Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Ost (East)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. –MuZemike 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

German Ost (East)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be a content fork of East Germany. I redirected to the existing article, but this was undone. I believe this should be discussed more broadly, so bringing it here. My opinion is this should be deleted or redirected to East Germany. Sparthorse (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete but merge some of the later material into Ostsiedlung, which is better written and more comprehensive but has a note stating that it has inadequate coverage of the Nazi exploitation of the issue and of the urban/rural angle; this article has some coverage of those. I note that the German in this article is poor and that Ostsiedlung has many interwikis (potential sources of information to improve it as well as evidence of its being the better title) as well as much better overall coverage; so yes, this is a fork, but not of East Germany and possibly created in ignorance of the pre-existing article. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. This article obviously needs more improvement to make its purpose clear, but the information within it is well-researched and the article fills (or at least is intended to fill) a valuable hole in the documentation of how Germany's colonial practices before the Third Reich, led to the concentration camps and wholesale exterminations of World War II. (Note: there is no intention to make the Holocaust this article's central issue; rather, the emphasis is on Germany's continuing efforts to create colonies for Germans, '\at the utter expense of the indigenous populations.)
 * The editor who suggests that this article be deleted but some material moved into the article on Ostsiedlung, may not have really read that article, which appropriately deals with the gradual migrations of populations in mediaeval times, and not at all with colonies of modern states, created by 'fiat'.
 * Several editors have suggested that German Ost (East) might need to be better named. I welcome their suggestions, as I also welcome the constructive criticism of those who are better-versed in German than I (Osten versus 'Ost'). I would have liked to have named this article "Wartheland" or something like it, except that the history of Germany's eastern expansion is older than Wartheland; and that area has borne many names in its history.
 * I am continuing to add relevant information and wikilinks to this article, as well as improving its structure and language. I request that editors re-examine this article as it continues to evolve.
 * Please note: this article is linked to from Eugenics; specifically, the section dealing with Eugenics in the German African colonies, Pacific colonies, and now the link here to the East European colony, Wartheland. Virago250 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not quite clear on what the article is supposed to be about. While it quite clearly has nothing to do with East Germany (different period, different territory) and is distinguishable in subject from Ostsiedlung (which is largely about medieval German eastward expansion), the article as it stands seems to contain a mixture of material about nineteenth and early twentieth-century Prussian and German Imperial policy to non-German ethnic groups in Prussia's more eastern provinces, aspects of German colonial policy in the same period, and Nazi treatment of conquered populations in Wartheland and the General Government. My guess would be that the article is supposed to be primarily about the last of these, but also to give it a historical context - but it doesn't currently seem to fit together to do this. Almost all of the information currently in the article either is already, or could be, included in Germanisation - but I think that, whatever the justification for my already mentioned concerns, this article is trying to give a legitimately different emphasis from that article. The question is whether it manages to do so coherently. PWilkinson (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think PWilkinson basically has it right. It's not about East Germany (post WWII). It's not about the Ostsiedlung (middle ages). It's not exactly about the German colonial empire in Africa either. It seems to be about plans/projects/implementations of the colonial policy of the German empire, then the Third Reich, within Europe (more specifically Eastern Europe). Both the time period (late 19th, pre WWII 20th century vs. middle ages or post WWII) and the geographic focus (Eastern Europe vs. outside of Europe) make this a distinct topic which anyone familiar with the history recognizes as notable and pretty broadly covered in sources. The one thing that I'm not sure about is whether German Ost (East) is the appropriate title. There is probably a better/more used one out there. Basically, this article needs (aside from some clean up) a renaming rather than deletion or merge. The topic is notable and well-covered, it's just that the editor who created the article picked a somewhat confusing name.  Volunteer Marek   00:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have Drang nach Osten, and the later sections of Ostsiedlung and one of the tags at the top of it indicate that it is intended to cover the nineteenth and twentieth century as well. Hence this article seems to me to largely consist of what other editors have intended to have at the end of Ostsiedlung; but perhaps Drang nach Osten is a better home for the material. In any event, the separate article strikes me as unduly polemical in focus; I do not think it should be treated separately, but in the context of the overall history of German eastward expansion. (Also the title is ungrammatical. The noun is Osten.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have Drang nach Osten, and the later sections of Ostsiedlung and one of the tags at the top of it indicate that it is intended to cover the nineteenth and twentieth century as well - neither DnO or Ostsiedlung are actually that relevant here. The sections there are sort of an "aftermath", in a way a transition between their subject matter and this article. In any event, the separate article strikes me as unduly polemical in focus - agree, but this is a POV issue not a notability issue or reason for deletion. I do not think it should be treated separately, but in the context of the overall history of German eastward expansion - mmm, why not? If there are sources which deal specifically with this time period and this phenomenon outside of Ostsiedlung or DnO then a separate article is fully justified.  Volunteer Marek   23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to East-facing colonial policy of the German empire (or similar). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete; the article tries to establish a connection between the Prussian Settlement Commission, the German colonies in Africa and the Holocaust of World War II, that's WP:OR to say the least. The article's main-thesis is completely unsourced, the sub-topics are more or less unsourced: Fn.1 refers to Christopher Clark allegedly claiming the Settlement Commission sold farm land to "armed German peasants in the Polish East." In fact Clark says nothing at all about "armed peasants" . Fn. 2 refers to Heimat (film), a German TV-series of the 1980s about a village in the Hunsrück region. How such a soap is supposed to prove a claim about the banning of “intermarriage between Germans and African natives" is completely unintelligible to me. Fn. 3 "see Georg Forster" - what are we supposed to see at Forster's article? (BTW: Wikipedia is not a source) Fn. 4 – 7 seem to be accurately summarized, but do not at all support the main thesis.
