Jump to content

Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Reasons for the partitioning of Germany

I added this text to the "discussion of the reasons" but user Molobo promptly removed it without stating reason.

I feel at least one of the reasons for why germany was carved up should be presented, and not just some random remarks about Russia wanting to keep its piece of Poland. The text below presents a case for discussions of the removal of the eastern parts of Germany that goes back to at least 1944. It refers to the Morgenthau Plan that albeit its wikipedia page might need a lot of polishing still presents a credible and verifiable case that at least the removal of Silesia from Germany was planned by the americans quite early, years ahead of the actual expulsions.

---

It was a direct consequence of the partly implemented plan by the Allies to completely remove Germanys capacity to pose a military or economic threat to them ever again. This was to be achieved by reducing Germany to a “pastoral state” with a reduced population. Part of this was to be achieved by the removal from German control of her main centres of industry and main coal and iron deposits; Silesia in the east and the Ruhr Area and the Saarland to the west. This plan is commonly known as the Morgenthau Plan after its author Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Secretary of the Treasury of the United States during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although the plan was never made official policy it ended up heavily influencing U.S. policy in the later years of the war and in the years immediately following the German surrender.


--- Stor stark7 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Yes this was true in 1945. However, after 1947 the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany was US policy. Truman viewed the USSR as a threat and wanted the Germany economy to be strong again.--Berndd11222 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

--- It was true in 1945, 1946 and 1947. And yes, eventually the Marshall Plan was extended to cover Germany as well (1948 or 1949?). I think it necessary to point out to you that the Marshal plan did not originaly incorporate Germany. Maybe the german people in the U.S. and U.K ockupationa zones were given some other sort of aid in the years after 1947, I don't know. However by 1948 the expulsions were nearly completed. Stor stark7 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway the Americans had little or nothing to due with the question of Germans in the area under Soviet control. In 1945 Americans just did not know of the fate of Germans in Soviet occupied areas. For example my father who was an American GI in 1945 first found out about the expulsions in 1969. He was shocked to find out what happened in the hometown of his own father under Soviet occupation back in 1945. --Berndd11222 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'n not sure what your point is. Sure, the common GI might not know what policy his leaders might have decided on, nor how it was being implemented, just as the common German conscript might have not known about the nazi death camps. But that is a non issue. My statement was that it was partly US policy that lead to the expulsions, and the resulting deaths. The U.S might not have commited the deed, but it was an accomplice "before" the fact.

The teritorial amputations of Germany were mainly economic in nature, as can be seen in the quote below. Ie. the reason behind them, or at least one of the most important reasons behind them was a U.S desire to weaken Germany. That they changed their minds a few years after the fact has no bearing on the subject. They did it, the consequence was ethnic cleansing, suffering and death.

On the site the text below is copied from you can find amongst other things U.S. government documents with discussions on giving France the economicaly important German Areas such as the Ruhr and Saar, and of the problem of having a german minority in their country would mean for the French. No such objections were voiced about the eastern territories of Prussia and Silesia, presumably because they knew damn well there would eventualy be no living germans left in them, hence no problem for the Poles and Russians.

Documents listing

"We contemplate the transfer from Germany of ownership of East Prussia, Upper Silesia, Alsace' and Lorraine (each of them except the first containing raw materials of importance) together with the imposition of general economic controls. We also are considering the wisdom of a possible partition of Germany into north and south sections, as well as the creation of an internationalized State in the Ruhr. With such precautions, or indeed with only some of them, it certainly should not be necessary for us to obliterate all industrial productivity in the Ruhr area, in order to preclude its future misuse." Roosevelt Presidential Library, online document Stor stark7 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy of the US was to treat the German civilian population and the POWs in a humane manner. Ike made sure that there was sufficient food for the civilians and POWs even though he was angry when he found out the extent of Nazi crimes. As far as my father was concerned he saw the Nazi death camps. He would say " I don't believe my father came from a country like that". He was like most Americans and wanted to get home in 1945. The crimes of Stalin started to become an issue in 1947 when the Soviets imposed their system in Eastern Europe. However, the plight of the Germans was just not known in the west, the media never made an issue of the fate Germans in the Soviet bloc. The US could do nothing to help the Poles and Czechs in 1945-46 as well as the Germans. Stalin did what he pleased in Eastern Europe despite US protests. Anyway what could the Americans have done to stop Stalin short of starting a war?--Berndd11222 15:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up your statements about Eisenhower? His treatment of POWs is disputed Eisenhower and German POWs, especially since he decided to strip them of their legal rights as POW by relabeling them as Disarmed Enemy Forces. No more Red Cross visits etc. Now why on earth would "nice" Ike do that? And as far as treatment of the civilian population goes, have you even bothered to check out the Morgenthau Plan?

