This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period January 2007 - March 2007. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to put something in an article, you may be asked to provide supporting evidence from a verifiable and reliable source. If you do this and I don't believe you, then the onus is on me to obtain a copy of your source and determine whether you have accurately represented the source. Until you represent what the book says with a cogent bit of text that can be inserted into the article, the burden is on you to do the homework. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the tone of the 219.66.235.103's rant against me offensive.
This is your feeling. I expressed mine, in my opinion you hardly accept facts and prefer believes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
I will accept your facts when you back them up with citations and quotes in English that I can read. Until then, your "facts" sound like opinions to me. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not "increase numbers". I cite the numbers that others have put forth, putting them into context as appropriate.
The problem is you cite the ZgV numbers again and again. As already mentioned those numbers are biased and put by purpose in one sack with label “EXPULSION”. A few people attempted to point this organization is not reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
When there is a dispute, it is not always clear that one side is more reliable than another. I still have not seen adequate evidence to indicate that Overmans and Haar are clearly more reliable than the ZgV except that Overmans and Haar are "historians". So what? Historians have biases, too.
I have asked for a more detailed explanation of how they came by their numbers. What was the response? Silence.
I have asked for some indication that their perspective is the majority mainstream viewpoint. What was the response? Silence.
If their viewpoint is the mainstream viewpoint, then there ought to be other historians that have cited their work. At the moment, I am not convinced that Overmans and Haar have done more than challenge the Statistiches Bundesamt/ZgV numbers. I am slowly being convinced but I want to see better support for the assertion that the work of Overmans and Haar has clearly discredited the numbers assembled by the Statistiches Bundesamt/ZgV. It is insufficient in my book to level the charge that numbers were compiled by the German government and a bunch of German conservative politicians. Those charges do not inherently discredit them as reliable sources. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
some people seem to think that the expulsions are justifiable revenge for the cruelty of the Nazis.
Expulsion was not a revenge, however was justifiable and sanctioned by Allies UK, USA and USSR. Furthermore was sanctioned by rest (at least unquestionable majority) of international community. For example I hardly noted atlases showing III Reich as the legal borders. Even Germany accepted the post war borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
This last statement could be challenged but it's a bit of a distraction so I'll just note it. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Expulsion was determined with a concern for future. Large German minorities in borders of other countries had miserable effect for stabilization of Europe before WW II. Even presently when the German minority in Poland is only 300 000 the trouble is visible. Once again expulsion was not revenge. Revenge is offensive word; it was justified satisfaction for offended nations. Take for consideration that Germany did not pay Poland war reparation and Poland lost 20% of her area - Poland becomes smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
These points are mentioned in the article as purported justifications. I think it is arguable whether or not they are valid justifications but it is clear that they have been put forth as justifications and so they are in the article. What's your point?
I do not see it as appropriate to compare the cruelty of the expulsions against that of the Holocaust.
In this situation I do not see appropriate to name expulsion as cruelty. You put a scale of present day to the expulsion. You like to magnify a fragment and underline it how ugly it was. We must see whole object to judge it correctly. Do you like the reader to sack the “ugliness” and allow forget him the innocent blood of other nations? This is the effect of separating one from the other. You allow losing correct perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
One of the articles presented on this Talk Page discusses the need not to "decontextualize" the expulsions. You are making the same argument. I disagree with this argument. I am happy to put the argument in the article but I am not willing to present it as if it is the only way to view the expulsions. There are many conflicts which have long histories of wrongs perpetuated by one side or the other. I do not believe that "contextualizing" an action justifies it. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as evil goes, I do not see them as being in the same class.
That is good. Thank you. Still the Flight and Expulsion has the Genocide of other nations in its background. They are inseparable. Take for consideration that Europe (excluding Germany) lost about 35 million people with nearly 30 million of these in Poland and the Soviet Union alone. There was a river of blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
And so, your point is? --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that evil was not wrought when the expulsions were implemented.
Of course the evil did not go to sleep after 8 May 1945. He was awaken by Nazis and all around paid for it. Why had the devil save Germans? And why reasonable Germans should look for the primary culprit somewhere else than between Nazis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
People chose to sanction the expulsions. You are arguing that evil was returned for evil and thus it was justified. If you can find sources that argue that this is the way things were and should have been, we can include that perspective. I have been wishing someone would find a Polish historian or even a Polish newspaper or magazine article that would present this side. None have been presented (at least not in English translation). Your opinion is no more acceptable than mine. Both constitute original research. If you believe you are right, then surely there is someone in Poland who agrees with you and has written an article or a book along those lines. Find it and tell us what they say. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I just think that the evil was not the primary intent of those who sanctioned and implemented the expulsions.
You mean what? UK, USA and Stalin are not the culprit but the simple Polish and Russians were, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
No, you are putting words in my mouth.
What I meant is that the Allies (US,UK and USSR) did not sanction the expulsions in order to punish the Germans per se and certainly did not intend to kill them although I'm sure they were aware that some would die.
What I meant is that one of the primary purposes of the expulsions was to avoid civil unrest. Let's say that 1-2 million Germans died as a result of the expulsions. How many would have died if they had not been ordered to leave? Considering the "wild" expulsions, is it possible that as many or more would have died due to open warfare? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that Germans and Poles would have learned to live together in postwar Poland? Yes, it's possible. Do any of us know what would have happened? No.
According to the Wikipedia article on population exchange, population exchange was "was considered as an acceptable solution to the problems of ethnic conflict, up until around World War II and even a little afterward, in certain cases. Transfer was considered a drastic but 'often necessary' means to end an ethnic conflict or ethnic civil war."
However...
The view of international law on population transfer underwent considerable evolution during the 20th century. Prior to World War II, a number of major population transfers were the result of bilateral treaties and had the support of international bodies such as the League of Nations. The tide started to turn when the Charter of the Nuremberg Trials of German Nazi leaders declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity, and this opinion was progressively adopted and extended through the remainder of the century. Underlying the change was the trend to assign rights to individuals, thereby limiting the rights of states to make agreements which adversely affect them.
There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law. (Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Spring 2001, p116). No legal distinction is made between one-way and two-transfers, since the rights of each individual are regarded as independent of the experience of others.
We should proably summarize the above in the article. Population exchanges were not considered crimes against humanity at the time that the expulsions were sanctioned but world opinion about them started to change shortly thereafter.
I will say you something. You can not stop avalanche. They who attempted to direct the disaster in reasonable stream are of course not the culprits. Simpletons who behaved as animals are second order criminals. But the first culprits are Nazi who released the evil avalanche. The evil which directed even ordinary people to act and contract with revenge. I can not allow push away the primary culprit from the scene when someone blame ordinary people as total (in this way a nation). You want blame somebody do it directly, as much personally as you can, prove as far you can. It is offence against a nation when you do the blame in other way.
I continue to reject this line of logic. However, if you can find a verifiable and reliable source who says this, then we can include it in the article. --Richard 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I believe that the ZgV believes that 2.2 million people died as a result of the expulsions.
Sorry it is to much believes.
I further believe that the 2.2 million deaths occurred during the evacuation, flight and expulsions.
That would be fine if you would proof few during the expulsion alone. As it was said: Only dead persons are as dead person, to count. The rest are [missing] people. When Soviets murdered our officers [1] we were looking for them for decades and finally we found the missing graves. Before the Communists were gone it had been impossible to prosecute the militias and investigate for graves. Presently when the governments are anticommunist and Poland is in EU this kind of crime of mass murdering would appear in media. The blame would go to Communist / pro-Soviets account anyway. So I do not believe on what you believe.
I do believe that it is difficult to determine how many were killed by Soviet troops, how many by Allied bombing, how many by Polish militia and how many by famine, disease and exposure.
This is the reason why I propose to change the article title to “Flight and Expulsion of Germans after World War II”. When you say “Expulsion” that suggest the act of removing Germans from Poland after 8 May 1945.
However, I doubt that any of these causes is responsible for less than 10% of the total deaths.
Unfortunately I do not accept you believe and further the believes need to be verified before placement in Wikipedia anyway.
Why is it that when I believe something that you believe, you are happy for it to be put into Wikipedia but when I believe something that you do not accept then you insist that it be "verified" before it is put into Wikipedia?
At the end of the day, every thing needs to be verified as coming from a reliable source before it is put into Wikipedia whether you accept it or not.
Moreover, I suspect that only a small fraction of the total deaths were as the result of mass killings or even direct, intentional killing.
Yes. This suggest lack of mass graves and reports of such. Still the Wikipedia edition requires formal and balanced expressions. Since that I would name the unknown causes as missing people. After that I would mention the causes killing by troops, bombing, famine, disease, exposure etc.
My proposition would be: -During the period of Flight and Expulsion many tragic event cost live of xxx Germans, which are the reported cases by relatives.(source). There are reported bombing, killing….so on. In some cases all families could vanish thus the number of deaths can be higher. Summarizing the total German population of (to mention areas....) in 1944? and subtracting the population of DDR and West Germany the German population decrease for yyy. This however include killed soldiers?, Germans who were not expelled …etc. In total yyy people are counted as missing and it includes the xxx reported deaths.
I think it is quite simple and objective since pure mathematical. Is not it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.235.103 (talk • contribs)
It's hard to tell how this is different from what I've been proposing over the last week or so.
However, it's not mathematical until you put numbers to it. Where are the numbers?
Also, it's not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia until you put this line of logic into the words of a verifiable and reliable source. Where's the citation?
No citation = original research = can't be inserted into Wikipedia. Plain and simple. Sorry.
There was no census in Germany 1944/1945. All German data are speculations. That you prefer the German speculations that mine - it's your choice, but don't call the fantastic numbers reliable.
Xx236 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to put into the Demographic estimates... article these challenges to the methodology used by the Statistisches Bundesamt. And to summarize those challenges in a single sentence in this article. However, it is a historical fact that those estimates stood unchallenged for 30-40 years. Thus, the source is reliable even though the numbers may not be.
I know that's a hard concept to wrap one's mind around but the point here is that I'm coming to understand that the controversy about the expulsions is as important to document as the expulsions themselves. It is difficult to come to an objective understanding of the heated controversy of the present day unless one understands why there are differing perspectives on this historical event. There will always be different understandings of what happened and why. There will always be different understandings of whether the expulsions were justified or not. It is inappropriate for us to decide that one side is right and the other is not. It is far more desirable for us to present all sides and leave it to the reader to decide which side is right or that all sides are partly right and partly wrong.
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments1 person in discussion
At the moment, I am not convinced that Overmans and Haar have done more than challenge the Statistiches Bundesamt/ZgV numbers
I think you need to read the book yourself. I mean Haar 2005. Nobody will convince you to something what you do not want to be convinced. If you will not be in position to get a copy of it I would understand the questioning others. You expressed the wish to have Harr’s or Overmans’ text in English and I got it for you.
You did? Where? I must have missed it. Is it available online? --Richard 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I want to clarify my comment here. The problem is that this is not the only article that I work on and the sheer volume of comments is such that I don't read everything posted here. Even the stuff that is addressed directly to me, I may not read as closely as I should. If you got me Haar's or Overman's text in English, I missed it. Did you provide an http link to it? I would very much like to see it. --Richard 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And so, your point is?
My point is:
a) the Flight and Expulsion has the Genocide of other nations in its background
b) They are inseparable as reason and consequence
c) Talking about expulsion you can not skip the reason of it
This is like showing an act of self-defense alone - without offence. The self-defense will look like pure crime. Do you understand?
I do understand. I have always understood this line of reasoning. However, I do not agree with it. To argue this way is to argue that the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe were responsible for the atrocities of the Nazi occupation. I do not accept this. It is easier for me to accept that the Allies had to give Stalin some territory and that they gave the Poles part of Eastern Germany in compensation. Whether the Germans needed to be expelled from those territories or not is debatable. I would say it wasn't necessary but I'm an idealist.
Now, if you want this line of reasoning in the article, you have your wish. It's already there. What you can't have is an insistence that this is a morally valid justification for the expulsions. It's not really our place to pass moral judgment anyway. If you want to cite some reliable source who makes this argument, we can put the citation in there. Maybe even a quotation if it seems appropriate. But I will resist any attempt to cast the expulsions as morally justified (and so too will a bunch of other editors). --Richard 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
People chose to sanction the expulsions. You are arguing that evil was returned for evil and thus it was justified. If you can find sources that argue that this is the way things were and should have been, we can include that perspective.
There is a proverb: A person sowing/spreading/aroseing wind receives storm. That is the natural consequence. I do not say it is justified since the Christian way is to pay by good. However be honest with yourself how good Christian or in general ideal person would you be there in the Russian and Polish shoes. It needs a little imagination but you can do it.
As I stated above, this line of reasoning is in the article (or at least it used to be). Please be specific about what you want.
What I meant is that one of the primary purposes of the expulsions was to avoid civil unrest.
That was the reason to avoid future war and conflicts. I read Potsdam documents in original. I can not point it to the line but they explained the moving Germans by that reason.
Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that Germans and Poles would have learned to live together in postwar Poland? Yes, it's possible. Do any of us know what would have happened? No.
Sir! I am Polish I now the history of ages of German expansion to East and Polish defenses. I know the character of Germans. I know from first hand what happened in Death Camps what happened with my relatives and relatives of my neighbors. I see what at present day the new generation of Germans attitude is.
This is pretty offensive. I'm not German but it is a slur against Germans (or any other people) to argue that they have a uniformly sinister character. Are you telling me that the Poles and other Eastern Europeans were trying to get rid of the Germans in their midst for centuries. That they didn't live side-by-side in relative peace until the Nazis came along? Was there a record of civil strife before the Nazi era? Were there pogroms against the Germans in Poland? Did the Germans rise up in rebellion against Poland? Was Hitler right that the German minorities were being mistreated and persecuted? I suspect there was an element of truth in what he claimed but it seems to be generally accepted that most of it was fabrication and lies.
My personal belief is that, although some ethnic Germans actively supported the Nazis, most of them probably went on living their lives, enjoying of course the benefits of being Germans in a German occupation. If Poland and other countries had allowed them to stay, they would have gone back to living the way they had for hundreds of centuries. Pure speculation but that's what I believe. --Richard 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We should probably summarize the above in the article. Population exchanges were not considered crimes against humanity at the time that the expulsions were sanctioned but world opinion about them started to change shortly thereafter.
What we should put in the article is that the expulsion was considered the best way to avoid future conflict, and in any circumstances had been considered a crime against humanity. It is only question of personal point of view if the expulsion fulfilled assumption.
I'm sorry but I don't fully understand the above. I do agree with the first part that "expulsion was considered by the Allies to be the best way to avoid future conflict". I think the article already says that. I don't understand the bit about any circumstances had been considered a crime against humanity. I think we can only say "under current international law, the expulsions like any other forced migration would be considered a crime against humanity". (Side note: And so too would the forced migrations that occurred at the partition of India and Pakistan) --Richard 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I continue to reject this line of logic. However, if you can find a verifiable and reliable source who says this, then we can include it in the article.
What do you mean by that? You reject the: “You want blame somebody do it directly, as much personally as you can, prove as far you can. It is offence against a nation when you do the blame in other way.”
Well, are you going to accuse nation for a crime? That is something. And you want the same time hide the Nazi responsibility to start the conflict and cook the finale result. Are you?
Are you really need reliable source to know who was the primacy culprit of Genocide and all the results of WWII?
I reject that the Nazis are responsible for the expulsions. The Allies (US, UK, USSR and Poland) were responsible for the expulsions. It is claimed that the Allies chose not to punish Germany for WWII in the way that they punished Germany for WWI with the Treaty of Versailles. The accepted wisdom is that humiliating the vanquished leads to resentment and a desire for revenge. However, this principle apparently was not applied in Eastern Europe. --Richard 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that when I believe something that you believe, you are happy for it to be put into Wikipedia but when I believe something that you do not accept then you insist that it be "verified" before it is put into Wikipedia?
When I ask you to put something what I believe (and is not common knowledge) in to Wikipedia?
If you can support it with a citation from a reliable source, you can put it in. I'll work to convince the other editors to leave it in. However, it is best to say "According to reliable source A, X is true..." than to simply say "X is true". This leaves open the possibility that the opposing POV can be presented thus resulting in an NPOV treatment of the topic. --Richard 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to tell how this is different from what I've been proposing over the last week or so. However, it's not mathematical until you put numbers to it. Where are the numbers?
I think it is quite different, but I will not argue about this. I am ready to accept this is not my original idea. Regarding the numbers we need to agree. I did not put them by purpose since I knew you will option for others :).
No citation = original research = can't be inserted into Wikipedia. Plain and simple. Sorry.
Do not be sorry. When we will agree regarding the word expression we will start to fulfill the xxx and yyy and zzz. It will be much easier and constructive work already. I also agreed with Lysy option [2] with the exception of section [3].
I don't know what to make of these version links. What specifically did you like about the "Lysy option" and what did you not like about the "Poland" section? --Richard 14:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you say Richard? You skipped the point at “Review 30Jan07” part.
Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to. Please be more specific.--Richard 14:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This Article for Those Less Passionate
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
This thing is more or less unreadable for anyone seeking a trustworthy account. I gave up about halfway through; almost every sentence reads like it's been cut down, edited through, and wrangled over for POV countless times. The end result is a wreck. "B-grade" is generous for this piece of work. It's sad to understand, looking at the edits history, how much time has gone into this article and what's actually been accomplished in terms of presenting something useful and reliable. I don't get this endless patience for editors with an agenda - just block those who won't compromise and make a few reverts by someone without an emotional investment. P.S. Countries don't pay reparations because of what's on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.91.17 (talk • contribs)
Nice idea but that's not the way Wikipedia works. If you think you can write something more useful, reliable and neutral, you are welcome to create an account and write a draft in your userspace. You can then invite us to review and comment on your draft.
Otherwise, this back-and-forth pushing and pulling is the nature of collaborative Wikipedia. This isn't the best written article but I've seen worse. Heck, this article was much worse a year ago.
I fear the anonymous editor is - at least partly - right. I recently tried to go through the article and had the same impression. For example the caption of the photo of the grave: Neglected German graveyard west of Warsaw (Note that the family of the deceased are free to arrange exhumation or organize other care)
What the heck?
I know, Richard, you have worked very hard on this article and surely for the better! But for some outsider the article might seem poorly written. Perhaps its an inevitable side affect for fiercly debated article like this one. --Splette :)How's my driving? 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What the heck - why the Neglected German graveyard west of Warsaw photo?
Xx236 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Richard's edits are not that problem, he worked hardly and is open for other opinions. Problem why this is protected is because of numerous additional harmful notices (little but big). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I don't like the "neglected German graveyard" photo either. The caption is atrocious but that's just one POV pushing against the POV that put the photo there in the first place. I would argue for removing the photo and its caption.
I would agree with you Richard, although the original caption did not imply that the people are not allowed to come back and fix the graveyard, but I think more denotes how long it has been since the expulsion took place. I am all for removing the picture.
I have originally included the photo, as I thought it illustrates the situation and was a good example of what remained of German tradition in many places in Poland. It was not meant to imply that Poles are "bad" or similar. It would be easy to find a picture of graves in a worse (or better) state if I had any agenda. Unfortunately, after some time I've tried to compromise on the caption with the both ways pov-pushers but failed, hence the current form. I'm happy to remove the photo, as it obviously causes more controversy than needed, and its message and information value is apparently not clear. --Lysytalk 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm fine with giving the article a complete rewrite if someone wants to take it on. I did quite a dramatic restructuring of this article back in May 2006. I don't claim that what I wrote was the perfect, final version. However, I don't have the energy to take on another rewrite right now. If anyone wants to try it, be my guest.
The problem that we have to bear in mind is that there are a lot of editors (some who have hung around for over a year and some transitory) who have strong POVs on this topic.
This article, IMHO, should be as much about the controversy of the last two decades as it is about the actual events of 60 years ago.
I don't believe that POVs are inherently bad. As an inclusionist, my approach to POVs is that all POVs should be included although not all POVs should be given equal weight. It is difficult to craft and negotiate NPOV resolutions to each issue. In many instances where the facts are obscured by time and the absence of records, I do not believe there is a "single truth" that can be asserted as incontrovertible fact.
Thus, I don't believe this article should reflect only the German POV or the Polish POV but instead it should reflect both POVs so that the reader can come to an objective understanding of all sides of the controversy.
The discussion about the numbers isn't between Poles and Germans, but rather between German historians. Which of those two points of view is the German POV?
The discussion here isn't between Poles and Germans, but is caused by a Canadian Prussian.
There existed Communist propaganda, e.g. the Polish one in an academic way described in "Die fremde Stadt. Breslau 1945" by Gregor Thum. Communist isn't equal to Polish.
Germany doesn't have a collective mind Xx, so there is not one "German POV", in Germany, people are allowed to think freely, unlike in the communist regimes, that still have influences on the people of those nations today (just look at Putin's rule).
Wow, that could be such a huge insult and personal attack, especially since my ancestors are from Pfalz and not Prussia or any Hohenzollern lands, and they came to the New World before Prussia annexed the region (all of that information being available on my userpage). But I will be the bigger man here and not resort to personal attacks, this discussion page has become tit-for-tat and it is getting rather childish. So, I will turn the other cheek... any more racist insults you have for me Xx?
P.S. why did you delete half of your statement? biting your tongue? or maybe you realized the family might not visit the gravesite because they all died in the expulsion, answering that question perfectly. (see the edit history for what I am talking about in Xx's statement)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
1) I don't know what to make of these version links. What specifically did you like about the "Lysy option" and what did you not like about the "Poland" section? --Richard 14:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The introduction fragment from version #101337649 looks for me OK. Is not offensive – there is no suggestion about none specific crimes against humanity. (Always and every time putting total blame or suggestions such kind of is offensive).
What I dislike in the version #101337649 is the fragment see: [4] This fragment needs complete rewriting from start to end.
Please use copy-and-paste to present text here on the Talk Page. It's very disconcerting to look at text via links because the whole article ispresented and I don't know what fragment you think needs "complete rewriting from start to end".
2) Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to. Please be more specific.
I mention that you did not perceived the fragment: “Regarding the introduction for the article – but only the introduction – proposed by Lysy [47] I agree it is quite OK. Nevertheless the section Poland [48] needs to be revised against provocative suggestions and switches. Mainly I refer to Naimark interpretations and interpretations of his interpretations.” in [5]
I confess that I have ignored the entire Naimark discussion because it was making my head hurt and I wanted to focus on the "number of deaths" controversy. I'll go back and read the discussion and form an opinion. --Richard 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This was exactly the same subject as in point 1) anyway.
3) Thus, I don't believe this article should reflect only the German POV or the Polish POV but instead it should reflect both POVs so that the reader can come to an objective understanding of all sides of the controversy.
I think the article should be objective in first place. Also I think it should be as much uncomplicated as possible - just the essence. At least the introduction should be as short and simple as possible – providing only the most important and unquestionable points. If reader really needs considering controversies these controversies must not be fire up from start.
I only partly agree. The introduction should be short and simple but I have come to believe that it is not possible to divorce this topic from controversy. I think the intro should state (as it now does) that there are a number of controversies (without getting into the details of each controversy). --Richard 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
02Feb07 #2
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Please use copy-and-paste to present text here on the Talk Page. It's very disconcerting to look at text via links because the whole article ispresented and I don't know what fragment you think needs "complete rewriting from start to end".
Starting from less important. I am against the fragment:
Polish enclave in Emsland
An enclave of Polish military existed in Emsland from 1945-1947 with the centre in Haren, called Maczków. A number of Germans were transferred to make room for the Poles. Polish-German marriages were quite popular among soldiers.
This was temporary settlement and has nothing to with the real expulsion on East. I believe also English and Americans did some expulsions to settle their military bases and military staff in Germany. I am not discussing the historical facts. It is just confusing inconsistent patch. I do not think there were some Germans murdered. On other hand, I imagine, it would not be fair to allow Poles from Labor camps (it should be probably Death Camps) and prisoner-of-war camps to live in field conditions for two years while the Germans could accommodate locally with their compatriots. Most probably no harm was done.
More important is the fragment:
”In 1945, the former German Silesian, Pommeranian and East-Prussian territories were occupied by Polish and Russian military forces. Early expulsions in Poland were undertaken by the Polish communist military authorities already before the Potsdam Conference. To ensure their incorporation to Poland, the Polish communists ordered that Germans were to be expelled by whatever means necessary. [6] Germans were defined as either Reichsdeutsche, people enlisted in 1st or 2nd Volksliste groups, and those of the 3rd group, who held German citizenship.
The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal. According to a Soviet report, the Polish military "related to German women as to free booty". [6] Historians disagree as to the number of Germans deported during this phase of expulsion. The estimates range from 300 thousand to 500 thousand people.[citations needed] Many Germans evacuated during the war weren't allowed to return to their homes.”
It has to be rewritten completely. But you see, I already agreed in past that it can done in second step. First is the introduction of the article to be accepted.
I confess that I have ignored the entire Naimark discussion because it was making my head hurt and I wanted to focus on the "number of deaths" controversy. I'll go back and read the discussion and form an opinion.
But the same time you overlook the introduction subject.
I only partly agree. The introduction should be short and simple but I have come to believe that it is not possible to divorce this topic from controversy.
It is almost impossible but we can be very close to that if we will sustain with pure mathematic and logic. I will look on the 2005 Haaar book for some numbers and justification. I agree with you that in introduction can/should be the sentence about controversies. However there can be a link(s) only to section where the controversies are discussed.
I think the intro should state (as it now does) that there are a number of controversies (without getting into the details of each controversy).
I agree. Now we have the problem about the frame for xxx, yyy, zzz, numbers. Will you revise the note as given on 01Feb07 for Richard #2? Next we all, I think, can look for the sources and x, y, z’s.
If you haven't realized already, no one takes heed of a known vandal who is evading his block. what are you planning on accomplishing here besides the extension of your block?
Don't throw out all his edits an bloc. You don't know for sure it is Serafin. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, first assume good faith. Second, even if it is Serafin, is the current discussion the kind of disruptive behavior for which you would request a block? If not, then let us discuss the article in a way that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies, ignoring past offenses. If the discussion improves the article and/or improves an editor's understanding of Wikipedia policies, then it is worth having. --Richard 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we do know it is Serafin, as check the edit history, the anon IP being used is his most commonly used one, and click on it to view the sockpuppet warning and some discussion on his vandalism. Also, as I have cited before, he has stated to users that he will do everything in his power to have this article protected again once it has been unprotected. I agree, if he starts compromising and stops calling people Nazis or deniers, then sure, I would listen to him.
when he stops making comments like this: "Sir! I am Polish I now the history of ages of German expansion to East and Polish defenses. I know the character of Germans." perhaps he could be taken more seriously, but claiming that all Germans have the same character, and indeed pretending that Germans have spent their history attacking Poland is totally unacceptable.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Another interesting piece of the Original Research could be to see what was the percentage of the civilian deaths in each of the regions. Than this could be compared to different activities that happened in different areas, to yield some correlation between the actions and the death toll. An Original Research, as I said. E.g. the "wild" expulsions prevailed in the areas near Oder, while the evacuation and flight could be a major factor in East Prussia. Yes, I know it's not that simple but that's the general idea. --Lysytalk 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Cease and desist! There is no room for OR in Wikipedia. However, we should ask if there is no one who has done this sort of analysis. Instead of trying to do OR, we should go "hit the books" and find out what work has been done by reliable sources.
--Richard 08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sudetenland
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Just a note :) In 1938 hundreds thousands czech people were forced to leave Sudetenland, nobody took care about their property or life. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
where are your sources Tulko? that is pure conjecture! I am referring to the "no one cared part", not questioning whether they were also expelled. And over all, what is the relevance? besides perhaps that if the Czechs were expelled before the war, then it shows intentional landgrabbing by the victors by giving the czechs land they had been forced out of and none of them lived in. One could use that same reasoning to justify Germany taking back the "recovered territories" now, they were forced out a number of years before, so why not give it back to them now? that's the same reasoning.
Ugh. I don't want to even touch Jadger's response with a 10-foot pole. However, I do think Tulkolahten's comment is hyperbolic. It's clear that the Allies didn't want to give the Sudetenland to the Nazis. If my recollection is correct, this bit of appeasement diplomacy was the result of Chamberlain going to Munich and coming back saying that he had achieved "peace in our time" by giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. Of course, he had achieved no such thing and now everyone evokes the memory of Munich as an example of "appeasement does not work". (Unfortunately, the most recent use of this metaphor was the neocons in the U.S. casting Saddam Hussein as Hitler.)
Thus, I think it is extreme to say that "no one cared". I think there was a deliberate calculus that said "Better to impose suffering on a few Czechs than to risk a world war". Similarly, I think the Allies said "Better to impose suffering on 16 million Germans than to risk continuing civil unrest between ethnic minorities with unsettled scores from World War II."
Thus, I gather that, as a result of the expulsions, Poland is more or less homegeneously Polish as presumably the Czech Republic and Slovakia. (Question: What percent of the Czech Republic is Slovak and what percent of Slovakia is Czech?). For better or worse, this kind of ethnic homogeneity has probably allowed these nations to avoid confronting the difficulties of a multi-ethnic society.
Only wanted to note that asking what percent of Slovakia is Czech or vice versa may be not of much relevance here, as there are no serious frictions between the two nations. --Lysytalk 07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It should not be an offensive comment, see that smile. Just a note, because I think a few people know about that. Richard that's not possible to check, our languages are almost same with very little differences only so it's very easy for czech to live in slovakia and vice versa. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not meaning to vindicate the Nazi expulsions of Czechs, but simply stating two wrongs don't make a right. also Tulko, when I talk about people being expelled from their homes, raped, murdered and committing suicide, I don't usually smile or laugh, I guess I'm just lacking the same amount of Schadenfreude that you have :)
I think you misunderstood Tulkolahten. He was referring to Czech/Slovak relationships and I don't think that Slovaks raped and murdered Czechs or the other way round. This is getting way off topic, anyway. --Lysytalk 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Jadger, you are going too far in your comments I must agree with Xx236. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note :) In 1938 hundreds thousands czech people were forced to leave Sudetenland, nobody took care about their property or life. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is interesting. If the ZgV in so called Center against Expulsion found a place for the forced expulsion of Czechs from Sudetenland in 1938. The ZgV pretends to be a voice of world conscience regarding all expulsions.
Thus, I gather that, as a result of the expulsions, Poland is more or less homegeneously Polish as presumably the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Richard 04:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This is right. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and other countries become much more nationally homogeneous as a result of expulsions. The idea of expulsion appeared because the so called “Fifth Column” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column see: “Usage”.
Jadger, you are going too far in your comments I must agree with Xx236. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
| :))))) I obviously agree with Xx236 and Tulkolahten.
So I'm the one that doesn't smile when talking about people being murdered, and I'm the one out of line? Not to mention this is totally off-topic discussion.
P.S. well, the title being Sudetenland, and the year given being 1938, I assumed he meant the Nazis expelled them after the Munich Agreement. how did this get about Czech-Slovak relations?
And in what way do you agree with Xx? you agree with his personal attack upon me that I am a "Canadian Prussian" or do you agree that it is strategic for him to call foul on me after he personally attacks me? And FYI 131, when you throw your support behind someone else, your record automatically hurts there credibility.
Jadger, let me remind you that you are the only one who did not provide any source. When we requested one you told us "oh, I don't remember where that book is etc. etc." I don't buy this. We all provided sources to support our statements, but you did not. I think this is the point of credibility... I am concerned by rising revisionism I think it is not good ... aggressors are becoming to be a victims and victims are becoming to be an evil cruel aggressors ... Such amount of cruelty scares me. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you will read again, I said I could not cite it specifically as I do not have the book in my possession, but gave you a link to the wikipedia article which references it and gives its ISBN number. and then I paraphrased of what it stated. It's funny that you call ME revisionist, when I am the one sticking to the actual estimates already cited in the article.
Do I have to write in bolded letters so you can read what I type now? as you seem to skip over a lot? I will help you out and copy the reference from the wikipedia article I had linked to before. The Blond Knight of Germany by Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable, McGraw-Hill, 1986. ISBN0-8306-8189-2 Both the authors are US airforce veterans, and are very experienced and knowledgeable people on the subject.
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It's my fault for introducing the question about Czech and Slovak relations by asking about percentages in each country.
I recognize that it is a digression from the main topic but as I was writing about Poland and Czechoslovakia being ethnically homogeneous after the expulsions, I started wondering if there was a "population transfer" after the splitup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. To the extent that there was any, it must have been relatively peaceful.
While we are here: I doubt if there were any significant expulsions of Germans from Slovakia. As for the splitup it was peaceful and as far as I know the two nations are in very close and friendly relations. As for its homogeneity, Slovakia has significant Hungarian and Roma minorities and there have been concerns about mistreatment of these. --Lysytalk 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I got the Ingo Haar (2005) "German Scholars and Ethnic Cleansing 1920-1945." Unfortunately here is practically nothing about Flight and Expulsion. The book is about some "scientists" supporting Nazis and the racist theories in the time 1920-1945.
