Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Still a mismatch between the scope and title

Previous discussion doesn't seem to have gone anywhere towards solving this rather major problem with this important article - the title doesn't match the scope. The title implies we're talking specifically about expulsions, while we actually talk about a whole set of population movements, with perhaps a stronger focus on those which were expulsions, but by no means restricted to those. Can we finally decide what we're going to do - change the title, change the scope (and presumably create a new "parent" article to hold the information that pertains to the movements as a whole), or perhaps rewrite the article to explain to bewildered readers why evacuations and flight are being put under the heading "expulsions". Without descending into more pointless political debating, can we decide what we're going to do about this?--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the even more obvious point - the title says "after" the war, while much of it is about events "during" the war.--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose changing the title into "Flights and expulsions of Germans during and after World War II" as a stopgap measure.  Dr. Loosmark  10:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what seems the best solution to me. (Though I'd prefer a shorter title, which could be achieved for exmaple by replacing "during and after WWII" with a range of dates like "(1944-1950)", if we can pin it down that much.) However when this was proposed above, people came along and wrote "Oppose" for various reasons which I still don't fully understand - perhaps some of those people could suggest their own alternative solutions to the problem.--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Flight and Expulsion During and after WWII" or a range of dates like "(1944-1950) is a better description for the title of this article.

•It reflects the current historiography in Germany and Poland.

•It corrects the misconception in the English speaking world that these events occurred only after the war.

•There is currently no clear consensus on the number of deaths, the cause of these deaths and the exact timeframe that they occurred. These issues remain unresolved pending new research.

•We need to maintain a NPOV and point out and explain that these events are referred to as “expulsions” in Germany and “deportations” in Poland.

•Above all we should avoid the use of sources that exploit these events for political ends. Since the topic is controversial and disputed, we need to maintain a NPOV and should rely on scholarly and official sources that present the arguments in Poland as well as Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Many countries participated - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union. I have added the book "Forced Migrations" which includes authors of other nationalities than Germany and Poland. Differences between German authors are frequently sharper than betwen mainstream Polish and German ones. "Veropferung der Taeter" is a German left idea.Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Any inaccuracies or biases in the content of the article are of course important, but that's a separate issue from the one I raised, which is just about properly defining the scope of the article. If there are no better suggestions, I propose that we move the article to the title suggested by Loosmark, and then if anyone wants to have a separate article covering just the post-war expulsions, they can create it and move the relevant detail from this article to the new one. Any objections (and if objecting, please make a constructive alternative suggestion)?--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Narrowly focusing on Dr. Loosmark's suggestion, it's OK with the exception that I prefer "Flight and expulsion" to "Flights and expulsions". "Flights and expulsions" sounds awkward to the Anglophone ear. In particular, there really isn't a plural of "flight" that is used to mean multiple instances of fleeing. Use of the plural "flights" tends to imply things like airplane flights.

However, while we are rationalizing articles and titles, may I draw everyone's attention to German exodus from Eastern Europe? I think that article should be titled German exodus from Central and Eastern Europe since its arguable whether Czechoslovakia and Poland are in Central Europe or Eastern Europe. More importantly, why are there two articles and how are they different? When I was working on these articles a couple of years ago, the idea was that the Exodus article was the "parent" article which covered "Flight, evacuation and expulsion" while this article would focus on the expulsions per se. The fact that a title change is being proposed suggests that the scope of this article has changed from its original intent. Please consider both articles and then propose a solution which will address the scopes and titles of both articles. Merger of the two articles is a plausible alternative. However, the original rationale is that there will always be POV warriors who insist that not all Germans were technically expelled and that many left of their own free will or, at least, did not return when conditions would have allowed them to. On the other hand, just calling this population movement an "exodus" will not satisfy the POV warriors on the other side who insist on focusing on the "expulsion" aspect.

--Richard S (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

German exodus from Eastern Europe doesn not inform about the background of conflicts:

• Prussian rules after the partition of Poland, eg.
  • Prussian Settlement Commission,
  • Września school strike of 1901,
  • Exchange of population between Poland and Germany after WWI
• Regarding Bohemia the Battle of White Mountain implied later national conflicts.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that there is currently an article titled Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after World War II. It's a disambig page.

There are also articles about

• Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II
• Flight and expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia during and after World War II
• Flight and expulsion of Germans from Romania during and after World War II

Let's discuss this further and come up with a set of article titles that rationalizes the scopes of all these articles.

--Richard S (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that a merger of at least some of those article would make a lot of sense, in fact I have already prosed such a thing in the past. The situation is however that a couple of German editors always oppose such a merger for reasons which aren't totally clear to me.  Dr. Loosmark  15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And there is of course also yet another article, the Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans. It seems to me that no other event in WW2 generated so many articles on wikipedia which is a bit weird.  Dr. Loosmark  16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see this has not really been settled. I think the "exodus" article must be considered a grandparent rather than a parent - it covers a much wider time-frame and range of events than this article. Anyway, no-one's come up with any other plan for bringing title into line with scope, so what do we now think of the proposed rename to either Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after World War II or Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)?--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomasz Kamusella cites estimates of 7 million expelled