E. Allan Lightner, Jr.: Oral history interview "As early as the Quebec Conference he [the President] had bought Secretary [Henry J.] Morgenthau's ideas: The Morgenthau Plan -- to do everything possible to prevent the Germans from regaining the strength ever again to wage war, by requiring them to exist on an agrarian economy. Then gradually the President pulled back from that extreme position. Yet those ideas permeated much of American thinking, especially in the War Department, right up to the time of Secretary [James F.] Byrnes' important Stuttgart speech in [September of] 1946. They were reflected in the basic directive for the occupation of Germany, which was a kind of Bible for all that was done during the early days of the occupation, the paper known as JSC-1067. They also affected Roosevelt's thinking on the question of whether to split up Germany."

As a result the German people ended up with severe starvation that continued for years when the rest of Europe had recovered. Herbert Hoover's press release of The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report No. 1: German Agriculture and Food Requirements, February 28, 1947.

And besides I'm not blaming the Americans for what they did about the expulsion of Germans from the east after the war ended, I'm blaming them for what they did before the war ended, when the lines on the map were drawn up and the fate of the civilan population was planned.

You seem to have a very rose tinted view of your countrys history. Back it up with references and maybe I'll listen. Stor stark7 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Aber natürlich, I will back up my statements with a solid reference by a respected German author.
Author is: Bischof, Gunter Title is: Eisenhower and the German Pows: Facts Against Falsehood ISBN: 0807117587 Publisher: Louisiana State University Press Baton Rouge, LA, U.S.A.: Louisiana State University Press, 1992.

I am from Missouri, my motto is "show me", well I have shown you the source, check it out.--Berndd11222 22:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sehr gut, guess this discussion is on ice till I've had the oportunity to review it then. The book you present seems to have the purpose of refutating the claim that Eisenhower deliberately starved millions of german former POW's. Note that I did not claim that he did. I just pointed out that his actions with regards to POW's were subject of dispute. And aparently there is this book for him and one other against, seems to be a tie. Got any book on him being nice to the civilian population? Besides, I still havent seen you touching my basic tenet, that U.S. policy was accesory to the expulsions, the expulsions being the topic of this article page.

I se you have a motto, maybe I'll get one for myself. Howabout: The majority is not always right. Stor stark7 23:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

THE FACTS ON GERMAN POST WAR LOSSES:

Death Rate per 1,000 in population Germany 1939 - 12.3
Death Rate per 1,000 in population West Germany 1946 - 13.0
Death Rate per 1,000 in population West Germany 1947 - 12.1
Death Rate per 1,000 in population East Germany 1946 - 22.9
Death Rate per 1,000 in population East Germany 1947 - 19.0
Source:European Historical Statistics 1750-1975, B. R. Mitchell, Facts on File 1980. ISBN 0871963299. Page 126.
The Americans made sure that Germany had the necessary food to prevent starvation but you can be sure that it was a no frills diet, horsemeat and turnips. My folks in Missouri got the steak and potatoes.
Stalin did what he pleased in Eastern Europe despite US protests. Anyway, what could the Americans have done to stop Stalin short of starting a war?--Berndd11222 00:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Horsemeat and turnips? Nope, cereals. [1] And Nope; After Germany had surrendered, the U.S. could do nothing besides start a war. Probably true. Before Germany surrendered the U.S. could have done a lot, and as far as I can tell even was an accomplice in the planning. Being a good guy in 1947 doesnt change the fact of being a bad guy in 1944.