 * In short: Some of the sources might be used to expand the specific articles (Ostsiedlung, German colonies, Holocaust/WWII in Poland), the current compilation is POV-pushing Original Research. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Many scholars draw connection between racist policies of Prussia and later German Empire in its conquests in the Eastern Europe and later behaviour in Africa, as well as pointing out influence of German genocide of Herero on policies in WW1 Eastern Europe and later genocide during WW2. This is a valid topic. If needed additional sources can be added and scholars named.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to German colonization of Central and Eastern Europe. The article is excellent source of information regarding this topic. There is no reason to delete it, and  personally I want to applaud the creator for making this fine addition to Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not original research. The claim has been made that the article German Ost (East) is entirely based upon original research, and has no other support academically. This claim is false. I was very explicit in mentioning Kristin Kopp, "Constructing Racial Difference in Colonial Poland", in Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, Lora Wildenthal (Eds.), "Germany's Colonial Pasts", Univ. of Nebraska, 2005, pp. 76-96, which is usually considered an unbiased academic reference, and covers the material I discuss. The book also gives further references.
 * If there is any question about what Christopher Clark says, this is referenced in "Germany's Colonial Pasts", in the chapter mentioned. If there is any dispute about this interpretation, I for one don't mind correction; however, it does seem as if the Wikipedia editor who objects is entering into his own original research, since he is in contradiction with this book.
 * The claim that "Heimat" does not deal with intermarriage between Europeans (Germans) and Africans in German South West Africa, is without any basis. I have tried to elaborate that the policies against mixed marriages (miscegenation) were developed in German South West Africa and these very same policies, for the very same reasons, were continued in Wartheland. I cannot change history; it remains true no matter how much the editor opposes it. As I've tried to point out, this policy was the work of Paul Rohrbach. However, no claim was made that "Heimat" is an "academic" source; only that specific reference is made in the article by Kopp to Heimatliteratur. Kopp seems to feel that this is relevant, as it is a reflection of how Germans thought, and think. Thus, the objection is to the article by Kopp (specifically citing Maria Wojtczak, Literatur der Ostmark: Posener Heimatliterature (1890-1918)). I do not think that past and current German attitudes towards this history are irrelevant; nor do I believe the academic works referring to it are irrelevant. I think it is up to the Wikipedia editor to show why s/he feels that no one should know or discuss Heimat academically.
 * Primary access to German Ost (East) is through Eugenics. Eugenics covers the subject, including different countries, colonies, etc. In some sense, Wartheland was a colony or a proto-colony of Germany, and not only was the question of miscegenation influenced by its colonization of other countries (for example, the colonization of German South West Africa), but it would be very hard to deny that genetics experiments, twin study experiments, etc., were performed at Auschwitz. (Recall Eugen Fischer's work in German South West Africa, as well as during the Third Reich at the KWI-A.) I provide a photo of a slave laborer working for I.G. Farben at Auschwitz, wearing the OST badge. Multiple connections between different colonies and Germany is a historical fact. If Wikipedia editors wish to deny this, they must also deny the existence of this photograph, or they must enter into aspects of Holocaust Denial and maintain that the experiments mentioned above did not take place. These issues are precisely what German Ost (East) elucidates. If there is a disagreement with the facts cited, the editors should say what they are.Virago250 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.