I could possibly get the other books of Haar and Overmans if they are on the N America continent somewhere, however I need to know the effort will be fruitful. Are you sure there would be some table with expulsion numbers? My German and time does not allow me to read whole book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs)
No, I am not sure there will be a table with expulsion numbers. However, without such a table, the total numbers are suspect even if they do come from such reliable sources as Haar and Overmans. If we are to use them to cast doubt on the Statistisches Bundesamt/ZgV numbers, we need to be sure that we are comparing apples to apples. Just at a very high level, there is the question of whether we should compare 400,000-500,000 against 2.2 million or whether the arithmetic is (500,000 + 600,000 = 1.1million). I believe this latter calculus is the one proposed by Overmans. But where's the citation?
I have to believe that one or both of these scholars have published data to support their assertions even if they are data collected and tabulated by other researchers.
The reason the Wikipedia articles currently use the Statistisches Bundesamt/ZgV tables is because those tables were the most comprehensive data that was readily available on the Web. If someone can provide similar tables from another reliable source (e.g. Haar and/or Overmans), we would be glad to include them. With sufficient support, we can even cast the ZgV tables as based on an obsolete and discredited analysis by the Statistisches Bundesamt. But we need sources that say this. Some of the magazine articles that have been presented on this Talk Page are a good start but it would be far better to cite a scholarly work by Haar or Overmans directly. Even without tabular data, a direct quote from or a good summary of the scholarly article would be the ideal thing to make the point.--Richard 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What I perceive, the discussion leads to nothing. Nobody even Richard accepted the Lysy proposal for version #101337649. What about the simplified "mathematical" introduction on other hand? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs)
No. While I agree that this calculus is probably correct, we cannot include it if it has sprung from the minds of any of us or even all of us. It MUST be sourced to a verifiable and reliable source. Those are Wikipedia policies. --Richard 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Naimark
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
If anyone has the time to go to the library, I expect this book should offer some insights.
The book offers also the insight into author's bias - the selection of the cleansings. BTW - why economic and religious victims are generally ignored? It's POV.
Xx236 11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And as always, expulsion of czech people from sudetes in 1938 after the munich agreement is also omitted. Not good enough for their shop ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Xx236 , when you sport a scholarly degree in history, then I’ll take your allegations that Naimarks work is POV seriously. Especially if you then also show any kind of evidence of actually seriously having tried looked into the subject matter. Had you done so you’d known that the book is based on five case studies, and is NOT an attempt to describe all expulsions --minor and greater-- that took place in the 20th century.
In the meanwhile I’ll rely on reliable scholarly review-sources to gain an insight of the value of Naimarks work.
I'm criticizing Naimark's attitude toward the expulsion Germans from Poland (and probably other Communist countries), because he applies his theory ignoring basic facts:
From the H-net text:
"Naimark directs attention to the role of political elites in instigating ethnic cleansing, and of bureaucrats and technical professionals in organizing its implementation". The problem is that the majority of the Polish elites, bureaucrats and technical professionals died or were forced to emigrate during the war or didn't have any impact on the politics. The expulsion was a part of the social revolution. Polish landlords were also expelled, inside Poland. Even withouth the expulsion, all German landlords, almost all farmers and company owners would have been robbed and maybe transferred, frequently imprisoned after 1948.
From Naimark:
"Ethnic cleansing, driven by the ideology of integral nationalism" - sure, of the one of the Lublin puppet government. Stalin might have been using some Polish nationalists before they became imprisoned, but his ideology wasn't certainly nationalistic, maybe pragmatic.
The Communist state robbed the Germans to construct the Communism - mostly the war industry.
"ethnic cleansing is deeply misogynistic" - certainly yes, but many Polish women were also the victims. Many German women married Polish men, mostly under Roman-Catholic law. Was it possible in a "deeply misogynistic" situation?
Goldhagen has a degree, does it make his theories true?
Xx236 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight Xx, a German politician's criticism about a historian according to you is not admissable because he is a politician and not a expert historian. But a Czech politician's criticism of another historian is? isn't that a little hypocritical?
I quote here that he quotes historian Tomáš Staněk. You may read works by Tomáš Staněk, to have your own opinion. I even give the title of Naimark's antipolish article. I call it cooperation rather than hypocrisy. Xx236 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Naimark - let's start with a clean slate
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Can someone try to state what the controversy is over Naimark? What is the text in the article that is objectionable and why? --Richard 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Because I was focusing earlier on the "number of deaths" controversy with 131, I didn't focus on the discussion about Naimark when it started a few weeks ago and I still don't completely understand what it's about. I think it's about a phrase "by any means necessary". Presumably some people want to remove it and others want it kept.
1) Can someone direct me to the place in the article where this phrase is used?
2) Can we define this debate as a choice between two revisions: one with text A and the other with text B?
This article has been protected for an excessively long time and I think we should work towards a consensus rather than continuing to throw arguments and references back and forth at teach other.
Perhaps some of you prefer arguing to editing. I don't.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In my opinion there are some arbitrary interpretations of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Potsdam Conference (Potsdam Protocol) - i.e. the paper where you can read the decisions the Allies made in Potsdam 17 July to 2 August 1945:
The Allies didn't establish the border between Poland and Germany. Several times they emphasized in Potsdam that an oncoming peace conference would have to decide definitely on this subject. Furthermore Truman (USA) stated on 25 July 1945 that all decisions made in Potsdam have to be agreed by the U.S. Senate.
In principle, the Potsdam Conference didn't approve of the expulsions of the Germans but wanted to bring it under the control of the Allied Control Council. So the Potsdam Protocol places emphasis on stopping the expulsions:
"The Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary are at the same time being informed of the above and are being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions pending an examination by the Governments concerned of the report from their representatives on the Control Council." (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade17.htm)
Well, creating "ethnically homogeneous nation states" by "removing the ethnic minorities that were viewed as troublesome" was an idea in that time to solve ethnically problems.
But Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia had been integral parts of Germany and the population there was overwhelmingly German. Poles had definitely been a minority group.
If acting on the maxim of “creating “ethnically homogeneous nation states” had really been decisive for what was implemented after the war – as often asserted, not the Germans of Silesia, Pomerania or East Prussia ought to have been transferred.
It would have been sufficient to exchange German minority in Poland and Polish minority in Germany.
I think this is much more what the (Western) Allies had in mind in Potsdam.
The facts are: The occupation of the concerning German territory and pegging out the Oder-Neisse line had already been done before the Potsdam Conference – by Soviet and Polish authorities.
So, the expulsion of German population was just means to an end to create accomplished facts: The intention for the expulsion of the East Germans was mainly making irreversible the annexation of German territory.
Pretty the same what German Nazis intended to do on Poland…
The U. S. etc. – from my point of view – are just to blame for “looking the other way”.
Wikiferdi 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty the same what German Nazis intended to do on Poland… - they didn't only intend, they did do quite much of it.
You method is a classical one - to take a fact from the historical context. The Potsdam Conference was the third one. I don't care much what the US presidents gave to Stalin and what they neglected - the result was as it was - 45 years of Soviet occupation of Poland.
Xx236 12:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The German Autorities tried to germanice the Polish. My father was fighting with several Polish soldiers on the German side, so the German did not expell the Polish they wanted more to make germans out of them while the Polish together with the Russian planned in follow up of the Polish goverment between the war to expell the Germans to a border they believed was the Polish boder of the middle age. That is like the Mexican would expell all American from the east of the Missouri Missisibi only because it was some years part of spain.
Johann
Don't be ridiculous. Literally hundreds of thousands of Poles _were_ expelled. A total number is something like a million. Poles expelled from Poznan area, Silesia, Pomerania, from military poligons, from Zamojszczyzna... Somehow, none in Germany talks much about that. Szopen 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean you should know in the German Pomerania ( witch is not the same district like the Polish -where living 6000 Polisch people before the war) . In the former German areas ( border 1914 ) lived about 4,5 Million people of witch probably up to 900.000 where German. So there a about 3,5 Million Polisch the most of them living in the industrial Area of Slesia where it is very unlikly that the Germans expelled too many of them because that was one of the most importend areas for produktion in the second world war. Also it not known how many whent to work by them selfe in the cities. When I but the industriel areas away there are 1,5 Million polnish people witch could have been expelled from this areas. That would mean the germans would have practikl expelled each Polish livig on the countryside in this area. Sorry some Hundert tausend is likly a Million shurly not. And some hundert tausend people mooved in the war is stadly happening and not a special action againt the polish. Look in Irak or Afgahnistan.
Johann
Richard 09Feb07
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No. While I agree that this calculus is probably correct, we cannot include it if it has sprung from the minds of any of us or even all of us. It MUST be sourced to a verifiable and reliable source. Those are Wikipedia policies.
Yes I absolutely agree with this. It must be sourced. Every number of it, however we need to know for what kind of number we should look for. Some start had been done at “Demographic estimates” [6]
believe this latter calculus is the one proposed by Overmans. But where's the citation?
Rűdiger Overmans. “Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg.” Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN3-486-56531-1 – [This book I will have]
The reason the Wikipedia articles currently use the Statistisches Bundesamt/ZgV tables is because those tables were the most comprehensive data that was readily available on the Web.
Yes the ZgV obviously take care to spread their staff. This is their invocation to do so.
Even without tabular data, a direct quote from or a good summary of the scholarly article would be the ideal thing to make the point.
I could not found a Haar’s book. Can somebody help with the title and year id edition. Only what I found is: “In November 2006, Deutschlandfunk published an interview with Ingo Haar, entitled "Historian: Federation of expellees names wrong numbers of victims" [9]. The article is some source also but it is not the expected book.
Naimark?
The Atlantic review by Benjamin Schwarz is good. :) : “A lot is wrong with the book: …”
I agree, good review :-) "Revealing,....,deserves a wider readership". "But Naimark's book is significant because it contains the most easily accessible detailed account of the worst instance of ethnic cleansing in postwar Europe: the expulsion of about 11.5 million ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, which claimed the lives of as many as 2.5 million."--Stor stark7Talk 11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Because I was focusing earlier on the "number of deaths" controversy with 131, I didn't focus on the discussion about Naimark when it started a few weeks ago and I still don't completely understand what it's about. I think it's about a phrase "by any means necessary". Presumably some people want to remove it and others want it kept. 1) Can someone direct me to the place in the article where this phrase is used?
Here you are [10] It is also: “The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal.” – this is even Ninmark’s words anyway. “According to a Soviet report, the Polish military "related to German women as to free booty". – this need to be considered with original text and with Naimark biased attempts. Exact copy of the half page “source” you have here:
“The desperate situation for German women in Silesia was in general exacerbated by the Poles, whose "desire for retribution" was often as intense--for very understandable reasons--as that of the Russians. More often than not, the incoming Polish authorities were even less concerned about the safety of German women than were the Russian officers, to whom the German population turned for protection. After all the Silesian territories had been turned over by the Allies to Polish occupation, but not yet to incorporation into the new Poland. Orders went out from the Polish communists to expel Germans by whatever means necessary, to ensure incorporation as well as occupation.(31) As a result, the Polish administration of the new territories made little effort to protect local Germans from the deprivations of Polish or Russian rapists and thieves.(32) In a city like Breslau, the Germans fear of the Russians was quickly replaced by fear of the Poles. In fact, it was almost too much for the Germans to survive the Russian attacks only to have the Poles persecute them once again. "The Germans in Breslau," wrote the city’s antifascist group, "are steadily being spiritually being driven into the ground [gehen langsam seelisch zu Grunde]."(33) Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behavior. Polish soldiers stated one report, "relate to German women as to free booty."(34)
2) Can we define this debate as a choice between two revisions: one with text A and the other with text B?
I already agreed with that twice or three times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
TO Wikiferdi:
But Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia had been integral parts of Germany and the population there was overwhelmingly German. Poles had definitely been a minority group.
Take for consideration:
1) This territories were originally part Old Polish Kingdom. German Empire systematically offended Poland by ages.
2) Poland was attacked by Germany on 1 Sep1939 and lost enormous number of people and economy
3) The East Polish territories were sized by Russian, in fact Poland become 20% smaller after WW II
4) For ages the Germans proved that peaceful coexistence with Polish population is impossible
5) Finally, the final border agreement between Poland and post World War II Germany was signed on 14 November 1990 and ended the German territorial claims.
It would have been sufficient to exchange German minority in Poland and Polish minority in Germany. I think this is much more what the (Western) Allies had in mind in Potsdam.
Yes and left aggressor untouched and victim with 1/3 of the original size. GOOD idea.
The facts are: The occupation of the concerning German territory and pegging out the Oder-Neisse line had already been done before the Potsdam Conference – by Soviet and Polish authorities.
Yes, according to the Yalta Conference direction. You should read the original Potsdam documents: [11]. And we do not discuss here Potsdam conference or if the Expulsion had sense etc. We discuss here the Flight and Expulsion as historical fact – the results of these events.
To anonymous writer
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This territories were originally part Old Polish Kingdom.
Well, in the Middle Ages, around 800 years ago - and just because Poland conquered it by brute force.
Can you explain what you taking about. Since I think you have no idea about history. Brutal force against whom? From II century the territories was most probably empty. How Slavic tribes were consolidate is actually supposition and not German business the 1000 years after.
Well, let us speak just about Silesia. Silesia originally (10th century) belonged to Bohemia - Přemyslid dynasty when Polish rulers conquered Silesia by brute force. Silesia remained for some time an "apple of discord" between "Poland" and Bohemia - until it found its feet (around 13th). At the end of the 13th century Silesia was considered as "German territory" after Saint Hedwig of Andechs (Hedwig of Silesia), which was married to Henry I the Bearded, (not to confuse with Saint Jadwiga of Poland) had called German settlers to (Lower) Silesia - which was - as you have mentioned - "most probably empty". (Not to ignore: Until the 13th century there was scarcely a sense of togetherness within "Polish people".) - So German people were the first people who settled definitely in Silesia. This was a peaceful settling. This German people (and their offspring respectively) remained there until 20th century when Poland/Stalin expelled them from there by brute force.
German people instead had settled there peacefully.
Teutonic knights and Prussian aggression as a example :))) be serious I will die laughing.
Around 700 years Silesia for example hadn't belonged to Poland. It was one of the most stable borders in Europe!
Ye :)) up to 1 Sept 1939. Why Germans broke the border and the peace everybody know.
Poland was attacked by Germany on 1 Sep1939 and lost enormous number of people and economy
Because of this obvious injustice it was right to do another injustice? - Please catch up on the human rights.
Injustice is when criminal do not pay for his crime.
The Potsdam Conference decided that Poland has to get reparation from Germany - "The U. S. S. R. undertakes to settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations." (cf. Potsdam Conference)
The East Polish territories were sized by Russian, in fact Poland become 20% smaller after WW II
This East Polish had been occupied by Poland after World War I - contrary to the "Curzon-Line" - defined by the Allies then.
Look for definition of "Curzon-Line". This was only demarcation line. Borders of Polish-Lithuanian Union (very peacefully made) were fare more even than Polish border before WW II. Beside territories of present Ukraine and Belarus never belonged to Russia before were sized from Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenians Union. All is OK to make Poland smaller, yes? :)) Take you a balance. Do not argue in this way. You show no concern about justice at all. All you want is make Germany bigger.
The Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenians Union was a confederation - which means it wasn't "just Polish", and so Poland hadn't the right to conquer it by brute force after World War I - to make Poland bigger.
To the rest: Yes, of course, all Polish people had been and always will be just victims and no Pole has ever been a perpetrator.
Most of the time Poland was a victim for at least two reason: 1) It was smaller nation between two super powers. 2) In general Polish (generally Slavs) people show much less aggression then Germans for example. [Saying Slavs I do not mean Tsars - who they were by blood you should know]
Excuse me, in which world do you live, whoever you are? Wikiferdi 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not leaving in you dream. Wake up and study history.
Sorry that is only the 19 century you realy should study he polish history.
Polen was a huge country biger than Germany and for a long time from 1450 to 1700 more powerful than Germany. Several times in history Poland was agressiv in the inner clonialisation and polonisation of either Ukrainians witch braught the Russian on the plan and let to the polish downfall or against Germans. In the early middleage against pagan slawic peolpe, witch was the reason they joined the German Holy empire ( Pomerania) ore the kingdom of Bohemia ( Slesia)
Between the I and II Second WW Poland was specialy brutal agianst the German minority and that several times. This brutality was one factor witch made Hitler in Germany so strong. Johann
To Wikiferdi
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, in the Middle Ages, around 800 years ago - and just because Poland conquered it by brute force. German people instead had settled there peacefully. Around 700 years Silesia for example hadn't belonged to Poland. It was one of the most stable borders in Europe!
Yeah, Poland conquered it by brute force in the 800 A.D, veeeery bad Poland. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent Polish publication on the expulsions
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Some info that might merit inclusion in the article, especially since it comes from Poland and thus is less susceptible to Polish accusations of "bias".
Bernadetta Nitschke[12]. Vertreibung und Aussiedlung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus Polen 1945 bis 1949. Translated from Polish by Stephan Niedermeier. HNET-review
Intresting datums that should be included in the article:
3 phases to the expulsion, 1. Wild 2. After Potsdam 3. “organised transfer”.
Germans forced to wear special armbands. (similar to yellow stars?)
Germans used as forced labor by Poland.
Up to 1.1 Million died in the expulsions from what became the territory of “post war” Poland.
Extracts.
Chapter Two also sketches the conditions facing the five million Germans remaining in reconstituted Poland in 1945. Though the degree of mistreatment varied widely, Germans were often humiliated, forced to wear special armbands, denied access to public transportation, and sent off to camps and forced labor.
During a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945, the Polish military drove up to 400,000 Germans across Poland's new western border. Though apparently inspired by a similar expulsion frenzy in Czechoslovakia, Poles were neither as brutal nor as thorough as their Czech counterparts.
The second wave of expulsions came after the Potsdam conference, but before the "organized transfer" of remaining Germans began in early 1946. From August to December, 1945, Poles expelled close to 600,000 more Germans in poorly organized transports. Thousands starved and froze to death in slow and ill-equipped trains. (picture from another site) The final phase involved the transfer of 2.25 million Germans in a process coordinated with British and Soviet authorities in occupied Germany in 1946 and 1947. Many still died on route, but conditions were far better than those in 1945.
Nitschke is particularly interested in establishing the numbers of expellees, and her conclusions (drawing from a wealth of regional studies) confirm the estimates of leading German scholars.[2] Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died.
…coming from the Polish side of the discussion on the expulsions, it is an important contribution towards finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath.
Extract from a review of another intresting book, this time German in origins but drawing on Polish sources HNET review
“The editors also show some concern, probably misplaced, that readers might take the language of Polish officials too much at face value. One introduction, for example, takes pains to emphasize the deplorable conditions in labor and transit camps, even including one expellee's rather overwrought equating of the camp at Sikawa with Auschwitz (p. 56)”
Thank you Stor stark7 for this reference. It's good to appreciate all efforts for finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath.
But as the title already foreshadows you can find the same usual stuff about the expulsion of East Germans in this book, too.
"Vertreibung aus Polen" means "Expulsion from Poland" - this is the thread in the whole book.
Well, Nitschke doesn't take great pains to clarify this item academically. She accepts this term without raising an objection.
As mentioned above ("Read the Potsdam Protocol"), East Germany remained in the sovereignty of Germany after World War II. Poland only got the right to administrate that German regions ("so that it is not part of the Soviet occupation zone", cf. Potsdam Protocol) until a peace conference where the borders should be established. In spite of everything what Poland/Stalin did to incorporate definitely this regions into Poland (and eventually in the Soviet hemisphere) - actually this was against law of nations.
Nitschke more or less ignores this sticking point of the expulsions of the East Germans - in my opinion this is inexcusable for an author who is pretending to be a scholar.
Wikiferdi 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Info on the reasons for the expulsions
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is to be found here
"Anglo-American Responsibility for the Expulsion of the Germans, 1944-48" by ALFRED DE ZAYAS
On 18 October 1945 General Eisenhower sent a telegram to Washington:
"In Silesia Polish administration and methods are causing a mass exodus westward of German inhabitants.... Many unable to move are placed in camps on meagre rations and under poor sanitary conditions. Death and disease rate in camps extremely high. Germans who attempt to hold onto homes and land are terrorized into "voluntary" evacuation. Methods used by Poles definitely do not conform to Potsdam agreement.... Due to mass migration into Brandenburg and Saxony, health conditions in these regions tragically low.... Reasonable estimates predict between 2 1/2 and 3 million victims of malnutrition and disease between Oder and Elbe by next spring. Breslau death rate increased ten fold, and death rate reported to be 75% of all births. Typhoid, typhus, dysentery and diphtheria are spreading.... Attention is invited in this connection to serious danger of epidemic of such great proportion as to menace all Europe, including our troops, and to probability of mass starvation of unprecedented scale."
--Stor stark7Talk 13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
More info on Polish-Communist concentration camps and forced labor
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of germans that were killed.
HNET review ...hundreds of thousands of Germans either ended up in internment facilities, performed forced labor on farms, or were deported to distant parts of the Soviet Union, where they worked in labor camps. In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed... ...six main facilities: Glaz, Milecin, Potulitz, Gronowo, Jaworzno, and Sikawa. Generally by 1950, these Germans were placed on transports that brought them to facilities near the German-Polish border,
Martha Kent described her experiences as an ethnic German child interned in the camp Potulitz/Potulice near Bromberg (now Bydgoszsc in Poland). In March 1945, when Kent was five years old, the family was taken into captivity near the city of Bromberg. Despite difficulties, the parents and children were able to remain together as forced laborers on a farm. Then two years later, they were separated and moved to different locations and labor camps; at this time, at the age of seven, Kent moved to Potulitz.
She describes in a very open, child-like fashion, and without even a hint of bitterness, the lice, diseases, living conditions, interactions with other prisoners and guards, and the fact that death was such a common experience in the camp that when her mother was sent away for several months to perform hard labor at a prison, Kent was certain she had died and would never be seen again. She describes her perception at the time: "If people disappeared, then they were dead. Whoever was dead, never came back" (p. 73). Remarkably, despite the living and working conditions, the separation of almost all family members, and the efforts of local authorities to claim the children as Polish, Kent's immediate family not only survived the experience, but even managed to stay in contact and leave Poland together in summer 1949.
Documentary
The few sources that are now coming to light are showing that until the dissolving of the camps in 1950, more than 100,000 Germans, mostly in Upper Silesia, West Prussia and close to Lodz, were imprisoned. Most of them were women and children, as the men had retreated with the military to the west, or were already in prisoner-of-war camps. At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger.
The Telegraph.co.uk
Czeslaw Geborski, the accused, is said to have systematically raped, tortured and murdered German civilians while serving as commandant at the Lambinowice concentration camp in Silesia, where Germans living in the region were interned after the war.
A museum at the Lambinowice concentration camp commemorates the many Poles and Allied PoWs who died there at the hands of the Nazis, but makes scant mention of the thousands of Germans who subsequently suffered the same fate.
In many cases German farms were taken over by Poles and previous owners were either killed or kept on as slave labour.
In all, around 10 million Germans were expelled from their homes in the region, and it is estimated that in Poland alone, between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labour, transportation, or in concentration camps.
--Stor stark7Talk 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Concentration camp ? Do you mean something like death camp like Treblinka ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not know he mean like "death camp" but he put 6 dots in a place where was comfortable for him. The real citation is: “In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed for the purposes of housing Eastern Germans. Gradually the Polish authorities centralized the interned Germans in six main facilities: Glaz, Milecin, Potulitz, Gronowo, Jaworzno, and Sikawa.” Just small faux-pas :)
Here, death camps are called concentration camps (koncentrační tábor or koncentrák shortly) so the difference is not clear. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
in Poland alone, between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed - After months of discussion a new expert has come with 1.2 million story. If exaggerate - why only 1.2, maybe 2.5? Would you please read thousands of lines of the discussions and referred articles, before you start to teach?
The German estimate is that 60 000 - 80 000 died in 1255 camps. There are two questions -
how many did die. German data for Lamsdorf are exaggerated, so what is the quality of the data for other camps?
how many of those people died in Soviet camps in Poland? Polish communists weren't responsible for the Soviet camps.
Tulko said:Here, death camps are called concentration camps (koncentrační tábor or koncentrák shortly) so the difference is not clear. The difference is clear, I think you are the only one that confuses the two.
German data for Lamsdorf are exaggerated proof that it is exaggerated?
how many of those people died in Soviet camps in Poland? Polish communists weren't responsible for the Soviet camps. many of the camps were Polish run, we are not here to assess blame or deflect blame.
We are here to write about facts, not bashing the Poles manipulating facts.
Jadger, when I need informations I write www.google.com or www.google.de and I write, what I'm looking for. It works frequently. Why don't you cooperate but continuosly demand from me basic data available for you too?
Germans claimed that 6488 people died in the Lamsdorf camp. Director of the Museum has verified the data and reduced the number to about 1000. The German Wiki gives the number 1000, not any more 6488. What is the quality of the 60.000-80.000 estimate if the LAmsdorf estimate was so wrong? Xx236 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
could you please site a source Xx, as there are many differing sources on google, some more reliable than others. Also, when we are going to add information into an article, we need a source, you can't just provide a link to google in the references section.
"We are here to write about facts, not bashing the Poles manipulating facts." so did you just admit to manipulating facts? because I would bash anyone that manipulates facts, not just Poles and not just on wikipedia. And you seem to think I have been bashing you...
I never eat lambs, told an old wolf. Xx236 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
still not going to cite a source Xx? one must assume then that a source to back up your claims doesn't exist, and to use my father's favourite expression "you're just blowing smoke out your ass"
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
3 phases to the expulsion, 1. Wild 2. After Potsdam 3. “organized transfer”.
You forgot that before expulsion was flight.
Fine, 0. Flight. But refugees who are refused to return to their homeland are also counted as expelees, in case you had forgotten.--Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Put attention on the cite from [13] Bernadetta Nitschke “Though estimates of the dead range widely, as many as a million Germans perished during flight and expulsion from Poland in 1944-45.”
1944-1945 it was rather flight – the war was not over until 8 May 1945. It is interesting 1 million in the time
I do not see how you can draw such farfetched conclusions from that scanty sentence. But yes it is intresting. Lets follow up on that shall we. When did the Poles start the process of ethnic cleansing? I just saw that Zgoda labour camp was run by the Poles already from February 1945, well before the German surender. Then we have the surender in May 1945 (3 months later), leaving at least another 7 months for violent expulsions until the end of 1945. Since Nitschke later estimates the total dead as up to 1.1 Million, that would mean that in the years 1946-1950 100,000 were killed. Not so farfetched, but I suggest we read the actual book to see what she means. --Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Next cite from Bernadetta Nitschke :“and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280).”
This 1.1 million is – in my modest perception total casualties of the period 1944 – 47. It means 1945-47 is 100 thou.
Cite from Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe" [14]: “German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe”
Question: Are you going to blame Polish people for the 2.5 - 3 million Germans between Odder and Elbe? I am not sure if the suppositions of German observers means the numbers of deaths in fact happened. I know that in Germany and in Poland after the end of war was common starvation. I know that Americans helped West Germany in the trouble. What happened in Soviet zone - if Americans could help there I do not know. I know that for Poland was no help.
I said it was an intresting quote, and it is especially about Polish behaiviour. It is "faux pas" to lift out that single sentence and pretend that was the whole of the quote! Besides, many of the expelees had been so weakened by the expulsion that they kept on dying while in the new "stump" Germany.--Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of Germans that were killed.
It seems to be only you opinion Stor stark7. Until now nobody says so and evidently you have no proof.
Please,l you're really trying my patience here. And the sources we have been discussing? [15] "deplorable conditions in labor and transit camps". [16] "sent off to camps and forced labor." [17] "death was such a common experience in the camp.." [18] "At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger." [19] "between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labour, transportation, or in concentration camps."
Or how about the fact that a minor concentration camp such as Łambinowice, not even worthy of mentioning in the list above, manages to rack up a kill number of at least 1,000 and possibly more than 1,500 German civilians through mistreatment and diseases.[20],[21]
Or how about Zgoda labour camp, another Polish run concentration camp so small it was not mentioned in the above list. The article states that out of 6000 prisoners, of whom many were children, at least 1,855 lost their lives in this camp from February until November 1945, many because of a typhus epidemic, over 600 in August alone. The inmates were systematically maltreated and tortured.--Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed...
I do not know you mean like "death camp" but you put 6 dots in a place where was comfortable for you. The real citation is: “In postwar Poland many camps and other types of facilities existed for the purposes of housing Eastern Germans. Gradually the Polish authorities centralized the interned Germans in six main facilities: Glaz, Milecin, Potulitz, Gronowo, Jaworzno, and Sikawa.” Just small faux-pas?
Again, you're trying my patience here...--Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Kent's immediate family not only survived the experience, but even managed to stay in contact and leave Poland together in summer 1949.
At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger.
Seems to me the same result as in between the Oder and Elbe. Though it was probably longer time 1945-1950?
Regarding the The Telegraph.co.uk [22] and Czeslaw Gemborski.
Cite: “The main charge we are bringing against him is that he ordered a building in the camp to be burned down, killing 48 people. As people tried to escape the flames, he personally shot them or had them flung back inside."
This case started in 2001. Unfortunately the accused died before the court announced sentence. I say unfortunately because there was a good change to discharge the man. He was proofing successfully that the barrack was set to fire by the prisoners for the issue of escape.
Do you have any evidence for that hypothesis of yours? Czesław Gęborski got away because he was to ill, and then too dead, to face sentence.--Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In many cases German farms were taken over by Poles and previous owners were either killed or kept on as slave labour.
My humble sugestion is to calm down and do not repead a newspapar sensations. We need to consider informations from many sources and do not make harm for inocent. Do not we? Do you want to be prosecutor or editor? You forgot the cytat: “In one instance a man was sealed in a barrel in which nails had been hammered through the side.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
In my opinion the source is a reputable one. Besides, If a polish magazine can be used as source for the allegation that the Nazis made soap out of Jews in Stutthof concentration camp, then I see no problem with using a reputable english language source here. --Stor stark7Talk 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Gazeta Wyborcza quotes IPN results. not its own reasearch. Probably any Polish newspaper quoted the same results, one can crosscheck the articles if he/she doesn't believe.
here is one of many English language summaries of the same text: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=286046&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/ Is it good enough? If you put human soap into Google, you become may of them. But you prefer to complain.
BTW - your summary is your own creation. The Stutthof victims of winter 1944/1945 weren't Jewish only.Xx236 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"were either killed" - how many such cases have been documented? Xx236 12:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(#2) 11Feb207 Stor stark7
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Fine, 0. Flight. But refugees who are refused to return to their homeland are also counted as expelees, in case you had forgotten.—
I am not interested in number of refuges. I am interested in unfair magnification and manipulation of number of deaths, and who is accused for them.
Since Nitschke later estimates the total dead as up to 1.1 Million, that would mean that in the years 1946-1950 100,000 were killed. Not so farfetched, but I suggest we read the actual book to see what she means.
You understood, I think, the conclusion is directly from the webpage which you provided. It is from summary of the book. You can look on [23] - this link is from other discussion at “Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe” [24]
My conclusion there is that Expulsion (do not mix with Flight) is 200.000. The point is I know directly from witnesses how the Flight looked like. Relation Flight/Expulsion is not for me surpassing.
According to the lexicon link that you provided, from a starting number of 16,6 Million, with aproximately 2,5 Million of those allowed to remain, 1.6 Million were killed all over eastern europe (if you do the math using the figures given (I’m assuming the 200,000 discrepancy is due to those who were expelled to Austria etc). The link states that the 1950’s numbers of 2.1 Million killed have been revised, although not by how much. This in in conflict with the review of Nitschkes research with states that her estimate of 1.1 Million killed within what was to become modern Poland is in agreement with the 1950’s work. Maybe the revision if for the rest of Eastern Europe. Anyway, if Nitschke is right, and this article is right despite that contradiction, 500,000 were killed in what became modern Czhecoslovakia, Kaliningrad, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary etc and 1.1 Million in what became Poland.
It does not state how they were killed, in which phase. It does however state that beginning already in November 4, 1944, Poland started collecting all Germans into forced labour camps.
Your conclusion makes no sence to me.Expulsion (do not mix with Flight) is 200.000. The point is I know directly from witnesses how the Flight looked like. Relation Flight/Expulsion is not for me surpassing.
