Talk:Nemesis at Potsdam

[Untitled]
I have removed the labels. It is Yopie who is guilty of vandalism here, not Dr. Lohne. Yopie seems to be the only person who imposes unjustified labels on this article. He is the one who has an axe to grind. He has not added anything of substance to the article or to the discussion -- just wants to assail the objectivity of the article without giving any reasons. What does he mean by "weasel" terms? What is clear to me is that Yopie has no respect for the opinions of others, that every time that someone removes the labels, within two hours he has reinstated them -- and then has the gall to accuse others of "vandalism". As Raymond Lohne noted, Yopie is himself a Czech and his country bears responsibility for the crimes very objectively described in "Nemesis at Potsdam". These are issues that historians must yet tackle -- but in the same balanced and methodically correct manner in which de Zayas does it. I recommend the "50 Theses on the Expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe", which should be taught in every high school.Raymond Lohne, Ph.D. Columbia College Chicago70.89.220.194 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to understand why Yopie keeps adding the POV labels to this article. Yopie is a Czech, residing in the Czech republic, and is aware of the heavy responsibility of Eduard Benes for starting the greatest "ethnic cleansing" in the 20th century, far worse than any expulsions in the former Yugoslavia. And even if there is no collective guilt of the Czech people for the crime against humanity committed on the native population -- innocent men, women and children of Aussig, Eger, Franzensbad, Karlsbad, Marienbad, Pilsen and Reichenberg, the fact is that Czech public opinion benefited from the wholesale theft of German houses and schools and churches -- and that they still largely approve the spoliation. There is a lot of soul searching that still has to be done by Czechs, Poles and Yugoslavs. The expulsion of 14 million human beings from territories where their ancestors had lived for 700 years is a major crime measured by any standards. By the way, de Zayas is not a German, but an American of Spanish descent. He has no axe to grind. And he has been recently appointed United Nations Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. That is precisely it -- an international order based on justice. Yopie does not seem to understand that.67.184.223.103 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Raymond Lohne, Ph.D., Columbia College Chicago67.184.223.103 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say simply that Dr. de Zayas deserves credit for opening the debate on the issue of the expulsion of the Germans in the English-speaking world. His books "Nemesis at Potsdam" and "A Terrible Revenge" do not rehash history but are based on original research in many archives in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Besides, unlike many other historians who only work from documents and secondary sources, de Zayas interviewed hundreds of the victims themselves, as well as key people like Robert Murphy, James Riddleberger and Sir Geoffrey Harrison. Both books take the Polish and Czech historical and legal writing into account, e.g. the views of Radomir Luza and Boleslaw Wiewiora, which the de Zayas analyses and shows the reader why he disagrees with them.Raymond lohne, Ph.D., Columbia College Chicago.67.184.223.103 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nemesis at Potsdam is the book that opened discussion on the thorny issue of the expulsion of the Germans after WWII, a topic that had been largely avoided by professional historians. Even after publication of this scholarly work and after the author's second book on the subject, the popularly written "A Terrible Revenge", the great majority of the American, Canadian, Australian, British, French public -- even history buffs -- know nothing or very little about the Vertreibung. As the former German Minister Heinrich Windelen (Bundesminister für innerdeutsche Beziehungen" wrote in 1987:

"Es ist das Verdienst von Herrn de Zayas, die Debatte über die Vertreibung wieder eröffnet zu haben, eine Thematik, die weitgehend in Vergessenheit geraten war oder direkt vermieden wurde, weil sie als nicht¨'gesellschaftsfähig' oder nicht opportun galt. In der Folgezeit haben in der Tat eine Reihe Autoren auf das Werk von de Zayas zurückgegriffen. somit hat er wesentlich dazu beigetragen, dass die Erörterung der Vertreibung heute nicht mehr als Tabu angesehen wird."

Dr. Johannes van Aggelen

An important work covering a topic that affected millions of people, but is little-known in the outside world. For 62 years now, we have been constantly reminded of Nazi atrocities; this book deals with atrocities inflicted on millions of Germans by the victorious allies. Churchill once wrote "in victory: magnanimity." Unfortunately for millions of Prussians, there was no magnanimity in 1945, only vindictiveness. It's easy to say "They started it" or "They had it coming." An objective study of this book and the wider subject of the Vertriebenung shows us that there is no limit to man's inhuumanity to man, and that "good guys" are just as capable of inflicting atrocities as "bad guys."

Proud Anglo.