The 7 million is an obvious error, which documents the method of writing the article. Xx236 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The figure of 7 million is correct, it is for German territories in the 1937 borders only.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The figure isn't correct, it includes people "legally" expelled, ie. both those evacuated and deported after the war. Kamusella is wrong because he says that the 7 million were expelled after the war. Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Overy cites approximate totals of those evacuated, migrated, or expelled between 1944 and 1950" - the name of the section is "Expulsions following Nazi Germany's defeat" and the name of the article "Expulsion of Germans after World War II". Either the name of the article should be "Flight and deportation of Germans" or the numbers should be removed. Xx236 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In Germany these events are referred to as the Flight and Expulsion of the Germans. In Poland the desription is Flight and deportation. After the war those that fled the Soviet advance were not allowed to return, they were de facto Expellees/Deported.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"that fled the Soviet advance were not allowed to return" - any sources confirming that all that fled, including Nazi criminals, wanted to return to Soviet occupied "Poland"? Why don't you write "X refugees weren't allowed to return, Y refugees were deported in harsh conditions, Z refugees emigrated to the USA, Argentina and others"? Hundreds of thousands were deported to Soviet Union and wanted to fly from the Soviet world rather than return to their Heimats. Mixed families had sometimes the choice - some left Poland, some didn't.

If something is called "Flight and Expulsion" why to change the name to "Expulsion"? Xx236 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True, Xx236 you read Polish, mine is just so so. This book is a reliable source that will support your arguments.

Gawryszewski, Andrzej. Ludność Polski w XX wieku.Warszawa : Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego PAN, 2005

You should be able to find it in a Polish library--Woogie10w (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole text is available http://www.igipz.pan.pl/wydaw/Monografie_5/ and I have quoted it last week, see above.Xx236 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, check the section dealing with the war, it will show that 3 million were expelled and 1.1 million stayed. The rest fled or were killed in the war. The German Archives report of 1974 said 100,000 died in Communist run transit camps--Woogie10w (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Xx236, Take your time with Gawryszewski's book no need to rush, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. If any disputes arise we can always use Google translate to verify and material.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

15 million Germans were forced to flee or were expelled, 3 million from the Czech Republik and the rest mainly from Poland. 3 million Germans died in the course of this expulsion. These numbers have never been disputed by historians.--92.230.68.196 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Never been disputed by historians... Really? And where does those numbers come from if I may ask?  Dr. Loosmark  20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Map Sudetenland

Prior to the war the Sudetenland had a German speaking majority, please see this Wikipedia map.[1] At the 1938 Munich confrence Germany was awarded the Sudetenland because of this ethnic dominance, this was also true in the case of Hungary which took part of Slovakia and Poland which took the Zaolzie.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all German speaking people were Nazi, eager to join the Reich...Xx236 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but they were deported anyway in 1945-46.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them, some mixed families had the right to stay, like Peter Glotz's one. His family run away to Bayern, the father first, mother with Peter later. Xx236 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The source of the map is not clear to me. Also I cannot access that page on Google book.  Dr. Loosmark  15:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, the source is a map on Wiki Commons prepared by Mariusz Pazdzioranot, not Google books, anyway the German majority in pre war Sudetenland is not disputed, that is why why the UK and France gave it to Hitler at Munich.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re above from Xx236 ("Not all German speaking people were Nazi, eager to join the Reich"): Why the over-generalization? You know enough of German history to know that numerous Germans in Sudetenland wanted the Sudetenland to join either Austria or Germany, and for many, such sentiments extended back prior to the rise of Nazism. As Roman Catholics, many German Sudetenlanders were not partial to the Nazis. Xx236, I doubt that you are Roman Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sudeten Germans were promised homerule by the American President Wilson after World war 1, but the newly-founded Czechoslovakia wanted a homogenious state. The Czech majority did not grant the Germans the same rights, therefore the Sudeten Germans turned to Germany. Mind you, both Czechs and Germans had been living together as neighbours - as part of the Holy Roman Empire and as part of the Austrian Empire for about 800 years.--92.230.68.196 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sudeten Germans voted to join Germany in the early 1920s. For the record, that vote had nothing to do with the Nazis, who were insignificant at the time. Germans and Czechs likely live together best in communities where the majority from both groups are Roman Catholic -- intermarriage simply becomes sacramental marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The events have been variously described as ... occasionally genocide.

The lead used to contain the following statement, would it be fair to say that some have described the events as genocide? - Schrandit (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Would it be fair to include in the lead informations about the historical context, ie. the Holocaust and German crimes in occupied countries which caused common hatred toward the occupants?Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Xx236, it would not only be fair to include the context but also necessary.  Dr. Loosmark  12:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any serious objection I will re-add it. - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I object it very seriously.  Dr. Loosmark  22:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark is correct, I support him. There was no genocide of the Germans, a assertion like that would need really solid sources. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And even if there is some source which would support such a, how shall we say, very "unusual" view, it does not belong to the article's lead but rather into the article's body with the explanation that most historians oppose such a view.  Dr. Loosmark  22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark you are right. Rather than engage in an edit war, which is a dumb move. Let us consider an RFC, to clear up this issue. The leade should not be a dumping ground for every opinion under the sun. How does this RFC routine work on Wikipedia?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the expulsion of 15 million Germans, whereby 3 million died, can`t be called genocide to distinquish it from the Holocaust, but it certainly was the biggest ethnic cleansing in European history.--92.230.68.196 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a part of Soviet policy in Eastern and Central Europe. It wasn't "ethnic" only, it's your POV. It was also a political and economical process. Persecutions of Nazis and capitalists are "Persecutions of Nazis and capitalists" in the GDR and "ethnic cleansing" in Poland. Bomnbing civilians is "bombing civilians" if the bombs are US or UK and "ethnic cleansing" if the bombs are Soviet. Raping women is "Raping women" in GDR but "ethnic cleansing" in Poland. The "Germans" were of many ethnicities including Slavic Silesians. "3 million died" during the war mainly, but some poeple believe that killing Slavs is O.K. but being killed by the Slavs is "Expulsion". More than 15 million run away and were evacuated in Soviet Union, but it's unimportant for some here. Germans planned to expell more than 15 million of Slavs, but they weren't allowed to, so it doesn't count - the Germans are the main victims of WWII, sorry - of European history.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

migration of millions of German nationals (Reichsdeutsche) and ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche)