Aside from your OR based on “know directly” That conclusion can not be derived from the lexicon text. Netiher can it be derived from the review of Nitschkes book. All that can be derived from her book is that in what became poland up to 1.1 Million died total. Of those it might be deduced, based on one sentence that may or may not be correct in the review, that in 1944 and 1945 1,0 Million of those died, and in 1946 onwards (to 1950?) 100,000 died. Of those 100,000 deaths caused 1946 onwards I deduce that the deaths were caused mainly by starving/freesing to death during the “organised transfer”, forced labor, and maltreatment in the Polish concentration camps. Of the 1,000,000 German civilian deaths in what was to become modern Poland who died in 1944 and 1945 I assume that those killed died in Polish revenge attacks, concentration/forced labor camps, starved/froze to death in the wild expulsion/potsdam expulsion, and also during the flight away from the Red army.
There are no numbers given in the text on how many died during the flight away from the Red army. This would be intresting to know I agree. I’ve seen numbers showing that of the 2,000,000 German women in eastern Germany/Poland that were raped by the Soviet soldiers, 200,000 died, either from injuries, killed outright after a rape, or through suicide. Note however that we’re talking about women in territoty that became East Germany as well, not only “expulsion territoty”. And also, based on what Naimark wrote about Polish rapists, I supose that some women must have died that way at Polish hands as well.
I said it was an interesting quote, and it is especially about Polish behavior. It is "faux pas" to lift out that single sentence and pretend that was the whole of the quote! Besides, many of the expellees had been so weakened by the expulsion that they kept on dying while in the new "stump" Germany
Just a moment. We do not looking for interesting quote we look for facts. Any way, I ask you a question only. However, seems to me it was not without foundation - you blame Polish for some deaths in this case. First it was a German report for Americans and ask for help. This is no actual number of deaths, is it? I do not like if somebody put big numbers to scare public. It would be appropriate to see that Germans were much much better treated than they treated Polish people – do not forgot it. See [25] last sentence of the fragment. I will appreciate if you would temper you assumption. All nations were exhausted and had big problems because German Nazis. Do you expect that victims will take all their resource to provide comfort for aggressors? You have zero idea what the condition there were at that time, I am sure. If you would, you would not blame Polish people so easy.
So General Eisenhowers report to his government that ""In Silesia Polish administration and methods are causing a mass exodus westward of German inhabitants.... Many unable to move are placed in camps on meagre rations and under poor sanitary conditions. Death and disease rate in camps extremely high. Germans who attempt to hold onto homes and land are terrorized into "voluntary" evacuation. Methods used by Poles definitely do not conform to Potsdam agreement..." Is not relevant for the article`? I hapen to strongly disagree with that conclusion. But I guess you'd rather no-one knew about the camps?
At least 20,000 of these prisoners died as a result of abuse, epidemics and hunger." [19] "between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labor, transportation, or in concentration camps."
You need read the discussion from the beginning. This is you who challenge patience. The big numbers over 400. thou have no proof. And the unreasonable magnification is what we discuss here. ‘’’First above all, you mix again flight with expulsion.’’’ Additionally you found some concentrations camps to put it as standard. The best is for you to say 3 million Germans were brutally murdered in concentrations camp - (the 3 millions until now is the biggest number) Oh. Plus 3.5 millions deaths by starvation between Odder and Elba because there were expelled and exhausted.
Calm down, you're getting incoherent. First, a bit more of the sentence. " it is estimated that in Poland alone, between 400,000 and 1.2 million were killed in revenge attacks, during forced labour, transportation, or in concentration camps." The intresting thing here is that those killed during the "Flight" are not mentioned at all here, so even the lowest estimate of 400,000 from "Poland" (to which you seem to agree to) refers to death at Polish hands.
Additionally you found some concentrations camps to put it as standard.
As you well know, but conveniently sem to have forgotten, is that the list of concentration camps were in responce to one of your allegations. I said that The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of Germans that were killed. To which you responded It seems to be only you opinion Stor stark7. Until now nobody says so and evidently you have no proof.. As a responce to that provocation I showed extensively with examples how wrong you are, including giving some of the concentration camps as example. I'm glad you no longer pretend there were no concentration camps however. Every litle bit counts.
Or how about the fact that a minor concentration camp such as Łambinowice, not even worthy of mentioning in the list above, manages to rack up a kill number of at least 1,000 and possibly more than 1,500 German civilians through mistreatment and diseases.
You know what, count all the few concentration camps and count all the deaths, you will make a good job. Do not forgot about reliable sources, I will check it. You understand that popular newspapers are no reliable sources. I think you should read Overmans or Haar. They count real deaths and they looking for facts not for sensations.
Why on earth would I bother doing that? It is enough to know that the concentration camps existed and that large numbers died in them. I saw that some of the camp articles were based exclusively on Polish sources, which I asume means that your Polish compatriots have written the articles and believe them to be accurate. If Overmans or Haar completely fail to mention the camps then that only means that their work may not be up to the expected standards of scholars and maybe their texts should not be used in this article because of that.
Again, you're trying my patience here...—
This is you problem not mine. What will you do for me. Hmm?
????
Meaning?—
It is for you personal conclusion.
Oh goodie.
Do you have any evidence for that hypothesis of yours? Czesław Gęborski got away because he was to ill, and then too dead, to face sentence.
I read popular newspapers as you do. Any way, there is no court sentence that means it is zero to discuss. Most above all, Wkipedia is not a place to spread cheep news.
Again, evidence???, since you obviously do not regard newspapers as reliable sources. And cheap news? The dead guy is noteworthy enough to have his own wikipedia article.
In my opinion the source is a reputable one.
Means the [The Telegraph.co.uk] :)) is this some historical journal and the author a scholar? None of that. Marginally even in “Newsweek” a stinking journalist named Auschwitz „Polish concentration camp”. We will see if the texts you provide will link to some reasonable researches and will be accepted by others Wiki users.
Excellent, I look forward to seing you dig up more material on the subject. I see that many of the mayor forced labor/concentration/internment-camps lack articles at the moment. And since you speak Polish maybe you can find the original PAP article?
Besides, If a Polish magazine can be used as source for the allegation that the Nazis made soap out of Jews in Stutthof concentration camp, then I see no problem with using a reputable English language source here.
Do you read Polish? The article provide information about investigation and research done by Institute of National Memory (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej). IPN is a historical institute and the head of it is designed directly by Polish parliament. The result of the investigation is strictly scientific and certainly for international verification if requested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Nope, I dont know Polish. But let me quote you "do not repead a newspapar sensations". It is still in a newspaper. Besides, since this is english Wikipedia whoever provided it should have provided a translation in the article of the salient points. Nevertheless, I thought it was yeat another propaganda spinoff such as the alledged RJF soap label, but it apears to be legitimate based on english language articles. Any way, magazine articles are allowed as sources in Wikipedia. --Stor stark7Talk 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Any editor can find English language article about the soap and replace the Polish language link. Xx236 09:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, the "Institute of National Memory" is a revanchist witchhunt organization, not unlike Simon Wiesenthal's tactics. [26] Much of what it claims are pure fabrications, not just in this area, but in many many others.
You never cease to amaze me, Jadger. Institute of National Remembrance - 'a revanchist witchhunt organization'? Well, I guess I shouldn't have expect anything better from you. Just be advised that any vandalism along those lines to content will be reverted.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The IPN is the IPN, not any Simon Wiesenthal's organization. With the same level of precision I see strong resemblance of your argumentation and the revisionistic neo-Nazi one. I find it O.K. that you have declared your position - the IHR against Polish academic historians.
Xx236 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait Wait! is this what you warned me for on my userpage? You warned me not to personally attack who? I never personally attacked a user. I called into question the credibility of the IPN, I don't see how that is a personal attack, especially since you have done the same to the Federation of Expellees. shall I post a personal attack notice every time a source is questioned?
I would also like to point out that lumping me in with Neo-Nazi revisionists is a personal attack. I also like how you assume I am a part of the IHR, just shows further bad faith editing on your behalf.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The IPN (The Institute of National Remembrance - Commission of the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation) has a very nice homepage, but what I would like to know, is, wether there is also a institute in Poland, which investigates crimes done against other nations by the Polish (communist...) State.
"The lands lying between Poland and its eastern neighbours were inhabited by a mixed population of Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, with no group being a majority."
My question is: Given this no-win situation, why claimed Poland after World War I that this region should became Polish?
In the same article, which from my point of view is quite biased, the answer is given:
"The area around Wilno, called Central Lithuania, was the subject of a referendum in 1922, followed by incorporation to Poland according to the wish of 65% of the voters."
Well, let's have a look to the history of Silesia:
"After the referendum, there were three Silesian Insurrections instigated by Polish inhabitants of the area, as a result of which the League of Nations decided that the province should be split again and that the eastern-most Upper Silesian areas, even though a majority there had voted to remain inside Germany."
Thus the result of the referendum 1921 was, that in spite of strong anti-German postwar pressure - especially for this referendum - around 60% of the inhabitants of Upper Silesian voted for remaining with Germany. Well, what reason then Polish people and Poland respectively had to insurge against this votum? - Why were the territories eastern of Poland incorporated into Poland, because around 60% decided in favor of it, but Upper Silesia was divided despite of a similar vote in favor of Germany?
Would you please move your text to the Curzon line talk page, where it belongs?
Xx236 11:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Xx236, when you just admit words like "Expulsion", "Germans" and "World War II" here, why do we then discuss at all?
In my opinion all this topics are linked together. We can split the articles of Wikipedia but we don't have to do it necessarily so strictly here at the discussion board. Or do you want to choke off a discussion about an issue you would prefer to sweep under the carpet?
My remarks here about Polish behaviour against Germany after WW I can help to understand similar Polish behaviour against Germany after WW II. In both cases Polish people (after the wars) strived for an expansion of Poland and a diminishment of Germany. For me this sticking point is important, because it shows that Germans weren't expelled from Poland to create a homogenous Polish state but rather for pegging the annexations Poland de facto made.
--Wikiferdi 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Xx236, following statement of the article we are discussing is wrong, and this is what I want to show with my remarks.
Citation:
"The following deportations of those who remained or returned after active warfare, which in most areas coincided with Soviet occupation, were purportedly intended to create ethnically homogeneous nation states."
End of citation. --Wikiferdi 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Actually, Xx236 is wrong in telling Wikiferdi to move this discussion to Talk:Curzon line. This line of discussion doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia because it is polemic and advocacy. It is NOT our job to pass judgment on right and wrong nor is it even our job to determine what caused a particular phenomenon or event. It is our job to summarize concisely knowledge of the "real world". Thus, we should not waste one breath arguing about the point that Wikiferdi is making. The NPOV approach, IMHO, is to mention both lines of reasoning in the "Purported Justifications" section and BE DONE WITH IT! I believe that, among the several purported justifications in the "Purported Justifications" section, there is mention of both of the justification arguments discussed by Wikiferdi above. If not, we should fix it but we should not attempt to pick one as "THE" reason for the expulsions.
We can argue until the next millenium about this and it would still be original research. If there are multiple opinions in the "real world", then those multiple opinions should be represented here. It is not for us to decide among them. It is for the reader to decide for himself/herself. Our job is to help him/her in the most NPOV and encyclopedic way that we can.
NB: I'm not just siding with Xx236 against Wikiferdi. Xx236 and others have been guilty in the past of similar confusion about our role and the purpose of Talk Pages.
ALSO: I'm not saying Wikiferdi is wrong. Some of his points make sense to me. I just don't think we need to arrive at a single, definitive answer to a question that is and always will be open to debate and interpretation.
FINALLY: It is critical that opinions like Wikiferdi's be backed up with a citation to a reliable source so that we can deflect any charges of original research.
What I mention here is backed by Prof. Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Well, what I can read in this Wikipedia article in some points hasn't to do with historical facts. "Some of his points make sense to me." - So, why not changing the article? Wikiferdi 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, the article cannot adopt any single POV. de Zayas is one POV. We can state his POV but we cannot state it as "THE TRUTH". We can say, "According to de Zayas, X is true" preferably with a citation. However, if we have a WP:RS who challenges de Zayas' POV (such as Haar), then we can say "According to Haar, X is not true but Y is true" also with a citation.
Yet another note (post conflict). The key point here, Wikiferdi and 219, is that we are NOT saying "The Polish expelled the Germans solely because of a desire for revenge or to create a homogeneous state or to get compensation for lands lost to the Soviet Union. What we ARE saying is that ALL of these reasons and more have been put forth as possible reasons and WE do not attempt to decide which reasons are REAL reasons versus which ones are SPURIOUS reasons that just sounded good. Nor do we attempt to decide which reasons are morally justified versus which ones are morally unjustified. This is NOT OUR JOB. This is the reader's job.
--Richard 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say, that expelling the East Germans from their ancestral homeland was just motivated by the wish to annex their homeland, but it was the main reason. And this is absolute obvious if you investigate the history. An example I have given above. But in the Wikipedia article this isn't mentioned at all. Instead is mentioned a motivation for which "the Allies" can be blamed for what Poland did. In my book, this is sleazy. Wikiferdi 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The question is "How do you know it was the main reason?" If it is "obvious if you investigate history", then this is argumentative and original research. Put this idea in the mouth of a reliable source and provide a citation.
Even if it was a revenge for millions killed people, killed families, children, destroyed polish cities, burned Warsaw to down, cruelties of the war, who cares, it is obvious it was a revenge. Of course there were murders, what a surprise. Your german neighbour sneaks you to Gestapo, you must hail to Nazi, live in fear for years, eat odds and ends, you are called untermenschen, many of your friends are killed, what would you do after the war with your neighbour ? You say "no problem Fritz" ? I am disgusted with this talk. Poland was not the aggressor ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It was not revenge, it was vendetta. The German elderly, women and children (the soldiers which fought in the war and did the cruelties against Poles, Russians, Czechs etc. were brought to POW camps, were they suffered revenge - indiscriminately if guilty for war crimes or not (so it was also partly a kind of vendetta). Well, this just "in the East", especially in Siberia. In the West the Americans, French or Englishmen made difference between war criminals and just "followers". - Well, do we return to the German elderly, women and children in Silesia etc. Poles... put them in a lot of internment camps like Łambinowice where people like Czesław Gęborski murdered them in the most cruel way you can imagine. I think it should be the job of a Polish institute like the IPN to investigate exactly (!) what happened in such camps... Wikiferdi 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If 10 lines of the article will put the blame on Poles in 1920, than 100 lines should put the blame on Prussians/Germans who partitioned Poland and 1000 lines should put the blame on Germans 1939-1945 (such is the ratio of victims) and we won't become an article but a whole book. Are we writing a book?
Xx236 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be enough that Poland (and here especially this Wikipedia article) admits what atrocities Polish people have done, admits that there were also Polish (war) criminals. (Well, Poland has passed up the chance to charge Czesław Gęborski - and this shows that Poland isn't very interested to come to terms with its past. - Maybe this article is going to make a difference?) Wikiferdi 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Richard, your story is about rationalizations or individual opinions. Poeple's viewws are intweresting, but the expulsion of Germans and forced labor of Germans were decided in Yalta, without any Polish participation, so the Poles (and Naimark and you) can discuss even 1000 years, the facts won't be changed.
Xx236 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If I remember previous discussions on this page correctly, the Polish government in exile had its opinions and expressed them. Yes, the opinions were ignored but they were expressed and then ignored. This story should be synopsized somewhere in this article but in no more than a few sentences. --Richard 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, you can't think that if you invite 10 people to your house that they will kick you out and they will live in that house. And if someone makes justice those 10 poeple will blame you that you were horrible inviter because you wanted your kitchen all the time. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"Were decided in Yalta..." - blaming the Allies for what Poles did? Don't make me laugh (weep)! - So, then cite what Yalta concluded! - I can help you: Yalta decided that the determination of the western frontier of Poland should be postponed to a peace conference. The same concluded the Potsdam Conference ("In conformity with the agreement on Poland reached at the Crimea Conference..."). And Potsdam concluded: "The Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary are at the same time being informed of the above and are being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions pending an examination by the Governments concerned of the report from their representatives on the Control Council." - Aren't this reliable sources? And you are not poised to change the article? You are making me so miserable! Wikiferdi 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So Polish and Czechoslovak people did it and what ? What's the point ? How do you think that two nations should live together when one of them thought the second one are untermenschen and tried to annihilate them and move it to Siberia to die in the snow ? You tell me.≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Tulkolahten, vave you read, what I have writen? - Poland and so on didn't act on decisions the Allies made. So they can't blame the Allies for what they did. German people behaved like undermenschen and Polish and Czechoslovak people behaved as undermenschen, too. Germany has apologized officially. Poland and Czechia have not. (Slovakia has, Romania has, Hungaria has, Estonia has etc.) Unless Poland and Czechia will do it, too, there won't be real peace. Wikiferdi 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This conversation goes round and round discussing points which cannot be resolved. The NPOV way is to mention all "purported" reasons for the expulsions, ideally with citations to reliable sources. If you cannot agree on that, you will go round and round for many more hundreds of kilobytes and not reach a resolution.
And, in the meantime, this article stays protected. Apparently, you prefer debating to editing. So be it.
You must realize that neither of you can "win". The only solution is to find an NPOV way to mention both POVs with citations to reliable sources. When you are ready to find a resolution, consider asking for a mediator. WP:MEDCABAL or WP:MEDCOM
There was no "Polish" government in Poland 1944-1956. An average Pole wasn't responsible that there was no real police in Poland, as it existed in any Western country. There has been no war in New Orleans recently, but many people there behave exactly like many Poles after WWII did.
The Poles did what they did, I have never claimed that Polish criminals didn't kill and rape. However a US criminal is a product of the US society, a Polish criminal in 1945 had frequently studied before in a German or Soviet school of life. It's simple to be rich and healthy and criticize people in Sudan they are dirty and kill each other. The only moment when a big number of US citizens had to live in average human condition was the Vietnam war, the subject of hundreds movies and books. Millions of Polish civilians and soldiers survived more terrible events than the Vietnam war, is it strange that those people organized a number of My Lais?
There is no symmetry between the German occupation of Poland and the Expulsion. If you prefer call it no real peace you may be right, that many Germans should learn what their ancestors did in Poland 1939-1945, before they start to judge the Poles.
I'm not going to apologize for the death of about 30% of my family, imprizonement in Soviet or German camps or in Siberia of the other 20%, expulsion of my family from today Belarus, 45 years of Soviet occupation. I'm not going to apologize for freedom of Western Germany brought also by soldiers from my family, for the economic help for Western Germany and war industry in Communist Poland. I'm not going to apologize for millions of Germams who don't know that their ancestors destroied Warsaw in 1944. Xx236 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
We are not required to apologize for any action against the aggressor and for the World War Two, that's ridiculous. It's like to apologize to the thief who robbed you that you did not give him your wallet kindly. We do not need to do this, Poland doesn't need to apologize too ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that we Polish people need not apologize to Germans. Particularly to such who do not know basic ABC of history. Those Germans who knows a bit of the ABC do not request the apology from Poles, that would be obvious upside-down request. Poland did not extract the apology from Germany and this can be a mistake. It would be probably better to do as Jews doing. This was proposed from start in first sentence: Without Hitler's Germany aggression, savagely and immeasurable sufferings of other nations, there would not be the expulsion and this article. This is obvious truth but was the start of edit war and finally lockout of the article.
Yes, go to ask Russians or Ukrainians if they will apologize to you for what they did to von Paulus's army in Stalingrad and burned Ukraine. Try it but buy pretty fine shoes you will need to run pretty fast. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
It is our job to summarize concisely knowledge of the "real world".
I thought that our job is to write a reasonable article.
NO, that is precisely the error that many Wikipedians make when they start getting into an edit war. The problem would be to define "reasonable". What seems reasonable to you obviously does not seem reasonable to other editors and vice versa. The only way we can resolve this is to rely on reliable sources and NPOV stance. If there is more than one opinion in "the real world", our job is NOT to adjudicate among the opinions but rather to report them in an NPOV way although we are not obligated to give equal weight to all POVs. Thus, we are not obligated to give Congressman Reece's estimate of 3 million deaths the same weight as the other estimates.
If not, we should fix it but we should not attempt to pick one as "THE" reason for the expulsions.
I will say you what was the reason of the expulsion. The reason for the expulsion was to make reasonable space for leaving to such nations like Czechs and Polish - for those few nations which were perturbed by German aggressions for ages. This very simple, but as you know there are some who refuse the nations the right to live in peace. There are some who believe that after 60 years the victim offender order can be cheated.
This is your POV. I believe it's already in the article. If you do not agree, please explain what more can be done to present your POV in an NPOV way. --Richard 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
We can argue until the next millenium about this and it would still be original research. If there are multiple opinions in the "real world", then those multiple opinions should be represented here. It is not for us to decide among them.
You will argue about freedom of speech I think. No freedom is absolute, every one has its limitation. Believing that the majority is always right – I do not privately believe on this, we should put only the point which is acceptable. It is a nonsense to put something which is illogical only because it is other/unique point of view.
Sorry, but this is, in fact, a primary principle of Wikipedia. If it is a substantial point of view, it should be presented. It can be qualified as a minority POV. However, all substantial POVs should be presented. Do we present either atheism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism as "THE TRUTH"? No, we do not. We present all of them in as NPOV a way as we can (given the human weaknesses of the various editors of those articles). --Richard 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Any way, Richard I do not think you really free from prejudice.
Perhaps I am not but I try to remain open to being challenged when I am not. That's the best I or anyone else can do.
To conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, the article cannot adopt any single POV. de Zayas is one POV. We can state his POV but we cannot state it as "THE TRUTH". We can say, "According to de Zayas, X is true" preferably with a citation. However, if we have a reliable source who challenges de Zayas' POV (such as Haar), then we can say According to Haar, X is not true but Y is true" also with a citation.
That format is right. However most of those guys whose point we will cite are more or less scientists. Who at least pretend to make some research in archives or something like that. We can not cite according to ‘’’Wikiferdi’’’ is this or that because it seems that ‘’’Wikiferdi’’’ did no research at all. He has only his ‘’’unique’’’ POV. Well at least we should not do such experiment to be considered as serious people.
I mostly agree with the above but I would go further. Even if Wikiferdi or you or I did substantial research, our opinions would still not be admissible in Wikipedia because it would be original research. If you want to contradict deZayas, find another source like Haar or Overmans or Nitschke and cite what they say. --Richard 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nor do we attempt to decide which reasons are morally justified versus which ones are morally unjustified.
About what is moral or unmoral. I hope we can agree. What is justified or what is not we argue because we do not know all facts.
No, I'm sorry but some people will argue that it is moral to expel people without regard to individual culpability. Others will argue that the need for "living space (lebensraum)" is a justification for aggression and expulsion. In fact, the concept of population transfer was generally accepted as moral and desirable in the first half of the 20th century. I could go on but these examples should be enough to suggest that there is not a single globally accepted standard of morality. Thus, we can say "According to reliable source A, X is considered immoral." But we should not say "X is immoral". Surely you can see that even value judgments such as "The early part of the Polish expulsions were extremely brutal" leads to endless POV wrangling. --Richard 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You must realize that neither of you can "win". The only solution is to find an NPOV way to mention both POVs with citations to reliable sources. When you are ready to find a resolution, consider asking for a mediator. WP:MEDCABAL or WP:MEDCOM
Richard I extracted already some numbers and make some “math” around why do not start discuss around the numbers from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon. for example. I propose to make some table here on discussion page and start enter the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, please do. However, please be careful to report only the numbers and not mix numbers from multiple sources in the same table or in a calculation. This would constitute original research. It would be better to present the numbers from each source separately and let the reader do any aggregation or calculation themselves. --Richard 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Foe Wikiferdi 14Feb07
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Silesia originally (10th century) belonged to Bohemia Přemyslid dynasty when Polish rulers conquered Silesia by brute force.
From the earliest notes 880 to 906 Silesia was incorporated to Moravia. After break-up of Moravia form around 950 with intermissions the Silesia was territory of rivalry between Přemyslids and Piast. In 990 Silesia was connected to Poland up to XIV century. I would suggest you to stop the propaganda of brute force. I do not believe you leave over 1000 years to know what was brute and when. Anyway, you are not to judge those Princes by modern standard, do you? : ))). Above all This is not German business judge the relations between Czechs and Poles.
At the end of the 13th century Silesia was considered as "German territory"
Do not say! In years 1327 – 1335 Silesian Dukes pay homage to Bohemia. In years 1469-1490 all Silesia belonged to Hungary. The problem is that all the time uneducated villagers (autochthons) spoke Polish. In the same way after 500 years of Polish-Lithuanian Union and 300 years of Russian occupations we have Lithuanian nation and country.
Silesia - which was - as you have mentioned - "most probably empty".
I was referred to the II to VI century period :))))))))
So German people were the first people who settled definitely in Silesia.
| :))))))))))))))))))))))))
This was a peaceful settling.
| :D :D :D let me recover.
This German people (and their offspring respectively) remained there until 20th century when Poland/Stalin expelled them from there by brute force.
You forgot underlined peacefully :D , well maybe they waited for 1 Sep 1939 :D :D :D
The Potsdam Conference decided that Poland has to get reparation from Germany - "The U. S. S. R. undertakes to settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations." (cf. Potsdam Conference)
|:D Ye? And what happened?
The Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenians Union was a confederation - which means it wasn't "just Polish", and so Poland hadn't the right to conquer it by brute force after World War I - to make Poland bigger.
Yes, after over 500 years practically all nobles and educated inhabitants Polonaised freely. Any way, let us Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenians and Ukrainians solve our problems ourselves. We need not mediators and teachers, particularly Germans mediators and teachers. The idea of Piłsudski[30] was a federation of nations - for you information.
Yes, I believe there is quite a lot to sort out between Poles and their neighbours, counts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide (like Volynia) from all sides as every neighbouring nation became object of Polish aggression between 2 World Wars. Practicalities of Pilsudski were very far from his "ideas". Poland had healthy apetite for neighbouring territories, lets not forget that not long before German invasion Poland was happy to join Mr Hitler in partitioning of Czechslovakia.--Vygandas 21:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion all this topics are linked together.
Yes. Everything is connected to everything. Problem is that Encyclopedia is a specific edition which partitioning the everything into reasonable pieces to be understandable.
In both cases Polish people (after the wars) strived for an expansion of Poland and a diminishment of Germany.
If Germany would not expand in all other cases there would not be necessity to diminish Germany in the two WW. If there would be left for Germany what she seized there would be Poland at all. This is you idea expansionist?
Excuse me, but I didn't know that Germany seized Silesia. Where have you read it? Please tell me your source. Wikiferdi 14:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say, that expelling the East Germans from their ancestral homeland was just motivated by the wish to annex their homeland, but it was the main reason.
If a guest in somebody’s home can be a host? If Germans entering Polish Kingdom can become the hosts? At any moment the right host can show the door to them. And this actually happen in 1945. Living in somebody’s home for 500 years does not make the home yours.
put them in a lot of internment camps like Łambinowice where people like Czesław Gęborski murdered them in the most cruel way you can imagine. I think it should be the job of a Polish institute like the IPN to investigate exactly (!) what happened in such camps...
Why did you stick to the Gemborski? Do not you know anybody else? Even he would be found guilty in comparison with such Germans like Josef Mengele [31] he was a small puppy. And Mengele was there in Auschwitz the tormenter, Gemborsk was a prisoner there.
It would be enough that Poland (and here especially this Wikipedia article) admits what atrocities Polish people have done, admits that there were also Polish (war) criminals.
Big deal. How many and what class. As usually Germans were the “best” in this class also. After all what was done everybody should momentarily forgot and say as Tulko propose: Ja, ja Josef (or Fritz) kein Problem. Lassen Sie gehen für Bier.
German people behaved like undermenschen and Polish and Czechoslovak people behaved as undermenschen, too.
That is what you want most - equalize Nazi German with Polish and Czechs. - Of course if both are equal bad we can start the play again from start. What play? Obviously the expansion to East.
Slovakia has, Romania has, Hungaria has, Estonia has etc.
This some difference between cooperation with Nazi Germany and removing aggressor from own country.
Unless Poland and Czechia will do it, too, there won't be real peace.
Thanks the God a people like you do not decide about the peace. There would be war for sure.
PS. I am always surprise how people implement their problematic ideology on other. Brutal, make bigger, conquered etc. Why not unite, make safe, and defend. Somebody wants display others equally bad as he is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
For Stor stark7 14Feb07
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments1 person in discussion
1.6 Million were killed all over Eastern Europe (if you do the math using the figures given (I’m assuming the 200,000 discrepancy is due to those who were expelled to Austria etc).
I believe could be the total 1.6. Also I believe that most of them perished or were killed in the main theatre of war on present Poland territories. I.e. I would agree that the 1.1 million from Nitschke’s research can be correct number, but as I said ‘’’majority about 1 million were death because flight and front warfare ’’’. There rest 100.000 in years 1945 -1948 (or 1950 if so extend), would be the expulsion mortality. Of course it includes natural deaths which had nothing to do with post war harsh conditions and some like Morel activities.
And I refer to the sentence: “Bis 1950 sind etwa 12,5 Mio. Deutsche vertrieben worden, davon etwa 7,9 Mio nach Westdeutschland und 4,4 Mio. in die SBZ/DDR.“ The numbers are approximations but simple mathematics say 200.000 perished in expulsion from all East Europe countries.
Again you use the year 1945 onwards for the remaining 100,000. Even though I've clearly shown to you that the number is only applicable for those killed in the years 1946 onwards. Why do you insist on this fallacy?--Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The link states that the 1950’s numbers of 2.1 Million killed have been revised, although not by how much.
That is our research.
This in conflict with the review of Nitschkes research with states that her estimate of 1.1 Million killed within what was to become modern Poland is in agreement with the 1950’s work.
Again the 2.1 or 1.1 is a total of Flay + Expulsion. They differ because the 2.1 was in my opinion the earliest number overstated as much as possible – sorry to say for propaganda reasons in Cold War. Now the high numbers are conserved and rehash by revengest and “inheritance” hunters.
Maybe the revision if for the rest of Eastern Europe. Anyway, if Nitschke is right, and this article is right despite that contradiction, 500,000 were killed in what became modern Czhecoslovakia, Kaliningrad, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary etc and 1.1 Million in what became Poland.
Who knows the major offensive was there in Poland. Most of Germans of East Europe were there. The terrain is open flat; even the winter could more severe little up North.
It does not state how they were killed, in which phase. It does however state that beginning already in November 4, 1944, Poland started collecting all Germans into forced labour camps.
Possibly on territories East of Vistula, what were any way pro WW II integral Polish territories. Also in East Prussia, which destiny was decided in Yalta already.
Your conclusion makes no sence to me.Expulsion (do not mix with Flight) is 200.000. The point is I know directly from witnesses how the Flight looked like. Relation Flight/Expulsion is not for me surpassing.
What conclusion does not have sense? The number 200.000 or that I know how looked the flight from direct witnesses?
All that can be derived from her book is that in what became poland up to 1.1 Million died total.
I can deduct from people who saw thousand of death on side of roads and those who mentioned how Germans thank for single raw potato. PS. Poland, England etc. should be written from capital letters.
Of those 100,000 deaths caused 1946 onwards I deduce that the deaths were caused mainly by starving/freesing to death during the “organized transfer”.
Right, this ‘’’mainly by starving/freesing to death’’’ during the organised transfer is only ‘’’deduction’’’ i.e. you imagination without support. But it also includes those who would die natural way because their age.
It is not as simple as you, anonymous, seem to wish it to be. Since it is impossible to count the fallen bodies, the standard method is to compare the size of the population after the event to the size of the population prior to the event. The Discrepancy between the two indicates the number of killed. I believe this is one of the main methods used to determine the number of holocaust victims. In any given population there are always a number of natural deaths, but also a number of births, keeping the population size more or less stable. Your use of the "death of old age" argument is therefore completely void of value.--Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Of the 1,000,000 German civilian deaths in what was to become modern Poland who died in 1944 and 1945 I assume that those killed died in Polish revenge attacks, concentration/forced labor camps,
Bad assumption and bad will. You should not enter Wikipedia with such character. Encyclopedist should present objective scientific approach. If you will continue such provocative statements I will not discuss with you. Before you make any ‘’’assumption’’’ you should make a research.
You still deny the camps? --Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
starved/froze to death in the wild expulsion/potsdam expulsion,
Wild expulsion as I understood was, - cite from your previous statement: “a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945” – One month is too short to freeze in May. We will see if you can proof all you accusation. Take for consideration that a person (nation also) is innocent until proof guilty.
and also during the flight away from the Red army.
This will be probably easy to find for you this is widely described here and there. There was given some link on other page [32]
And also, based on what Naimark wrote about Polish rapists,
About Naimark statements and him – here was already discussion before you arrived. I have his book and better do not name him a profound scientist. However as you know even in peace time in most cultural societies you have criminals and rapists. The question is how many.