The 14th revised German edition of "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" (Herbig 2005) was positively reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 23 February 2006

"Die Vertreibung der Deutschen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg als logische Konsequenz der Hitlerschen Verbrechen zu bezeichnen 'kann nicht befriedigen, wenn man die Komplexität der Gründe und des Geschehens um die Vertreibung der Deutschen verstehen will. Man muss das Eigengewicht der Ziele der Gegenmächte in Ost wie in West mit einbeziehen.' Dies unternimmt inzwischen in der 14. deutschsprachigen Auflage der Amerikaner Alfred de Zayas, der während mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten in leitender Stellung in UNO-Menschenrechtsgremien tätig war. Dass er sich seit der Erstfassung (1977) an der Rechtsstellung von Individuen orientiert und Vorstellungen einer Aufrechtung kollektiver Schuld eine Absage erteilt, macht die Stärke des Buches aus. Denn er ist nicht nur promovierter Historiker, sondern auch promovierter Jurist. Das Völkerrecht verbietet bekanntlich Kollektivstrafen. In minuziöser Quellenbarbeit zeigt de Zayas, dass in Polen und der Tschechoslowakei schon lange vor dem Krieg die Absicht gehegt wurde, die dort wohnhaften Deutschen aus ihrer rund 700-jährigen Heimat zu vertreiben. Beide Staaten missachteten ihre völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen zum Schutz der Minderheiten. Der von de Zayas als Rassist demaskierte Benes verstand es dann ab den früher 1940er Jahren, den späteren Siegermächten die Politik der Vertreibung der Deutschen als Preis für Frieden und Stabilität zu verkaufen. Die Ostmächte wussten dieses Programm in den Verhandlungen über die Nachkriegsordnung (vor allem in Potsdam) gegenüber den Westmächten geschickt durchzusetzen. Letztere begnügten sich mit der Forderung nach einem 'humanen' Vorgehen. Auf diese 'humane' Weise wurden 15 Milllionen Deutsche vertrieben, wobei 2 Millionen - grösstenteils an Hunger - starben. Das Elend der Flüchtlinge betraf ja vor allem Frauen, Kinder, Alte und Kranke. Der Völkerrechtler Felix Ermacora qualifiziert diese Vertreibungen als Genozid. Man verharmlost die Verbrechen der Nazis kein bisschen, wenn man nicht akzeptieren will, dass sie dazu dienen sollten, Völkerrechtsverbrechen zu legitimieren, die zudem bis heute grösstenteils weder moralisch anerkannt noch juristisch aufgearbeitet sind. Der Zayas erkennt darin einen Präzedenzfall für spätere Vertreibungen in Palëstina, Zypern, Bosnien oder Kosovo. Sein engagiertes Wirken gegen solche 'Kriegsstrategien' hat bedeutenden Anteil daran, dass sich das Recht auf die Heimat in den letzten Jahren als fundamentales Menschenrecht etablieren konnte." Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 23. Februar 2006, Seite 9.

In a statement to the German expellees assembled at the Paulskirche in Frankfurt a.M. on 28 May 1995, on the occasion of the commemoration "50 years expulsion", the first United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dr. Jose Ayala Lasso (Ecuador) said:

"The right not to be expelled from one's homeland is a fundamental right. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities is currently seised of the question of the human rights dimensions of population transfers. The newest report of Special Rapporteur Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh concludes that population transfers violate the human rights of both transferred and receiving populations (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/18).

The United Nations International Law Commission is also currently examining this important question. In Article 21 of the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind the expulsion of persons from their homeland is referred to as a gross and systematic violation of human rights and as an international crime. In Article 22 of the Code population expulsions and collective punishments against the civilian population are listed among the gravest war crimes.

The most recent statement of the United Nations on the Right to the homeland was given on 26 August 1994 by the Sub-Commission, which in its Resolution 1994/24 affirmed the right of persons to remain in peace in their own homes, on their own lands and in their own countries. Moreover, the Resolution affirms the right of refugees and displaced persons to return in safety and dignity, to their country of origin.

I submit that if in the years following the Second World War the States had reflected more on the implications of the enforced flight and the expulsion of the Germans, today's demographic catastrophies, particularly those referred to as "ethnic cleansing", would, perhaps, not have occurred to the same extent.

In this context I should like to refer to the Charter of the German Expellees. It is good that men and women who have suffered injustice are prepared to break the vicious circle of revenge and reprisals and devote themselves in peaceful ways to seek the recognition of the right to the homeland and work toward reconstruction and integration in Europe. One day this peaceful approach will receive the recognition it deserves.

There is no doubt that during the Nazi occupation the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe suffered enormous injustices that cannot be forgotten. Accordingly they had a legitimate claim for reparation. However, legitimate claims ought not to be enforced through collective punishment on the basis of general discrimination and without a determination of personal guilt. In the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials the crucial principle of personal responsibility for crimes was wisely applied. It is worth while to reread the Nuremberg protocols and judgment.