The article starts with this false statement. There were Slavs, eg. Upper Silesians and Czechs, among the refugees.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And the sentence: "The movement of Germans involved a total of at least 12 million people, with some sources putting the figure at 14 million, and was the largest movement or transfer of any single ethnic population in modern history." isn't correct either. The expulsed weren't all from a single ethnic population. If there are no objections I will modify that.  Dr. Loosmark  13:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

was dictated from outside the nation

Poland was occupied by the Soviets and any important decision was dictated from outside of the nation. Hungarians were Nazi allies, so the dictate was open and Poles were "Allies" so the dictate was hidden. But still many people claim that good Allies won bad Axis (and liberated Poland).Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

any single ethnic population

The statement should be removed from the lede, because it's very controversial, it ignores the historical context, ignores tragedies of nations smaller than "Germans". Am I allowed to remove the statement from the lede?Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. The sources are unambiguous, and you failed to provide evidence for your position. Please take the advice of Kotniski to not read too much into the sentence seriously and don't open ever new sections on that topic. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you to define what is "sources" for you? Have you any expertise in crtical assesment of them? Are two "sources" - two sources if both of them quote the same source or one of them quote the other? According to Woogie10w almost all "sources" regarding the "expulsion" were based on the same German work. It's not editing but a childish game. Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the statement as particularly controversial. - Schrandit (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But the same author has written "Trying to quantify and then rank human suffering would be madness. This isn't a contest. - Schrandit"

Eva Hahn "konečně uznání obětního beránka moderních evropských dějin, které pro sebe reklamovali již nacisté" (the final recognition of the (German) scapegoat of modern European history, demanded already by the Nazis) http://www.euportal.cz/Articles/727-sudetsti-nemci-maji-novou-strategii.aspx.Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Eva Hahn is anything else but an objective historian. She is absolutely biased, even hateful against Germans. Alfred Maurice de Zayas, American, renowned member of the UNO, is an expert for the expulsion of the Germans.--92.230.234.147 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Germans murdered millions, am I allowed to write in any WWII article that German crimes were the biggest in history?Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "Most radical version of the Nazi Generalplan Ost envisaged a 1000 km eastward shift of the German frotier, relocating a population of 31 mln (mainly Poles)into Siberia, as well as subsequent exterminating 5 mln people" History and Memory: mass expulsions and transfers 1939-1945-1949- So the "expulsion" of "Germans" was the biggest only beacause Germans weren't allowed to implement their project. Such information should be included into the article, because we lack the real context.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "BdV„s representatives position the German nation as a victim of II World War; by placing it next to the nations mutilated by the German Nazi regime, they try to reshape the „community of victims”; they put the the postwar expulsions of Germans on equal footing with the Nazi drive for creating the “new living space” for Germans.History and Memory: mass expulsions and transfers 1939-1945-1949 Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "The interested public is shown the historical panorama that presents German collective victims together with the victims of Jewish genocide of the Second World War, and the Armenian genocide of World War I." - Ingo Haar, quoted in "History and Memory: mass expulsions and transfers 1939-1945-1949". Why this Wikipedia accepts the BdV POV? 13:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Xx236 (talk)

Yes. If you reference it. No. That's a different article. --G-41614 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes or not?Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Soviet military affairs: the legacy of World War II, Page 4, Jonathan R. Adelman,Cristann Lea Gibson "Another 17 to 25 million people fled eastwards in the path of the German advance in 1941 and 1942" - so one German refugee seems to be more important than 1.5 till 2 non-German ones. I see this idea as racistic. 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Xx236 (talk)

Using an attorney phrase, "asked and answered" - but you'll have to read back through this subject's ("German Expulsions") archives to gain the response. Anthropology doesn't use the "race" concept, although "Human Race" may be acceptable in Popular Anthropology. There is no such thing as a "Slav Race" and a "German Race". Estimates of world population include one set of data having it that in 500 A.D. the world population was 300 Million (which, by 1,000 A.D. went to 400M). Here's a reality test: assume 25 years for each generation to reproduce the next generation. Start out with your 2 biological parents & double that number each generation back through time. In 30 generations (750 years), the number of your direct ancestors in your 30th generation back in time would be over 1 Billion . . . so, approximately by the year 1250 AD you would have 1 Billion direct ancestors walking the earth at the same time (actually, the precise figure via doubling each generation for 30 generations is 1,073,741,824). Yet extrapolation of the above statistics, to include the statistic of 500 million as the year 1500 AD total alive human population, yields that less than one-half that number (namely 450 Million) represented ALL the humans on the earth at that 1250 AD time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I ask for explanation why the flight of 17 to 25 million people is less important the the "expulsion of Germans"? Who says that one big ethnicity is more important than a group of people with unknown ethnicities? If you don't like the word "racist" so replace it with "radically nationalistic".Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can't agree with the generalization "radically nationalistic" - I'm sure that most know that the Germans derive from 4 or 5 assumed "tribal groups" back in the mists of time. They were the most fragmented of the European ethnicities, only gaining a "unification" (sans the Austrian Germans, the Swiss Germans, & other scattered German ethnic groups in both western & eastern Europe) in ca 1870. And what a mix it was!: Bavarian Catholics & "Prussians" from the Church of Luther . . . the idea that such people as Bavarian Catholics combined with Prussians from the Church of Luther into some rabid nationalism, setting aside their obvious differences, is absurd! Until somewhat recently it wasn't easy for a practicing Catholic in Germany to marry a practicing member of the Church of Luther -- I find it hard to believe that such gaps were ignored, all for the greater glory of nationalism. The only thing that brought together Germans with culturally very little in common (lots of sub-cultures in "Germany" of, for example, the late 1800s & the 1900s), was the common feeling that they had been betrayed by the supposed ideals of US President Wilson, who called for an honorable peace settlement to World War 1. Wilson was ineffective in preventing the Brits & the French from making a mockery of his words at Versailles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Many deaths were attributable to the flight and expulsions, with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 2.0 million

