User talk:Jadger/draft expulsions

Good work, Jadger. Of course, I never thought the original text was all that bad anyway but I guess we have to accomodate those who think the original text was too POV.

Here are some points that I would like to make

1) "Many more people were murdered by Red Army forces or violent militias". I don't like the word "more".  It might be read to imply that the Red Army and violent militia killed "many more" people than were killed by the other causes.  Unless you can substantiate this claim, it is likely to raise objections.

2) I might also suggest that you add "the number of deaths directly associated with the expulsions" as one of the areas of controversy in the last sentence of the last paragraph.

--Richard 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I realized more could be of contention, but what I meant by "more" was not "a greater number than those already listed" but "on top of the number killed by other means".


 * 2)I think this point would better fit in the same paragraph as #1, so I have added it there.


 * Also, I edited the following (adding what is bolded): Much of the tension is exacerbated by the demands of some groups of expellees or their descendants for revocation of expulsion decrees, official apologies, prosecution of perpetrators, or compensation for lost properties (and the subsequent refusal on the part of authorities). I added this because I think the sentence placed all of the blame on those expelled, when clearly the blame for tensions lies on both sides, as "it takes two to tango".


 * --Jadger 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Integrating talk ?
How about making this talk page a redirect to the original article's talk ? Otherwise we'll split the discussion in two, and make it even more confusing. --Lysytalk 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Jagder is deliberately restricting the people who know about this page. I'm not sure if this is a good thing but I figure it's his prerogative.  If we don't like this "backroom discussion", we don't have to participate.  Jagder, please explain your thinking so we can evaluate if this exercise is a good thing or not. --Richard 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt if this page is "secret" to anyone, who follows e.g. my edits. I know some do. :-) But we can try to keep it limited as long as possible if this was the intention (I'm not sure if this is good or bad, in line with the wiki spirit etc.) --Lysytalk 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

you are both somewhat correct. I wanted to restrict access to those more neutral than Tulko or 131 that seem to go tit for tat whatever I or Richard say. I would not be against them making there own version of the article on their own user pages, then our versions being compared and perhaps the best parts integrated together. The tit for tat accomplishes nothing, and I want this to be seen as an attempt for me to have my views more clearly stated without being called a holocaust denier or a Nazi, with of course the more level headed editors here to help and moderate and add their own ideas.

As this is a subpage of my userpage, anyone whom I do not want editing it qualifies as vandalism of my userpage, and can be blocked, or perhaps an admin can limit editing this page to a number of people. Feel free to ask others from both sides to join this if they are willing to cooperate and not degrade this like the actual article has.

--Jadger 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysy's recent edit reverting to previous version of a paragraph
I think I agree with Lysy that the previous version was better. However, the first sentence is worth taking a closer look at. To wit, it reads "Due to a lack of accurate records, the number of deaths associated with the expulsions varies by source." This says something different from "it is difficult to attribute the number of deaths associated various causes". Jagder, can you explain what you were thinking? To back up the first sentence, we would need to point to multiple sources and say "Source A asserts X deaths and Source B asserts Y deaths." Do we have that kind of references to back it up? --Richard 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I was meaning is that because there are no accurate records, the sources don't agree on how many deaths can be attributed to this phase of the Exodus (the expulsions). then we could of course compare H&O and the Federation of Expellees.


 * --Jadger 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I would love to see is any breakdown of the numbers into the categories flight, evacuation and expulsion. The Demographic estimates... article doesn't do this at all and I think this is the cause of much objection by people who think we are attributing the entire number (especially deaths) to the expulsions.  Are you aware of anyone who attempts to quantify how many people were involved in each phase? --Richard 14:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, well done
Well done, Jadger. It is better to work on the text than spending the time in idle circles of the same discussions over and over again (which does not mean that I deprecate the discussions but we've been to mane places already before). While I appreciate most of your edits, I have restored some of the text where I thought the changes were not necessarily improving the article. I hope you'll understand this. Of course I'm open to discuss individual edits or explain my position, where further explanation is needed. --Lysytalk 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One Point
One point I'd like to make is related to one version that Lysy reverted. 2nd paragraph I had changed it to "The first stage of the exodus, which cost many lives, was the chaotic evacuation of the civilians and prisoners from many parts of the country." and Lysy reverted to "The first stage of the exodus, which cost many lives, was the chaotic evacuation of the civilians and prisoners, organised by German authorities." I would like to point out that not all those who fled in front of the Red Army were organized by the Nazi Government. In fact, the Nazis delayed evacuation until it was too late because of propoganda, they did not want to let the populace know that they were losing the war. I can reference this in a few days hopefully, I have just moved and the books I had wanted pertaining to this have gotten lost in all my boxes, so bear with me.