Our goal remains the universal recognition of human rights, which are based on the principle of the equality of all human beings. Indeed, all victims of war and injustice deserve our respect and compassion, since every individual human life is precious. It is our duty to continue our endeavors in the name of the dignitas humana."

Professor LaVern Rippley in "Die Unterrichtspraxis":

"Profusely illustrated with photographs, documents and excellent maps, this book analyzes the origin and the effects of article XIII of the Potsdam Protocol which provided that ethnic Germans living in the eastern countries would be transferred to the truncated remains of the Reich 'in an orderly and humane manner'. As the 16 million Germans were driven westward, some two million died, but the world remained silent. Outraged by the crimes Nazis had perpetrated ...the whole world, with a few exceptions, like Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweizer, remained mum.... de Zayas is perhaps best when delineating the legal aspects of the Potsdam action, although his historical facts are equally impeccable....Due to the willingness of the press and the scholarly comunity in the West to ignore these facts of the Potsdam accord, few Americans or Britons know there ever was an expulsion, let alone authorization of the compulsory transfer. Questioning rhetorically whether the wrong could ever be righted, de Zayas maintains that the West could affirm its regard for individual guilt or innocence and reject the concept of collective guilt." Professor LaVern Rippley, St. Olaf College, Die Unterrichtspraxis, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1978, pp. 132-133. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.199.54 (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nemesis at Potsdam" by Alfred de-Zayas: This book was written bravely and against conventional knowledge at a time when collective guilt was still seen by many as acceptable. However in a culture of human rights it is a scandalous that for sixty odd years American and British schools and universities have failed, and continue to fail to teach about the greatest ethnic cleansing of the 20th century, possibly even the most significant attempted genocide in modern history. The expulsion of 15 million plus Germans with its huge human cost of well over 2 million dead and millions of raped, tortured and interned men, women and children and its lack of consequential education is a direct manipulation of history – no one teaches (or indeed learns) about the expulsion of the East European Germans, of the deportation of approximately 1.8 million Germans to slave labour camps in the Soviet Union after 1945, nor do they teach about the internment of patriotic and loyal German/Guatemalan/Latin-Americans and nor do they teach about the thousands of again patriotic and loyal British-Germans interned and abused on the Isle of Man. You have to remember that these people were no different to you and me; they were living, breathing human beings, the majority of whom had as much influence on World War Two as you and I have had on the recent Iraq war or the so-called war on terror. It is easy to watch television and criticise those found guilty of crimes against women and children; it is too easy to shout at the television news reports and call for harsher sentences on those who for example have been found guilty of abusing children but within the millions of Germans were many many many children who were subjected to forms of abuse so barbaric that my conscience will not allow me to detail it in the public domain where children may well read it. Look at your daughter, look at your son and remember that many of the Germans who were subjected to this horrific form of abuse were no older than them. We must learn that the law applies to all and not just those we seek to oppress. Nemesis at Potsdam takes all points of view into account, as reflected in the numerous footnotes and bibliography, and examines the phenomenon of ethnic cleansing from both the historical and legal points of view which I feel has some form of credibility as Dr Alfred de-Zayas holds doctorates in both fields – a scholarly intellect that I can only envy. The theses of Nemesis at Potsdam, ultimately a human rights book, were developed at the conference held in 2000 at Duquesne University titled Ethnic Cleansing in 20th century Europe (book published by Steven Vardy and Hunt Tooley, Columbia University Press, 2003). The author, as well as myself, have no links to Germany other than our interest in the subject matter so to criticize Dr de-Zayas is to criticise all who believe in human rights and all who wish to see accepted the expulsion as a fact of history and not the inconvenient and well hidden myth that many suggest it is. I am an Englishman who is sick and tired of the systematic gemanophobia and the double standards that society seems to accept and that pervades the media and many history books which seem so full of stereotypical half-truths. This book, as do other books on the subject, deserves to be read and taught in all educational establishments throughout the world: it may be an inconvenient truth to many but it happened and it is still happening. I can only wonder how many of those who criticise really know what they are talking about and further, how many have actually read the book. Read, then debate but don’t criticise without reading. Look, read, relate….we must make this world a better place. Douglas. Doug 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The book Nemesis at Potsdam is important because it raises many troubling questions that have been avoided for 62 years. How is it possible that the British, French, Americans went to war to fight Hitler's inhumanities, and that at the end of the war we became complicit in the expulsion of 15 million human beings from their 700-year old homelands and co-responsible for the deaths of more than two million German civilians -- massacred by the Soviets, raped, despoiled of all of their possessions, thrown into a truncated Germany that was rubble and chaos? Victor Gollancz, the British socialist, condemned the expulsions again and again in 1945-48, but his voice was hardly heard, because the world had embraced the philosophy of German "collective guilt" and because we had neatly divided the world into perpetrators (the Germans) and victims (everybody else). This attitude permitted the worst crimes to be committed. Bertrand Rusell, he too protested, as did Brishop Bell of Chichester. But the expulsions continued relentlessly. Another question we must come to grips with is how could an event so portentious as the expulsion of 15 million human beings -- much greater in scope that all of the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia - could be kept out of the consciousness of Americans, British, French. How is it possible that the history departments of universities did not take up the matter and ask graduate students to write doctoral dissertations on it? How is it possible that today practically no one knows that Germany lost 1/3 of its territory at the end of World War II and that two million human beings perished in the maelstrom of expulsion, malnutrition and disease? It is high time that "Nemesis at Potsdam" be taught in every high school and every university. The reviews in the American Journal of International Law and other scholarly journals were excellent (see the de Zayas site for some 60 reviews) -- and yet the subject matter has remained politically incorrect and therefore taboo. We owe it to ourselves to learn more about these "unsung victims". Raymond Lohne Ph.D. Columbia College Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond lohne (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * De Zayas is generally recognized as a neutral expert on matters of genocide, expulsion and ethnic cleansing. The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (edited by the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum, Director) is now going online and it includes, among others the de Zayas entries on "Forced Population Transfer" and "Repatriation".  See http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/details/publications/institute/epil.cfm 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a Dutchman and I knew nothing at all about the expulsion of the Germans before I read de Zayas. It was like getting a cold shower // the Germans in the role of victims! The book proved fascinating reading. No one before de Zayas had bothered to interview the still living participants of the Potsdam Conference on this thorny issue. It is amazing that de Zayas managed to find and interview the author of article XIII of the Potsdam Conference, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, and the author of Article IX, Sir Denis Allen // these are the key articles concerning the Oder-Neisse Line and the expulsion of the Germans. The fact that Eisenhower's advisor Robert Murphy wrote the preface to this book lends it credibility. But, of course, the topic remains controversial and not everyone is willing to jump over his own shadow and accept this new perspective. 82.217.225.209 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The new handbook by Jakob Th. Möller (an Icelandic Judge) and de Zayas "The United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008", N.P.Engel Publishers, Kehl/Strasbourg, 2009, includes the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee concerning the expropriation of and lack of restitution to Sudeten Germans, e.g. the judgement in the case Des Fours Walderode v. Czech Republic (2001), pp.435-439, ISBN 978-3-88357-144-7. Terentius9 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though the subject matter of "Nemesis at Potsdam" remains taboo, journalists do come back to it from time to time. So, for instance Patrick Buchanan in his syndicated column published on 13 and 14 April 2010 in some 300 newspapers in the US. Essentially Zayas wrote an amazingly compact summary of what happened, and put it in the right historical and political context, bringing in a tremendous number of previously unpublished archival sources and personal interviews with players like Robert Murphy and Sir Geoffrey Harrison. High schools, however, are still not teaching it -- only the occasional college seminar. Basically the subject matter has been swept under the carpet.193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An IP user added a POV header without any explanation in the discussion page. What is his problem with this article? "Nemesis at Potsdam" remains a standard scholarly study and has had many editions, last one 2005, completely updated to meet recent scholarship, and was well reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung and other serious journals. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

