want to get into a debate about the legality of the Nuremberg Tribunal, Article 6 section (c) of the London Charter defines deportation and other inhumane acts against civilians as "crimes against humanity."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Charter_of_the_International_Military_Tribunal.  Sertorius 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've already realized this and changed the sentence in the lead to hopefully reflect that deportations are considered "crimes against humanity". --Lysytalk 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again - does any single article about crimes contain here legal opinion? Xx236 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never tried to start a war here Xx236, and accusing me of doing so does not help the wikipedia either, please assume good faith. I think the current version looks good, it is very formal sounding and clearly states how it is in legal/formal terms, rather than just saying "it was wrong".

--Jadger 02:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Auschwitz article doesn't inform about the legal status of the crime. Why does the Expulsion of Germans.. need such information?

A general legal discussion should be rather put into a general Expulsions article. Now there is pro-German bias - Expulsion of Germans is a crime against humanity (which aspects of it, who was responsible, who is the judge?), German expulsions aren't. Is it a Wikipedia or rather BdV site - D.A. and judge in one, like Head and Shoulders shampoo. If you aren't aware, that the article copies radical German opinions, now you know it.

What about the destruction of German cities by RAF and USAAF - was it a crime against humanity, like radical Germans want it, or not? Xx236 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody contests that Germans under the Hitler regime commited lots of crimes against humanity according to the legal meaning of that term. But it is still contested today by a large part of public opinion in Poland and Czechia that the mass expulsions of Germans after WW II were illegal and punishable by those very standards which were used in the Nuremberg court. E.g. the Czech government and public opinion refuse to declare the Benesh decrees illegal. The debate here in Wikipedia is a good witness of this fact and it explains very well why the statement is needed and in fact, in a latter part of the article, should be corroborated with some caselaw from the practise of International Law of 1945 and before that. Note that I didn't insert the "crimes against humanity" phrase. I'm just astonished to see how much effort wikipedians invest into getting such phrases removed or diluted. That effort iself proves how much they are justified.

user:phm

this suffering has already been documented in memorial centers and expositions while that of the expelled Germans has not.
Which centers and expositions in Germany document Polish victims the way hundreds memorial rooms, monuments, archives and expositions document German victims?

Many German documents have been only recently released, 61 years after the war, to prevent any legal demands of the victims. Xx236 13:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is hardly a subject that is as well documented and as ubiquitously present in German media, tv, publications, exhibitions, etc, as the atrocities conducted by Germans under the nazi regime. There is a highly publicized exhibition which attributes these to the Wehrmacht and thereby has raised some controversy (because many participants of the war saw the Wehrmacht as distinct from the Nazi party organisations such as SS and not as a main perpetrator of war crimes), but the war crimes themselves are never contested to any significant extent.  Perhaps the symbolic gesture of Willy Brandt kneeling before memorials of such atrocities in Poland is also still remembered.  And if there are new documents coming out, they will also be dealt with in depth and nobody, except for a few people who are then stigmatised as far-right-extremists, will even try to make the facts look better   .  The burden of proof is on those who want to make the German guilt look smaller or the other side's guilt larger.  And it's quite a high, taboo-loaded burden that    anyone who lacks the documentary and intellectual ressources should better stay away from.  Wise people mostly remain silent when it comes to subjects such as expulsions.


 * I think it is fair to say, that the expulsions of 1945-48 are not anywhere nearly as well documented, even in Germany itself. Even the exposition that is currently being shown, under loud protest from Poland is even very cautious, trying its best to justify the expulsions of 1945-48 by weighing them against prior german wrongdoings, even at the expense of truth.  The taboos of public discourse in Germany still work very much against documenting the injustices suffered by Germans in and after WW2, and the organizers of the exposition took that into account and made sweeping compromises, just to get their project off the ground at all.user:phm

Xx236 07:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 1. It's interesting that you haven't realized that the Wehrmacht exhibition doesn't inform about Wehrmacht crimes in Poland 1939. Only recently a much less known Polish-German exhibition has been organized.
 * 2) 2. Willy Brandt was kneeling before a Jewish memorial, at the time when no Polish memorial was allowed in Warsaw. Many Poles understood it as a support for Communist propaganda.
 * 3) 3. Basic documents of the Center against expulsions are biased. They are availabe on their site.
 * 4) 4. Who needs a poor exhibition not far from a professional one?

It is very strange that you say German documents have been released resently as everybody know that all archievs have been taken from Germany in 1945 so do you want to say that the USA and U.K. has akted to protect Germany, because that are the countries where the main German Archievs are still.