It's a manipulation. 2 million include victims of the war. WWII - ever heard?Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be good to explain exactly what the connection was between the flight and expulsions, and the deaths. I suspect a significant number of the deaths (I don't know if there have been any figures) were due not to either flight, expulsion or fighting, but to retributive killings (so to failure to flee, rather than the fact of flight). Which again calls into question the best way to title this page so as to encompass the whole scope of the topic.--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Murders and rapes committed by the Red Army were war crimes, not "expulsion", the crimes were committed both East and West of the Oder-Neisse line, you may call them "retributive" - the connection between the "expulsion" and the killings or rapes wasn't obvious - no "expulsion" was planned from the future GDR area. Sinking of German ships was legal, a part of the war, bombings were part of the war. Hundreds of thousands of Germans from any German speaking area perished in Soviet Union, like eg. Poles. Were the Poles victims of "retributive killings" or rather quite standard Soviet cruelty? The NKVD and Soviet "courts" executed thousands of German men, many of them Nazi criminals. It was "retributive" but relatively just.

The best researched crimes were the ones committed on Sudetengermans in Czechoslovakia - the recent numbers are many times lower than the ones propagated by Germany since the war.Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything above. Unfortunately we have some users who push for theoretical maximum numbers. However I think it's time the article gets modified according to common sense and logic rather than inflated numbers.  Dr. Loosmark  12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

This article is not about the "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" only. The wrong title represents BdV propaganda PoV and should be changed. Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Steinbach since it's misleading without context of Nawratil

I've removed the reference to statements by Erika Steinbach from the article. The reason for this is as follows:

1. According to the German historian Ingo Haar, Steinbach is "Relying on a work by an author associated with the extreme far-right, Heinz Nawratil". The original version of the text in the article attributed where Steinbach's opinion came from.

2. But the attribution to Nawratil was removed, for unclear reasons, by Herkus [2]. Then all that remained was Steinbach's opinion but not its source.

3. On the related BLP discussions it was noted that the fact that the president of the Federation of Expellees is relying on works by extremist authors was itself notable. This is my view as well and I think it should be important to be precise about the sources from which Erika Steinbach gets her information from - since she is a very prominent persona in this subject area, this is most definitely encyclopedic (and well sourced) information.

4. However, since some editors object to Nawratil's name being included at all, it makes sense that if you remove him, you should remove claims by Steinbach as well. Hopefully this can be a satisfactory compromise to everyone.

Also

5. The entire problem would be easily solved by having a section on "Use of expulsion for political reasons" in the article where this kind of thing can be explored. I know, I know, the article's "too long" already (never mind that there's like 10 versions of it on Wikipedia) but somehow no one seems to have the gumption to shorten it.radek (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Oh the whole "expulsion movement" has coverage in numerous works and publications, this article focuses only on its statements and the initial transfer of the population, while ignoring almost half of century of developments that happened afterwards. See for example: After the Expulsion: West Germany and Eastern Europe 1945-1990 [http://www.amazon.com/After-Expulsion-Germany-Eastern-1945-1990/dp/0199259895] The movements were very influential in German politics and destructive in West German relations with other countries. For instance some of them supported Munich Agreement enforced by Hitler on international community as valid, even after defeat of Nazi Germany. The widespread nationalism and patricipation of former Nazis was also problematic to external relations.This should be covered as we now lack the history that happened aftwerwads and which is connected. One interesting fact, which determined the attitude and which was not exposed in West Germany was the fact that the supposed victims often represented former strongholds of Nazi movements from before the war. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the article often uses sources that are dubious quality-for example the journalist Thomas Urban, who is sourced on Polish wikipiedia as supporter of Steinbach and BdV.He is also reported to defend the term Polish concentration camps, making claims that Germans "civilised Poles", and that Poles harass him, even the usally pro-German friendly Bartoszewski is quoted as distancing himself from this person[3]. After him we have Kamusella, Tomasz whose own university rejected his claim in official statements[4]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the edit, Steinbach’s POV here would be like including the statements of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in the American Civil War article. (BTW My great grandfather was a proud veteran of the Union Army)

• Steinbach is doing a lot of good work today to educate the younger generation in Germany on the history of the Flight & Expulsions. That belongs in the BdV article, not in this one.

• Re: Kamusella, I read his essay on the Expulsions from Poland, it is a rather superficial treatment of the topic and has poor references. Definitely not high grade scholarly material.