I gather from that sentence that you are trying to use Smear tactic against Norman Naimark in order to somehow make his work suspect? Sorry, but that attempt is just sad.--Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So General Eisenhower’s report to his government that..
If Eisenhower was there or he sent the telegram on fundation of some observers or maybe spays only? Anyway “poor sanitary conditions”, “Death and disease rate in camps extremely high” cold be judged irrelevantly by person who do not estimate general destruction of East Europe territories.
The E. citation is similar to “And the By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe." From Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, Office of the Deputy Military Governor to John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, War Department, 5 October.
The interesting thing here is that those killed during the "Flight" are not mentioned at all here, so even the lowest estimate of 400,000 from "Poland" (to which you seem to agree to) refers to death at Polish hands.
That is already insolent. I said the maximum of expulsion losses (all countries) could be twice as 200.000 but unlikely 2.1. I doubt even on 400thou.
As you well know, but conveniently seem to have forgotten, is that the list of concentration camps were in response to one of your allegations.
Yes, I requested to search and summarize the question. I did not ask to standard use words “concentration camps” as accusing faze everywhere. A list is not good enough. Everybody can found hundreds of names and call it concentrations camps. All listed need to have source of statement mentioned.
I said that The role of the camps and forced labor during the expulsions definitively merits mentioning, especially since they seem to have been one of the contributing factors to the high number of Germans that were killed.
It only “seems to you” you must provide proof it is worth mentioning.
I'm glad you no longer pretend there were no concentration camps however. Every little bit counts.
I still protest using the name concentration camp name. After we will review you proofs we will see if the name “concentration camps” can be hold.
Why on earth would I bother doing that?
Because in other hand you will be considered insolent man. Nobody can rattle accusations and go away with good name.
It is enough to know that the concentration camps existed and that large numbers died in them.
No reliable source - no talk. You become use method of Dr. G. “Lie repeated many time becomes “truth””.
If in total would be 6 or 20 thou from 7 million expelled is this LARGE number?
I saw that some of the camp articles were based exclusively on Polish sources, which I assume means that your Polish compatriots have written the articles and believe them to be accurate.
First read the article you pointed about Czeslaw Geborski [33] on Wikipedia. It is in English, if you consider he is a worth mentioning as war criminal I will ask you about how many Germans should prosecuted yet. Put attention that he was investigated in October 1945, so even the pro-Soviet, communist government was moral enough to suspected him. My Polish compatriots and I show something what is alien for many West “civilizations” we believe that the black sheep from our family must be exposed. We believe that justices and truth is universal, and they (not me) believe that the public cleaning of sheep-fold will be sought as accent of high ethic. I do not believe on it since I know the West. I know that here is many people who such cleaning will consider as naïve and use the naivety for their immoral business.
And since you speak Polish maybe you can find the original PAP article?
This is you who is prosecutor. I am defender, why should I help you to charge Polish people.
Let me recomend you to get a user-name, and thereafter to read Wikipedia policy. We are here to collect and present the available reliable facts and conclusions in a neutral point of view manner. There is no room in wikipedia for people who are trying to hide "inconvenient" information. --Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I don’t know Polish. But let me quote you "do not repead a newspapar sensations". It is still in a newspaper.
Yes. But the Polish paper provide link to reliable source. The difference between “Telegraph.uk” and the Polish article is that the “Telegraph” cites SOME “witnesses” (no names) and Polish newspaper cites IPN.
Besides, since this is english Wikipedia whoever provided it should have provided a translation in the article of the salient points.
Unnecessary. The English Wikipedia is read by Polish people too.
That is not enough. If you're making an exceptional claim using a foreign language source then you need to translate it. Believe me, I've checked it out and complied with the policy.--Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Any way, magazine articles are allowed as sources in Wikipedia.
Not as primary reliable source. As an end of each path in any Encyclopedia you will find a resaerch or solid museum item or something like that. Article in daily newspaper is only a hint.
Read wikipedia policy!--Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. Are you the person responsible for Naimark entries in the article?
Yes, I take credit for originaly including the text reference to Naimark. Unlike so many others in Wikipedia I actually bother taking the time to read reliable secondary sources (e.g. books!) on the topics I'm intrested in editing.--Stor stark7Talk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Curzon line
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would someone explain me the Curzon line theory in the article? The Polish-Soviet treaty was legal, signed by Poland and the SU. Millions of POles were to be expelled from the East. It wasn't possible to mistreat the Poles the Nazi way in 1945, sending the to destroyed Warsaw, Poznań and other piles of brics.
The wording is typical for anti-Polish (probably German) propaganda. Xx236 12:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
5 million in German concentration camps
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The numbers are wrong, maybe the same persons are accounted many times.Xx236 12:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Expulsions of Germans
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I am advocating for renaming this article in "Expulsions of Germans", because this expulsions were started already after World War I when Poland reappears on the world map. Poland annexed parts of East Germany although the majority of the (German) population there voted for remaining with Germany. Poles... can't blame the German Nazi's for this because it was long before that time (1921).
(Not to discuss here but just food for thought: Why decided the countries (not just Prussia, Austria and Russia) congregatet at the Congress of Vienna 1815 that it would be better that Poland kept disappeared from the world map?)
This article is long enough already. I think Expulsion of German after World War I (once somebody has written it) and this do not need to be merged, as circumstances were different enough. Only after this hypothetical merging has taken place does your new name make sense. Kusma(討論) 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikiferdi, what about the article about some pre-war and during-war Prussian proposals for solving Polish question after WWI? Szopen 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the expulsion of Germans not of Poles... Wikiferdi 00:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
To wikiferdi #2
Latest comment: 17 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion
So you are telling us that you want to Poland never existed ? Do you think that others have right to make decision about Poland ? Do you think that Austria, Russa and Prussia were rullers of the world or gods ? I must say that you behave like a Nazi, this is my first personal attack and I mean it seriously ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
wikiferdi quotes old German ideology, presented eg. by the Center against Expulsions. It's nice to have here a living example of a radical nationalist. Xx236 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Terrible and sad example. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tulko, you said, Do you think that others have right to make decision about Poland ? but what about Germany? do you think others have the right to make decisions about Germany? after all, this article is about Germans, not Poles.
It was a payback for the millions of killed polish men, women and children. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, do you actually think that viewpoint is supportable? what about the millions of German men, women and children that were killed? when will they get their "payback"? maybe Germany should invade Poland right now and take it back! how would you like that? to quote Ghandi "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
It sounds like that you have revealed your real nature. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Who cares about real nature?.... Mine, yours or anyones? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about objective and informative articles for everyone?...--Agrofe 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
please, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! I was not stating that they should invade Poland now, only using an example of your logic. I was simply using the same logic as you Tulko, as It was a payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children. so, by using the same logic as you as an example, but for another nationality, who's nature does it really reveal Tulko? in case you misinterpret my rhetorical questions again Tulko, the answer is yours.
Don't twist my words, you said that, not me. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, I'm not twisting your words, I simply stated the exact same thing you did, but said German instead of Polish.
Let's put this simpler for you Tulko, you said:
Do you think that others have right to make decision about Poland ?
and I simply asked you Do you think that others have right to make decision about Germany?
you replied: It was a payback for the millions of killed polish men, women and children.
and I asked you if you would support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.
and you changed the subject to ad hominem attacks. so I ask you again, would you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.?
So you are giving equality between the Nazi cruelties and crimes and Poland, huh ? So you are saying that polish nation behave worse then Nazis ? Is that what you are saying ? I don't know what did you learn or heard but I've never heard about some third world war caused by Poland, have you ? I also did not hear that Poland destroyed half of the world and whole Europe. Hmmm maybe I did not read newspapers. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said that, I am simply asking you do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.? now answer the question please.
There were no killed millions Germans by polish and czechoslovaks, where did you get that ? During the expulsion in Czechoslovakia there was killed violently 14 000 people from the number over 2 500 000. Where did you get these nonsense-numbers ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You probably do not understand that these numbers provided by the centre against expulsion are simple propaganda for obtain political support. You want to blame polish and czechoslovaks for something that did not happen just to support your historical point of view. Do you think that would be justice for you if Poland gives former Prussia and Czechoslovakia gives Sudetenland to Germany ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am talking about the whole war, as you were (as millions of Poles weren't killed in the expulsion of Germans). and I am not just talking about deaths, what about the millions of Germans who lost their homes, do they not deserve payback?
now please, answer the question, you have been asked it numerous times now. Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.? why do you keep avoiding answering it?
Do you mean german civilians killed during the world war two by the allies bombraids or drowned in the Berlin subway by Hitler ? So do you think that if you start a war then your homeland is in safe ? Nobody will touch ? Do you think that anyone should apologize ? For what ? I do not understand what do you mean and want ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
stop giving me the run-around and answer the question. Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children.? or perhaps you would be more comfortable if I separate it into separate questions:
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German children?
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German women?
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men?
I don't care what happen to Germany during the World War Two. They wanted to annihilatte my nation, clear us from the Earth, sent us to Siberia until we die, final solution - do you remember ? I would not be here if they had won. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Jadger, I am highly disgusted by you, you are far away from the reality and discussion with you is demagogic. You are not open to accept that during the expulsion did not die 3 millions germans. Discussion with you is worthless. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
so that is a no? you do not support payback for the millions of killed German children. you do not support payback for the millions of killed German women. you do not support payback for the millions of killed German men.
What do you follow with this question ? This what you show is the principle of the prison investigation, you ask questions far away from the context. It is the same like this:
Do you think that the president should be honoured war hero ? no
Do you think that the president should not eat meat ? no
Do you think that the president should not smoke a and drink beer just few times ? no
Do you think that the president should not have love affairs ? no
You must answer yes to all questions, but you have just picked Hitler for the president.
Do you see how demagogic your question is ? If not, then our conversation is over. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (bolded answers by Jadger 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
this is 60 years later Tulko, we all are far away from the actions that stain our past. just because you do not like the way the answer you support looks, does not mean you can characterize others as Nazis, or demagogic, or offensive.
and FYI, the final solution is a short form for Final Solution to the Jewish Question, which was the title given it at the Wannsee Conference. Jewish is not a nation, it is a religion, you are referring to Polish, which was not attacked in the deliberate way the Jews were.
"Final solution" entailed the subjugation of the Slavic people. You should know that. So-called "Lebensraum" was a widely used term, Slavic people would be slaves or killed in the Siberia. Read some books. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, that is often lumped in with the actual final solution. and as you said, it involved moving the Slavs east to make room for Germans. I am not saying it was right, just telling you to stop playing the victim more than 60 years later.--Jadger 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So the Poles were killed accidentally, they were to be moved but some Germans misunderstood the order? Xx236 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It is funny that you call my questions demagogic, when all I did was repeat yours. :)--Jadger 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You are playing victim, becaus in your point of view the cruel Poland attacked Germany and Czechoslovak troops marched to Germany to occupy borders after the Munich agreement. And those french ... those cruel french attacked you from the west so you needed to defend ... go back to school and read some books and kick out nationalism from your head, not good for brain. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
I wonder if the the note below the photo about "the family of the deceased are free to arrange exhumation or organize other care" is appropriate here. This article is turning into a who is right and who is wrong issue of something that none of us had anything to do with . We do have a chance to change what happens tomorrow. There is still German graveyard destruction activity going on in Poland as recent as Oct 2005 and I doubt the families of the deceased have much of a say about it. We travelled in October of 2005 to Kamienna Góra (formerly Landeshut) and have photos of recent headstone destruction. This was not isolated and two of the graveyards we visited were piling up quite a number of headstones around and trying to bury them (filling German crypts in the churchyard with them). They were filling hole with the headstones along with trash and yard debris. This was happening in the churchyards as well so if there was not involvement from the church they were certainly well aware of it. I bring this up not to cause more controversy in this unfortunately very controversial issue, but to get one more thing on the table for discussion. This is clearly not a simple issue but is clearly very important to many.--Agrofe 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is unfortunately happening with a lot of abanonded graveyards no matter whose they are. I read an article in the newspapers that it is a problem of nowadays in the former eastern europe. In case of lack of money everywhere you should not expect anybody will take care about that. For many older people remembering these times giving money to this purpose is simply unacceptable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. You missed my point. People were actually spending money trying to remove headstones (not to use and new gravesite) and hide the older German graves. This is not about maintaining but more about deliberate destruction.--Agrofe 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I hit the point. The same is happening with the other old graves. They are sold and bought and sold again. It became a big bussiness :( But of course vandals exist and I will not defend them. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So, you would support your grave, and the grave of your loved ones, being turned into landfill?
You can care about graveyards by yourself, estabilish some institution or charity and do it. Nobody will obstruct you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You are giving demagogic questions. I am not going to play your game. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, how is that? I simply asked you if you would like the graves of you and your loved ones turned into a landfill, as others have had theirs done. empathy is a characteristic unique to humans, I was just wondering if you have any?
You are lost case Jadger... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
My point is this: The stones were being buried to get rid of them. Not to use the sites to bury again. Not from grave robbers nor vandals. This was crystal clear. In the church yard in Chełmsko Śląskie (formerly Schomberg) (in the chucrch yard of the very active and walled in Catholic Church) they were burying stones in the old German crypts to simply dispose of them. Get them out of sight. This was not intended to create another controversy, nor to paint anyone evel (or good); I am simply stating facts. They were moving the headstones to remove traces of them, to erase the memory of them, nothing more, nothing less.--Agrofe 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thank you Agrofe, that was the point that Tulko was trying to avoid.
There existed thousands of German cemeteries in the East, at least half of them outside Poland. You are welcome to write about the destruction of the cemeteries, but not only in Poland. This is a Wikipedia, not BashthePoles-pedia. It should be compared also with the situation of Polish graves in Poland, massively destroied after the expiration of the term (25 years ?).
How many gravestones older than 60 years are preserved in an average German cemetery?
I wouldn't start an "erasing memory" discussion after the Germans tried to erase Poland. There are sometimes bigger problems than destruction of tombstones, eg. killing people and burning their bodies in pits during WWII.Xx236 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to graveyard destruction we should definately be discussing all of eastern Europe (this was not my intention and my only experience includes Silesia). Maybe we should start a article? My fear is that it appears we are having a hard time subordinating our agendas to a common ground so it will quickly degenerate into a evil vs good piece.
It is human nature for people to feel humiliation, regret, horror, anger and resentment (American, German, Japanese, Pole, Russian, Chinese, whomever) about the unbelievable things our ancestors have done (and in some cases continue to do) to each other.
There is clearly an anxiety with the Poles in Kamienna Góra and Lower Silesia (transplants and descendents of transplants from the Ukraine) about the part of history the Germans have played in that area. They live primarily in Polish government owned former homes of German speaking Silesians. To put my self in the shoes of the folks in Kamienna Góra, it is completely understandable to try "erase" the memory of German history in there.
I apologize if my prior edits offended or indicated I was trying to compare WWII with 2007 or Poles with Germans in any way. Moreover, the last thing I was trying to do was bash anyone, let along the Poles whom have stuggled immensly in recent history. I was mearly attempting to state facts.--Agrofe 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what is going on in Kamienna Góra, but generally in Poland you have to pay for a grave any 20 or 25 years. Some German graves are perfectly preserved, one has to pay someone to clean the grave. There are many small businesses of this type recently.
People have to care about their family graves themselves. Many Polish gravestones decay. Especially metallic parts are robbed and sold as scrap.Xx236 16:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, yet again Xx changes the discussion from the topic at hand to the injustices suffered by Poles under the Nazi regime. This is not about the poor old Poles Xx, can you stay on topic for atleast a couple of discussions? We all know what happened to Poles, XX, you have told us a million times on wikipedia, we need you to say it over again about as much as we need a bullet in the head.
Thanks for the feedback, Xx236. It makes sense what you are saying and I have heard about the paid grave maintainence thing in other part of Western Europe. I was not aware of it in Poland too.
I want to be sure I have been clear, however, as I am not the most articulate person :-). This had nothing to do with lack of familial care or attention to the gravesite/gravestones. Regarding the graveyards I am talking about the issue was not decay or deterioration but deliberate destruction of gravesites/gravestones to remove them from sight. Thievery was not invloved either as they were not removing them but smashing and burying the crypts and stones. I am simply stating a fact about about what I saw in a very minute part of Eastern Europe. I again apologize if I had not been clear.--Agrofe 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Agrofe, was this a more general pattern or an individual incident you're talking about ? Who was responsible for that ? What were his motives ? Any references would be helpful, too, as I've not heard about this (not a surprise). Thanks. --Lysytalk 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lysy, I can only talk of two cemetaries specifically in Kamienna Góra. The only refeences I have are photographs. Please read the above dialogue and you will see the apparent motives. To remove any traces of German hertiage there. --Agrofe 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to add a point that I negelected to point out earlier. There two graveyards I reffered to in my editing of this pages was where there was current actvity. At the three other graveyards we visited the work of destroying the any sign of German history had been done in the past. This included the scraping away of the text of headstones build into the church walls, using the stones as sidwealk pavers etc... In Lubawka (German: Liebau) the public swimming pool is build out of headstones from the Catholic cemetary there. --Agrofe 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the subject - be my guest.
Any article about the destruction of German graveyards should start with the description of the destruction of Jewish cemeteries in Poland by Germans during WWII.
The destruction of bodies of millions by the Germans should also be mentioned.
The destruction of German texts was decided by the Communist government. Local people were rather looking for gold in the graves, which was also a German custom during the Holocaust. I believe that Die fremde Stadt mentiones the destruction of inscriptions and graves, so let's quote an academic text arther than describe Lubawka.
Anything Agrofe describes was done by Germans in Poland during WWII so the Poles rather mimicked the nation of Goethe and Beethoven than invented something new.
German inscriptions are being reconstructed, I'm not sure if in Lubawka.
Hi Xx236, I had not thought of starting an article on this subject but most importantly I was in no way trying to make any comparison between my limited expereinces and the horrible atrocities the German govermment commited to Jews and others before and during WWII. I apologize if I came across to some this way. I was only attempting to clarify my previous discussion. With regards to the "who done it" piece; I place no blame (and hold no resentment) as to who did the destroying and was meerly stating facts. To blame or resent would mean there could be no reconciliation. I sense your anger about me speaking only about Lubawka, I feel bad you are upset with me and I truly mean that (I am not familiar with Die fremde Stadt and personal travels in Kamennia Gora is my only experience). My intention is not to upset people or create controversy. I will continually seek to try to find better ways to articultate myself and any help/tips that people can give m is much appreciated. I totally agree with what you say about what the Germans did during WWII in Poland (not sure how Geothe and Beethoven fit in though; but I am not that smart :-) ). I had heard about some organizations restoring graveyards. Does anyone have any contact information about these groups?--Agrofe 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
not sure how Geothe and Beethoven fit in though""
Germans came to Poland believing they were culturally higher than the Poles and Jews in Poland. They performed frequently arian classical music, operas.Xx236 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Pope Pius XII.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In a letter to the German bishops on 1.03.1948 Pope Pius XII. wrote:
“Special consideration will always deserve the east refugees, which were expelled from their homeland in the east by force and under expropriation without compensation…
If we come to speak on them, Us does not occupy here so much the juridical, economic and political point of view of that in the past of Europe unprecedented action. About the called points of view the history will judge. We fear, admittedly, that her judgment will be severe. We believe to know what has happened during the years of war in the wide rooms of the Vistula up to the Volga.
But was it allowed as counterstrike to expel twelve million people of house and court and to abandon to impoverishment? Are the victims of that counterstrike not in the quite prevailing majority people which were uninvolved in the indicated events and misdeeds, which had been without influence on them?
[…]”
Of course Poland has the right to exist, to reappear on the world map. Also the Jewish people had the right to reappear on the world map. Also the Silesians, East Prussians and so on... would have the right to reappear on the world map...
This is not the point. The sticking point is h o w Poland reappeared on the world map. By breaking International Laws (annexing other people's ancestral homeland, expelling people from their ancestral homeland, disregarding votes of people, their right of self-determination and so on...).
How do you call people which act like this?
Well, all this has unveiled especially Alfred de Zayas who is employed at the U.N. in Geneva. If you read his books maybe you would understand better what I mean here.
Stop being ridiculous Wikiferdi. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion with my statements above I supplied evidence for what I am maintaining here. If you don't agree with me you should disprove it. You shouldn't just say: "It's ridiculous", you should argue w h y it be ridiculous. Wikiferdi 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Under "History" (Poland) is written that "all the Allies agreed on the restitution of Poland". Well, let's take a look to the German Wikipedia site to Polish history: de:Geschichte Polens. It's flashy that this article is much longer than the English counterpart: History of Poland. In the German article is stated that William II, German Emperor proclaimed a "Polish Kingdom" on the 5 November 1916. - I don't want to discuss here Polish history and I am not holding that this act was motivated by an altruistic German attitude but I am thinking in that time did exist a certain sympathy for Polish people and their wish for (democratic) independence. A proof could be the Hambacher Fest (1832) - a step forward for democracy in Germany. - This is linked to the November Uprising in Poland (1830/31). Wikiferdi 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Poland existed sinde 9th century, Germany lost the war and that was term of surrender. It is more then 60 years after the war, nobody blame today's Germany of course for what happened so far in the history. But if you still insist that you want to align with your history then shut up and keep your mouth in silence. Do not try to blame polish, russian or czechoslovak people and do not try to force them to apologize arguing with Nazi propaganda from 1938. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you support payback for the millions of killed German men, women and children, Tulko? After all, if Poland wasn't to blame as you pretend, then you wouldn't have a reason to be here defending your ancestor's actions in the expulsions
Potsdam Conference and the Western Frontier of Poland
Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
(cf. Read the "Potsdam Protocol", above)
The Potsdam Protocol from "The Avalon Project at Yale Law School" (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade17.htm) has the wrong numeration. The article of that document about the Western Frontier of Poland which refers to as Article VIII. actually is Article IX. Well, it's just the numeration, the proposition is the same:
"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."
This means that until this peace settlement the contemplable German territories still remained in Germany after WWII.
So this sentence in our discussed Wikipedia article is wrong:
"The majority of the deportations occurred in areas belonging to Czech Republic, Poland and Russia after the war."
Correct would be: The majority of the deportations occured in areas belonging to Germany and were executed for creating accomplished facts in anticipation of the "final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland which should await the peace settlement".
Wikiferdi 07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You cannot take the Potsdam Protocol, without the Teheran and Yalta ones and without Soviet point of view, maybe still classified. Stalin imposed his rules, he occupied East Germany and designed the Polish-German border. It's American problem, that the USA didn't sign the "peace settlement". Stalin imposed his own settlement creating the GDR and making Poland ang GDR signing the Zgorzelec agreement. Xx236 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.
Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:
"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."
Under item VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write: "The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."
Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."
In this way it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli.
Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration.
(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too. Alfred de Zayas has described this very exactly in his books. E. g. "Nemesis at Potsdam" or "The German Expellees.")
Well, Xx236, we have to write the history as it was and not as Stalin would like it. Here a official U.S. American site which is very enlightening about U. S. POV on postwar Germany: usinfo.state.gov
-- Wikiferdi 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Following thoughts I take for the most part from a reading of Dr. de Zayas in Pittsburgh [34]
There he quotes from Victor Gollancz's (an English Jew) book “Our Threatened Values” (page 96):
"If the conscience of men ever again becomes sensitive, these expulsions will be remembered to the undying shame of all who committed or connived them... The Germans were expelled, not just with an absence of over-nice consideration, but with the very maximum of brutality."
Dr. de Zayas pronounces: “Some critical voices might say they have an axe to grind, that they are just trying to excuse themselves. But you have extensive documentation -- American, British, French documentation that prove the nature of the expulsions as an exceedingly cruel and brutal expulsion.”
In August of 1941 President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill had agreed in the middle of the Atlantic on the ship Augusta on the so-called Atlantic Charter. This Atlantic Charter provided that neither would seek territorial or other aggrandizement, and they both undertook a commitment to oppose "territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."
Mr. de Zayas asserts that Robert Murphy, the political advisor of General Eisenhower, and later the political advisor of Clay during the occupation in Germany, had been one of the first official voices in the American government that opposed the Expulsion, and to criticize the manner in which the Expulsion was being carried out.
So, as a result of this and all the memoranda of Murphy, the American government had repeatedly protested at Warsaw and at Prague and had tried to get some cooperation from the Czechoslovak government and from the Polish government.
“But unfortunately the Soviet occupation forces in those areas encouraged both the Polish and the Czechoslovak governments in the Expulsion, so there was no way for the U.S. to effectively stop it.” (cf. Dr. de Zayas)
"but with the very maximum of brutality." really ? Provide sources. In 1938 Germans was the first who expelled Czechs from Sudetes and later they decided to expell Czechs to Siberia and capture whole Czechoslovakia. What do you expect that should happen after the war ? Cry as much as you want we don't care. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Chechens were expelled cruelly and brutally, the Germans were relatively lucky ones.Xx236 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
any sources Xx/Tulko? Wikiferdi provided his. I would love to believe you Xx, but we need sources to add your POV into the article, wikiferdi has cited sources, if you want any shred of credibility, you must start citing some.
--Jadger 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jan Peczkis (Chicago IL, USA) - See all my reviews
There are sources out there. A great source for the events that occurred after the Potsdam agreement can be found in; The Tragedy of Silesia 1945-46: a Documentary Account with a Special Survey of the Archdiocese of Breslau by Johannes (ed.) Kaps.
In www.amazon.com there is a review of the book. I think it is very accurate and I hope it is ok to post it here;
The German Expellees Replaced by the Polish Expellees, and a Nuanced View of Postwar Interethnic Relations, January 26, 2007, Reviewer: Jan Peczkis (Chicago IL, USA)
By way of introduction to this subject, the German expellees have been in the news recently, owing to the building of a museum in Germany to commemorate them, and owing to German-revanchist attempts to acquire financial compensation from Poland (To which the Poles retaliated by reminding everyone that it was the Germans who were the aggressors in WWII, and by drawing up a mock financial counterclaim against Germany for such things as the nearly-total destruction of Warsaw).
Kaps provides an anthology of German accounts of their experiences prior to and during the expulsions. In my opinion, his work on this subject is far superior to those of Alfred Maurice de Zayas. There is no hint, in Kaps, of the canard that accuses the Russians and Poles of killing 2 million Germans during the forced resettlement.
Interestingly, there was often a transitional period during which both the German owners and the recently-arrived Poles lived on the same farmsteads. Friendships sometimes developed. Kaps includes German accounts that mention Poles describing their recent sufferings at the hands of the Russians and the Ukrainian fascists. Pointedly, the German expellees also recognized the fact that the arriving Poles THEMSELVES were expellees (The population transfer had been caused by the giveaway of the Kresy (prewar eastern half of Poland) to the Soviet Union by Churchill and Roosevelt, for which Poland acquired prewar German territories up to the Oder-Neisse (Odra-Nysa) rivers). Despite the fact that Poles had been the first victims of German aggression, and Poland was supposed to be on the winning side of the war, the Poles, no less than the Germans, had nothing to say about their fate. Instead, both Poles and Germans were forced to abandon their centuries-old domiciles without their consent, and without compensation, and to start a new life on a new land. (Taking a chapter from American history, some Poles facetiously called these recovered territories the "Wild West".)
The atrocities of the Russians (against Germans and--not mentioned--also against Poles) included murder, rape, and vandalism. As an example of the latter, Soviet soldiers looted a church and then used its interior as a latrine. Polish cruelties against Germans consisted mostly of beatings (especially when inebriated) and thefts. For instance, gangs of Polish orphans would frequent the trains and waylay the German passengers.
Although Communism is supposed to scorn "bourgeoisie nationalism", its members were not above inciting nationalistic hatreds when it served their purposes. In particular, the newly-imposed Soviet puppet state, having virtually no indigenous support among the ethnic Polish population, attempted to gain an air of legitimacy by fanning the flames of anti-German sentiment. Kaps includes one account in which a newly-arrived Polish Communist official said in a public address: "You German swine are going to work until you are dead, and, if I have my way, you will have nothing to eat!"
Some of the German expellees obviously learned nothing from the war, and continued to repeat pre-Nazi and Nazi-era racist statements against Slavs. Kaps includes several such accounts. Germans repeatedly spoke of the Poles as being incompetent (a forerunner of the concept of Polnische Wirtschaft), and some Germans even accused the Slavs of being exceptionally creative in their sadism. (Look who is talking)!
Although many millions of Poles and Soviet citizens had been murdered by the Germans in the just-concluded war, not all Poles or Russians were thirsty for revenge. Far from it: Kaps includes accounts of Germans calling on Poles to protect them from Russians, while still other accounts mention the vice-versa. Kaps even includes accounts of Germans testifying of Poles and Russians being "wonderfully kind to us".--Agrofe 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks Agrofe, that reinforces my point, I was asking for Xx and/or Tulko to prove that it was more humane or that "the Germans were lucky". As for Agrofe's last paragraph, I understand their were exceptions to the rule, I never said that all Poles tried to kill/expel all Germans.
So, so far we have two references stating that it was an incredibly cruel expulsion, and no credible sources claiming opposite.
The text doesn't describe an incredibly cruel expulsion. Jadger deosn't have any idea what incredible cruelty is, because he wasn't a Jew in Nazi Germany or a Ukrainian peasant in the SU.
The Germans who got to Western Germany were extremely lucky to ride BMW and Mercedes cars in the 1960, when the Polish winners were living under Soviet occupation.
not surprising, Xx goes off-topic again. I'll tell you what Xx, when this article gets moved to Polish cars during the Cold War, then we can talk about this again. but otherwise, we should get back on topic (Xx willing of course). and incredible cruelty comes from the sources already provided. perhaps you can cite a source Xx that says it was "a walk in the park" as you claim. Sources have been cited that shows that it was incredibly cruel, where are your sources?
Jadger is a liar, because he claims that I have written a walk in the park, I haven't.
I have written that the Germans were masters in incredible cruelty. Prove that I'm wrong without using IHR facts. Xx236 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
to your number 2, see Widerstand. your racist characterizations of all Germans as cruel is offensive to anyone capable of rational thought. and the onus is on the person making the claims to cite sources or "prove that they're right" not on everyone else.
Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion
Read this, read it carefully and twice or three times at least. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Jadger mistakenly dismisses the above link as "just one source". I note that we've seen this link before (last year). It is, I believe, from a joint commission of Czech-German historians and, while there is a lot of useful information in it, the key point for us to take away is that this joint commission, working relatively recently, concluded that the "number of 220,000 victims of the transfer" should not be used in academic or political discourse.
In order to maintain an NPOV, this conclusion should be included in the article as a viewpoint that opposes at least part of the computation of the 2 million deaths. Specifically, both the Statistisches Bundesamt and the ZgV cite 238,000 deaths resulting from the Czech expulsions of Germans. If this number should really be estimated much lower as the joint commission recommends, then the 2 million deaths number should also be about 200,000 lower.
HOWEVER, we cannot use this one report to throw out the conclusions of the Statistisches Bundesamt. We can say that newer studies have tended to propose lower figures. We can also say (if it can be backed up by verifibale attributions to reliable sources) that the emerging consensus is to accept these newer downward revisions.
MOREOVER, based on the evidence we have seen so far, we can only cite the joint commission's work relative to the expulsions in Czechoslovakia. Has anyone done a similar study in Poland or any other Eastern European countries?
I still haven't seen a convincing exposition of what Haar and Overmans have written on this subject (my lack of German skills is a major reason for this). We know that they are saying 400,000-500,000 deaths but we don't know how to match this total number against the detailed country-by-country table from the ZgV. The only "country-level" number that we have is for Czechoslovakia.
I confess that I don't know what Nitschke has to say on this subject.
My point is: It may be the case that the recent trend is moving towards revising the numbers of the Statistisches Bundesamt and the ZgV downwards. It is reasonable for us to include this information in the article. However, we need to do it in an NPOV way with ample citations of reliable sources. --Richard 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
wow, one source that doesn't even have an author, that doesn't mean we should just throw out multiple more reliable sources. Although I must point out that your reference just reinforces my point: The appalling experiences they had been through during the war led to callousness and and cruelty on the part of the Czech population too. or perhaps you should read your own source, because you claim the expellation wasn't cruel, but in the very source you cite, there is the section title homicidal excesses of the transfer or perhaps you didn't read the sentence Nevertheless, the psychological situation of the totally exhausted Germans could not have been more traumatic.
But, I think the best proof comes from the Red Army. KILL! KILL! In the German race there is nothing but evil. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill! You gallant soldiers of the Red army (Ilya Ehrenburg)
Tulkolahten, the Czechoslovakian state was created after WWI (1918). Before, the Czechs and the Slovaks were parts of Austria-Hungary. The territory where the Czechoslovakian state was built was the historic Bohemia.