I dont know the situation in Poland, but in ex Yugoslavia the II WW is memorised in tentausends of Monuments. Sometimes one has the impression their is a monumnet for each sucsesful shootout.I can not imagine that the communist in Poland would not have done the same for the polish victims, so if their are no monuments their where probably less victims than you thaught or their was not so much Resistance than in EX Yugoslavia. And by the way may be you dont find so much polish monuments because half of the country was originaly inhabeted by Germans and in this area it is unlikly that you find monuments for polish victims besids the the Conzentrationcamps witch where sometimes used by the polish later for each german they thaught he was a Nazi witch could be everybody J.

Would you be so kind to sign your texts with Xx236 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)?

If Germans constructed Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, they should also construct a memorial of millions of Slavic victims.

It's not true that half of Poland was originally inhabited by Germans. Millions of Poles were enslaved and had to work in Germany, many of them died there. Xx236 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In November and December 1993, an exhibit on the Ethnic Cleansing 1944-1948 was held at Stuart Center of De Paul University, in Chicago, where it was called an unknown holocaust
I wonder if Jewish organizations accept such usage of the word holocaust. unknown, as if common Americans know facts about German crimes in Europe... Xx236 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually such a usage would be considered offensive in contemporary mainstream discourse in Germany as well. The jewish holocaust has to be considered unique.  And I don't really have any problems with this present-day requirement of political correctness.  I would certainly not use the word "holocaust" to describe those expulsions.  But, if you trace this word back to its core meaning, you find that it means something like an uncompromising ethnic cleansing, a final solution to a perceived problem of ethnic inhomogeneity of a nation state, which is in fact what at least Benesh aimed for, and it also conforms to the result that was actually achieved in 1945-48.  Sure, it also means that the whole population is killed, and I wouldn't want to claim that the intention of Benesh was to physically kill a whole nation nor that anything near that was achieved, while in the case of the mass-murder of jews this was both intended and nearly achieved.  The radicality and plannedness of the genocide against the european jews is considered by mainstream german discourse to make this unique and to surround it with a quasi-religious aura of awe that is well captured by the word "holocaust".  But, anyway, if the Stuart Center of De Paul University in Chicago used this expression, then it is appropriate to cite them in Wikipedia, and I think there is no need to comment on whether their use was politically correct.user:phm


 * Holocaust is not a jewish/hebrew term, it is Greek meaning burnt sacrifice, many jews use the term shoah instead. Jews don't have a monopoly/sole rights to the usage of the term, in this case, the term was used to attract people to the exhibit. it also does not mean to kill a whole population/nation, because the Jews were not a nation as phm claims, but a people, and not all were killed, there were many survivors of the Holocaust, hence the term holocaust survivor.


 * the term holocaust is used alot in media in North America, only when holocaust is capitalized does it refer to the Nazi Final Solution extermination plans. I would say it is used to much in the media, it is interchangeable with the word genocide.


 * --Jadger 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the Term Holocaust ( total burning of the sacrifice), invented by Eli Wiesel, unlucky too. Especially for the German forced exodus from their German land, one should not forget that the most where expelled from either since the middle age German land ore from land witch recently belonged to Germany. West Prussia ore Pomorce was German till 1918/20 and the rest of the area was occupied German land, in terms of international law it was a illegal expulsion and resettlement thru Poland. The Czech Republic was German from around 950 till 1806 and than from 1806 till 1918 under Austrian German government. So the way the Polish and the Czech want to but it that their where some Germans their because the land was original polish ore Czech land is totally wrong. The Expulsion itself was done in the most brutal way with a lot of death although the term ethnic cleansing is not correct because the areas where mostly 100 % German. One must invent a new term for this. "forced ethnic reshaping" ore "geopolitical genocide strategy " would meet the things what happened.