• The Polish editors may be able to make a contribution in the article using this source. Stanisław Jankowiak, Wysiedlenie i emigracja ludności niemieckiej w polityce władz polskich w latach 1945-1970, , Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, Warszawa 2005, ISBN 83-89078-80-5 My Polish is limited and can only hope that the crew from Poland does the job--Woogie10w (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kamusella presents a "Silesian" POV.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I removed Nawratil because User:Woogie10w suggested to do so [5] and nobody objected. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources vs. Further reading

Some books are quoted twice, some once, some aren't. What is the logic?Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

de:Vertreibung

Would our radical German editors take part in internal German discussions de:Diskussion:Vertreibung rather than create problems here? Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC) The alleged "Expulsion of Germans" means in reality "Ausweisung und Flucht deutschsprachiger Bevölkerung aus Grenzräumen mit nichteinheitlicher Bevölkerungsgeschichte oder isolierten mehrheitlich deutschen Sprachgebieten". It's not the same.Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

May i ask you to refrain from the discussion when Ethnic Cleansing of over 14 Million Germans involving Genocide does not seem to be your issue? You just spoke about "Grenzräumen mit nichteinheitlicher Bevölkerungsgeschichte oder isolierten mehrheitlich deutschen Sprachgebieten". Either you have a problem with the German languge or with the issue?

Because neither East Prussia, nor Silesia nor Pomerania were "isolated" nor "Grenzräume". Also would you please stop insulting the German users? I dont think just because people were born in Germny they are "radical". Maybe it would be worth asking yourself whether perhaps those who try to hush-up the deeds of their countries could be quite radical themselves?

I do not see the state of Germany hushing up anything. But i do see the alleged "Liberators" who massmurdered, tortured and robbed Millions, hushing up a whole Genocide. Are you sure you accused the true "radicals"? Please stop insulting other users, or i will have to report you for violating Wikipedia rules. Thank you. PeterBln (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Only very few editors from Germany have commented on this page recently, me being the most active one.

(1) Am I thus correct that your above post refers to me?

(2) Do you stand by your post or are you willing to reconsider and redact it?

Skäpperöd (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy with the "radical" business. - Schrandit (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I ask that the editor who made the above remark [6] to please retract it. I believe that it may have been made in haste and the editor may want to reconsider what was posted.I strongly urge the other editors of this page not to bite on the bait and engage in incivilty. We should be using this page to discuss improvements to the article not to engage in ethnic rivalry. I continue to be willing to work with other editors who desire to improve this article using reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the German article and the German discussion and don't claim that we discuss "Germans versus Poles" here, we don't. Claims of "3.2 million deaths of German civilians" during the expulsions are extremely radical so I don't understand your protests. How many, according to you, would be radical - 4 million? This discussion has been continued since several years (15 archives !) and should be ended. The title of this article is erroneous and lack of cooperation to correct it is "radical" for me. This article doesn't define the word "Germans", which means something different here than Germans. "Ausweisung und Flucht deutschsprachiger Bevölkerung aus Grenzräumen mit nichteinheitlicher Bevölkerungsgeschichte oder isolierten mehrheitlich deutschen Sprachgebieten" - translating this as "Expulsion of Germans" is very radical, biased. Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Who claimed 3.2 million death? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a figure of 3.2 million dead in the lede without a source--Woogie10w (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, but this is not stated as a "claim" of "our radical German editors" who allegedly "cause problems here" and better go elsewhere, as the thread opener said, but as the upper end of the range of estimates which appears that way because of MOS guidelines correctly applied by Kotniski recently. The details on this range (methods, authors, footnotes etc pp) are in the casualties section. The ad hominem in the thread opening is just unacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1-I was shocked to see the remarks Would our radical German editors take part in internal German discussions de:Diskussion:Vertreibung rather than create problems here? I believe they are uncivil and need to be addressed at an admin level.

2-The preliminary figure of 3.2 million dead was made in 1951 at the time the Schieder Commission was just being formed. Today it has no credibility and drags the article down. The range should be 500,000 to 2,000,000. 500,000 being the figure of the Church Search Service and 2.0 million often quoted the figure that is currently used by the German government.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1 - Likewise.

2 - I think something like "an estimated 500,000-2,000,000 civilians are thought to have been killed in the expulsion" will suffice for the lead. - Schrandit (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

From the de:Vertreibung:Diskussion "Bei einem Lemma „Vertreibung von Deutschen“ kriege ich nationale/ethnische/staatsbürgerliche Zahnschmerzen. Schließlich wollen wir hier doch keine NS-Klassifizierung übernehmen. Wer in diesem Zusammenhang ein "Deutscher" war und warum diese Einstufung, das ist ein Thema für sich, das in Einzelartikeln dargestellt werden sollte." Please discuss the subject with editors of German Wikipedia, when you refuse to accept any of my opinions.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with "Vertreibung der Deutschen"? Of course, other nationals were expelled, too. But the expulsion of the Germans was the biggest ethnic cleansing in European history. Euphemism does not make it better. Ashamed of being German? What about Beethoven, Goethe and all the others? --92.230.234.147 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of a number of anything are neither radical, nor anything but claims, nothing else. The proper way to deal with claims is to verify or falsify them, not calling them radical when feeling a claim is exaggerated. The remark to "... not to engage in ethnic rivalry" maybe perceived as a bit hamhanded, if one wishes (I don't), but as well it may merely be a fitting observation. However one feels about this, immediately jumping to a conclusion about what "ethnic rivalry" might be insinuated, if at all, isn't exactly helpful. This topic, however the lemma is named, will remain controversal for a long time to come, especially in an open project like the wikipedia. A discussion that goes on for years is nothing but a hint at the plausibility of the claim I just made. So chill. POV may be appropriate on a talk-page, but with a topic like this, avoiding it will me more helpful than letting POV-issues slip in. A user feeling insulted by this remark should think about why, wether it is really the case, and consider that an insult is always, among other aspects, a matter of personal POV. I strongly disagree with some of the things I have read in the discussions, but despite my issues with the lemma I decided not to engage in the actual discussion for now for two reasons. One is lack of knowledge and appropriate sources. The other is my being German myself, which might prove to be provocative to other users. So far, --G-41614 (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a trash can to collect any claims.