Well and now comes what I don’t understand: German population had existed in Bohemia for hundreds of years. They felt there at home. But when the Czechoslovakian state was built the Germans didn’t become integrated in the name of this new country – although the German population was the second largest in Bohemia, after the Czechs, definitely larger than the Slovaks. (According to the February 1921 census 3,123,000 Germans lived in all Czechoslovakia - 23.4% of the total population. cf. Sudetenland.)
Well in my humble opinion the country name C z e c h o s l o v a k i a was symptomatic: President Edvard Beneš who was a leader of the Czechoslovak independence movement didn’t let the Bohemian Germans exercise their right of self-determination. He wanted the whole Bohemia but actually without the Germans (first of all in the country name). So there were some thoughts about a population transfer of Germans quite before WWII. In the interwar time the German population was disadvantaged, kept inferior, deprived – with the result that the Bohemian Germans were “driven into the arms” of Hitler. Could this Germans really forecast that Hitler (an Austrian) was going to get too big for his boots and conquering the whole Bohemia (Czechoslovakia) – and the rest of the world?
Wikiferdi read something about the history, Bohemia existed in these territory since Premyslid dynasty. Germans were invited in 13th and 14th century. You are impeaching existence of two states (Czechoslovakia and Poland), that's ridiculous. And about Austria-Hungary, at first Austria is not Germany (even if maybe you agree with german occupation of austria in 1938), at second read something about the battle on White Mountain in 1620. Hey Wikiferdi, I heard that in Moscow on the square some tourist spoke german, maybe Moscow is a german homeland ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tulkolahten, thanks for the reading. Can you tell us the source? Also, unfortunately for the article's credibility, it does not site any of it's sources. Lastly, statements like "The vast majority of them remained faithful to the Nazi ideology -either out of conviction or simply from force of habit" seam a bit unreasonable and further erode credibility. --Agrofe 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a 6th chpater only from the book "Rozumet dejinam", sources are in the index, I will find next chapters and index. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tulkolahten, I am under the impression that in your replies you often miss the point of what I mention here. I don't think that you are dull-witted. So, please read first very calmly the postings here (as you demand from us) before you answer. (Answering my viewpoints of more than 30 lines only 3 minutes after I have posted them is too quick, isn't it?) Wikiferdi 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tulkolahten, Please suppl,y the source of the piece. I am very curious to research some more.. Regards, --Agrofe 12:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Foreword: [35]
Chapter I: [36]
Chapter II: [37]
Chapter III: [38]
Chapter IV: [39]
Chapter V: not found
Chapter VI: [40]
Chapter VII: not found
Chapter VIII: [41]
But Mr. Jadger ignore this source, because it is czech source. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
wow, first personal attacks, now incivility and assuming bad faith, are you trying to break all tenements of wikipedia this month? or are you just on a war path like 131, where you want to get banned then keep evading your block? I ask you to stop insulting me, before I report you to admin, I have been very lenient so far.
In case you are mistaken or delusional, I have never stated that a source cannot be used or is not reliable because it is from a Czech or Polish source.
I also notice that it was published for the Czech Government, which makes me think along the lines of "recovered territories". After all, they still haven't rescinded the Benes decree, and they still claim it was legal to kill Germans under those decrees, so refuse to charge anyone. Not saying it wouldn't be a good source for some basic information, but I also remember how detailed and accurate my highschool history books were.
Hi again, Tulkolhaten. Thanks for the rest of the material. Chapter VIII contains the bilbiography (starting on page 291) and is not inlcuded here. Can you please link it? Sorry to be persistent but I think everyone is very interested. Regards,--Agrofe 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
the URL is http://www.mkcr.cz/download.php?id=1242 to change the chapter, just copy and paste the URL into your webbrowser and change the last two digits on the end of it 1242 being the bibliography,
To Jadger: I was searching for the translation of "Rozumet dejinam" for Richard and I've found official translation on the ministry of culture web pages. Also I think you've never read Benes decrees and you have no idea what is it and what was and is their purpose. Try to find all Benes decrees and read them, you will find the reason and some lawyer will explain it to you. Benes decrees were created for law continuity and it is a whole complex of laws. You cannot imagine the consequences of their cancellation. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[[58]] Article 1 of the Benes Decree (Law of May 8th, 1946) states: Any act committed between September 30th, 1938, and October 28th, 1945, the object of which was to aid the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks or which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accoMplices, is not illegal, even when such actions may otherwise be punishable by law. Yes, imagine a world where there is no state sanctioned murder or robbery, I wonder what that world would be like? oh wait, we have that in the Western World, it's called civilization.
Hey Jadger, note: the last "Benes decree" was passed on 28 October 1945.--Honzula 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It covers the war, as you know there were werewolfs and borders were not safe, some germans did not accept capitulation as you should know. Any action to enemy during the war is acceptable and not illegal, that's logical. I can't imagine that anyone would be persecuted and judged for action against enemy in the war. I wonder if you know what the war is. What the hell do you expect Jadger, you occupy country, you mass killing its people, you kill whole families and you think that nothing happens to you ? That's absolutely arrogant, that's how you play a victim. I am fed up with your revisionism and revanchism, you expect humble apologies for war we did not cause and the only thing you regret is that Nazi lost the war - I know about your vandalism of Polish articles about WW2 battles. After the worst mass killing and bestial behavior all over the menkind history you expect highly civilised and humble behavior and response. I am absolutely fed up with you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
let's break down your argument, shall we?
Any action to enemy during the war is acceptable and not illegal, that's logical. Actually NO, see Geneva convention for example. Just because you are at war does not mean you can murder civilians of a different nationality.
I can't imagine that anyone would be persecuted and judged for action against enemy in the war. Have you never heard of the Nuremburg Trials, or Dachau Massacre(the GIs were court-martialled) or Malmedy?
I wonder if you know what the war is. What the hell do you expect Jadger, you occupy country, you mass killing its people, you kill whole families and you think that nothing happens to you? well, according to you it shouldn't, because you said Any action to enemy during the war is acceptable and not illegal, that's logical. WWII was total war as first thought of by Clausewitz, that means you attack all things that may allow the enemy to wage war, including populace (terror bombings come to mind).
I would however like to know, you stateI wonder if you know what the war is. What the hell do you expect Jadger, you occupy country, you mass killing its people, you kill whole families and you think that nothing happens to you? and what of after the war? that Benes decree includes time after the war. so, in war your not allowed to mass kill people, or kill whole families, but after the war you can enact special laws like the Benes decree to allow that to happen? HYPOCRISY
I would like to ask for an apology Tulko, I have ignored your personal attacks long enough, and it is starting to get on my nerves. consider this your final warning before I report you, now please apologize.
Hi all! I suggest to append the contemporary juristic and political view on the expulsion to this chapter Czechoslovakia. For example this:
"The pre-war policy of minority protection was now seen as useless and contraproductive (and the minorities themself were seen as the source of unrest and instability), because it led to the destruction of democratic regime and whole Czechoslovak state. Therefore the czechoslovakian leaders made decision to change the multiethnical character of the state to the state of 2 or 3 nations (Czechs, Slovaks and initially also the Ruthenians). This goal should be reached by the transfer of the major part of minorities members and the succesive assimilation of the rest. Because almost all people of German and Magyar ethnicity gained the German or Hungarian citizenship during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the tranfer could be legalized as the banishment (germ. Ausweisung)."
(Trávníček, Miroslav: Osidlování s hlediska mezinárodního a vnitrostátního právního řádu. Časopis pro právní a státní vědu. XXVII/1946
Also note, the sentence "Germans living in the border regions of Czechoslovakia were expelled from the country in late 1945." is wrong, because the "wild" expulsion happened from May till August 1945 and the regular transfer proceeded from 25 January 1946 till October of that year.--Honzula 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is here somebody who can correct this mistake in the article ?? Honzula 10:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
End of discussion - this dispution was and still is about the numbers and POV of the article, not about the WW2 results
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Discussion is long and conclusion seems to be far.
I've found this: [59] where is this:
According to an article in Der Spiegel (4/1999), the casualties in the World War Two follows (in millions):
Country / Military / Civilian
USSR / 13.6 / 7.0
Germany / 4.8 / 0.5
Japan / 1.2 / 0.6
Yugoslavia / 0.4 / 1.3
USA / 0.3 / 0.006
Poland / 0.3 / 4.2
So, Germany lost 500.000 civilians, where are these 3 millions ?
Some sources refers to 1,840,000 civilian deaths on the Germany side
Some other sources refers to 3,600,000 civilian deaths on the Germany side.
If you take any of them, try to think about it. Do you think there was a mass killing in a few months after the war that would kill 3.000.000 germans ? But take care about the higher numbers - they of course must include Nazi persecution on the own people (there were Jews in Germany too). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The expulsions are not included because they were not a part of WWII, but a consequence. to use a metaphor: Should we blame my frostbite on the fact that I went skiing, or the fact that I didn't wear adequate clothing when skiing. or, to put it simply, you are pretending to use stats from a related subject to misconstrue what happened in this subject.
I think you have never been in the Central Europe and you are not able to imagine how high number is 3000000. If you were and if you can you would understand that it is impossible. There are sources rebuting that but you still ignore them. You ignore czech sources because they do not provide so high numbers or do you think they are written by someone you do not trust and that's why they are not credible ? Or why do you ignore czech sources ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some people can imagine anything. However, looks that somebody already separated the expulsion casualties from WWII. Somebody did which we all could not imagine. Hmm. Actually nobody could. We attempted some estimation, and some genius did the impossible. Hurray! - 3 millions for sure. --131.104.218.46 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
since block evading vandal likes to not discuss in chronological order and insert random comments in the middle of a discussion, I will reply to her here. We were not saying you couldn't separate them from WWII deaths, we said you can't separate expulsion and flight/evacuations deaths from each other. Do you ever pay attention to discussion? or just like being disruptive?--Jadger 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never been in Central Europe, but I understand what 3 million is. that is 400 times the size of my hometown, or the population of Toronto, Canada's largest city. If 3 million is impossible, than surely the 6 million jews killed in the holocaust is a lie also right? I am not saying that, that is your reasoning. I could ask you the same question about German sources Tulko, but the reason I don't trust these czech "sources" is because they have not been peer reviewed, all good sources must be peer-reviewed.
Don't twist my words, it doesn't imply that Nazi did not kill 6000000 Jews. It is a holocaust denier logic ! Germans killed 6000000 in tens of death camps, killing was massive and organized. So you are saying that you don't trust czech sources now, if I provide any czech source you will not trust and you will ignore. I will tell you why you don't trust czech sources, because you think czech historicians are not well educated men from the east, it smells with racism. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Jadger, you have never been in Germany and you play an expert in German matters. Hard to believe, this must be a joke.Xx236 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, more personal attacks and incivility!!! when will they get back to the topic instead of obsessing over me? just because I do not live in Germany, or have not stepped on soil taken from Germans, does not mean I have no idea what I am talking about. I would actually dare to say I have a more abstract view, as I'm not worried about defending the horrendous actions of my ancestors.
It is a holocaust denier logic ! well, it was your logic. So let me get this straight, whenever you ask a question or state something, then I repeat it, and all of a sudden it has become "demagogic" or "holocaust denial"?
I will tell you why you don't trust czech sources, because you think czech historicians are not well educated men from the east, it smells with racism. wow, more bad faith, now who's putting words in other people's mouths, your now telling me what to think!
And Tulko, let's "take the ball and run" on your blatantly false accusations. perhaps you can cite another source, since you have only ever cited one gov't history book. I don't care, let it be Czech. But your reliance on only one Czech source is pretty evident, it looks like there are no other books published by more reputable publishers that support your viewpoint.
Jadger, you have behaved many times as a stocker. You have even studied the history of my edits, instead to comment the text after editing. I believe that knowledge of language and of the country helps to understand its history and you prove that I'm right. I find some of your statements belonging to mild Holocaust revisionism.
The goal of the III Reich was to kill and this goal was implemented with perfection, scientifically. The Soviet Union has never started to exterminate Germans the way it did exterminate Chechens, Ukrainians, Soviet Poles, educated Poles. Some Germans pretend to be main victims of the 20th century, to remove the memory of victims of Germans. Xx236 15:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Xx, talk about a victim complex!!! do you really think that someone would bother to follow you around? you are delusional.
The goal of the III Reich was to kill and this goal was implemented with perfection, scientifically. The Soviet Union has never started to exterminate Germans the way it did exterminate Chechens, Ukrainians, Soviet Poles, educated Poles. Some Germans pretend to be main victims of the 20th century, to remove the memory of victims of Germans. This is not only totally off-topic, but also incredibly delusional, so I have no comment on this.
Only those directly responsible for atrocities should be tried and punished, not entire nations - including elderly, women and children. To me this argument looks ridiculous - as if suffering of Jews, Poles, Russians were greater than that of German people. What has some German born say, in 1940, to do with Holocaust, Death camps? But they were starved, raped, tortured and killed just because they were Germans! In some respect German suffering seems to me even greater, because it was not politically correct even to talk about it until recent, while all other nations remembered their victims with great national pomp and rituals. Germans have carried that collective guilt through generations but lets admit their suffering and accept that some decisions made regarding German civil population and some acts especially in Eastern Europe were injust (in some instances one can talk about genocide against German civilians). Only then we can move away from the legacy of WWII.
There are no main or lesser victims, Nazi killed according to racial dependence, Soviets against class dependence, both regimes were equally evil, only difference is that one happened to make alliance with the West and to come out of the war on the winning side and never got tried at international Tribunal.
The truth is, Some Poles pretend to be main victims of the 20th century, to remove the memory of victims of Poles. after all, that's what you keep trying, every time someone tries to talk about Germans killed, you have always changed it to either the holocaust or the Nazi atrocities.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The Wikipedia article German minority in Poland states: “The vast majority of Germans were expelled, but some remained.” As I know, some of this Germans had to do forced labor... Now, since the beginning of the nineties - after the cold war - is it possible for this Germans in Poland to avow that they are Germans. They have founded some registered associatons like the VDG - But I have heard that there would still be discrimination against them in Poland: E. g. there would be a law which makes forced labor and war captivity creditable for annuity computation – but just for Poles which “always” had been Poles, i. e. not for Poles with German origin. For them this law would define that such time in the annuity computation is counted as “inactive time”.
Really. Where do you get these from ? --Lysytalk 10:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It is worthless Lysy, at the end of this discussion you will see that Poland caused the World War Two... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If they believe to be discriminated why don't they sue the Polish government? Xx236 12:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Xx236, I am struck dumb with astonishment. You of all people are making this suggestion. Well as I am informed the Prussian Trusteeship is doing something near it. I am surprised that you agree on this option. Wikiferdi 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Lysy, I heard this from Polish friends some years ago - well I could call them to verify if this law is already amended, but maybe Tulkolahten or Xx236 could investigate it because they are able to speak Polish and so they can look for such laws (in the Internet...). Wikiferdi 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For Richard 20Feb07
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Unfortunately Haar 2005 – reviewed the book this is not about explsion 1944-1948(1950) it is about ethnic cleanings before 1945 done by Germans and scientists who supported this ideas.
Overmans book 2000, “Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg.” Is strictly about German military losses nothing more – nothing there about expulsion?
I confess that I don't know what Nitschke has to say on this subject.
She says: “Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280).”
Thus that means TOTAL: 1.1 millions deaths.
She also says: “Though estimates of the dead range widely, as many as ‘’’a million Germans’’’ perished during flight and expulsion from Poland in 1944-45.”
It means in years 1946 - 1950? 100.000. Take for consideration that so call wild expulsion started on May 1945 and the 1944 and first part of 1945 was actually the flight.
Next she says: “In the long fourth chapter, Nitschke turns to the expulsions, which came in three waves. During a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945, the Polish military drove up to 400,000 Germans across Poland's new western border.”
“The second wave of expulsions came after the Potsdam conference, but before the "organized transfer" of remaining Germans began in early 1946. From August to December, 1945, Poles expelled close to 600,000 more Germans in poorly organized transports.”
“The final phase involved the transfer of 2.25 million Germans in a process coordinated with British and Soviet authorities in occupied Germany in 1946 and 1947.”--Serafin 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, so the problem as I see it, is that we still don't have a good number for how many Germans died in Poland except that maybe (according to Nitschke), the max is 1 million (a number that is a little too "round" for my liking).
In any event, if you look at the numbers provided in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe, you see 1,225,000 deaths in the "Eastern German territories" and 263,000 in Poland for a total of 1,488,000 deaths which differs from Nitschke's estimates by about 500,000. If you take this downward revision of 500,000 and add it to the downward revision of 150,000 or so that the joint commission of Czech and German historians proposed, you can see how the ZgV's numbers of 2 million could be revised downards to 1 - 1.2 million which is what I believe Overmans is proposing. I don't understand the 500,000 figure yet.
What I'm still looking for is some indication of whether Nitschke, Haar and Overmans are widely accepted as right or if they are still the minority challenging the established majority opinion. It would help if we could get some quotes that evaluate the work of these historians and puts them in context of the overall consensus of academic opinion.
Another figure: Andrzej Brożek claimed 1.02 million. Nietschke dismisses this number. --Lysytalk 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Serafin: What book exactly are you citing please ? --Lysytalk 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
#2 Richard 20:53 20Feb
Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion
Yeah, so the problem as I see it, is that we still don't have a good number for how many Germans died in Poland except that maybe (according to http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=260621074909720), the max is 1 million (a number that is a little too "round" for my liking).
Richard, you reading very carelessly. This is 1.1 in total not round million. Or do you ridicule the estimations at start? The "a million" is because more easy was to estimate the total and the 1946-1950 loses from obvious reasons. Nobody can know exact number of deaths during flight, there was complete chaos. Who died was just buried on spot at road. Some graves disappeared just because were provisionally marked only. I remember some graves of even Polish soldiers on an edge of forest which disappeared in time. The wooden crosses just disintegrated. You do not believe because you are too young.
I am familiar with the 1.1 million number. I was just commenting on the 1 million number being too "round".
No, I am not ridiculing the estimations. It's just that we need to talk as precisely as possible even though we know that true precision is impossible. As for the rest of the lecture, I am in full agreement with all that. I don't think my lack of belief is simply because I am "too young". In fact, I don't know what you think I don't believe. I am the one who is being criticized for being too willing to believe the 2 million number from the ZgV. --Richard 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In any event, if you look at the numbers provided in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe, you see 1,225,000 deaths in the "Eastern German territories" and 263,000 in Poland for a total of 1,488,000 deaths which differs from Nitschke's estimates by about 500,000.
The 500.000 is big number, too big. I would believe in accuracy if the difference would be 100.000. But Nitschke could not count the East lost Polish teritories KresyPoland's old and new borders, 1945 - "Recovered Territories" marked in yellow, "Lost Territories" marked in blue.. Any way my goal is to separate the Flight number from Expulsion number.
If you take this downward revision of 500,000 and add it to the downward revision of 150,000 or so that the joint commission of Czech and German historians proposed, you can see how the ZgV's numbers of 2 million could be revised downards to 1 - 1.2 million which is what I believe Overmans is proposing. I don't understand the 500,000 figure yet.
This counting I do not understand. You want see the most exact total number of deaths I suppose. What I attempt is to prevent such quacking like “Poland,…murdered millions of Germans.”. We have to assume that same individuals can be handicapped and can not read and write correctly and the info should be VERY simple.
And this complaining about "Poland murdered millions" is something I don't understand. I think the truth is Poland and the Soviet Union set up the conditions in which 1-2 million Germans died under the sanction of the Potsdam agreement which was sanctioned by the U.S. and U.K. Was it murder? I don't know. Was it inhumane? Yes but there was a lot of inhumanity occurring in those days. --Richard 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The truth is that one million civilians didn't die after the Potsdam conference, it didn't even die after the war. Almost any source writes "Flucht und Vertreibung". If you include German POVs in Siberia, they didn't die in Poland. And Koenigsberg wasn't in Poland but the majority of estimates don't make any difference. Don't move the responsibility for the US bombs and Soviet torpedoes on "Poland".
the statement "six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died" 1.1 million includes victims of the Flucht, and certainly not after the Potsdam agreement. Xx236 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the point Richard Xx put it clearly. Why you do not want see simple truth? It is amazing how you can.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serafin (talk • contribs)
What, are you arguing that 1.1 million died as a result of the flight and evacuation (Flucht) and none died as a result of the expulsions? I think we are agreed that it is nearly impossible to identify who died as a result of the flight and evacuation and who died during the expulsions. I think the articles about the expulsions and the exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe could make more of a point about this but I haven't seen anybody cite a reliable source that argues that the deaths were 1/3 due to flight and 2/3 due to expulsions or the other way around.
There is another point that I want to clarify about what I wrote above. I do not believe that Poles or Poland or even the Soviet Union "murdered" 1.1 million ethnic Germans. I believe that it is possible that 1.1 million ethnic Germans died during the flight, evacuation and expulsion and that the Soviet Union, Poles/Poland, the U.S. and the U.K. are all responsible in part for putting into motion policies which would result in some those deaths. (And, yeah, yeah, some of the deaths are due to Allied bombings and Soviet torpedoes.)
I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but solely because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details. Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
No, I haven't written what you believe I have. I'm arguing that your usage of the word Poland is unprecize. There existed two governments of Poland, one imposed to Poland by the SU and USA and supported by only a minority of Poles and the one in London. There was a civil war between Polish guerilla units and Soviet Army plus NKVD, later partially replaced by Polish Communist forces surveilled by Soviet advisors and controlled directly by Moscow till 1956. You single out a fraction of the society and call it Poland.
The situation in whole Poland 1944/1945 was of Wild West type, except that local communities weren't allowed to organize themselves to keep order. The Blue Police was dissolved and replaced by the MO, a bunch of Communist guerilla soldiers and criminals, without any police experience. The situation in the West was even worse than that, because no Polish social structures existed there. Xx236 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand and agree to some extent. There is imprecision that sometimes I wrote above "Poland" when I could have said "some Polish people". However, what happened during the expulsions was not all "wild" and "grass roots". Some of it happened with the explicit formal sanction of Potsdam and other Soviet Union policies. Some of it happened at the hands of the Soviet troops and some of it happened with the tacit complicity of Soviet troops looking the other way.
I may have used "Poland" imprecisely in what I wrote above but I would argue that this is jumping on a single phrase and trying to convict me of maligning the Polish government thereby. If you re-read the current revision of the article, I believe you will find that the article text is not guilty of this kind of imprecision. --Richard 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it unreasonable to saddle Poles and Czechs with all the responsibility for the evil that was perpetrated deliberately or unwittingly during the expulsions. However, I also think it is unreasonable to absolve them of all blame for complicity and collaboration in the affair. As the report of the joint commission of German and Czech historians indicates, some very nasty things were done and some very virtuous things were done. Let us report what happened, not what we would like to have been the case.
Czechoslovakia existed in 1945 as an independent state, ruled by democratically elected president Benes. Czech people weren't transported in terrible conditions from Siberia or Ukraine to Sudetenland and didn't starve under open air by -20C, without food. The cruelty of German occupation (toward non-Jews) was more than 10 times higher in Poland than in the Protectorate (eg. ratio of dead Poles/ratio of dead Czech people). The level of life of Czech workers was sometimes higher than in Germany, the Poles weren't allowed to learn, were hungry and under every-day terror. The superpowers should have prevented the revange in Poland, like they do in Kosovo now. There is also the problem of Jewish revange. The majority of the participants of it has left Poland, you shouldn't call them Poland. The best known Shlomo Morel equally mistreated Germans and Poles.
It's not my task to report anything. There are hundreds of academic texts - read them. I oppose unprecize or biased statements. I'm not the IPN or Polish Academy of Sciences.Xx236 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You can oppose all you want. Neither you nor I have any voice here at Wikipedia. Only the voices of reliable sources do. Now, we can debate whether the Statistisches Bundesamt and the ZgV are "reliable" sources or not but they are, at least, notable sources. It IS our task to report the sum of human knowledge as represented by academic texts, government reports and pronouncements of public organizations such as the ZgV. We don't have to say that they are right. We simply have to summarize the key positions so that a reader can walk after reading the article with a better understanding than when he started reading it.
Would you please don't write statements like "Poland and the Soviet Union"? The same "the USA and the SU enslaved Poland after the war" or "Slovakia and Germany invided the SU in 1941".
There existed two Polish governments, which one of them do you call "Poland"? Who gives you the right to decide, what was Poland in 1945? I don't. Xx236 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We should make a distinction between the two Polish governments and the Polish people.
I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details.
Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
I think it unreasonable to saddle Poles and Czechs with all the responsibility for the evil that was perpetrated deliberately or unwittingly during the expulsions. However, I also think it is unreasonable to absolve them of all blame for complicity and collaboration in the affair. As the report of the joint commission of German and Czech historians indicates, some very nasty things were done and some very virtuous things were done. Let us report what happened, not what we would like to have been the case.
"Poland and the Soviet Union" set up the conditions in which thousands of Poles died under the sanctions of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam agreements. It sounds quite absurd to me, but you write this way.
Xx236 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There are American conservatives who, to this day, still blame Roosevelt for "giving away Eastern Europe to the Commies at Yalta". In this way of thinking, Roosevelt is complicit in the deaths of those Poles. I don't quite agree with this assessment because I personally don't think Roosevelt gave away anything that he could have kept.
So perhaps you wish to exonerate both Polish governments for agreeing to expulsions that they could not have stopped even if they wanted to? Perhaps it is true that they could not have stopped it. However, I am not convinced that they wanted to stop it or objected to it in principle.
Watch the 1939 map - could Poland exist in the middle of Germany? WWII proved it couldn't. So the majority of Poles demanded East Prussia, Danzig, whole Upper Silesia (I don't know how far - with or without Oppeln) and some other areas with Slavic minorities. No mainstream politician wanted Breslau and Stettin.
Poland lost more than 45% of its territory. Should it have been the only victim of WWII? Really?
The London government didn't have any impact on administration and mob in annexed lands.
Really, where are your sources? Wikiferdi 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Roosevelt went to Yalta ill, poorly prepared. Any rational man would have demanded Stalin to come in a neutral land, rather than be controlled by NKVD, night and day.
Xx236 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What I'm still looking for is some indication of whether Nitschke, Haar and Overmans are widely accepted as right or if they are still the minority challenging the established majority opinion.
In my opinion you contradict yourself. You always propagated multipoint POV. I always propagate logic and comparison. We can come closer to truth only by deduction and investigation. There will be always “minority challenging the established majority opinion” as you say. Beside not always majority is right, as you know Hitler was elected and supported by majority.
I didn't say the majority is always right. However, it is not our job to determine who is right. It is our job to "describe the real world". If the consensus in the real world is X, then we should say "the consensus is X". If there is a challenge to X, then we should say "there is a minority opinion who challenge X". --Richard 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It would help if we could get some quotes that evaluate the work of these historians and puts them in context of the overall consensus of academic opinion.
If you have some idea how to do it I would try. From my experience in my professional field it is really difficult to get clue who of the researches is good and who barely satisfactory. You need to be professional yourself. Regularly scientific authors do not attack openly the opponent in scientific journals. They rather systematically attack opponent theories in extend period of time. In historical journals can be the same. Maybe you understand in this context that the academic opinion is not easy to grasp. Beside, quite often you need to know the scientists personal animosities. Some Wiki editor can be smarter then me and get multi pro and contra from popular press article on internet. Personally I do not trust popular newspapers there is too many errors and politic manipulations. I would consider “Google” type search in this point as waist of time.--Serafin 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. At this point in time, we can only say Statistisches Bundesamt says A, deZayas says B, Nitschke says C, Overmans says D and Haar says E. (Even now, it's not completely clear to me what each of these people say.) It may very well be the case that there are two camps with neither of them being the consensus opinion. If that's true, then we should say that.
What exactly does the St. Bundesamt say? Did they register all Germans in Poland in May 1945? Xx236 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Chuckle... I don't know if you intended it this way but the abbreviation of Statistisches to "St." makes it look like Saint Bundesamt which, whether you meant it to read that way or not, was quite amusing.
To answer your question, I don't know what the Statistisches Bundesamt said exactly. I do know that one endpoint of their population balance was the 1950 census. I don't know what the other endpoint was. Presumably it was 1940 or some point in the early 1940s.
Nitschke quotes Overmans, doesn't estimate any number of post-war victims herself. I don't know however other editions of the book (one German and one Polish).Xx236 10:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nitschke
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In a welcome departure from standard East Central European accounts of the expulsions, Nitschke briefly follows the German expellees across the border into occupied Germany. Drawing on German archival sources, she describes overcrowded refugee camps in the British Zone, where typhus outbreaks continued to kill expellees once they had crossed over from Poland. On the other hand, there is much that Nitschke leaves out. We get little sense of the interconnected policies of German expulsion and Polish resettlement. We also hear little about the Polish Communist Party, which used expulsion and resettlement to further its political goals.
Nitschke is particularly interested in establishing the numbers of expellees, and her conclusions (drawing from a wealth of regional studies) confirm the estimates of leading German scholars.[2] Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280). In its focus on the "balance sheet" of German losses, Nitschke's account is a conventional one. Even so, coming from the Polish side of the discussion on the expulsions, it is an important contribution towards finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath.
[2]. See Theodor Schieder, ed. Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bev?rung aus den Gebieten ?ich der Oder-Neisse. Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost-Mitteleuropa 1. Bonn: Federal Ministry for Expellees Refugees and War Victims, 1954.
If we believe Nitschke, it is not hard to believe that 1.5 to 2 million Germans died as a result of the flight, evacuation and expulsions from Eastern Europe. This is, I know, OR but it would be crazy to assume that all of the deaths happened in Poland and so, if 1.1 million Polish Germans died, then some number more than 1.1 million East European Germans died in total.
Moreover, if we accept Nitschke's numbers which state that 6 million fled or were evacuated and 3.6 million were expelled, we could conclude that approximately 60% of the deaths occurred during the flight and evacuation and 40% as a result of the expulsions. Once again, this is OR. It's very possible that the numbers are 50/50 or 40/60 but it would be difficult to claim that 1.1 million died as a result of the expulsions and none died as a result of the flight and evacuation. Or vice versa. --Richard 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
But: I've just downloaded the book from the link provided above. It does not have page 280. But on its page 231 the author says that the most probable number of the victims is 600 thousands (I know it's in Polish but you can see the number at the bottom of the page). So, again, where do we have 1.1 million from ? --Lysytalk 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Now tell me more about 50/50. Where exatly the hundreds of thousands died killed or starved by the Poles, if even the Germans claim 80 000 - 100 000 in the camps. What are the top ten Polish crimes outside the camps?
Can someone provide a rough translation of the key points into English?
--Richard 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is increasingly puzzling. Now I see more and more authors, including historians, attributing completely different numbers to the earlier German research. Here are the major points of the Haar's translation:
in 1953 over 2 million murdered, published by Lukaschek
in 1954 German Office of Statistics checked the Lukaschek numbers and heavily criticised them. The criticism was however soon "swept under the carpet".
in 1965 "Special Church Commission" found the number of the victims to be 473,000
in 1974 German Federal Archive gave 400,000
in 1996 a German-Czech commission dismissed previous 225,000 figure for Czechoslovakia, and gave 16,000 instead.
ZgV still claims 225,000 despite the findings of the German-Czech commission
Erika Steinbach still claims 2 million victims
Rough translation summary by --Lysytalk 10:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The number of victims: who claims what
Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion
Estimates of deaths during the flight, evacuation and expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe
Year
Estimate
Source
Reference
Provided in
Link/source verified by
Comments
1958
more than 2,100,000
Statistisches Bundesamt German Federal Statistics Office
Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, 1939-50 (German losses from expulsion, 1939-50) German Federal Statistics Office.
According to Nitschke, the number given by Statistisches Bundesamt was 1,600,000 (pp. 38, 45-46 of the report)
1965
2,100,000
Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, (General compilation towards accounting for the fate of the German population in the areas of expulsion), Munich, 1965
Unverified
1965
1,020,000
Andrzej Brożek
"Losy Niemców w Polsce po roku 1944/1945", Opole 1965, p. 16)
Nitschke supports Overmans and claims 610,000 (including Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, resp.: 400,000 + 130,000 + 80,000; in "Wysiedlenie ...", p. 240). She also presented 600,000 in her earlier book available online at http://zbc.uz.zgora.pl/ (page 232)
DO NOT FORGET THAT any of the numbers 500.000 to 2 millions are the expulsion death this is (EXPULSIO+FLYIGHT) and this is no 50/50 its merely 1/10. Richard you did not see the Xx236 enters above again I think. It is not enough to say it is not the 2 millions. It MUST be say the EXPULSION loses is no more than 10% of the fixum/myrdum 500thou-2million. I can not discuss intensively because Germans blocked me for entering:
Nazi Germany aggression and savagely cost immeasurable sufferings other nations. Only in Europe the casualties were over 35 millions deaths, however the majority of casualties occurs in East Europe – about 29 million (5,6 million in Poland and 23.2 Soviet Union) [60].