Johann

Strategic meaning of the Oder-Neisse line
Stalin designed the border between Soviet lands and the outside world before the division of Germany was decided. The central point were Sudeten. The Oder-Neisse line was the result of strategic planning, a short line from Sudeten to the Świnoujście war harbor. All reasons quoted in the article are rationalizations, speculations or propaganda. Stalin carefully planned post-war Europe, not housing for poor Poles. Xx236 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Xx, you are right in pointing out the strategic reasoning behind that border - especially if one reflect how the Soviet sphere would have looked like, if Poland and Czechoslovakia would have been Communist and Germany including Eastern Germany including Silesia would have been neutral. Nevertheless, you cannot simply deny the issue of settling the Poles expelled from the Eastern regions of Poland. And one might add, the changes in the Soviet-Polish border were at least in part also influenced by strategic considerations. The post-1945 Soviet border ensured that the USSR bordered on all the later members of the Warsaw Pact with the exception of Bulgaria. So please do not fall into the fallacy of monocausality. Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain my, quite important, explanation. I don't deny anything. Xx236 11:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Erika Steinbach
The Erika Steinbach article has been protected to encourage editors to resolve an edit war over the wording of her place of birth (in essence Rahmel vs. Rumia and text describing its location in German-occupied Poland). There is a vote going on at Talk:Erika Steinbach regarding how to word the place of birth. Please express your opinion on this issue if you have one. --Richard 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Offtopic discussion removed. Kusma (討論) 15:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kusma, could you please point me to the policy which says that discussions should be removed from talk pages? Szopen 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a loooong discussion about this policy/guideline question in the "Deleting contributions which are inconsistent with the purpose of Talk Pages" section on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Policies and guidelines do not clearly allow removal of material from Talk Pages.  In fact, it is explicitly discouraged.  However, it is legitimate to archive or refactor discussions to remove unrelated material.  User:Kusma did neither, he just deleted it.  That seems inappropriate although I understand and agree with Kusma's point.  I have copied the text from the edit history and moved the discussion over to Talk:Erika Steinbach where it belongs.  --Richard 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving it there was probably better than just deleting it. But in the interest of keeping talk pages focused on the improvement of the article, I think removing an offtopic discussion every now and then serves as a good reminder of the talk page guidelines. As it says there, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.". Kusma (討論) 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Germany_since_1945
Would someone please be intrested in taking a look at the discussion on this page. The accuracy of the English "Expulsions" article is challenged with reference to the German "Expulsion" article and the "higher reliability" (my interpretation) of the users of the latter article.--Stor stark7 Talk 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a map/maps showing where the expulsions were from.
I inserted the Map showing which parts of Germany that the Allies gave to Poland and the USSR, and from which all the population was expelled.

This is the main area of expulsion, and should be shown graphically so the reader understands what is being discussed.

The second larger area of expulsions is the Sudetenland, which also should have a map.

Of course I agree that the best choise would be a special map showing all the population expulsions, but until there is such a one I believe the image above is far better than not having any image at all.

The prefered images would probably look something like what can be found on the web using that Google thingy. 

--Stor stark7 Talk 14:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * [http://bdv-hessen.de/page_heimat_karte1.html


 * Something like this one would probably best. The current map is irrelevant and actually may lead to misinterpretations, therefore does not belong to the article. I'd like to also correct your statement that your map shows the areas "from which all the population was expelled". This is actually an example of the misinterpretation that I had in mind. Firstly, these areas were not homogeneously German populated. Then, while it might be true that all the German population escaped or was killed or deported from Kaliningrad area, this is not true for Poland, where about 10-20% of the pre-war German population stayed. --Lysytalk 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Lysy I cant believe what you are saying. You know as poland that 90 % of this areas wher to 100 % german and only in EastSlesia an in the Masurian Area was a mixed population. You must know this so what is this about what you are writing here.


 * A new map would of course require that someone makes it, or gets permission to use an existing one, which will probably be some time. Meanwhile, to give the readers some context of exactly what is mean by "eastern" europe the map would serve its purpose by showing which parts were Eastern Germany, and which parts were Eastern Europe. Feel free to edit the caption of the image so that there is no missunderstanding, i.e 1: Not all Germans were expelled, just most of them, and 2: There was a Polish minority within the 1937 borders of eastern Germany. --Stor stark7 Talk 15:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessing blame expulsions - section removed
I took this out ...

"Blame must also be shared by the Nazi regime and the Germans who supported them, because if not for those Germans, the Second World War, and this event, would not have occurred."