We have to define the subject of this article or any article created from this one.

We have to assign precise names to articles.

We aren't able to do this since years.Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article does a much better job covering this controversial topic. On this talk page last year I remarked [7]. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No one ever said anything about leaving unsubstantiated claims on a wikipedia-article of this nature (historical and controversial). Woogie, you realize that the article on de:wp has a different lemma (others referring to de: should note that as well), has a note at the top pointing out a limited focus, followed by a neutrality warning? Besides, it's not that great a job either. It mainly focuses on what is more aptly (though perhaps not perfectly) described by the en:wp lemma. Other expulsatory actions more or less fall by the wayside. So perhaps there the whole article may be affected by a German understanding of expulsion that understands this term to primarily refer to events after WWII regarding people perceived as German. --G-41614 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Also, on de:Vertreibung, the Lemma's being discussed. Sound familiar?

The title of the article on Polish Wikipdia is pl:Wysiedlenia Niemców po II wojnie światowej The Expulsion of the Germans after WW2. I believe the word Wysiedlenia means expulsion. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In 1950 the West German government made a preliminary estimate of 3.0 million civilian deaths in the expulsions. At the same time German Red Cross began to investigate 2.8 million cases of persons reported cases of missing persons in the area of the expulsions. These early estimates are no longer considered valid because subsequent investigations provided a revised accounting of the losses.

Source

Overmans, Dr. Rűdiger. (1994). Personelle Verluste der deutschen Bevölkerung durch Flucht und Vertreibung. (A parallel Polish summary was also included; this paper was a presentation at an academic conference in Warsaw in 1994.). Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI-1994 Warsaw.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Xx236 remarked that Claims of 3.2 million deaths of German civilians" during the expulsions are extremely radical-

I believe that User:Xx236 has made a valid point because the assertion of 2.8 million dead due to expulsions is found in literature sold by the ultra-right in Germany today. For example the book Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, sold by the NDP, makes this claim.[8]

I found the link to this vendor of the book at the website of the National Democratic Party of Germany--Woogie10w (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nawratil's numbers are not included in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are. They are just not sourced to him (the source having been removed by Herkus [9]) - they are the basis for Erika's statement.radek (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Nawratil's book because it is an example of the liturature sold by the ultra-right in Germany today. Nawratil is a well known and respected attorney in Germany--Woogie10w (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Radical is the ethnic cleansing of about 15 million people, but certainly not the mentioning of it. A perverse value system! --92.230.234.147 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Still, if anybody calls a claim extremely radical, it would be better to add sources themselves. Nice of you to do the work. I just took a peek at the de:-talk. A lot of POVing, pa's and source bashing. All it tells me so far is numbers are hard to come by, all the more so since which deaths to include - those shot on the move, the perished, the suicides afterwards, deaths being the result of people being where they were whne they died just because of expulsion? I would never trust a claim coming from something like the NPD - rather, e. g., the Federal Agency for Civic Education, that has an article mentioning two million, while in the same sentence mentioning the number might need readjustment - downwards. For now, --G-41614 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The number of deaths due to expulsions is impossible to evaluate because: 1) many German civilians were caught by the rapidly advancing war zone (the Nazi authorities in most cases considered evacuation of civilians as desertion.) 2) many civilians were forcibly drafted into the German Army and died in combat, especially in the last months of the war. 3) Last months of the wars and the time immediately afterward was a period of complete chaos and lawlessness. My opinion is that the figure of 3 millions of deaths "due to expulsions" is complete nonsense.  Dr. Loosmark  15:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What does the exact number of casualties matter? Everyone was one too much--92.230.234.147 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your opinion wasn't popular among Germans till 1945.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Genocide of 2.0 Million German children, women, babies, and elderly

I am quite disappointed to see again some Wikipedia-users trying to silence about important historic facts.

My suggestions:

1. The whole article is far too long and needs cleaning-up. At least half the text should be outsourced.

2. Also the title is not appropriate; according to most scientists dealing with the Vertreibung the expulsion of over 14 Million Germans with their families from their own houses and homeland was not just an expulsion, but an Ethnic Cleansing.

3. The article contains a lot of redundant facts, while some very important facts like genocide are completely swept under the carpet. At least 2.0 Million German civilians perished long time after the war was over, most of them were either starved to death, tortured to death, raped or child-abused to death or otherwise deliberately murdered. The US-American Professor for International Law and former member of the UN-Commission for Human Rights , Professor Dr. Alfred de Zayas, defines this massmurder of German families as genocide</ref>. The UNESCO Prize for Human Rights-laureate Professor Dr. Felix Ermacora, also expert for International Law, reaches the same conclusion: "Die Vertreibung der deutschsprachigen Bevölkerung aus den osteuropäischen Staaten in den Jahren 1945/46 erfüllt den Tatbestand des Völkermordes.