--Jadger 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. One of the problems with the evacuation was that it was often done too late, when there was already no adequate means to organize it. As to the prisoners, they were often marched in the death marches. The other problem was the German propaganda, which used cases such as Nemmersdorf in hope to strengthen the resistance against the Soviets, but this backfired and the populace panicked. Not without a reason, I admit, but panic is never helpful for organizing the evacuation etc. Anyway, in many cases the German commanders actively resisted the evacuation and would not let the people leave until the last moment or until it was too late. All this only contributed to the chaos. So while the evacuation was organized by Germans, the flight obviously was not, but it was the direct result of the shortcomings of the organized evacuation. --Lysytalk 07:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I insist to have the Germans explicitly mentioned here, as the article has a tendency to assign the blame. It explicitly assigns it to the Russians, Poles or Czechs many times, so we should not keep mute about the Germans themselves. A sample account of how the German evacuation was "organized" can be found e.g. in Ulrich Frodien's "Bleib übrig", where he describes the yelling crowds of German refugees attempting to leave Breslau. Similar things happened in East Prussia. --Lysytalk 07:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted that explicitly stated, because before your comments above, I thought that the terms evacuation and flight were being used interchangeably and meant the same thing in the article. I think a whole section should be dedicated to the totally lacking "evacuation" and outline such things as we have discussed here. Perhaps even reorganize the article into sections on the different phases of the Exodus, and put links in the "see also" section to the expulsion in each country as a separate article, with more information on those pages. This of course means that depending on how this turns out, I would support merging the exodus and expulsion articles.

--Jadger 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good that you mentioned that. My understanding of the terms was different. I assumed that by "evacuation" we meant the effort by German authorities, which supplied trains, cars, ships or other means of transport and were sending people to other locations. As for the "flight", I assumed that it was not the initiative of German administration but the individuals who would grab their belongings and run away. Of course in many cases it would be difficult to distinguish between the two, as the evacuation was often quite chaotic itself. An example of this could be a story from "Von Masuren and den Rhein" by Gerd-Helmut Komossa where he describes how his family was evacuated with a plane from Masuria to Danzig and further to West Germany, if I remember correctly. The problem is that we only usually know individual episodes of both evacuation and flight, as the whole action was not well documented. --Lysytalk 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A better source
I just got a copy of "Wysiedlenie czy wypędzenie" by Bernadetta Nitschke, it looks very complete, and full of figures and sources. Here is an English language review of what I suppose might be the German edition of the book: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=263131117051503 Unfortunately I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days, but I hope this is one of the sources we have missed so much. --Lysytalk 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as much of a review but more a summation. I would like to have some specific numbers from the book cited.  That review kind of perturbed me, I don't know why the German government would be the one to pay the expellees the reparations they are demanding, talk about robbing from Peter to pay Paul.


 * --Jadger 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Polish government paid Polish deportees for their property lost in the East (now Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine). They were Polish citizens so it seemed like a norm for Polish government to take care of them. But I think the book is not about it. The link that I posted was a single summary of two books, maybe you have confused them ? The first one is Nitschke. --Lysytalk 08:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yes I did, I was just skimming over it, and I remember now that this was stated after it starts talking about the book written by a lawyer on how to properly sue for compensation. Just because Poland did it (paid claimants), doesn't make it right however. When did the Polish gov't pay the deportees though? before the end of communism? when the Soviet Union was there to aid them financially?

--Jadger 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether the actual death toll be 1 million or 2 million
The majority of the victims died during the war, which isn't mentioned in the paragraph. Stop the lies!Xx236 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh. The debate has found us.  OK, Xx236, how do you support the assertion that "the majority of the victims died during the war"?  Is there a reliable source that we can attribute this assertion to?  --Richard 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he was just spamming, giving a protesting shout to actual cooperation and advancement.

--Jadger 14:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Scope
So, do we include evacuation and flight in this article, or do we make a separate one ? --Lysytalk 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * there is really no way to separate the numbers in each category with any accuracy, so I think all three should be discussed. Or we could touch on the other two in the introduction and explain why the whole number of all 3 phases must be used.


 * --Jadger 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we cannot separate the numbers and that we must say that the numbers apply to all three phases.


 * However, the fact that we cannot separate the numbers should not be the decision criterion. The question should be: can we separate the discussion into separate articles?  That is, are we better off with one single article that spans evacuation, flight and expulsion or is it better to split it up into more than one article.  In essence, this is the question of whether Expulsion of Germans after World War II should be merged into German exodus from Eastern Europe.


 * Can we say that the evacuations and flight took place before any expulsions occurred? Not really.  There were the "wild" expulsions which probably occurred concurrently with the evacuations and flight.


 * Look at it another way. If you were forbidden to mention any numbers in the articles, would you write one article or two?


 * --Richard 10:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to start from scratch and do one article that is arranged in sections based on a timeline of what happened. As the current version separates it by country, which is just placing blame, and started this horrible situation anyways.