Best regards, Serafin
Can you provide a source for the assertion that the ratio is 1/10 rather than 50/50? --Richard 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
I know the some of the links are not firm sources, but could not find anything better for now. Any more sourced figures ? --Lysytalk 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A comment: Overmans, Haar, Nitschke are historians. Their numbers are in the 500 thousand range. Nawratil and de Zayas are lawyers. Their numbers are in the 2 million range. I don't know who Reichling is. --Lysytalk 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Labeling de Zayas as a "lawyer" without providing his full credentials is highly missleading. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas earned his juris doctor from Harvard Law School and a doctorate of philosophy in modern history from the Georg-August University of Göttingen. --Stor stark7Talk 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. --Lysytalk 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is a good and worthwhile project. As I have said many times, Wikipedia is not interested in truth. Wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources have to say on a subject. So, let's build up our list of reliable sources and then present as many of them as we can. As someone mentioned earlier, it may be difficult to determine what the academic consensus is. That may be too ambitious. Let us just cite the prominent sources and let the reader figure out what the consensus is, if one exists.
I took Lysy's list to the next step by ordering the entries chronologically. It's an interesting story and not the one that some people are claiming. The story that seemed to be emerging before I built this list was that 2 million was a number of the 50s and 60s and that since the 1970s, historians had been revising those numbers downward. Instead, what I see is that, in the last five years, numbers rand from as low as 500,000-600,000 to as high as 2.8 million. It seems that there is no consensus in the academic world but that two camps have formed around higher numbers and lower numbers. --Richard 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A technical remark, and I believe you will understand me, Richard. I am being cautious now and tend to believe what I've seen with my own eyes. That is, I'd not place a number in the above list had I not direct access to a publication, or an online link. I believe you do the same, but just wanted to state this to be sure. I would therefore additionally attribute the numbers with the names of the editors that can certify them, even if it seems funny or an overkill. --Lysytalk 09:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, please try to provide a page number or link or your source of the information for each number. --Lysytalk 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry to say that I do not have access to any sources and therefore all of my entries above are based on what other people have reported on these Talk Pages and from this and other Wikipedia articles. Most of my entries are taken from the references provided in the Demographic estimates... article.
Your principle of verifying each source is laudable. I'm just sorry that I cannot contribute at that level. I would suggest that we continue with the practice that you started of tagging each estimate and reference with the name of the editor that has verified it.
Thanks for understanding. I'm not requesting this in order to dismiss the other figures, but there are too many numbers being being repeated on wikipedia and it's better to track their real sources. --Lysytalk 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have reformatted the numbered list as a table to improve readability.
Let us agree that "provided by" simply means that the named editor is the one who found the reference somewhere other than Wikipedia. "Verified by" means that the named editor has actually seen the source (in physical copy or online in a reliable facsimile of the original), has verified the information in the actual text and can cite the page number(s).
Great. I was thinking about a table as well. Yes, this was my intention more or less. I did not mean to suggest that I was the first to find particular sources, only that I'm able to show them. --Lysytalk 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees
I've checked the working paper edited by Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees [61] but could not find the text presented by Stor stark7. Where is it please ? Is it their own research or are they repeating somebody else's number ? --Lysytalk 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the citation provided by Stor stark7 the text reads:
An additional 2 million were killed by hunger dicease and violence. Ranges of estimates of killed varies between 10% and 30% of the total.
I have not found such statement there, but a similar on in the introduction only, but with a clearly different meaning:
A further estimated 2 million died in the process as a result of hunger, disease and violence (the estimates of those actually killed varies between 10 and 30 percent of the total).
Anyway, is this number provided by any of the authors of the paper, or is it only mentioned by the editors in their introduction ?
--Lysytalk 08:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What I actually wrote was: States: At least 12 million surviving expelled were setled in the Germanies by the 1950's. Additional numbers of expelees were setled elsewhere in the world. An additional 2 million were killed by hunger dicease and violence. Ranges of estimates of killed varies between 10% and 30% of the total."
It was a shortened summary of the text (not copy-pasteable) in question (from page 4, as I clearly stated in the reference).
I do not understand what you mean by "but with a clearly different meaning:". I aparently used the word interchangeably with died. That may have been a transcription misstake, but a very minor one. What is important to determine is perhaps wether "(the estimates of those actually killed varies between 10 and 30 percent of the total)" is in regards to how many of those 2 million that were killed during the expulsion process were done in by direct violence (execution, rape etc), as opposed to for example diseases such as Typhus in Polish and Czhech concentration camps, starving and freesing to death in open-trainsets etc, or if it refers to the percentage of dead from the total "expulsion population".
"Is it their own research or are they repeating somebody else's number ? "
As far as I can tell it is the editors summary of current state of afairs as regards the research into the topic, so since the paper is from 2004 it should be their summary of what they believe to be reliable sources known to them and available then, 2004. Either they do not know of Nitschke, or they deem her unimportant or unreliable?
The text has one reference to a school textbook by Gabriele De Rosa, "Il Novecento", (Milan, 1997), p. 262
"at least 2,500,000 died due to hunger, exhaustion, violence, deportation and execution."
By the way, I believe you are in error to date Nitschkes work to 2003. The German translation was Published in 2003, the book itself seems to date from 1999 in its original Polish release and should be dated to that date.--Stor stark7Talk 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
School textbooks quote other sources. We can write a paragraph - "The expulsion in textbooks", but such paragraph should include rather informations about Polish and German textbooks, than about Italian ones. If we quote Italian textbooks, why not Australian or Korean?
Ther are three editions of the book. You can check, if the first edition contained what you believe was there. Even if - maybe the author and the German editor accepted the data as up-to-date.
1 I agree that school textbooks need not be included since they merely parrot what other sources say. (If that is indeed what you tried to say in the text above)
2 Polish/German/Italian. I strongly disagree, there is nothing inherently superior in German or Polish research. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true. I would far more prefer to read a book written by a neutral party, such as a Italian which by default is much less likely to have an emotional/nationalistic/anti-nationalistic/economic reason to bias his/her research. That said, we can not make such judgements about the authors in regards to what sources are used in wiki-articles (would be encroaching on OR). Wikipedia editors should be neither putting a premium on Polish/German or on Italian or other nationality authors.
German and Polish historians cooperate in editing documents. It seems however that they avoid coclusions, I don't know why. third party is generally less competent and more biased (de Zayas, Naimark). I would prefer US books about Indians rather than European ones.Xx236 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I supose you would also prefer to read Turkish works on the Armenian Genocide. Very fitting. I'm getting tired of giving you undeserved attention, but I feel your fallacies need to be pointed out. I understand that as a fervent Polish nationalist you feel the need to attack those whose exposures make the Polish people look bad, but calling acclaimed historian Norman Naimark"less competent" and "more biased" is just plain silly. The same goes for historian Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. I guess you're up to the age-old trick of mud slinging: If you can't argue against their works, you instead try to make them appear suspect by launching baseless acusations against the authors. Very see-through. --Stor stark7Talk 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3 You are not being logical in your argument. If the date of latest edition of Nietzsches book should be used on the basis that by definition an editor has accepted the data, then for example de Zayas book “Die Nemesis von Potsdam” should be listed as a 2005 work instead of 1977 since and editor obviously has approved it at that later date, I.e the book is then very much up-to date. Any thing else would be to apply double standards.
de Zayas is a lawyer.Xx236 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is indeed a lawyer, he is also a writer and historian with a Ph.D. in modern history. clever man indeed. What is your point here exactly, except of course to try to make de Zayas appear as less competent than he actually is? Your statement certainly has nothing to do with the topic in question, i.e. the dating of works in the table.--Stor stark7Talk 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
4 point three highlights a big flaw in the table; no definition has been provided for what the different columns are supposed to symbolise.
Is the ”Year” column to be used for first publication, or most recent publication?
Is the table only permitted to list authors who have done research using primary sources, or can it also list authors who have tried to make a comparison of the results of other authors in order to draw their own conclusions?
What exactly is meant by ”the column verified?
5 Lysy claims to have verified that Bernadetta Nitschke in ”Wysiedlenie..” estimates the number of deaths during the flight, evacuation and expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe (as stated in the column header) to be a mere 600,000. Meanwhile we have the HNET review of the aforementioned work which states:
”Though estimates of the dead range widely, as many as a million Germans perished during flight and expulsion from Poland in 1944-45”
”Nitschke is particularly interested in establishing the numbers of expellees, and her conclusions (drawing from a wealth of regional studies) confirm the estimates of leading German scholars. (See Theodor Schieder, ed. Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neisse. Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost-Mitteleuropa 1. Bonn: Federal Ministry for Expellees Refugees and War Victims, 1954.)”
”Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944... ...up to 1.1 million died (p. 280)”
6 The absence of professor R. J. Rummels work is conspicuous. Here he has gone to all the trouble of reviewing the available estimates, I.e. actually constructed a proper comparison of the type you seem to be attempting here, and no-one seems to want to include his work? Poland's ethnic cleansing
Yes, yes, yes, quote the ignorant and prove your extremal bias. Xx236 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"extremal"?? please use some sort of spell-checker, your writing is sometimes rather tedious to read. As to bias, maybe I am biased, maybe I'm not. I do believe the Germans have been treated rather miserably with regards to how the events following the end of WW2 are portrayed. But I am fairly certain that whatever bias there may be in me, it's nowhere near as well developed as in you.--Stor stark7Talk 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
DO NOT FORGET THAT any of the numbers 500.000 to 2 millions are the expulsion death this is (EXPULSIO+FLYIGHT) and this is no 50/50 its merely 1/10. Richard you did not see the Xx236 enters above again I think. It is not enough to say it is not the 2 millions. It MUST be say the EXPULSION loses is no more than 10% of the fixum/myrdum 500thou-2million. I can not discuss intensively because Germans blocked me for entering:
Nazi Germany aggression and savagely cost immeasurable sufferings other nations. Only in Europe the casualties were over 35 millions deaths, however the majority of casualties occurs in East Europe – about 29 million (5,6 million in Poland and 23.2 Soviet Union) [62].
Best regards, Serafin
when you start providing sources for your claims Serafin, such as this ratio that you seem to have created out of thin air, maybe then you will be taken more seriously. and maybe when you stop evading blocks and creating sockpuppets you might earn some credibility. so again, are you ever going to provide a source?
Jadger, just the case it is Serafin it doesn't mean he is off-topic. But maybe you are driven by the quote "wasting other people's times on a internet page that isn't even in your language" ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someoen provide a source confirming mass deaths in Poland after the war, caused by Poles, other than 80 000 - 100 000 in the camps? I have given several Wikipedia quotations about Expulsion deaths. Does any Wikipedia article contain informations where and when the alleged 300 000 - 400 000 victims died after the war? Xx236 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Poles and Stalin
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I found a reliable source:
James L. Gormly: From Potsdam to the COLD WAR. Big Three Diplomacy 1945-1947. Scholarly Resources Inc. Delaware, 1990 (ISBN0-8420-2334-8)
James L. Gormly was educated at the University of Arizona and the University of Conneticut, from which he received a Ph.D. in history. The author of numerous articles on U.S. foreign relations, in 1987 he completed The Collapse of the Grand Alliance, 1945-1948.
"The president (Truman) complained that there were now five occupation zones because the Soviets had turned over the area extending along the Oder and western Neisse to the Poles. This was in violation of the Yalta agreement. The president did not see how economic controls or reparations could operate if Germany was thus broken up." (p. 49)
"Churchill spoke strongly against giving the Poles control over an area in which some eight million Germans lived. Stalin insisted that the Germans had all fled and that the Poles were needed to fill the vacuum." (p. 50)
"On July 24 the Polish delegation arrived in Berlin, headed by Prime Minister Boleslaw Bierut and including Mikolajczyk and Foreign Minister Wincenty Rzymowksi. They consistently held to the position that the Oder and western Neisse rivers should be the frontier, and they vehemently argued their case before the foreign ministers, Churchill, and Truman, in turn." (p. 50)
The next day Churchill said to Stalin:
"The Poles are driving the Germans out of the Russian zone. That should not be done without considering its effect on the food supply and reparations. We are getting into a position where the Poles have food and coal, and we have the mass of (the) population thrown at us." (p.51)
"To the Soviets, reparations were more important than boundaries, and Stalin might have sold out the Poles if they had not so vociferously protested when, in spite of his 'illness', he consulted with them during the evening of July 29." (p.55f)
Very nice quotes out of context ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikiferdi, prove that the Polish delegation presented its own point of view. As far as I know they were Soviet puppets.Xx236 10:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No Xx236, it was contrary: In Poland had existed a drive to the west for a long time. Actually during WWII all political and social denominations in Poland worked out plans and claims for an expansion of Poland to the west. Stalin and the Communists acted on this political basis for obtaining acceptance within the Polish population. The result was a quite schizophrenic situation: After the resurgence of Poland during WWI Polish Communists had advocated for changing the Polish borders in favor of Germany and Russia. Thus they were difamed as Jews and traitors. Now, after WWII the (Soviet) Communists assumed German territory for Poland... - I read this in some trustworthy books some time ago. When I find them again I will cite the pages... - Wikiferdi 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For Richard 23Feb07
Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments3 people in discussion
And this complaining about "Poland murdered millions" is something I don't understand.
It simple. If you will not write clearly (deliberately or not) some simpletons express wrong conclusion because their brain illness (illiteracy or criminal predatory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
I think the truth is Poland and the Soviet Union set up the conditions in which 1-2 million Germans died under the sanction of the Potsdam agreement which was sanctioned by the U.S. and U.K.
Richard don’t you still distinguish the 1-2 millions is a sum of flight + expulsion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
I do but I don't know if 25% died during flight and 75% during expulsion or vice versa. I haven't heard of any source who attempts to make this distinction. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Don’t you still recognize that for flight nor Poland nor Soviet Union is responsible but the Germans own actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
Excuse me, but who were they fleeing from? No, I still don't recognize the flight as a German responsibility but rather an action coerced by a legitimate fear of advancing Soviet troops and "wild" expulsions. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Don’t you still recognize that flight losses are most probably 10 times bigger than the expulsion losses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
First of all, this statement sounds like OR to me. But, assuming we wanted to indulge in OR for a minute, on what basis would you make such an argument? --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I want you to answer for the 3 question Yes or No.
I very much believe that if you do not recognize the 3 facts there is some barrier in you mine which prevent to accept them. In the case of a German I would say he is not willing to blame his leaders’ stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, I'm not German and I'm not stupid. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Was it murder? I don't know. Was it inhumane? Yes but there was a lot of inhumanity occurring in those days.
That’s right Richard there was a war, most inhuman war ever. Additionally take for consideration the simple fact;
Nazi Germany aggression and savagely cost immeasurable sufferings other nations. Only in Europe the casualties were over 35 millions deaths (others then Germans), however the majority of casualties occurs in East Europe – about 29 million (5,6 million in Poland and 23.2 Soviet Union) [63]. Thus ...
Let us not play the "blame game". I personally would be happy to blame the deaths on the inhumane policy of expulsion and spread the blame around without trying to pin it on any one party. There's plenty of blame to spread around. I'm an "equal opporunity" blamer.
However, I continue to resist any attempt to justify the expulsions on the basis of revenge, lebensraum for the Poles, etc. We have documented those justifications in the article in order to provide an NPOV treatment since it is clear there are people who believe that these are legitimate justifications. (NB: It would be good to get some citations to back up these assertions as they are unreferenced at the current time.) --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge reluctantly that the rationale for the expulsions may have been to avert civil disorder but I believe that this rationale was misguided and that we have since seen that population transfer and ethnic cleansing are violations of human rights. I think we have to be careful when judging historical actions by contemporary standards. Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt thought they were doing the best thing for the ethnic Germans. But we wouldn't think so now. That was then and this is now. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but solely because of Soviet occupation forces?
No I do not say that. The so call “Polish” government was just a Stalin’s puppet. As we all know Stalin was responsible even for more deaths then Hitler. The communist government of Poland was just a bunch of simpletons and very often criminals and not many reasonable activists/idealists. The government had no major public support and had used police and military force to keep control over regular citizens, which was a rule. I know the mechanism very well – I was born there and leave 28 years with it. As I already said there was many criminals and power lovers between the soviet collaborates. Those beasts were responsible for crimes against Polish nation also. However the truth is that scale of this collaboration with NKVD and Stalin was, thanks the God, not on huge scale. Polish people in opposite to Russian Empire subjects have democratic tradition and sense of separation from totalitarian power. Concluding, the scale of crime caused by those who were born in Poland was proportionally small. Take for consideration that in 1918-1939 there was significant minorities like for example 10% Jewish who supported by mass the communist movement.
Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details. Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
Well you need study hard before accusing a nation or you have to give up. You have to provide reasonable details to write judgment. You must say truth and only truth; this is a crime to spread falsifying propaganda. I can not say that none of killings was done by Polish but you must show scale of the event. You should already sense the proportions flight/expulsion.
On what evidence could I "sense" this proportion? --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it unreasonable to saddle Poles and Czechs with all the responsibility for the evil that was perpetrated deliberately or unwittingly during the expulsions.
That is right you should point the roots of the governments and show the expulsion loses. It is not fair to say Poles and Czechs are responsible for 1.2 million of deaths during flight and expulsion. This is just sheet propaganda because: 1) nor Czechs nor Poles were responsible for flight 2) the expulsion was organized by a particular people. It is the same with German Nazis. I avoid to say: Germans were responsible for WW II killings. I say German Nazi though Hitler had mass majority support. I avoid it even I see number of Nazi admires dancing on Wikipedia floor. In opposite the pro Soviet Polish “government” had almost none internal support.
But where in the text of the current article does it say that "the Poles and Czechs" are responsible for the deaths? --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
However, I also think it is unreasonable to absolve them of all blame for complicity and collaboration in the affair. As the report of the joint commission of German and Czech historians indicates, some very nasty things were done and some very virtuous things were done. Let us report what happened, not what we would like to have been the case.
I believe there were some revenges, I would be fool saying differently. The Polish and Czechs are not all saints, but what would you do if you German neighbor killed or was responsible for death of you brother, father or mother? Of course it is sin to kill - always, but ask yourself: what you feel about murderer of you father? Do not answer me keep it for you own conscious. And above all would you accept as voice of conscious and judgment for you compatriots those who do not want blame his own Nazi compatriots.
Revenge is understandable but not justifiable. The motivation of revenge is documented in the article as one of the reasons for the expulsions. What more do you want? --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are arguing that nothing that happened in Poland during the expulsions was because of Polish government but because of Soviet occupation forces? Perhaps this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough to know about the details.
I explained you already what was the “Polish” “government” of that time. Let it be clear in this article.
How specifically would you change the article text to make it clear? --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it also true that everything that happened was done by Soviet troops and not by local authorities and/or Polish civilians? I find that a little hard to credit.
You must provide a reasonable scale of this events and name the offenders. In the case of Nazi Germany the scale of support is obvious. Because some ill German individuals want to see the same template in other nations they talk about Poles.
Well, this is a valid point. We need perhaps more details to make it clear how much responsibility belongs to the Soviets and how much to Poles acting either in an official or unofficial capacity. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it unreasonable to saddle Poles and Czechs with all the responsibility for the evil that was perpetrated deliberately or unwittingly during the expulsions.
However, I also think it is unreasonable to absolve them of all blame for complicity and collaboration in the affair.
You must be clear with you expression who and what and define what is what. I oppose to repetition of strange propaganda. We have to recognize that ZgV is not a scientific organization and is living from ill propaganda.
There are American conservatives who, to this day, still blame Roosevelt for "giving away Eastern Europe to the Commies at Yalta". In this way of thinking, Roosevelt is complicit in the deaths of those Poles. I don't quite agree with this assessment because I personally don't think Roosevelt gave away anything that he could have kept.
This is question of argue, but I have filling that most of the UK and USA actions were “be economical with the truth” but not the “promise is promise”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
So perhaps you wish to exonerate both Polish governments for agreeing to expulsions that they could not have stopped even if they wanted to?
Why they should want to? The Polish people were deported from former East Poland, Germany was responsible for terrible war and crimes etc. and they wanted satisfy Stalin in first place anyway.
Perhaps it is true that they could not have stopped it. However, I am not convinced that they wanted to stop it or objected to it in principle.
Stalin wanted control over East Europe and he could do it. Poland had/has the right to peace and the ancient Polish territories and that is all. In first place the Poland suffered 20% of people lose and 20% of territory loses. German was as recidivist in military aggression for ages, why the country should be conserved? Who wanted/wants repetition? Who should want stop the process to create safe west border and peace Europe. Compare the 1939 west border of Poland and the border of 1945. Who should care about happiness of Germans and their homes if all the Europe was in ruin? Be reasonable Richard. Offending country regularly should pay price of aggression is not it? There was and is some kind of common responsibility in international affairs you like it or not. Do not transfer civil law in to international politic for you convenience or revisionist issue. German governments do not support the revisionists anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, I saw nationalism as a good and viruous thing. Germany for the Germans, Poland for the Poles and "self-determination" to figure out who wanted to be in which country. This was the prevailing thinking and I bought what I was taught. Besides, I was and am a supporter of Taiwanese nationalism. Let Taiwan be its own nation and let the Taiwanese rule Taiwan.
Nowadays, however, I see nationalism as an evil and "self-determination" as dangerous. And, you know what? The events reported in this article have been the "nail in the coffin" that convinced me of that. In my opinion, what caused the suffering of those who were expelled was Polish nationalism in response to German nationalism. What's the common factor? "Nationalism".
I believe some US/UK/Soviet/Polish individuals intended to do evil, others did evil without intending to, some allowed evil to be done intentionally or because they felt powerless to stop it and some even worked to mitigate the evil. In the end, however, I believe that evil was done. I am willing to debate all the other stuff but I personally will always judge this episode in history thusly - "evil was done to many who were innocent of any crime".
But that's my personal opinion. Discussion of personal opinions doesn't belong on Talk Pages but I'm getting tired of your lectures and wanted you to know unequivocally where I stand. I reject your "nationalist revenge" line of argument above but have included it in the article out in an attempt to maintain an NPOV stance in the article. However, I would very much like for you to stop trying to convince me of it. It has gotten quite tedious. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say the majority is always right. However, it is not our job to determine who is right. It is our job to "describe the real world". If the consensus in the real world is X, then we should say "the consensus is X". If there is a challenge to X, then we should say "there is a minority opinion who challenge X.
This time I will say to you coping of somebody wrong opinions is not a good idea. You can be a tube of evil ideas. Encyclopedists supposed to be scientists not copyists. Science needs investigation and judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.123.44 (talk • contribs)
No, I'm sorry but I must disagree strongly. Wikipedia is here to report the opinions expressed by experts. We are not expected nor allowed to function as experts. Even people who are experts are not allowed to cite their own work here. Doing so would represent a conflict of interest. --Richard 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Good NPOV article is clear to read, nice to hear and allows to make own opinion. But NPOV is not equal to lies. We all know here that ZgV is more political organisation than anything other. It tries to push clear water of the peaceful relations and break them. ZgV is covered as a center for all expulsions, but it is obvious it is center for germans expelled after the war. There is no mention in their articles about expulsion of czechs from sudetes for example. They call Benes decrees as an evil, but if they will be canceled it will break law continuity, any lawyer will explain it to you, so it is obvious they can't be cancelled. Why germans never cancelled Munich Agreement, do they still want sudetes as in the 1938 ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to make my position clear. I do not think we should hold up the ZgV up as being a paragon. It should be clear that there is room in this and related articles to challenge and criticize the ZgV. The only reason the ZgV's numbers are quoted in the Demographic estimates... article is that they have provided the most comprehensive table of estimates. Against this table, there are "potshots" that call into question some of the estimates (e.g. Poland and Czechoslovakia). If we could find a similar table that adds up to 500,000 or 1.1 million or whatever, I would support putting it in the article so that the two tables can be compared.
If a lie is a notable lie, then we should describe the lie and present the information which helps the reader understand that it is a lie. Even if I believed the ZgV and disbelieved the challenges of Haar, Overmans and Nitschke, I would support including their views in this and related articles. This is NPOV. It is not good to include a lie if the challenges are excluded. However, when it is not clear which is the truth and which is the lie, then we should include all POVs and let the reader decide.
This was just to clear the situation, I agree with Richard that this is not our job. I like the table by Lysy, looks nice and clear and allows to make own opinion. It collects all possible estimations. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
wow, Tulko, you really don't need to post a counter anymore, we all can pretty much predict waht you are going to say "no, we can't eliminate our racist laws that we still have in effect." then you go on and go totally off-topic, "Germany did this... Germany did that... take pity on us so we can use this as an excuse to attack people of another ethnic group." Actually, the Benes decree can be removed, as you said, continuity can't be broken, but new laws can be put in place that supercede them. For instance, it was formerly not considered rape when a man had non-consentual sex with his wife, but now it is considered rape, but according to you current laws can't counteract past ones. the Benes decree itself supercedes the laws that were actually in place when the crimes were committed.
the Benes decree is against Habeas Corpus, as it said later "whatever was done in this time, even though imorral and illegal; was alright". and Although the ZgV may be a political group, it is an expert on this subject as it spends its time and money researching it. a source is allowed to be POV, but facts are not POV.
There is no mention in their articles about expulsion of czechs from sudetes for example that is because this article is not about the expulsion of Czechs, you can start a separate article on it if you want, as you seem to be the expert on it, and keep pointing it out.
Racist laws, hm you are calling us racist hm. Nice. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
well what else would you call laws that make it legal to kill people of a certain ethnic group?that sounds pretty racist to me, just as the Nuremburg laws were also racist. but wait... according to you laws must have continuity, we can't make slavery illegal, and in Edinborough it is still legal to kill a man (using a sword) if he is wearing a kilt. by God we can't eliminate those laws, what would happen to the continuity? our whole world would be thrown in disarray and it would be the end of civilization! the most overriding principle of law that supercedes all else is that it must maintain a good reputation. as in many criminal cases, allowing someone to go free even though it is the more right thing to do would "throw the law into disrepute" so they must be punished. for instance, in Ontario in the 1990s, a lot of cases were thrown out because of the huge backlog in the courts, so people could not have access to a trial in a short period of time as demanded in the constitution. however, they could not throw out murder cases or horrible crimes like that becasue even though it was still infringing on those people's rights, it would place the law in disrepute if it let murderers walk free. and it is pretty obvious that the Benes decree has a very bad reputation. I can't believe you actually defend laws enacted to strip people of a certain ethnicity of their property and authorized their murder.
There are 58 decrees [64] which one makes you a problem ?
5/1945 Sb. částka: 4 - canceling property movements, law acts during the war etc.
12/1945 Sb. částka: 7 - confiscating german, hungarian, collaborators property
132/1945 Sb. částka: 55 - about teacher education
140/1945 Sb. částka: 57 - creating university of policital studies
Or which one ? As you can see it is not so easy as you see it "benes decrees, racist law" and you don't know what is it, you've never read them, you just hear about them. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
to cite just one of them, the Law of May 8th, 1946 article 1: Any act committed between September 30th, 1938, and October 28th, 1945, the object of which was to aid the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks or which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accomplices, is not illegal, even when such actions may otherwise be punishable by law.[65]
or perhaps article 4 of the appendix IX (from same source): As persons the country cannot rely on shall be considered:
a. Persons of German or Magyar nationality
or perhaps Article 1 of Appendix X: 1. With immediate effect and without compensation and for the purpose of the land reform such rural property shall be confiscated as is owned by a) all persons of German or Magyar nationality, without regard to their
citizenship
Now, how are those not racist? in #1, they are authorizing murders after they had taken place. in #2 they are automatically assuming guilt of a person because they are of a certain ethnicity. and #3 it is legalizing the seizure of land based on the fact that they are German or Magyar. Now, how is that not racist? how would you like it if "German/Magyar" were replaced with "Pole/Czech"?
don't you think it is a little hypocritical to claim unfair and racist laws should remain in place because removing them would "break continuity" while these laws were meant in the first place to break continuity, as their purpose was to legalize something that had already been carried out (Any act committed between September 30th, 1938, and October 28th, 1945.... is not illegal, even when such actions may otherwise be punishable by law.--from a law passed in May of 1946, see above for full quote).
Continuity with the occupation law ? Are you kidding ? You must be kidding. Continuity with the fascist law ? Break the continuity, huh, that's more LOL I've ever seen before. You are more and more ridiculous. We were occupied, do you know meaning of the word occupation, find it in some dictionary and read it twice, three or maybe four times. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
continuity with the czechoslovak prewar laws, or was it legal for people of German or Magyar ethnicity to be murdered prewar also? I can see now why the Sudeten Germans would of wanted Germany to occupy their lands if it had of been legal to murder them and take their land. Also, murder was still illegal in "fascist" law, your argument reaks of tu quoque ad hitlerum. Shall we legalize murder now because it was illegal under the Nazis? and whatever the Nazis do is bad, so surely we should legalize murder, right?
I also love how you totally ignore the fact that I totally shot down your whole argument that it wasnt a racist law. Now that your "arguments" (if we can call them that) have been refuted, what do you want to change the subject to now Tulko? how German children are born with fangs that are meant for sucking the blood of the Polish? or do you want to add that in the evolution article. it was a racist law, why won't you accept that?
Ironic isn't it, you were the one who said continuity was the most paramount thing in law and used it as a reason not to eliminate laws, now you seem to be wholly against continuity by the looks of your last post. you may want to read up on Hypocrisy: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. that fits your arguments so well, don't you think?
to quote Tulko in a lower section of this talk page: what? no comment? he said it to Wikiferdi when wikiferid asked a question... but I notice Tulko has completely ignored this discussion, why is that? does he no longer believe in continuity of law? or does he no longer believe in supporting racist laws like the Benes Decrees?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Xx236 I downloaded a file named 3818.zip from University Zielona Góra, there inside is file nitschke.djvu. How to open and read the file?
don't waste space on discussion pages, ask him on his user talk page. And stop evading your block
P.S. you need winzip, it comes with any OS after Windows 3.1, well, atleast in the English speaking world. I don't know about them old soviet computers, to make a bad Yakofff Smirnoff joke "In Soviet Russia (or Poland), computer types you!"
Use a Deja Vu viewer (find one with google). Winzip won't do (it's a decompressor, not a viewer). --Lysytalk 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Change Eastern Europe to Central Europe
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It is politically incorrect to call Central Europe Eastern Europe, so I would avoid it. If you split Europe into two roughly equal parts, Czech R., Poland etc. will be in the western part. Prague is west of Vienna. If Hitler, followed by Stalin did not come these countries would not be called Eastern (or the people would not care). Jirka6 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Where ? Article already has a topic "Expulsion of Germans after World War II". ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, in the section A restoration of pre-Nazi Eastern European demographics. Jirka6 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
and the Volga Germans lived on the Volga river before being expelled, that is obviously not central Europe.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
For User:Serafin and others who protest that "there were two Polish governments" and that the postwar Polish government was a puppet of the Soviet Union, it may be instructive to read the Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II article and consider whether the discussion of the Radescu government's stance toward the expulsions is relevant to the discussion of the Polish government's stance towards the expulsions.
To wit, is there any record of the Polish government-in-exile making any pronouncement in support of or in opposition to the expulsions?
1945. Poland is under Soviet occupation, the London government looses its power. News from Poland - Soviet terror, censorship, partizan war, expulsion from the SU. The Soviets kidnap Polish leaders to Moscow and stage a lawsuit. Do you really expect the government to study German problems and defend German rights? After 6 years of listening about Nazi and Soviet cruelties?
It happens that Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary were German allies, Poland wasn't. What about Jewish leadership, why didn't the Jews fight for German rights in 1945? Why don't you formulate such question? BTW - The majority of Germans from Poland went West, the majority from Romania went East. Traditional apples and oranges.
Where were the expelled Poles to go - to completely destroied Warsaw, partially destroied Poznań, burned hundreds of villages?
Hundreds of thousands of Poles were already in Eastern Germany as the result of forced labour and Warsaw Uprising expulsion. They had the right to stay there, because many of them didn't have any home to return. I believe that Słupsk region hosted thousands of Poles in 1945, many of them settled there. Which Polish government had the right to expell them once more?
The Romnian government did the same any Western government did in 1945 - ignored any information about Soviet crimes.
If someone wants to preach, let he/she starts from the history of his/her country.
Xx236 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Facts
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Experts, quote places of Polish crimes, days and numbers of victims, outside Polish camps. You have a pile of books describing Polish cruelty. Where exactly did the Polish criminals act killing hundreds of thousands (one million)? German Wikipedia dosn't inform how many Germans died during the expulsion from Poland. "Mehrere Millionen Frauen aller Altersgruppen wurden vergewaltigt, es gab etwa 240.000 Todesopfer in Folge von Vergewaltigungen" - the majority of rapes took place during the war and not only in Poland but in any place including the future GDR, from which Germans weren't expelled.