The fate of all these millions of people are not dealt with in the article suffiently; a Genocide that has not been mentioned in an article of its own needs at least a section of its own. Furthermore i do not see anywhere in Wikipedia any headline referring to this Genocide of 2.0 Millions. More innocents perished in this genocide than in e.g. the Armenian Genocide, and yet this encyclopedia tries to hush it up. This is inacceptable.

Therefore, in view of an historic event of such dimensions, i call for creating a headline in this article that clearly refers to what it was: Genocide.

--PeterBln (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article deals with more than sufficiently, including the ridiculously inflated numbers.  Dr. Loosmark  17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparing to other Soviet crimes the transfer of Germans wasn't something special. See Soviet famine of 1932–1933. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The full scope of the expulsion(s) of the Germans was neither "Ethnic Cleansing" nor Genocide according to the strict definitions of each of those concepts. Look up the definitions before you comment. The closest to Ethnic Cleansing came in Czechoslovakia, but because some exceptions were made even that doesn't fully qualify as Ethnic Cleansing, although an argument can be made that the ultimate effects yield de facto ethnic cleansing. The mass deportations in large areas of the eastern provinces of pre-war Germany doesn't qualify as ethnic cleansing based upon a technicality, namely that when the deportations occurred those lands were considered to be only under the "temporary administration" of Poland and the Soviet Union. This has all been talked about before in the archives. "Genocide" in theory could only be applied during the "Wild Expulsions", whereas the time therafter is claimed by some to be more in meeting with the "orderly and humane" specifics of the Potsdam Agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Article 12 of the Potsdam Agreement includes Czechoslovakia as being allowed to deport ethnic Germans within its borders. The Article states in part, "Orderly transfer of German Populations: The Three Governments (U.S., U.K., USSR), having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in . . . Czechoslovakia . . . will have to be undertaken. . . . " (Note: The Potsdam wording of German populations "remainig in Czechoslovakia"(etc.)refers to all ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, regardless of whether they had arrived there sometime in the 1939-45 war, or whether they could trace their ancestry in Bohemia & Moravia back 700 years.) The legal interpretation of the provisions is that virtually 100% of determined "ethnic Germans" could be deported from Czechoslovakia if that is what the Czechoslovak governmented wanted to do, although the wording "elements thereof" allows something less than 100% if that was what the Czechoslovak government wanted. Because the Potsdam Agreement allowed 100% removal of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia it sanctioned "ethnic cleansing". Likewise, the Potsdam Agreement sanctioned ethnic cleansing of Germans from Hungary and from the pre-1937 borders of Poland up to, going East, the old Curzon Line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: International law doesn't pass judgment upon itself . . . SO, International Law won't declare the 1945 Potsdam approved population transfers illegal, even though those population transfers would have been against the United Nation mandates of the late 1940s (etc.), and the Helsinki Accords of 1975. Also note: Since there had been no Final European World War Two Peace Conference by 1975, per International Law, the 1945 Potsdam mandated "temporary administration" of the Eastern German provinces of Silesia, Pommerania, and East Prussia (by Poland and the Soviet Union) did not qualify under the Helsinki clauses on the inviolability of national borders and respect for territorial integrity. And of course by 1975 all of the legal and illegal (e.g., "wild") expulsions had already occurred. Note: The 1945 Potsdam Agreement mentioned nothing about expelling Germans from the Eastern German provinces of Silesia, Pommerania, and East Prussia. Again, those details, plus the determination of the final agreement on national borders, were to be left to what was assumed to be a pending Final European World War Two Peace Conference.

Genocide Denial - or ridiculing the victims of Genocide?

Could you please repeat that? The number of this Genocide as published by a member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are "ridiculously inflated numbers"?

This is a severe insult to the victims of this Genocide. You try to belittle and deny a Genocide. May i ask you please, to stop insulting the victims of this Genocide? You have not not presented any sources to back your claim. Where are your scientific sources?

Facts: The secretary of the Human Rights Committee and high-ranking former United Nations official Professor Dr. Alfred de Zayas puts the number of victims at over 2.0 million .

I suggest you read the scientific sources by Prof. Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It makes no sense if you try to discuss with scientists, when you do not have the appropriate scientific knowledge. PeterBln (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Former member.Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I suggest you change your aggressive and intimidatory tone a bit, it is rather unpleasant. Secondly the number I was referring to is the number of expelled rather than the number of people who died as you seem to assume. As was already discussed many times on this and other pages concerning expulsions, it is not known how many people from the pre-war German census were actually still alive at the start of the expulsions. Many died because they were caught by the rapidly advancing war front (in many cases the Nazi authorities prevented evacuation and treated younger men who wanted to escape as deserters), many German civilians died of hunger or of harsh winter conditions while they were escaping from the advancing Red Army (for example in East Prussia) and others were forcibly drafted into the Wehrmacht.  Dr. Loosmark  19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Inflating the number of victims is also a form of ridiculing the real victims. It's very difficult to set the border between WWII and the "expulsion", and transferring victims from WWII to the "expuslion" is politically useful for some German politicians. German speculations were acceptable till 1990, but former Communist archives don't support the speculations. Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Aggresive and intimidatory tone"; "Inflating the number of the victims"; "speculations" (which cannot be supported anymore!): it sounds sooo familiar...--Fracastorius (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing 600 000 with 2 000 000 is "inflating". "Speculations" is a precise description of many papers about Soviet policy published without Soviet (and other documents). Now we know how and why the 2 000 000 number was created. Please convince all German historian and journalists that the 2 000 000 is academic, before you impose the number outside Germany.Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

at least 12 million had been expelled and resettled

The 12 million had been "expelled" legally according to Potsdam agreement, but only part of them physically. In reality the number includes millions evacuated. 1944-1948 - who and where "expelled" in 1944? Please don't quote garbage.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Any place is good to spread 2 million propaganda

The 2 million propaganda is being reintroduced in another articles, eg. Federation of Expellees. Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Expulsion" - two meanings

Some German editors use the word "Expulsion" both to describe the physical persecusions of Germans and legal consequences of the Potsdam Agreement (so including Flight and Expulsion). I would expect that the idea of this Wikipedia is to inform rather than to misinform using fuzzy and politically loaded words.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So we should change the word "Expulsion" into "Voyage" or "Cruise"? --Jonny84 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read eg.