 * --Jadger


 * Totally agree that chronological approach would be much better than the blame game. As for whether evacuation and be separated from expulsions: yes, these are clearly different things, and easy to separate. Only when we mention the total numbers, it should be stated that they concern both. This said, we cannot separate evacuation from flight, as these happened simultaneously. My suggestion now (and I understand this was more or less the conclusion of our previous discussion with Richard on this) would be to:
 * Start a separate article about "Evacuation and flight" (named something like World War II Evacuation of Germans from Eastern Europe ?)
 * Try to restrict the "Expulsion" article to the actual expulsions (both "wild" and "orderly"; and rewrite most of it as Jadger suggests)
 * Have the "Exodus" as a framework article containing both in a wider context.
 * Do at least the three of us agree on this approach now ? --Lysytalk 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer just one article containing all three. They cannot be separated, and the numbers must be mentioned. I'd say call it Situation of Germans in Eastern Europe at the end of WWII or something like that. have sections like Red Army advances (describing initial panic and flights) and another section describing what happened during the last days of the war. then a wild expulsions section, followed by the organized expulsions etc. etc.

--Jadger 01:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but then we'd end up with an extremely longish article. Why do you think they could not be separated ? The only thing that keeps them together is the numbers of victims arithmetic, which is ill and is already discussed in its separate article anyway. --Lysytalk 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

it cannot be separated because it is one subject: the removal of all Germans to lands east of the Oder-Neise. I do not think it would be a long article, we just need to prevent people from adding stupid minor details like the gravestones.

--Jadger 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt if we can keep it short but give it a try then. Only it's crucial that it is well structured. Then if it grows too much, all the details could go to individual "sub-articles". What major topics do we need to have included in the article ? Maybe German exodus from Eastern Europe is the article you are looking for ? --Lysytalk 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over the number of deaths...
I've been ruminating over the dispute over the number of deaths and it seems to me that there are three basic ways to present the "academic and political debate" (NB: NOT the debate among Wikipedians but the debate out there in the real world).

In all approaches, the estimated number of deaths is somewhere between 500,000 (Haar). 1.1 million (Overmans) and 2 million (Statistisches Bundesamt / ZgV).

Approach #1 - The debate is still very much open and no single consensus has emerged in the academic or political arenas. We don't know which position is right and we don't offer an opinion. This approach is strictly NPOV and gives all positions equal weight.

Approach #2 - The prevailing opinion is that there were 2 million deaths although recent studies have begun to challenge this estimate and propose downward revisions. This approach weights the Statistisches Bundesamt / ZgV figures more heavily than the Haar and Overmans numbers. It also does not take into account recommendations of the joint commission of Czech and German historians.

Approach #3 - In the first few decades after the war, the prevailing opinion in the West (NATO) was that there were 2 million deaths although recent studies over the last 2-3 decades have challenged this estimate and proposed downward revisions so that the prevailing opinion now estimates total deaths between 500,000 (Haar) - 1.1 million (Overmans).

Over the past year, I have tried to take Approach #1 but I confess that the articles related to the expulsions have probably been less strictly NPOV and given more weight to the ZgV numbers because they were more detailed (i.e. in effect, we have taken Approach #2 by casting 1.1 million to 2.0 million as the "middle road" between 500,000 and 3 million).

In order to neutralize the opposition on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, we would have to adopt Approach #3. My question is: Is Approach #3 really an accurate description of the current consensus in the academic world? If it is, then we should reword the article text to present this approach more clearly. If it is not, we should continue to resist the criticisms as POV-pushing.

--Richard 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that #3 is accurate, but I would feel better had I read the actual publications by Haar and Overmans, and not only their comments. Still, I think #3 is most accurate description of the current situation of the three. And finally, all this victim-counting is the plague of all our expulsion/evacuation articles and a major cause of all the confusions (but we all know this, right?). --Lysytalk 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found some more time to look at the book of Nietschke. While she devotes relatively much space to the population transfer statistics, she is more interested in the size of the evacuation and expulsions than the losses themselves. Still, she devotes one chapter to the discussion of the number of victims. Her general conclusion is that all the estimates are very inaccurate and discusses various methodologies and their associated problems. Finally, she agrees with Overmans, that the best estimate at the current state of knowledge is around 610 thousand civilian victims, of which 400 thousand she accounts for Poland, 130 thousand for Czechoslovakia and 80 thousand for Yugoslavia. I'm puzzled now. Someone said that Overmans' figure was 1,100 thousand, not 400 thousand. Where did we get the 1,100 thousand figure from ? --Lysytalk 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Approach 1 is the best. But what I want clarified about Haar is that discussion that we had a while ago. Haar says only those with documented deaths can be counted as those that died during the expulsions. so that is not really an estimate is it? as Haar has gone to the trouble of finding out how many people had fully documented deaths. It's not really an estimate as much as saying "we know for a fact that this many people died"

--Jadger 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)