Xx236 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my German is not strong enough to translate the above quote completely. Can you translate it into English please? --Richard 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Millions of women of any age were raped, there were 240.000 deaths as the result of the rapes.Xx236 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
just a couple of points 1. they were not organized like the holocaust, it was more like Bromberg is what I understand. unfortunately I don't have the blonde knight of Germany (see: Erich Hartmann article for ISBN) on me so you will have to wait a while before I may be able to cite the location he was involved at.
and 2. as for the expulsion and "most died during the war" it must be noted that the article title has been tried to be changed many times, as people were expelled before the capitulation on 8 May, especially in the farthest eastern areas. You cannot draw a line and then say "ok, this is where we start counting."
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
I think Xx236's challenge above ("Facts") is worth taking on board. One of the major issues of controversy has to do not so much with the total number of deaths (500,000 vs. 2 million) as it does with when the deaths occurred, where they occurred and what the cause of the death was. I don't agree fully with Xx236 but I think it's worth thinking about the points that he, Serafin and others have been raising.
Rapes
Addressing the rapes question first, it is plausible that many, if not most, of the rapes were the result of lack of discipline among Soviet troops, Polish militia and the general breakdown of civil order at the end of the war. Thus any text that suggests that widespread rape was specifically and primarily the result of the expulsions needs "extraordinary support".
Timing and Causes of Deaths
Another difficulty is determining how many deaths happened "before the war" vs. "after the war" (i.e. before vs. after May 8, 1945). Of course, nobody took a census on May 8 or any time near that date. Thus, we will never know for sure how many deaths happened before the war ended and how many afterwards. This is important because it affects how many deaths are attributed to the post-Potsdam expulsions.
We have been debating back and forth about whether Nitschke indicated that 90% of the deaths happened at the end of the war and 10% of the deaths were due to the postwar expulsions. I have reviewed the discussion on this page and, as far as I can understand it, Nitschke says 1.1 million in one context and 1 million in another context leading some editors to conclude that the math is 1.1 million - 1 million = 100,000 deaths due to the expulsions (10:1 ratio). As far as I can tell, Nitschke never explicitly says this and I fear this sort of calculus risks being OR. I would invite those who support this interpretation to lay out the supporting evidence in a way such that we can clearly conclude that Nitshcke intends this meaning.
Thirdly, I noticed that one of our sources commented that typhus epidemics continued to kill many Germans after they reached refugee camps inside the new borders of Germany. Unless someone can document how many died in evacuation, how many died in refugee camps, etc. it becomes even more difficult for us to separate deaths from Allied bombing, evacuation losses, diseases in refugee camps.
The inability of historians to attribute specific numbers to various causes is a central criticism of a number of editors and is, perhaps, the roadblock which is keeping us from forming a consensus to unprotect this page. I think we should hesitate to attribute specific numbers to various causes if the historians haven't been able to do so. This would clearly be OR.
General breakdown of collaboration
I think it would be difficult to resolve all the specific edits needed to resolve this issue here on this Talk Page. I think the prolonged page protection is an indication that there is a breakdown of collaboration between editors. It should be clear by now that you cannot win this discussion simply by pushing your POV. What is needed is a willingness to compromise on a middle ground which represents all viewpoints that can be supported by reliable sources.
Proposed compromise
I propose that we agree that early estimates of deaths were 2-3 million but that recent studies have suggested downward revisions as far as 500,000 to 1.1 million with some historians still supporting estimates of 2 million. More importantly, these deaths are often reported as being "the result of the expulsions" but are arguably better characterized as "happening contemporaneously with the expulsions but not necessarily caused by the expulsions". We could then explain the difficulty of attributing the number of deaths to specific causes (wartime bombing, evacuation casualties, disease in refugee camps).
I will comment that the above caveat about the difficulty of attributing causes of death is getting very close to being OR and thus it would help immensely if we could quote a reliable source who makes this argument for us.
Call for support to lift page protection
If you are willing to support a return to editing (i.e. lifting of page protection) on the basis of the above stated compromise, please indicate your support below. If not, indicate your opposition. Please make only brief comments in the support and oppose sections. Please do not discuss votes in the support and oppose sections. Reserve discussion for the discussion section. And, if it looks like the discussion is going to become extended, then start a new section so that we can focus on the building of a consensus if such is possible at this time.
I understand that, given the heated and often vitriolic and personal nature of the debate in recent weeks, it may be difficult to trust that your perspective will be represented in future edits. I can only pledge my personal commitment to finding a middle ground that balances all perspectives. I ask that you give it a try. If we are unable to build a collaborative editing community, the page will probably get protected again and you will be no worse off than you are now.
I don't see any German partners to cooperate with. Xx236 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
To Xx236: Please don't get into a stance "I won't cooperate first because THEY won't cooperate first." Try to assume good faith and ask yourself if what I propose is a middle ground that you can live with. I would hope that the "German" side would surprise you by finding the proposed middle ground acceptable to them as well.
Another way of looking at this is: Are you saying that you are happy to leave the article as it stands today? Are you saying that the current text is preferable to what I propose above? If we can show a consensus to proceed civilly, we can get this page unprotected and we can move towards changing the article text to reflect the points that we have learned through the last six weeks of debate.
I can assume a good faith when I meet someone for the first time. After weeks of lies, disregard, Holocaust revisonism - I'm sorry. Xx236 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your position. However, I wonder if you see any way out of page protection or if you think we should just give up and leave the article protected in its current state. --Richard 15:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
whom are you referring to Xx when you claim someone (on this talk page) has been revisionist on the holocaust, and also lying? I haven't seen any holocaust revisionism on here since this article is not on the Holocaust, perhaps you got the articles you are editing mixed up? As for lying, I don't know about anyone else, but I sure haven't been, and I don't think anyone else is intentionally lying through their teeth. after all, what good would that do when it needs to be referenced anyways?
Well, I'm German and I would actually support the above attempt at consensus. But I won't cooperate with Xx236. Quite frankly, after observing his postings and the all-encompassing martyr complex coupled with a fish-eyed view that Germans and Germany are always and have always been agressors and liars, I just can't. I can take some vitriol, but not that much. Anonytroll 09:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This back-and-forth argument continues to be about people and personalities rather than about substance. If we are to get page protection lifted, we need to convince an admin that we have enough consensus to avoid a resumption of edit warring. I have proposed a middle road that I hope everyone can tolerate. Please stop throwing darts at each other and consider whether the changes that I have proposed will be acceptable to you. Otherwise, we will be stuck with the current revision of this article for a long time. --Richard 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to Xx236's opposition, Jagder wrote:
comment perhaps you are on the wrong webpage. if you are looking to speak with Germans, try the German wikipedia. here, this is the URL you were probably looking for: [de.wikipedia.org]. Unless of course you mean that only those with a vested interest (i.e. Germans and Poles)should be able to contribute, which is extremely wrong. Ironic isnt it? you are trying to limit discussion based on each editor's race/nationality. just shows we haven't progressed that far in 60 years. well, not necessarily "we", more "you".--Jadger 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
For Richard 25Feb07
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Well, this is a good and worthwhile project. As I have said many times, Wikipedia is not interested in truth.
It means you Richard are not. I am, and every resonable person should. Without this the world go to be back of garbage.
Wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources have to say on a subject.
As already was mentioned many times by me and others ZgV is not realiable sources. It is the propaganda organization of money hunting revisionsts.
So, let's build up our list of reliable sources and then present as many of them as we can.
Please stop name sources reliable if they are obvious propaganda organization doing no research itself.
As someone mentioned earlier, it may be difficult to determine what the academic consensus is.
Particuraly if they are no academic sources. ZgV should not be mentioned as a source of information.
That may be too ambitious. Let us just cite the prominent sources and let the reader figure out what the consensus is, if one exists.
Do not forgot to mention who came from. Stil sombody is more sombody less prominent.
Can you provide a source for the assertion that the ratio is 1/10 rather than 50/50?
You Richard forgot already about the lecture of Nitschke book review. How convenient! Please open you eyes for the ratio subject. My feeling is you want push the ratio under carpet. Also Xx236 attempt to the point and you obstinately oversee it. Simply it is not polite.
Try to assume good faith. I don't remember everything that is posted here. Just post it again rather than berating me for my bad memory. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but who were they fleeing from? No, I still don't recognize the flight as a German responsibility but rather an action coerced by a legitimate fear of advancing Soviet troops and "wild" expulsions.
That means what the Soviets and Polish are guilty because they attempted to destroy Hitler’s Germany.
No, the Soviets are guilty of not having trained their troops to behave with discipline and civility. The Poles who behaved barbarously are guilty of barbaric behavior. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Be serious that was decision of Nazi government and/or the civilians what they did. Who should be blamed if they mix with military units on roads or decided live their home in freezing weather? Be logical Nazi Germany started the war and you want for its consequence blame others. You want blame Polish because they were in coalition with Soviets? You want blame both Soviets and Polish who were mass murdered 30 from 35 Europeans (not including Germans) were from those countries. Do not be funny Germans started the crime now you attempt blame Soviets and Polish for the evil what German stated. How obstinate and illogical are you.
Germans were first to commit war crimes - and that should justify crimes commited by Soviets and Poles? Am I missing something here, or is this your "logic"?--Vygandas 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful when judging historical actions by contemporary standards.
Thank you Richard that is right, That is history and we should understand the events as they were and not put the new modern standards to them. I really grateful you express it.
Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt thought they were doing the best thing for the ethnic Germans. But we wouldn't think so now. That was then and this is now.
Yes of course they attempt to demilitarise Germany and make a piece. At the same time they make their own business but for the demilitarization of Germany you want blame the. Will you?
I don't blame them for demilitarizing Germany. I blame them for abandoning Poland to the Soviets. Both Poles and ethnic Germans suffered for this. The only thing I can say in their defense is that both the US and the UK were war-weary and unwilling to battle the Soviets for Eastern Europe. (Except for Patton and he was a nut case.) --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On what evidence could I "sense" this proportion?
I ask you to open the eyes. I pointed to the proportions in Meyers Konversations-Lexikon and Nitschke. Ask also Xx236 he also provided several enters in this point. Just try do not oversee it.
Do me a favor and just quote the relevant text rather than providing a link to it. I remember the Meyers K-L reference but I don't remember the 10% quote. I don't remember Nitschke talking about 10% but I didn't read it in its entirety. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
But where in the text of the current article does it say that "the Poles and Czechs" are responsible for the deaths?
You need not to say it directly. It is enough if the title of the article is “Expulsion of Germans after World War II” and talk about 16 millions moved 500,000 to as high as 3 million deaths and “The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal.” That is falsified pictire nothing more, it is insinuation - probbly intentional.
The early phase of the expulsion was not brutal? Do you have a source for that? --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Revenge is understandable but not justifiable. The motivation of revenge is documented in the article as one of the reasons for the expulsions. What more do you want?
Revenges were a personal. Expulsion was a political process and the reason for it was not a revenge but demilitarization of criminal state. It is reasonable practical solution. The cost of it paid all not only Germans. On other hand, yes the moving of Germans from Polish territory was some kind of prevention of conflicts and revenges from German side also.
How specifically would you change the article text to make it clear?
We need emphasize the dependence of the “Polish” Communist government from Stalin. The government totalitarian ideology and status - the fact that they murdered bestially also Polish political opponents. The social and political background is essential for their actions.
Write some text that represents your POV and indicate where it would be inserted. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Nowadays, however, I see nationalism as an evil and "self-determination" as dangerous. And, you know what? The events reported in this article have been the "nail in the coffin" that convinced me of that. In my opinion, what caused the suffering of those who were expelled was Polish nationalism in response to German nationalism. What's the common factor? "Nationalism".
You are right, but you forgot the start of think. There was no nationalistic party in Poland ever which could be compared to Nazi. In the case when Polish nation and culture is attacked the national spirit rise. It was not Polish nation but German Nazi who was attacker. You loosing sense of what is the reason and what is result. That is mistake. Let me say that we Polish are proud because our historical tolerance. That was Poland who first in Europe introduced religion tolerance, the document is old around 1565 and belong to UN items of world heritage. Please do not equalize Poland with Prussian/Nazi totalitarianism/nationalism. That is offensive for Polish people who suffer for ages because the aggressive country.
believe that evil was done. I am willing to debate all the other stuff but I personally will always judge this episode in history thusly - "evil was done to many who were innocent of any crime".
I hope only you will read the proportion of the evil and not separate reason from results. It is not good enough to say an evil was done. ZgV wants do that. If you separate reason from result and correct proportion they can hope to get material recommendations. You offend people/nation who suffered much more if you simplify: any way, “evil was done”.
Discussion of personal opinions doesn't belong on Talk Pages but I'm getting tired of your lectures and wanted you to know unequivocally where I stand.
I am very sory but the explanation for you are not a pleasure for me also. However I need to defend my nation against political manipulated propaganda. That’s all.
I reject your "nationalist revenge" line of argument above but have included it in the article out in an attempt to maintain an NPOV stance in the article.
I did not say anythink about revange. I say about justiful consequence. I told you: “There was and is some kind of common responsibility in international affairs you like it or not. Do not transfer civil law in to international politic for you convenience or revisionist issue.” Revange is when somthink was done otside the law in this case the powers and victours make the law because those units are no people but contries.
However, I would very much like for you to stop trying to convince me of it. It has gotten quite tedious.
I am sory again. This is the “evil” of Wikipedia - I do not like here so many think that it is difficult to express.
Fine but don't expect me to continue responding. This discussion has reached the point where we are starting to repeat ourselves. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry but I must disagree strongly. Wikipedia is here to report the opinions expressed by experts. We are not expected nor allowed to function as experts. Even people who are experts are not allowed to cite their own work here. Doing so would represent a conflict of interest.
ZgV is not expert. Anyway, expert to “expert” is not equal. Who decide who is expert? If “expert” id bribed should be consider as expert. Thus we need to expose such “experts”.
It is precisely the difficulty in deciding who is an expert that makes it difficult to write an NPOV article. I do not wish to say that the ZgV is right. However, their numbers represent the consensus of a large number of past and present historians. Their perspective clearly deserves to be presented to the reader. It is not our job to judge between them on one side and Haar/Overmans on the other side. Look lower in this Talk Page for a table that documents who those historians are and what their estimates have been. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia
Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
On 4 March 1919 during a demonstration of Sudete Germans in their settlement area for their right to self-determination and their affiliation to German Austria, which took place on the occasion of elections in Austria, altogether 54 Germans and 2 Czechs were shot dead by Czech soldiers. (cf. de:Sudetenland) - Wikiferdi 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, but where is the relation to the post-war expulsion?? And just for your information: in the short history of Czechoslovakia between two wars there were killed over 100 people in the demonstrations and street fights by gendarmery or army. In the same period in neighbouring Austria were killed over 450 people during demonstrations and street fights and in Germany over 1000. Moreover, in late 30's many thousands were send to the concentration camps in both countries. Comparing this, Czechoslovakia was very safe country, where the people had relatively only few reasons to protest and the state authority had almost peacefull stance to the demonstrants... --Honzula 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
And what's the point Wikiferdi ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Well, but where is the relation to the post-war expulsion??"
Nice question. - But you people always relate the post-war expulsion to WWII. Why not looking a little bit more beyond? The world didn't start with WWII. - Wikiferdi 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikiferdi, do you know the book of Evan Burr Bukey: Hitler's Austria: Popular Sentiment in the Nazi Era, 1938-1945 London, 2000 (ISBN0807853631) ?? In one initial chapter there is interesting statement: the German nationalists from the region later known as Sudetenland have had direct influence to the origin and spread of the national-socialist (aka Nazi) movement in Austria and Bavaria (Munich)... With the regard to this, the later fight against the Sudetengerman effort to self-determination could be viewed as well as the beginning fight against the Nazi movement, because the self-determination demands of Sudetengermans anyway have led to the Nazism (openly since March 1938)--Honzula 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In some european countries man can be arrested for writting this. But the Internet is so anonymous... Honzula 08:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ouch! My only excuse is that it was late at night and I was focusing on Wenzel Jaksch and Benes and didn't spend the time to check out what www.wintersonnenwende.com was (a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denial website). My profuse apologies.
That's misunderstanding (and usually wilful). Most of Sudetengermans proclaimed in 1938 that they don't want to live in Czechoslovakia. So Beneš proposed to cede the borderline as far as to the fortification line to Germany and the Germans from inland transfer out of new created borders. These plans of course couldn't work, because the Nazis (out and also inside the country) wanted to scatter the fortifications line as the necessary step to the comlpete destruction of Czechoslovakia.Honzula 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Your description sounds reasonable as a characterization of the situation in 1938 BEFORE the Munich Agreement and BEFORE Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. However, it doesn't address the following quote from Eagle Glassheim:
Almost as soon as German troops occupied the Sudetenland in October 1938, Edvard Benes pursued a two-fold policy: the restoration of Czechoslovakia in its pre-Munich boundaries and the removal, through a combination of minor border rectifications and population transfer, of the state’s disloyal German minority. Though the details changed along with British public and official opinion and pressure from the Czechunderground, Benes’s broad goals remained thesame throughout the war.
Glassheim is arguing that Benes decided between 1938 and 1940 that the solution to the "German question" was to expel the Sudeten Germans. The claim is that Wenzel Jaksch was trying to talk him out of it. Do you dispute these assertions?
"Almost as soon as..." after October 1938? "...decided between 1938 and 1940..."? How is Glassheim arguing? In October 1938 Beneš abdicated the presidency, he left the country and started teaching at the university in USA. Resign from all functions and leave the country is not a good strategy if you have plans to expel one minority from your country... In 1939, after Czechoslovakia was occupied, he went to Britain where he was persona non grata - only one British politician paid attention to him, Winston Churchill, who however had no power at this time. So, when Beneš started to plan (or took the decision) the expulsion of Sudetengermans? Probably at the same time like many other Czech people did, during fall 1939, after Germans started imprison the Czech people in a mass scale, after they closed the Czech universities, have shot Czech students and thousands of them have send to the concentration camps. The transfer, as the alternative solution of the "German question" (after the appeasment failed) seemed to be best way to maintain the peace in future. But I think, there is no evidence that Beneš supported this solution before 1940, there exist some documents that the home rezistance criticized the "mild attitude" of the London resistence to the "German question" even in August 1941. Anyway, the first official appeals to Allies relating the transfer were made by Czechoslovak government in 1943. And note: not all Sudetengermans, "only" they who approved the Nazi policy should be expelled.Honzula 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wenzel Jaksch disagreed with the expulsion of the majority of the Sudetengermans, this was, why he finally interupted the cooperation with Czechoslovak government in exile.Honzula 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
But so the point is that the Czechs started planning the expulsions long before the Germans were actually defeated. I believe this was the point that someone else made earlier on this Talk Page and someone reacted viscerally suggesting that this argument was equivalent to blaming the start of the war on the Poles and the Czechs. The argument simply was that some people already had come to the belief early in the war that the only permanent solution to the German question was expulsion. In other words, expulsion didn't just arise late in the war at Potsdam but had been discussed for years before. Call it 1940 instead of 1938 if you wish. It doesn't change the basic point. --Richard 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the expulsion didn't just arise in Potsdam - thats only the popular mistake on Czech side. The idea of the expulsion arose in rezistance in 1940 or 1941 and in 1943 was offered to the governments of G. Britain, USA and USSR as the solution (though the British side started to recognize this alternative in 1940/41 too).Honzula 23:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For Richard 02Mar07
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
No, the Soviets are guilty of not having trained their troops to behave with discipline and civility. The Poles who behaved barbarously are guilty of barbaric behavior.
What about if German troops were the teachers of barbaric behavior? I am completely sure there would be less barbarism when the Germans would behave as human. You have clear reason and result chain. That is perfectly comical. One attacks others, do animal acts and after blame others that they do not behave as perfect humans. If Russian would behave as Germans did there would be more than 20 millions more deaths. The Germans could do that for Slavs why Slavs could not copy it – the number of Read Army soldiers were much higher then the Nazi Army, so…
I don't blame them for demilitarizing Germany. I blame them for abandoning Poland to the Soviets. Both Poles and ethnic Germans suffered for this. The only thing I can say in their defense is that both the US and the UK were war-weary and unwilling to battle the Soviets for Eastern Europe. (Except for Patton and he was a nut case.)
The UK, France should fight with Poland from 1 September 1939 in first place and so on. In 1944 they should use Polish parachutists in Warsaw not at Arnhem [66] etc. The war would go different way if they would keep promises. After all they took care about their politic interest instead the promises. Patton was true soldier not a "nut" he new what means promise and respect the heroism. He did not exchange the soldier blood for money.
Do me a favor and just quote the relevant text rather than providing a link to it. I remember the Meyers K-L reference but I don't remember the 10% quote. I don't remember Nitschke talking about 10% but I didn't read it in its entirety.
I am afraid Richard you see only what you want to see. There is a simple mathematic which I practice just to separate propaganda from truth. I attempt to convince you to do this subtractions and summarizations any time you copy propaganda numbers. The 10% goes from subtraction. Here is the link to Nitschke [67] again, read it well and do you own mathematic please.
The early phase of the expulsion was not brutal? Do you have a source for that?
Until now nothing serious is to proof they were particularly brutal. (Do not forgot the circumstance and “standards” introduced by Nazis). You want use accusing words you have to provide sources not me. That is the rule of civilized world. Until you proof somebody is guilty he is innocent. The best way is to provide exact facts and their numbers – if not, the general accusing word “brutal” is a big propaganda s…
Write some text that represents your POV and indicate where it would be inserted.
Here you are: The Read Army was a tool of totalitarian system, commonly known under name of Communism. Under the rule of Stalin the system become extremely oppressive for all citizens of Soviet Union. Many millions of Soviet Unions inhabitants were terrorized and murdered. The same totalitarian system was introduced after WW II into Poland. The government and armies was subordinated and controlled by NKVD, KGB and GRU in Soviet Union and by MBP [68] in Poland the organ established and controlled by Soviet Union officers.
This discussion has reached the point where we are starting to repeat ourselves.
That is right, because we do not work on a text, we disperse our efforts. I am not familiar with all Wikipedia opportunities but I believe we could write already some text somewhere - in some sandbox or something.
131.104.218.46, you can use this sandbox to propose edits. This sandbox is intended for you (131.104.218.46 ) and I to use only. I would ask that other editors NOT use this sandbox for the time being. I want to understand more clearly what changes 131.104.218.46 wants made to the article. Once we agree on an acceptable draft, we will present it to the rest of the editing community for their comments. However, edit warring in article space and vitriolic polemic on this Talk Page have caused a breakdown of collaborative editing and we need to stop that in order to move forward. Thanks in advance for understanding. --Richard 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Serafin continues to disregard our policies by using 131.104.218.46(talk·contribs·WHOIS) as a sockpuppet . While I sincerely appreciate Richard's efforts to mediate on this page, 131.104.218.46/Serafin must understand that the usage of sockpuppets to evade a block is absolutely unacceptable. If he wants to edit on Wikipedia, he must abide by our rules and wait until the current block has expired. Olessi 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I am unsure what my obligations are in this situation.
I have been assuming good faith especially since, when I looked at [Serafin's block log] on Feb 27, User:Heimstern expressed some doubts that Serafin had, in fact, been evading his block. However, those doubts seem to have been dispelled and I note that yesterday Serafin was blocked for 1 month by Olessi.
This leaves the question of what Wikipedia policy says about responding to 131.104.218.46(talk·contribs·WHOIS). Is this a shared IP? If it is not blocked, am I obligated to ignore messages from that IP or is it acceptable for me to respond as long as it is not blocked?
Never mind. I just looked at 131.104.218.46's block log and noticed that 131.104.218.46 has also been blocked for a month and so my question is irrelevant. --Richard 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Their perspective clearly deserves to be presented to the reader.
Until know the ZgV was the dominating if not only POV in this article - not to mention that was allowed to be magnified the POV by posthumous Teutonic/Prussian children and similar divinely-called - those who ill idea is make conflict between Germany and Poland. Marginal, last news: 1) Germany who lead UE in this 6 months period proposed to write a common text book for Europeans regarding history after 1945, just because the historical controversies. They hope to get agreement between commissions of historians. 2) Unfortunately the Salomon Morel one of the Polish and German people murderers [69] died in Israel. Israel consequently refused Morel's deportation since considered such crime against humanity expires, unless the crime would be against Jews. --131.104.218.46 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking for a way to move forward
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I am really frustrated and tired of the endless polemic of the last six weeks. This page and the related page, Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe have been protected for over six weeks. It seems that there are a number of editors who prefer to argue on the Talk Page than to cooperate in editing the article.
At this point, there are a number of dispute resolution approaches suggested by WP:DR. I do not believe that a third party opinion will be helpful here nor do I believe that a Request for comment will be helpful. These approaches only work if the disputants are willing to listen to and respect a 3rd party opinion. Based on the discussion to date, I can't imagine that asking for yet another opinion would change anybody's mind. However, if anybody does think we should pursue either of these, I am open to giving it a try.
We can ask a mediator to help us either via the informal mediation cabal mediation cabal or the formal mediation committee. I think this may be a more fruitful approach. I have been trying for several weeks to act as an informal mediator and move us towards a solution but, since 131.104.218 has suggested that I am biased, I wonder if this perceived bias hinders me from being an effective mediator. It may be time for us to request a mediator that is perceived as being truly neutral. However, in order to do this, the parties to the dispute have to agree to mediation. The mediation is not binding so agreeing to mediation does not commit you to abiding by the results of the mediation.
However, I should point out that, if mediation fails, the last resort is binding arbitration by the arbitration committee. ARBCOM decisions typically wind up blocking or banning editors from editing articles. I do not want to go down this route. I have never been involved with an ARBCOM case and I don't wish to start now. However, if we need to block or ban editors from this article in order to get the page unprotected, then so be it.
Although it probably helps that 131.104.218.46/Serafin have been blocked for a month, I do not believe that this one user has been the sole cause of the disharmony and edit warring that led to this page being protected. I think that we need to get an agreement to work towards compromise and collaboration from other editors including Xx236, Jagder, Tulkolahten and Wikiferdi.
If you agree with the compromise approach that I proposed above in the "Forming a consensus to unprotect this page" section, then please indicate your agreement in the voting section. Or, if you oppose, please indicate that but please explain your opposition so I can look for ways to address your concerns.
If you feel that we should pursue the dispute resolution process, then please indicated which dispute resolution mechanism you prefer.
If we cannot find any way forward at all, then we shall have to haul our sorry butts over to ARBCOM and let them decide. (Hint: You don't really want to wind up over there. From my experience reading past cases, ARBCOM rarely decides that party X is right and party Y is wrong. More often than not, they decide that both party X and party Y have behaved badly and they hand out blocks and bans to everybody involved. Any lack of civility is taken into account and considered in the imposition of penalties.)
"The Second World War had barely begun when both the Polish and Czechoslovak governments-in-exile (!) began talking about the expulsion of the Germans from their respective countries after the victory." (p. 108)
Excuse me, actually I thought the expulsion was a consequence of WWII, after all what German Nazis did... - and here Naimark states that Polish and Czechoslovak (not communist) governments had been making plans about those expulsions yet at the beginning of war...
The first sentence of the conclusions of this fourth chapter is: "The Czechs and Poles used the cover of war and the transition from war to peace to expel the Germans from their countries and to settle old scores." (p. 136)
In "Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN0710084684" Dr. de Zayas states:
"It is a sad phenomenon that world public opinion has to a large extent condoned the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans with the easy explanation that they were all 'Nazis' and had 'betrayed' the Czechs. ... Lidice was indubitably a horrendous Nazi crime, but it was a crime for which the Sudeten Germans were in no way responsible, neither individually nor collectively. [...] These crimes and inhumanities committed upon the Czech people, however, were for the most part committed by members of the SS, the majority of whom were not Sudeten Germans. The simple German farmer living in the Sudetenland had little contact with Czechs and could not be held responsible for any abuses committed by the NSDAP in the Protectorate...
I said that, I said that here [70], now Polish and Czechoslovak people caused World War II !! I said that this discussion will lead to this statement, I knew it ... oooooh maaan .... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Tulkolahten, all this complaining about Wikiferdi arguing that "the Czechs and Poles started WWII" is unnecessary drama. That's not what he wrote. His argument is that the Czechs and Poles didn't plan to expel Germans solely because of Nazi atrocities but that they had started discussing the idea at the beginning of the war. Now, admittedly, this "fact" may be debatable but I just want to make it clear that there is a difference between what he wrote and how you interpreted it.
Now, me personally, I find Wikiferdi's argument on this point at least plausible. If you felt that the Nazis had been threatening war for years and finally started a war of aggression against you based on ethnic Germans in your country and you felt that you would probably win the war, you would probably think that one way to avoid war in the future would be to expel the ethnic Germans from your country. Whether this would be a just and fair solution is a different question. All I'm saying here is that the idea would certainly occur to people and it is easy to believe that it might have been the subject of public debate.
I will say that I object to the phrasing of "The Czechs and Poles used the cover of war ...". One thing that is important to remember is that it is highly suspect when you say "the XYZ people did this" or "the XYZ people did that. a "people" doesn't do things, only individuals and governments do things. Thus, in the sentence in question, the phrase "The Czechs and Poles" should be replaced by something like "The Czech and Polish governments used the cover of war..." or "The Czech and Polish governments, influenced by the Soviet Union, used the cover of war..."
I can't believe. It is a simple revisionism of world war two. You can't think that seriously. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As to the original question, indeed, the issue of German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia was discussed by the Polish and Czechoslovak governments in exile. The basic problem was what to do with the Nazi collaborators and those who behaved the way they did during the invasion of both countries. However, I heard of no en masse expulsion proposal mentioned any time prior to 1945.
Just because YOU never heard of it doesn't mean that it isn't true. TWikiferdi has provided one source that appears to claim it is true. We may need to see more corroborating evidence to clarify what exactly is being claimed (expelling ALL ethnic Germans vs. just the collaborators) and even then it would be only one POV. All I was saying is that the original assertion made by Wikiferdi was NOT what Tulkolahten was claiming it was. --Richard 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As to other issues, of course Poles and Czechs started the WWII. Everybody knows that. And don't forget the Jews, we had our share too... //Halibutt 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey and the Chinese invaded Manchuria thus instigating the war in the Pacific theater. In truth, I think we can easily blame the war in the Pacific on the Korean "comfort women". I'm sure it was their fault. --Richard 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Cover of war, LOL :D Attack under the cover of the day light across the mine field ... LOL. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikiferdi, 1) Why you wonder that "Polish and Czechoslovak governments had been making plans about those expulsions yet at the beginning of war"?? Didn't you read any book about WW2? Yet at the beginning of 1940 (or end of 1939) the Poles and Czechs have had enough experiences with German occupants than to like the future with them in one country. 2) Your 2nd source (Zayas) is wrong. Many Sudetengermans had to do with the fate of Lidice. One of the main "executors" was K.H. Frank, Sudetengerman - he was in Lidice personally and ordered many crimes and not only with the relation to Heydrich's dead. Also many other gestapo and SD members who prepared the extermination of Lidice and Ležáky were Sudetengermans. We can only say that no Sudetengerman was in the shooting platoon in Lidice. It is true that "they" didn't made a majority in SS, but can you say, that they were not a majority of SS troops located in Protectorate? (and remember: most of gestapo, SD and Schupo employees were also SS members. Note: nothing what I wrote here may be interpreted as the apology of the postwar crimes - it's just an explanation why the people didn't want to live longer with the Germans in one country.Honzula 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Honzula, please tell me your sources. You can disagree with my sources. But you need to cite sources. Sources are what count here, not your personal opinion. Wikiferdi 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Source to what? That Germans started to shot Czechs and have sended them to concentration camps yet in 1939? That Germans commited many atrocities on Poles yet in the 1939 campaign? (though the attack without any declaration of war was crime itself) Source that Frank was Sudetengerman or that he as the head of Nazi oppresive machinery (after Heydrich's death) ordered many crimes? Are you kidding me? Well, the numbers of Sudetengermans in SS, gestapo and SD, hmm... is it shame, but 60 years after the war nobody enumerated it. May be because they were considered simply as the Germans. I can told you only the number in gestapo Stelle Zlin (Zlin region was and still is almost entirely settled by Czechs, resp. Moravians) from the 15 gestapo officials served in Zlin during the occupation 8 were Sudetengermans (by the place of birth), do you want their names?Honzula 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, but I would like from which source you have these informations. Wikiferdi 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For the life and "work" of K.H. Frank, there is no more detailed book than Miloslav Moulis - Dušan Tomášek: K.H. Frank. Vzestup a pád karlovarského knihkupce (ISBN80-86328-21-X) For the German crimes in Czech lands for examle old (but still good) Detlef Brandes: Die Tschechen unter deutschem Protektorat. T. 1. Besatzungspolitik, Kollaboration und Widerstand im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren bis Heydrichs Tod (1939 - 1942) and for German crimes in Poland any book about the war in Poland, e.g. Alexander B. Rossino: Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology and Atrocity. University Press of Kansas, 2003 (ISBN0-7006-1234-3). The number of Sudetengermans in the Zlin's gestapo I have found in the documents in State archiv in Zlín and Kroměříž.--Honzula 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Quit
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I quit this discussion as it leads to nowhere and is full of original research, offensive statements, revisionism mainly by Wikiferdi, I've never seen anything like this before. Wikiferdi's last entry is the last I can hold, it is too much for me ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
auf weidersehen wiedersehen (clearly a Canuck and not a German.) --Richard 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, w/e, I gotta remember "I before E except after C". is that a rule in German also? and FYI Tulko, "Tschüs" is used between close friends, we are definitely not.