... because we could get into a technical pissing contest by moving back in time. Using the logic of someone's line up there is like blaming Jewish people's not converting to Christianity avoid anti-semitism. If we want to assign blame to the Nazi regime here for the German explusions, we must then blame Britian and France for creating Nazi Germany out of their own war crimes and victomization after the cease-fire (tie) or WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.36.139 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for explaining your deletion here on the Talk Page. I agree that the deleted text should not be in the article.  --Richard 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I have reverted this assuming it was not explained (from the edit summary), and only now found the explanation again. Still, I do not agree with removal of this text. If the blame is to be assigned at all, it should stay. The link between WW2 and the expulsions is direct, obvious and indisputable. --Lysytalk 22:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What, if the Nazis had been nicer conquerors, the Poles wouldn't have expelled the Germans? This strikes me as a simplistic view.  I think you have to look further to the whole concept of ethnic nation-states.  The whole 20th century was caught up in the idea of nationalities and having one nation for one nationality.  Even now, you have devolution in the United Kingdom which is pushing Scots, Welsh and English nationalities over British nationality.  Same in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union.  Nazi atrocities contributed to the rationale for the expulsions but were not necessarily motivated solely or even primarily by them.  --Richard 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not motivated, but contributed not only to the rationale but also to the very act of expulsions. There's been several waves of expulsions in different territories. Some of them have been Soviet/Polish communist organised, while some were more spontaneous ("get rid of the nasty Germans"). In some areas, where the Polish-German relations were friendlier (e.g. in Greater Poland), Polish administration attempted to oppose the expulsions. Of course this was not successful in the long term, as overall attitude was very anti-German. But one can argue that if Poles opposed the expulsion in more areas and more consistently, then the scale of the event would be much smaller and less tragic. --Lysytalk 07:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence putting blame on "Nazis and Germans who supported them"
While merging the "Assessing blame" section with the "Controversy over responsibility" section, I removed the following sentence:

"Blame must also be shared by the Nazi regime and the Germans who supported them, because if not for those Germans, the Second World War, and this event, would not have occurred."

I believe I had removed this sentence a few days ago and, while I was on Wikibreak the last few days, an edit war has erupted between User:Lysy and one or more anonymous editors over this sentence.

I object strongly to this sentence because it essentially argues that the expulsions were justified, at least in part, because of the actions of the Nazis and those who supported them.

This idea is already discussed in a somewhat NPOV way in the "Controversy over reasons for the expulsions" section. The way the sentence is worded, it is not NPOV. It says "Blame must be shared..." rather than "Some Poles and Czechs argue that blame must be shared...". It's more than clear that many people would not agree that the expulsions can be blamed on the Nazis et al.

I could provide many examples where this argument could be used but is not generally accepted.

Confining Japanese-Americans to relocation camps could be blamed on the Japanese attack and Japanese spies in the U.S.

Massacre of Bosnian Muslims could be blamed on the acts of Bosnian Muslims in the past.

Treatment of Palestinians by Israelis can be justified by terrorist acts by some Palestinians.

Etc., etc., etc.

--Richard 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am against justifying the expulsions, but I also object to removing the historical context of what happened. I agree that the sentence is not NPOV but the proper thing to do is to reword it instead of removing the information. As I sidenote, I'd like to note that I do not appreciate your removing the information while it's being discussed here. I'm sure you are aware that it does not help the level dispute, therefore I'm going to put it back until the appropriate wording is agreed upon. --Lysytalk 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, this is not about "punishing" Germans for WW2, this is discussed elsewhere in the article. It's about why the Poles hated Germans so much after 1945 that they would see the expulsions as something "acceptable". Such things do not happen in historical vacuum. I think it is obvious to both you and me that this was because the Poles have seen how Germans treated other nations (Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies, etc.) during WW2. Would you agree ? --Lysytalk 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious to me. Was there an opinion poll asking Poles what they thought?  I doubt it.  So, for all I know, maybe the Poles would have been happy to continue living side-by-side with their German neighbors and it really is the fault of the Russians for kicking out the Germans (that's yet another POV).  Perhaps it's more obvious to you than it is to me but it doesn't really matter.  The point is that it's not the "only truth", it's just a POV.  I don't like the idea of putting a "dubious" tag on it .  IMO, nothing in Wikipedia should be tagged as "dubious".  That's just a backhanded way of putting a POV judgment against the assertion.  I would much prefer that we simply say that it is an opinion by some/many/a few/whatever and then provide a citation.  It's up to the reader to read the sources for himself/herself and decide what is "the truth".


 * I'm not against providing "historical context" if the text is worded that way. However, saying the "Blame must be shared by Nazis" insists that this IS true rather than just one perspective.  Let's work on better wording.

--Richard 22:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently presenting the expulsions in a simplistic way, as a single, organised action, and then goes on attributing the blame for it. While in fact there were different waves of expulsions, depending on time and place. Therefore I think it's not right to assign the blame to Russian only, as some of the expulsions, especially the early ones in the area of Oder River, were spontaneous actions of Poles. On the other hand, as I mentioned above, in some other areas the Poles attempted to protect Germans. All this shows the role of emotional factor, that had been fed by the war atrocities and experiences. Now, if you compare Polish pre-war ideology of multi-ethnic federal state with the post-war idea of nation-state, the role of the Germany-initiated war in transforming the view may seem more apparent to you. --Lysytalk 07:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with reworking the article to capture this perspective. I have always felt in my heart that what you wrote above must be true but since I am not very knowledgeable about this area, I have not ventured to argue in this way.