• „Unsere Heimat ist uns ein fremdes Land geworden...“ Die Deutschen östlich von Oder und Neiße 1945-1950. Dokumente aus polnischen Archiven. Band 1: Zentrale Behörden, Wojewodschaft Allenstein

and return to discuss seriously.Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kehl

I really don't see how Kehl fits in here. It was a military evacuation during wartime, and the inhabitants were allowed to return (eventually). It seems quite different from all the others. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say inclusion would be justified if it could be confirmed that evacuees were systematically prevented from returning until 1953, as the article now claims, because that would be a displacement clearly not dictated by immediate war needs. However, that claim appears to be poorly sourced. The only source cited is a newspaper article containing an interview with one witness. The article isn't actually saying that the population was systematically kept away. It only says that the French returned control of the city to its inhabitants "by degrees" ('nach und nach'); that for "many" people (not for all?) the evacuation lasted until 1953; that 1953 was the time when the French left completely, and that during some period in 1949 there was some kind of military border cutting through some parts ("one street"?) of Kehl. Sounds like the French having established some kind of military security area around their bridgehead, yes, but in the absence of more detail from more reliable sources I'd agree to a removal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How did this fit in with the Allied occupation? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The most that I can quickly find is this: [10]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. So the French took over Kehl again -- they'd done so after WWI also -- and evacuated the Germans (to where?); during the French occupation, large parts of the town were surrounded by barbed wire (new word for me, "stacheldraht"); bombed out Strassbourgers took up residence in the German's houses; and there was talk of annexing the town. Then in 1949 it was decided by the Western allies that the French would leave Kehl by 1953, which is what happened. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Timothy D. Snyder

"Bloodlands" by Timothy D. Snyder puts the "expulsion" in the context of German and Soviet crimes in Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Status in international law

What is the logic behind this section? The majority of Wikipedia articles doesn't discuss status in international law, eg. OST-Arbeiter, why this article does? Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Communists felt that International law should only be made by Communists, since they were the only "enlightened ones" and all others were mentally corrupt. . . . they beat that dead horse for years (until it was time for most of them to turn in their cards, and then deny they beat the dead horse.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain me your text? Which dead horses? Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

of any single ethnic population

Single ethnic after many years of melting pot in post-war Germany. Language differences were like between Poles and Slovaks but noone called Poles and Slovaks "single ethnicity". Xx236 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Xx236, what (or which) definition of "ethnicity" are you using? Are you familiar with the term "dialect"? Also, what is your source that Poles and Slovaks speak different dialects of the same language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ethnicity - An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." - if the people collected in Germany after WWII consisted one ethnicity, so Poles and Slovaks belonged to one ethnicity, too.Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronology messed up

Reasons should be mentioned first.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting WWII - "sadistic practices"

This article informs about "sadistic practices" in Lamsdorf. This Wikipedia uses such words mostly in sexual context. German "sadistic practices" were applied since 1933 toward tens of thousands, toward millions since 1939 and toward tens of millions since 1941. But probbably no Nazi Germany article uses such words to describe German cruelty, an integral part of III Reich. Which words are being used to describe the cruelty? The same words should be applied here, with explanation who "educated" the wardens 1939-1945.Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC) "In addition to the atrocities, the expellees had experienced hunger, thirst and disease, separation from family members, loss of civil rights and familiar environment,and sometimes internment and forced labour" - does this Wikipedia inform, that life in Eastern Europe was organized by Germans and Soviets in such way? Dachau concentration camp suggests that cruelty started in 1945. Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

not a definitive accounting of losses in the Expulsions.

What is the meaning of the "Expulsion" here? Is it Expulsion or Flight and Expulsion? Please don't manipulate. This article is about the Expulsion. Common looses should be discussed as "Flight and Expulsion", not in this article. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Church Service figure of 473,000 includes both the flight the flight and the expulsions. You cannot separate the two.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC) You cannoct quote them as "Expulsion" in the article about "Expulsion" without explanation. Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So can we finally move this article to a title that contains both flight and expulsion, and doesn't restrict it to the period after the War, since the scope of the article clearly isn't and has never been intended to be thus restricted?--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have particpated in such discussions since ages and always the Expulsion lobby won.Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point Kotniski, I agree In the English speaking world readers are exposed to De Zayas and believe that these losses occured only after the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

José Ayala Lasso (Ecuador) endorsed the establishment of the Centre Against Expulsions

• He wasn't UN Comissioner any more.
• There is an another article about the Centre.
• If we collect "pro" opinions, we should also collect "contra".Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No more any Centre

Now the only real project is named "Visual Sign" (de:Sichtbares Zeichen). Informations about the Centre are historical and should be moved to Centre Against Expulsions. This article is about the "Expulsion of Germans" rather than about the German propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)