Besides- [[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/lightner.htm Oral History Interview with E. Allan Lightner, Jr. Assistant Chief, 1945-47, and Associate Chief, 1947- 48, of the Central European Affairs Division]]

Some quotes/citations:

"President Roosevelt could not make up his mind what to do with defeated Germany. As early as the Quebec Conference he had bought Secretary [Henry J.] Morgenthau's ideas: The Morgenthau Plan -- to do everything possible to prevent the Germans from regaining the strength ever again to wage war, by requiring them to exist on an agrarian economy. Then gradually the President pulled back from that extreme position. Yet those ideas permeated much of American thinking, especially in the War Department,right up to the time of Secretary [James F.] Byrnes' important Stuttgart speech in 1946. They were reflected in the basic directive for the occupation of Germany, which was a kind of Bible for all that was done during the early days of the occupation, the paper known as JSC-1067. They also affected Roosevelt's thinking on the question of whether to split up Germany."



"LIGHTNER: Yes. Well, I'm being a little long-winded and perhaps it isn't necessary to give all this background. We started earlier to talk about what we in the State Department did to counteract the Morgenthau plan philosophy which was strongly reflected in the basic military directive, JCS-l067. "

"MCKINZIE: Kindleberger contends that sometime in 1946 the economic people came around to the view that there would have to be some reconstruction of German industry even above the level of industry agreement, which was being hassled around about then or had been hassled around previously.

LIGHTNER: Well, to us those months between V-E Day and mid-'46 seemed a long time. That's when much of the dismantling was taking place. It was a crucial period when much time was being lost in restoring the economy and our group in CE found that we were being opposed at every turn by those who wanted to carry out literally the provisions of JCS-l067. You know, Jimmy Riddleberger was the one who sweated out this whole business of dealing with the Civil Affairs Division of the War Department during the days of planning for the occupation of Germany, and also later on in dealing with the Kindleberger group.

MCKINZIE: You look at the period between the Morgenthau plan and the Marshall plan, one of which represents a "salted earth" policy, and the other an industrial development policy. The question of historians who are always concerned with pinning things down to precise things inevitably comes down to: what was the turning point? Was there any particular event or any absolutely crucial time period in which the change from the Morgenthau plan to the direction of the Marshall plan was made?

LIGHTNER: I think it was fairly gradual. I think the military had their directives based, as I said before, very much on the philosophy of the Morgenthau plan, the basic JCS-l067. They had to accomplish the main chores, which everyone agreed had to be done at first, the denazification and the demilitarization. Germany never was to be in a position to wage war again. But how does one prevent a modern state from ever waging war again? Easy answer -- you strip it of its industries and you make it economically unable to produce the weapons of war. But that was overlooking a whole lot of other features, which made that concept impractical and unwise, Yet that was not apparent to the proponents of the Morgenthau idea at the beginning; but they found in practice, in administering defeated Germany, that it wasn't enough to prevent "disease and unrest;" the Germans could not live on that basis in the modern world. You couldn't hold them down to that point; we weren't that kind of conquerors. Anyway, it gradually became clear to our people who had favored the Morgenthau plan that in our own interest,in terms of our ability to accomplish our political goals in Germany, you had to give them hope for the future. How could we make them a democratic country by treating them as the Romans treated the Carthaginians. I guess the turning point was Secretary Byrnes' speech in Stuttgart in September 1946. By that time after the experience of running occupied Germany for a year, the more Draconian policies of JCS-1067 were being interpreted differently. More and more people along the line were coming to see that we had to help the Germans restore their economic life, their industries and so on.