 * Here's what I have felt all along... The local populace must have had great enmity against the Germans for the wrongs done to them during the war. With the breakdown of civil authority that must have accompanied the withdrawal of the German forces, some local violence must have broken out and this would likely have been targeted against the suddenly vulnerable local Germans.  I fully believe that some locals tried to protect the Germans as there must have been some friendships and even intermarriages.


 * With the re-imposition of civil authority by the Russians and the Polish/Czechoslovakian national governments, the civil authorities could have moved to end the violence against the Germans and restore them to their position in society prior to the war. However, they did not.  Instead, they expelled the remaining Germans in accordance with Yalta and Potsdam.  Some locals may have taken this opportunity to further victimize the Germans as they were being expelled.


 * The key point here is that the official expulsions were not the results of a grass-roots democratic process in which the locals said, "We don't want the Germans here anymore" and the national government said "OK, then we will expel them". I suspect that it was rather the reverse.  The national governments (under influence and sanction by the occupying Soviets) said "We want to expel the Germans" and the locals said "Great!  We don't want them here anyway."  Do you agree with this perspective?


 * I feel that it is very important that what you wrote above should be incorporated in the article. What I would like to ask you is whether the entire article needs to be re-worked or just the blame and responsibility sections.  What changes would you propose making?


 * Also, it would be great if we could get some sources to back up all this so that we are not accused of Original Research.


 * --Richard 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will look for some sources (but it will take some time of course). Generally I agree with the sad perspective which you characterised with "Great! We don't want them here anyway". Of course you are aware that the details were much more complicated and diverse than that. I'm not saying that if the Poles supported the expulsions less than they would have not happen. The Russians cared little about such sentiments, but probably if it was opposed and not supported by Poles, the scale and the tragedy could have been limited. This bitter enmity towards Germans however did not emerge out of nothing in 5 years, and that's why the Nazi supporters share part of the blame for what happened not only during WW2, but also the consequences of the war. I'll try to have a look later, at how the article's structure can be improved to present more facts instead of focusing on blame-shifting and other controversies. But it's a huge topic and therefore a bit intimidating, I have to admit. --Lysytalk 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it will take some time but I think it will be well worth the effort. I did this morning something that I should have done a long time ago... I went to search this topic on Google.  Try Googling "expulsion Germans Poland" and you will come up with at least a handful of useful source material including a lecture by Alfred de Zayas.  One link that I found particularly intriguing was this one because it mentions that some Germans lost their lives due to an evacuation forced by the Nazis during their retreat.


 * I'll bet even more information could be found if we Googled "expulsion Germans Czechoslovakia".


 * I had thought that this article was pretty much complete but I'm beginning to see that we have another hill to climb to get to the next plateau. If we can avoid edit warring along the lines of what happened when our friend Molobo was here, I think we can make some good progress.  --Richard 19:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is far from complete. In fact I think the article will need to be split into a number of more specific ones in the future, I'm not sure how this should be done yet. Right now it's mostly a result of some previous Polish-German edit pushing. I don't know much about the expulsions from other countries, but in Poland it was a series of different events and in fact it's rather misleading to label them together with a single "expulsions" name. First, there was Nazi-(ill)organized evacuation, then there was chaotic flight of terrified Germans, then Russian war crimes on those who stayed, then most shameful spontaneous expulsions by Poles, and then finally the organized population transfer actions. I know, an oversimplification again as these events were different e.g. in Masuria and in the Silesia. A rather decent, but difficult, source is the Polish monography of the subject by Stanisław Jankowiak (mentioned among the references of the article), full of facts and figures. --Lysytalk 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the link that you have provided, and adequately summarises the difficulties that we are about to face. Even citing sources will not help us out, as they differ that much both in all aspects. My suggestion would be to rule out all the pre-1990 sources first, as most of them have been written to support one or another political agenda. --Lysytalk 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To Richard - there was a "pool", thousands of Poles took part in anti-German activities, a smaller number helped Germans, not enough to prevent a number of massacers. The Poles from Western Poland had 5 years experience of German cruelties so they were more anti-German. The Poles from Eastern Poland suffered rather under Soviet occupation or were expelled by Ukrainians so they accepted German neighbours.

Many aspects of the expulsion were imposed by the Communist government - to expell the Germans rather than to use them, to destroy German inscriptions, even if there are more important things to do. There are many documents of this kind.

The expulsion to Western Germany was better than living in Communist Poland because of poverty in Communist Poland and because of forced polonization. Germans in Poland are less educated than the expelled ones. Xx236 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)