good point 193 -- I have accordingly deleted the tags added by Yopie. This is a hugely important subject matter and pro and con can be discussed further on this page, without trying to sabotage the article from the start. Terentius9 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a better layout for the article. I recommend the layout which has been taken for the article "A terrible revenge" so there is more scientific structurein the Wiki-article". The article so far looks a bit arbitrarily arragend. It should be structured like this:  * 1 Table of contents of the book    * 2 Printing history    * 3 Reviews    * 4 Criticism    * 5 See also    * 6 References Christian Schulz, Verden an der Aller, Germany  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.237.30 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I own the 2003 edition of "Nemesis at Potsdam" with Picton Press in Rockland, Maine. Before that I believe there were a couple of editions with the University of Nebraska Press, and, of course, the original Routledge editions. Maybe someone can bring clarity here. I also have the 2005 14th revised German edition "Die Nemesis von Potsdam", that is much enlarged over the original English version.Animus63 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * After a year and no concrete proposals in the discussion page I have removed the tag on the article. I do not see the "weasel" words, and the reviews of the book speak for themselves.66.104.252.226 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Article is full of weasel words, as "effectively broke" and is written as advertisement, as there is no part about critics of this work.--Yopie (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nemesis at Potsdam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720015314/http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/fileadmin/images/Das_IfZ/jb2005.pdf to http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/fileadmin/images/Das_IfZ/jb2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)