No it is not, you are far from knowledge about it in Canada, it is not uncommon that Tschüs is said in the shops mainly in the west Germany. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been taking courses in German, and that is what I was referring to, it is a friendly guesture, and you have hardly been friendly to me ever.
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to request that the graveyard picture be removed or get a different caption. I don't know what it's supposed to illustrate. My dad and my grandma went over to Poland to visit his birth place the first chance they got after the "iron curtain" fell at the end of the Cold War. It's not like (West) Germans were allowed to move freely across the borders after WWII. They tried to visit the family graves and couldn't even find it any more. The church had been leveled, too. So implying that the graves are neglected simply because Germans don't care (as the note in the caption suggests now) comes across as a bit offensive, actually. - tameeria 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The history of this picture wrt to this article is that it was originally put in as an accusation that the Poles had neglected to care for the graves of Germans. Naturally, the Polish editors of this article took offense at this attack. The current caption is the response of one or more Polish editors who argued that Germans could have sent money to pay for the care of the graves. There was some discussion earlier on this page about the treatment of German graveyards (digging them up and moving the remains) by Poles.
I don't doubt that the caption is "a bit offensive". I think that, at this point, the best thing is to remove the graveyard picture altogether just as you suggested. Unfortunately, we cannot do this until the page protection is lifted.
Which money? Sent to whom? Seriously, when my grandparents were expelled, they had nothing but whatever they could carry on their body, depending on the kindness of strangers who also had nothing in cities that were reduced to rubble and ashes. Even once they managed to make a living again, there was nobody left who they could have sent money to. Their friends and relatives all had been either killed or expelled with them. Those who still did have relatives in the east soon realized that all their correspondence and packages were opened and censored by the communist regime. Western money was one of the first things to disappear at the border into the deep pockets of corruption. It's not like people haven't tried, but many attempts have been prevented from succeeding. - tameeria 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe you. The truth is that there are many sad tales to tell about this topic. Unfortunately, there are some editors here who are more concerned with giving and taking offense than in writing an encyclopedia. And thus, even neglected graveyards have become fair game for their polemical disputes. --Richard 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Since User:Savidan has removed the caption of the graveyard image as being POV, I request that the image be removed as well since it serves no purpose without a caption and, as noted above, has been one of the bones of contention that has incited edit warring and incivility.
Protected for too long. In my opinion, delete the article and start from scratch. Article tries to be autoritative on events and disputes that weren't resolved even by academic historians, and became a battleground for polish, czech and german editors.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackoz (talk • contribs)
I object to this proposal. I do not see how deleting and starting from scratch will change anything.
However, the correct process for this proposal is AFD. Please nominate this article for deletion at WP:AFD. --Richard 07:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I also think it is not good to delete an article simply because users can't agree. I am all for restarting the article however. Have we been able to obtain ANY new information in the course of this protection that can be used to improve the article?
I think you do not mean "restarting the article from scratch" but rather "restarting the article from where we left off".
Please clarify your statement. Also, please indicate your willingness to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:NPOV if page protection is lifted. I am not singling you out. I intend to ask the same of other recent editors of this article.
I will to the best of my ability abide by all those codes, I would prefer not to have to revert at all! but I am pretty sure there will be the random Serafin anon IP that will occasionally come along and vandalize the page. what troubles me is Tulko and Xx, who both now refuse to cooperate at all, but I'm sure will "edit" the article when it is unprotected. haha, u never said the assume good faith rule, and I have already broken it. sorry if I'm a wee bit cynical. I will try to follow the good faith guideline as well.
When I said I was for restarting the article, I meant keep all the relevant information and re-arrange the article better, basically, keep what progress we have made, but create a massive makeover of the article.
Sorry, I cant AFD the article while it is protected. If I could, I would do that and wouldn't request unprotection. The fact here is, there is an awful lot of sources on this topic, and no general consensus on the reliability even in the "real world" - the historians are still arguing, and will probably be arguing forever. The scope of a Wikipedia article is too small to catch up with this mess. Moreover, nationalist editors (German or Slav) WILL be coming to the article to add their crap. In this case (where nothing is clear even in the real world), I would prefer a more exclusionist approach towards the article, avoiding as much controversial issues as possible. Ackoz 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is not quite true that you cannot AFD the article while it is protected. You can perform all the steps of nominating the article for deletion per the instructions on WP:AFD EXCEPT for putting the notice on the article itself. And you can get that done by using the Template:Editprotected to request an admin to do it for you. I would suggest that you do everything else first and then put your request here on this Talk Page so that once an admin does it for you, everything is set up and ready to go.
Of course, it is highly probable that, if you do nominate this article for deletion, I will vote against deleting it but I wanted you to know that it isn't necessary to wait for page protection to be deleted.
I would ordinarily want page protection to be lifted during the AFD discussion so that the article could be improved to address various criticisms. However, your criticism suggests that no amount of improvement could make this article worthy of Wikipedia because the "real world" has not hashed out the controversy yet. I disagree with this assertion and I will explain in a separate section below. --Richard 23:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Continuation of useless polemic between two editors
Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
NOTE: I figured it was better to separate this out from the "Proposed deletion of this article" discussion since this discussion has nothing to do with that topic
Jadger I quit from discussion because consensus cannot be set, everybody pushes own POV, even me, even you, even Wikiferdi and others. As Ackoz said consensus is not set even in the real world and what we are doing here is original research. Yes it is, it is not rewritten some text, it is original research with all its basic principles. NPOV article can be written, but we must avoid biased words, just pure encyclopedic statements like this "Germans were expelled after the war, sources refer to 500.000-3.000.000 deaths". Just look at the sentence about so-called Brno death march, one source refers it was a bloody cruel march and germans were beaten and second source refers it was peaceful march, what to trust ? I don't know. Also please do not blame me, I am far away from stupid edit warring. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought you said you weren't going to "discuss" here anymore? and what exactly did your comment add to the discussion? we all understand there are many different POVs from sources, some with vested interest such as the Czech gov't in the Benes decree, others whose society perpetrated the Brno death march who want to downplay it as much as possible. others want to make what happened to them more well known, I haven't seen you protesting the holocaust memorial in Washington DC, which aims to do just the same thing. let me put it simply, it wouldn't be called the Brno death march if it was "peaceful". and anyways, why were these people being forced to march? I hardly consider people being forced out of there country as a "peaceful" action, take a look at trail of tears.
What you wrote is your POV, you did not live in these times and all you can do is accept sources and I provided source where Brno march is called peaceful and where only 2 poeple died. What you provide is your original research. And also stay far away from equating expulsion with holocaust !! You have no right to do that. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he has every right to do it. Lots of people use the Holocaust analogy to characterize all sorts of actions which are far different in scope and nature (i.e. much smaller and much less evil). However, you are right that despite the exhibit in the U.S. titled "The Forgotten Holocaust", the expulsions were not at all comparable to the Holocaust. Why? Primarily because the "intent to kill" wasn't there. I seriously doubt that anybody set out to kill 1 million or 2 million Germans. I think a lot of people died because there wasn't enough interest or resources to ensure that they lived. That's callous indifference to the point of heinousness but it doesn't begin to compare with a deliberate program of mass extermination. --Richard 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually there's no difference if you shot 200 (or 2 mil.) people into the head, or if you close them in a small area without supplies for several weeks and they die because of hunger and disease. The result is the same - 200 (or 2 mil.) dead people, who could normally live.--Honzula 10:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, really, there are important difference that have to do with intent, foreplanning and foreknowledge. U.S. law draws distinctions between first and second degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
First degree murder is "in cold blood" - you meant to do kill the person, you planned it and you executed your plan.
Second degree murder is "a crime of passion" - you meant to kill the person but you didn't plan it, it just happened "in the heat of the moment"
Voluntary manslaughter - You meant to kill the person but there are mitigating circumstances
Involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide - You didn't mean to kill the person at all but you didn't take adequate care to avoid killing the person and you are guilty of having killed the person.
Now, I recognize that these are U.S. legal concepts and that international law relating to genocide may be different. However, I think it is useful to consider these distinctions when thinking about the deaths associated with the expulsions.
It is my personal opinion that the deaths associated with the expulsions were primarily voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
As I've said before, I don't think anybody planned to kill 1 million or 2 million Germans. I would guess that if you asked Roosevelt or Churchill, they would have said "Some Germans will die but not that many and more would die if we had another war." We can pin some blame on Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin but nothing will ever compare to the deliberate extermination of 6 million in the Holocaust. --Richard 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You jumped from discussion about topic to the personal level and your personal attacks, attacing whole nations, revisionism of the history is very offensive. You are from Canada ? It looks like you want to use Wikipedia for your own problems and POVs, what exactly do you want ? Rewrite the history, make some original research, write lies into the article, make a revision of world war two or what ? There is no place for your POV and original research, it is up to the reader to make own POV. You will not ignore czech sources in that article, that's easy. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, revisionism of history is offensive, and you continue to do it by downplaying what actually happened to Germans after WWII. you are right, I am from Canada, does it really matter? stop attacking me based on my nationality. You yourself said "Just look at the sentence about so-called Brno death march, one source refers it was a bloody cruel march and germans were beaten and second source refers it was peaceful march, what to trust ? I don't know." now you totally abandone the one you don't agree with. I was not making up my own POV or OR, I was using the source you referred to. and what Czech sources won't I ignore? the one you cited in the past and I read it over and quoted sentences wherein it said that it was a very heinous and horrible act. why would I ignore a source like that? please, just do what you said you would do and leave, take a wikibreak, nothing can get accomplished when you don't even trust your fellow editor.
I've never attacked you based on your nationality !!!. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have!!! why else would you have brought up the fact that I am Canadian? You try to pretend that just because I was not born in Poland or Germany that my input is somehow unimportant, or uninformed, and that I should be excluded from this discussion.
read through the discussion we have been through countless times, you and Xx have both said it numerous times. you were the one who brought up the question of my nationality, not me. I would only have brought up my nationality if this was an article on hockey.
Please stop this. If I change the title of this section to something more noble, will you change the discourse to match? --Richard 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Why confusion and controversy in the "real world" does not preclude the writing of a good Wikipedia on the topic
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Ackoz suggests that, because the real world has not yet hashed out "the truth" about the expulsions, it is therefore impossible for us to know the truth and thus impossible for us to write about it.
I reject such a stance. I think it is difficult but quite possible to write a quality Wikipedia article about a topic that is murky and/or controversial. Where many Wikipedia editors "get it wrong" is that they believe Wikipedia's job is to report the truth. This is wrong. Wikipedia's job is not to report the truth precisely because it is difficult to determine what the truth is. Any attempt to do that is original research.
Instead of "truth", Wikipedia aims for "verifiability". Put a different way, Wikipedia is committed to recording the state of human knowledge and opinion (not our opinions but those of reliable sources). If the truth is clear and uncontroversial, it is easy for us to report that. If the truth is murky and controversial, it is more challenging but possible for us to report on what different reliable sources assert and think about a topic EVEN if these reliable sources conflict. Where Wikipedia editors get into trouble is when they start siding with one side of a controversy and asserting that the side that they have selected represents "THE TRUTH" and not just one perspective (or POV) on the topic at hand.
I have been trying to hit this NPOV "sweet spot" but it is difficult to do so in the midst of a running polemical debate between the two sides.
Verifiability - good concept, but doesnt work here. There are dozens of "respected" sources here, each of them presenting a different POV. Presenting all verifiable sources is beyond the scope of a wikipedia article in this case, and we have no right to decide which historian is more reliable than the other. We will never be able to report on _all_ relevant reliable sources. Exclusionism is the way to go in this article. Ackoz 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously is, because some users (Jadger and Wikiferdi) don't want to discuss in fact, they want us to agree with their POV, that's not discussion about the NPOV edits. That's why I quit from the discussion about the form of the article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
if you quit, why are you still here? I guess auf wiedersehen came even quicker than I thought, I thought u'd be gone 24 hours. And I must also mention it "takes two to tango" Tulko, stop trying to blace all the blame on us, your modern day dolchstosslegende doesn't work when people can see the discussion history.
As purely ad personam argument, I would endorse removing these rants from the discussion - both Tulko and Jadger. Try to talk content. Ackoz 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the only person who is turning this discussion site in a quarreling site is at the moment Tulkolahten. When I cite a reliable source he calls it "just my POV" but very seldom he cites any reliable source. Wikiferdi 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Lift the protection
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Oppose Sorry, see "Discussion" section below for explanationRichard 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
I will support the request to lift the protection when I see the following editors (Tulkolahten, Xx236, Wikiferdi, Jagder) agree to the following conditions:
Agreement to the compromises that I outlined in "Forming a consensus to unprotect this page" or a good faith proposal to negotiate a different compromise
Failing that, an agreement to enter mediation or an agreement not to edit the article when page protection will also suffice. If we are going to return to editing after a two month hiatus, the least that we can ask for is that we will not return to "business as usual". I do not want to have page protection lifted only to descend quickly or slowly into "edit war hell" again.
I realize that what I wrote above may seem arbitrary and harsh. However, I think that after two months of page protection, we need to make some steps towards consensus, collegiality and collaborative community. We don't have to be friends but we do have to find a way to work together (or throw some people out if we have to). Not wanting to raise the specter of the WP:ARBCOM hammer but ARBCOM has sometimes decided to ban editors from an article. If we are unable to find a way of working together, we may need to go to ARBCOM and ask for some people to be banned. Maybe we'll all get banned and that might even be a good thing for Wikipedia.
I urge everybody to accept one of the options that I've laid out (or propose another option). Otherwise, I cannot support a return to editing that has no safeguards against a resumption of edit warring.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Please improve the article if possible, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.
AFD was closed as a Speedy keep on the grounds that AFD is not for content disputes.
Ackoz, I owe you an apology. I was focusing on the technical aspects of getting your deletion proposal presented and didn't focus on the principle that "AFD is not for content disputes". I guess that shows that, after almost a year here, I am still not 100% familiar with Wikipedia policy. Every day is a learning opportunity.
In any event, please accept my apologies and see my suggestions for next steps.
NProtected edit declined. Article was speedy kept. Sandstein 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Next steps
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am frustrated by the apparent unwillingness of some editors to agree to abide by the principles of Wikipedia and their indifference to my attempts to forge a consensus.
Ackoz suggested that we trash the whole article and start over. I disagreed. The proposal was put on WP:AFD but rejected because "AFD is not for content disputes".
Fine. My bad. My "Wikipedia policy brain" was not fully engaged and my keystrokes ran ahead of my brain.
While the page is protected, we can use sandboxes to present alternate proposals for restructuring and rewriting this article. For example, I created this sandbox. I copied the exact text of the current protected version of the article. You can make proposed changes to this sandbox or you can create one in your userspace and invite us to review your proposed changes.
Alternatively, you can describe your proposed changes here and even provide short proposals for changes. If your proposed change runs more than a paragraph or two, however, the sandbox approach is probably a better way to go.
Thank you, Richard, for this information. It's really worth reading. Wikiferdi 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Approaching the two-month anniversary of this page being protected
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It is my intention to file an ARBCOM case if we have not re-established a collaborative and collegial editing community by the two month anniversary of this page being protected. I will request that this page be put on probation in the same way that the Occupation of Latvia article was put on page probation in the ARBCOM decision cited above. However, once a case goes before ARBCOM, there is no guarantee that they will limit themselves to the remedies that are asked for. In fact, ARBCOM cases are usually more about presenting evidence and less about requesting remedies.
We must separate the figures for reasonable proportion. It can be done. It needs not to be accurate numbers. The population balance method is absolutely inaccurate.
I sense manipulations. First you use title Expulsion and add to the story escape. Now you want exchange the word to exodus and keep the millions from population balance method in "new" frame.
This is putting responsibility from Nazi orders down to Polish. Pure ZgV "politic". The article is blocked but should be REMOVED already. It still display for public the manipulated crap. Stop switching and twisting.--131.104.218.46 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks block evading vandal, but as this article was already up for deletion, and rejected, you missed your chance, sorry
I am always willing to see what can be done, but I don't want to be the subject of so many personal attacks based upon my nationality again. If everyone is willing to be civil, I am willing to give it a go.
I am skeptically supporting it, as I stated previously, but only because I have been attacked far too many times based upon my nationality. I of course do not want this page protected, but I also don't want the endless racist remarks being thrown at myself and others as has been done on here.
Come on, you are a Canadian, did anyone make jokes about this ;-) Frankly, I'm even more disappointed with Xx236's opposition to the consensus effort. Can we make a cold start and try to refrain from any personal remarks, at least in this article ? It's sufficiently difficult already without it. --Lysytalk 20:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Xx's opposition is one of the things I am referring to. he wants only those with vested interests (Germans and Poles, Czechs, etc.) involved, because to him I was his main adversary. He minimized my contribution, claiming that somehow because I was Canadian that my points were not relevant, and that my input was somehow valued less and couldn't be taken seriously, and shouldn't be included.
Do I understand correctly that there is a personal conflict between Xx236 and you which restricts your ability to work on the article together ? How can this be remedied ? What I suggested was to forget the past personal conflicts and give it another try. --Lysytalk 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Jadger, there was a "This user supports GERMANY" box on your page a while ago. Stop pretending to be the neutral canadian. Ackoz 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, that is in reference to the German National Men's Soccer Team (if you had of scrolled over the link you would have seen that) Here, I'll post it right here so you can scroll over the link for yourself instead of having to go to my userpage
--Jadger 05:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. I never claimed to be neutral either.
Jadger is just imaginary Prussian. He wants to believe in fairy tale from some reason. Reality is not his concern. Because the reality obviously splits with his imagination he attacks others who say truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiatr (talk • contribs)
I would suggest that we let the article protected and just collect on this site here texts from reliable sources. It would not be allowed to comment the contributions of other Wikipedian users unless there are other ("better") reliable sources. - I think this would be the best way to obtain an NPOV article...
In the next sections I cite again from a reliable source. Wikiferdi 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was referring to, thanks for proving exactly what I said was wrong in the first place. It is now perfectly clear who wants to keep this page protected. As just the prospect of getting it unprotected unleashes more vile nationalistic and racist attacks.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
(Cf. Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN0710084684)
"The problems of 'German minorities' in Europe dates back to the territorial settlements made at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Before the First World War there had been no troublesome German minorities in Europe, since most Germans lived either within Bismarck's Reich or within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 'Splinters of German nationality' in tsarist Russia, Romania and Serbia were mainly engaged in agriculture and lived at peace with their rulers.
Large and discontented German minorities were the result of the Treaties of Versailles and St Germain, which too often failed to apply the principle of nationality in redrawing post-war European frontiers." (pp. 2f.) Wikiferdi 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
When Germans controlled minorities everything was O.K., when Germans became minorities the problems started, according to the above statement.
May I ask the respected participants to learn before they start a discussion?
Xx236 11:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt credibility of De Zayas s so beloved by revisionist movement if he writes that kind things coming either out of ignorance or intended propaganda. One only needs to look at Kulturkampf article or German Eastern Marches Society to see how absurd the claim that "German minorities didn't cause any trouble before the Treaty of Versailles" is. De Zayas also doesn't mention pre-WWI Pan-German movement(Pan-Germanism) which sought to conquer territories in Central and Eastern Europe, expell local populations and settle those territories with Germans.
"there had been no troublesome German minorities in Europe, since most Germans lived either within Bismarck's Reich or within the Austro-Hungarian Empir"
De Zayas forgets to mention that both countries were made up of territories conquered from non-German states like Poland and Germans ruled over populations they discriminated. Of course they couldn't be "troublesome" as they were the ruling class. Poles and Czechs however would be of different opinion as they were opressed nationalities in territories German state conquered. If De Zayas claims that "there were no troublesome German minorities in German Empire" why not go even further and say that they weren't any "troublesome German minorities in Nazi Reich", or perhaps that they weren't any troublesome minorities of Russians in Russian Empire.
But of course Germans were already making problems and ethnic strife before WWI ended:
[71]
"Idea of 'Lebensraum'
Between 1921 and 1925 Adolf Hitler developed the belief that Germany required Lebensraum ('living space') in order to survive. The conviction that this living space could be gained only in the east, and specifically from Russia, formed the core of this idea, and shaped his policy after his take-over of power in Germany in 1933. So where did he get this idea from? And why did he envisage his country's future living space lying in the east?
The term Lebensraum was coined by the German geographer, Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904). During the last two decades of the 19th century, Ratzel developed a theory according to which the development of all species, including humans, is primarily determined by their adaptation to geographic circumstances.
Above all, Ratzel considered species migration as the crucial factor in social adaptation and cultural change. Species that successfully adapted to one location, he thought, would spread naturally to others. Indeed, he went on to argue that, in order to remain healthy, species must continually expand the amount of space they occupy, for migration is a natural feature of all species, an expression of their need for living space.
'... in order to remain healthy, species must continually expand the amount of space they occupy ...'
This process also applied to humans, who operate collectively in the form of 'peoples' (Völker), with one Völk effectively conquering another. However, according to Ratzel, such expansion could be successful only if the conquering nation 'colonised' the new territory, and by 'colonisation' he meant the establishment of peasant farms by the new occupiers.
Pre-war intellectual fashion
Ratzel's ideas very much accorded with intellectual fashions in late 19th- and early 20th-century Germany, where various forms of 'Social Darwinism' were prevalent, and where there was a growing concern about the allegedly negative effects of industrialisation and urbanisation. There was also a belief in the virtues of agrarian society and, specifically, of the peasantry. Ratzel's ideas also fitted into the general debate about German imperialism.
The idea of increasing Germany's strength by encouraging migration to Germany's colonies had developed during the 1880s and 1890s. It was thought that sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials. Whereas economic imperialism was particularly popular with industry, migrationist colonialism became associated with agrarianism.
'... sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials ...'
Moreover, during the years immediately preceding World War One, the focus of this colonialism shifted from the settlement of overseas colonies to the idea of conquering territory in eastern Europe, and of settling it with German peasants. The leading advocate of this notion was the influential chauvinist pressure group, the Pan-German League, and its associated propagandists.
Of these perhaps the most notable was the retired general and radical-conservative publicist, Friedrich von Bernhardi. In his notorious book Germany and the Next War, published in 1912, Bernhardi used many of Ratzel's ideas to advocate using a victorious war to gain space in eastern Europe for the settlement of peasant farmers.Impetus during World War One
Rows of delegates at negotiations for the Brest-Litovsk treaty, March 1918
Delegates at negotiations for the Brest-Litovsk treaty, 1918
The notion of acquiring Lebensraum in eastern Europe thus became quite a familiar one before the war, and it gained even more impetus as Germany went through the experience of World War One.
Following the outbreak of the war, the Pan-Germans seized the opportunity to present a programme of war aims advocating the seizure of large areas of western Russia. The idea was that after most of the indigenous population had been cleared, German farmers would settle the land. The settlers were to consist mainly of war veterans and urban workers, who were meant to be the key to ensuring the 'physical and ethical health' of the German nation.
The crucial turning-point in the development of the Lebensraum programme occurred when German armies conquered Poland and western Russia after 1914. A German military regime (Oberost) was established in the Baltic provinces and in part of White Russia, under the command of General Erich Ludendorff. The situation became formalised with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed by the new Soviet regime in March 1918.
Operating under the slogan of 'German Work', Oberost aimed to introduce a modern form of bureaucratic, technocratic, rationalised government in an area which the German occupiers regarded as semi-barbaric. In the process this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups located in specific territories, each with its own distinct history and culture, but simply as 'space' (Raum).
'... this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups ... but simply as 'space' (Raum).'
Many of the large numbers of people involved in this massive programme came to acquire a sense of fulfilling a German mission in the east and, through propaganda, this perception was transferred to the German homeland, where it achieved some resonance. Popular journalists wrote articles with titles such as 'To the East! New Land', and 'German Deed and German Seed in the Russian Badlands'.
Even after the end of the war, German irregular troops, the so-called Free Corps, continued to operate in the Baltic states in a guerrilla war against the Bolsheviks, fought with exceptional brutality on both sides. The post-war German government, hoping to dominate the new Baltic republics, encouraged this process and promised land to the troops.
Eventually, however, at the end of 1919, the Allies forced their disbandment and the Free Corps returned to Germany, embittered and frustrated. Some of their members found a home in Hitler's Nazi party."
German idea was to expell Poles and Jews from annexed territories after WW1.
I wonder why there isn't an article about that plans.
--CiastekPL 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Polish and Czechoslovak Internment Camps
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
(Cf. Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN0710084684)
Dr. de Zayas writes:
"Conditions in many internment camps approached those of the murderous Nazi period, in which sadism was given free rein and internees were left to starve slowly to death. This was one of the reasons why the International Committee of the Red Cross had so much difficulty in gaining access into the camps. [...]
One of the worst camps in post-war Czechoslovakia was the old Nazi concentration camp of Theresienstadt. Conditions under the new Czech administration are described by H. G. Adler, a former Jewish inmate as follows: ... in the majority they were children and juveniles, who had only been locked up because they were Germans. Only because they were Germans...? This sentence sounds frighteningly familiar; only the word 'Jews' had been changed to 'Germans'. [...] The people were abominably fed and maltreated, and they were no better off than one was used to from German concentration camps.
In Poland the situation was not better. In many internment camps no relief from outside was permitted. In some camps relatives would bring packages and deliver them to the Polish guards, who regularly plundered the contents and delivered only the rest, if that much. Frequently these relatives were so illtreated that they never returned. Internees who came to claim their packages were also mistreated by the guards, who insisted the internees should speak Polish, even if they were Germans born in German-speaking Silesia or Pomerania. The under-dog had become top-dog and pan-Slavism had supplanted pan-Germanism.
[...]
The civilian internees who survived to be expelled recorded the horrors of month and years of slow starvation and maltreatment in many thousands of affidavits. Allied authorities in the American and British zones were able to investigate several cases, including the notorious concentration camp at Budweis in Southern Bohemia. The deputy commander of this camp in the years 1945-6, Vaclav Hrnecek, later fled Czechoslovakia and came to Bavaria where he was recognized by former German inmates of the camp. Hrnecek was brought to trial before an American Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany presided by Judge Leo M. Goodman. The Court based an eight-year sentence against Hrnecek upon findings that the Budweis camp was run in a criminal and cruel way, that although there were no gas chambers and no systematic, organized extermination, the camp was a centre of sadism, where human life and human dignity had no meaning. (pp. 124ff.)"
In an "evaluation" Dr. de Zayas describes efforts of Polish and Czechoslovak authors to direct "all attention to Allied authorisation and overall responsibility for the transfers. They have thereby neglected to mention that a great many of these 'transfers' actually took place without the authorization or even in contravention of the directives of the Great Powers. [...]
... a concerted effort has been made to attribute all expulsion losses to the war itself. This is the thesis of a widely distributed book entitled 'Truth or Conecture? German Civilian War Losses in the East', published in 1966 by the Polish Western Press agency in Warsaw. This book attempts to do as some Nazi apologists have tried to do in reverse - to cloud the issues, throw doubt upon statistical methodology and the integrity of the statisticians, avoid discussion of the methods of expulsion (or extermination), and play with the number of victims so as to convey an impression that 'it wasn't all that bad'.
[...]
Predictably, 'Truth or Conjecture' does not mention anything about Lamsdorf, nor for that matter about any of the other internment camps. (pp. 127f.)"
There should also be mention of Salomon Morel. However, on the other side, we should mention that typhus killed many in German refugee camps inside the Allied occupation zones.
Let's not get too wrapped up in making one side to be "evil". I do believe that it would have taken a nation of saints to treat Germans better than they had been treated by the Nazis. Unfortunately, the Poles and Czechs were all too human and punished all Germans, guilty and innocent alike.
Unfortunately, the Poles and Czechs were all too human
Richard, they were not too human, they were too evil (homo hominis lupus est). Don't hollow out the idea of humanity! Wikiferdi 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What Czechs and what Poles? I attempt to say always Nazi Germans, because there are possibly few Germans who are humans. Just only a few tolerant independently thinking humans, judging for number of boors, totalitarians and Nazis on Wikipedia. What punishment? There was nothing like "final solution" or "punishment politic". That lighten you "objective" attitude.
Salomon Morel was not a Pole, maybe because that you recall the “typhus killed many in German refugee camps inside the Allied occupation zones” Do not you?--Dlugopis 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be sufficient to document what is known about this subject and let the reader decide for himself.
Do not forgot what the ZgV "knows" about :)))))--Dlugopis 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This permanent comparison of the conditions in Nazi concentration camps and in post-war concentration camps has still big weak point: The post-war camps weren't built to hold the inmates for years until they die, or even for the extermination of the inmates, as the German (or Nazi, if you want) camps were projected. The post-war camps were built (or maintained from war time) only to concentrate the Germans before they will be send to Germany. This in the other hand was the dark side of these camps, because thus they weren't equipped and supplied as the camps should to be when jailing hundreds people for several months. --Honzula 09:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Poland didn't exist as an independent state till at least 1956. The ignorance of Western authors doesn't give them the right to preach. Poland was a Soviet colony according to USA-Soviet agreements, not because the Poles were racially lower than de Zayas.
There existed Polish-communist camps and NKVD used to run a separate network of Soviet camps and prisons in Poland, in which forced workers and accused persons were collected and transferred to the SU, not to Germany.
Xx236 11:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
De Zayas as seen above writes either very ignorant or manipulative statements I seriously doubt his credibility as researcher.
Many authors have noted that De Zayas is a writer involved with revisionism. The critique of him should be mentioned if his statements are going to be included.
[72]
"The biographical information gleaned from the books in my posession
state that he obtained his law degreee at Harvard, and his historical
training at the University of Gottingen as well as at Tubingen where
he was a Fulbright Graduate Fellow.
+His outlook is decidedly "Germanophil", hence the tendency of
+German nationalists and Revisionists to quote his books.
Quite. de Zayas is a strong Germanophile, something that tends to
occlude his vision on the greater crimes that were being committed
at the same time that many crimes (albeit no less reprehensible)
were being committed by the Allies, particularly the Soviets."
So De Zayas is noted as Germanophile and his "historic" "traning" was received in Germany. Not quite a neutral author as some would try to claim.
[73]
"Such revisionism has often been accompanied by unmistakable tones of resentment—and sometimes, indeed, outright revanchism—toward the United States and its WWII allies. The authority whom Ermacora cites for his "scientific" account of the Potsdam Agreement and its consequences, the American-born Alfred de Zayas, has, for instance, in a recent interview with the Germany weekly Junge Freiheit, denounced Roosevelt and Churchill as "war criminals."17"
[74]
"Writing almost two decades ago, the human rights lawyer Alfred De Zayas told much the same story. [1] A fitting critique of Allied approval of the transfers, his book was nonetheless marred by a territorial revisionism that struck a tone more reminiscent of the interwar period than the age of European unity and Ostpolitik"
[75]
From review of book by Zayas
"Allerdings bleibt dieser kausale Zusammenhang, ohne den die Vertreibungen der Jahre 1945 bis 1947 nicht zu verstehen sind, deutlich unterbelichtet, was den analytischen Wert des Buches stark mindert und den Verdacht entstehen lässt, dass es sich um ein geschichtsrevisionistisches Werk handelt, das einen nur eindimensionalen Blickwinkel hat."
"Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass das Buch zwar über die Betroffenenschilderungen landsmannschaftlicher Darstellungen hinausgeht, allerdings ist der Grundtenor des Buches ähnlich revisionistisch gestimmt wie bei Publikationen dieser Interessenvertreter."
In short-the book is bent towards revisionism and is based almost only on the spoken word of German Landmanschaft members.
--CiastekPL 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Some Polish academicians quote de Zayas. I don't know if there are ones who oppose him.Xx236 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
.png)
Protected edit declined. Article was speedy kept. Sandstein 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