Isnt it nice with online source-material references, so easy to check out for your self at no extra expense than time? Stor stark7 01:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Your point is correct that in 1944 the Americans wanted to disarm Germany and punish the Nazis. However the US and the UK had no desire to punish the German civilian population. Ike was appalled at Soviet behavior but could do nothing to prevent the slaughter of German civilians by the Red Army in 1945. In July 1945 the Soviets turned the administration of the German territories over to the Polish Communists. The Germans were lucky to get out alive. It was better to live as a refugee than under Polish rule. Poland was run by Beirut & Berman who took orders from Joe Stalin.--Berndd11222 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In 1944 Americans were in a mean fighting mood, the Germans were going to pay dearly. My dad was in the Battle of the Bulge near the Malmédy massacre. Be realistic, Americans were fighting and dying in 1944, German territorial losses to Poland were of little or no concern to us. If FDR came out with a public statement in January 1945 condemning Stalin for taking German territory people would think he had gone mad.--Berndd11222 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Germany never was to be in a position to wage war again. But how does one prevent a modern state from ever waging war again? Easy answer -- you strip it of its industries and you make it economically unable to produce the weapons of war.
Easy answer- Make sure the US, UK, France and Russia have nuclear weapons and Germany has none.--Berndd11222 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to direct the readers attention to the excellent Wikipedia article on the life of Henry Morgenthau, Jr. The article clearly points out that Morgenthau's proposal to dismantle German industry was rejected and that he resigned from his cabinet post in 1945. So my question for Stor Stark is why do you make an issue of Morgenthau's rejected plan?--Berndd11222 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And to give the reader context to that somewhat rudimentary, albeit well copyedited, page, do check out Wikipedia article Morgenthau Plan where amongst other things you can read this about JCS 1067:

"Although the Morgenthau Plan per se was effectively shelved, Morgenthau was nonetheless able to wield considerable influence over Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067. JCS 1067 was a basis for US Occupation policy until July 1947, and like the Morgenthau Plan, was intended to reduce German living standards."

For some reason mention of JCS 1067 was omitted from the "excellent Wikipedia article on the life of Henry Morgenthau, Jr." Stor stark7 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not true and you know it. In 1946 The US & UK made sure that Germany had sufficient food supplies and after 1947 Germany was allowed to rebuild its heavy industries. The ethnic Germans were allowed to stay in France despite their service in the German Army. However in 1944 many Americans including Morgenthau wanted to make sure that Germany could never start a war and engage in a policy of genocide and slave labor. You can't blame Morgenthau for wanting to remove Germany's fangs, in 1944 his people were being rounded up and murdered by the madmen in Berlin.--Berndd11222 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is here that we start to call each other liars. Besides I don't se why you continuously have to keep introducing statements that are irrelevant to the discussion.But as I'm a sucker for goading: Ethic germans allowed to stay in france, Hurray! Their german ancestors had lived in the same area since the fall of the roman empire. The french nation invaded sometime in the 1600's in its drive towards the Rhine. They were drafted into the army when Germany took control of the area 1940, they were only trusted to fight on the eastern front, and they were allowed to remain after the war despite their native land still being under French control. Jippey, thank you frenchies for your kindness. I don't dispute anger at germany. I dispute acting out an eye for an eye when you have the upper hand, and still proclaiming moral superiority.

And as for the truthfulnes of my statement I again turn to the man on the spot. Your statement of opinions can hardly beat verifiable testimony from a man that took part at the highest levels? He has a lot to say, read it for your self. [[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/lightner.htm E. Allan Lightner, Jr. Assistant Chief, 1945-47, and Associate Chief, 1947- 48, of the Central European Affairs Division]]

I can't possibly se how you could call that source untrue. Comparing what he says with my previous text I certainly se no discrepancy. --- "Although the Morgenthau Plan per se was effectively shelved, Morgenthau was nonetheless able to wield considerable influence over Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067. JCS 1067 was a basis for US Occupation policy until July 1947, and like the Morgenthau Plan, was intended to reduce German living standards." --- And from Lightners interview: --- "President Roosevelt could not make up his mind what to do with defeated Germany. As early as the Quebec Conference he had bought Secretary [Henry J.] Morgenthau's ideas: The Morgenthau Plan -- to do everything possible to prevent the Germans from regaining the strength ever again to wage war, by requiring them to exist on an agrarian economy. Then gradually the President pulled back from that extreme position. Yet those ideas permeated much of American thinking, especially in the War Department,right up to the time of Secretary [James F.] Byrnes' important Stuttgart speech in 1946. They were reflected in the basic directive for the occupation of Germany, which was a kind of Bible for all that was done during the early days of the occupation, the paper known as JSC-1067. They also affected Roosevelt's thinking on the question of whether to split up Germany."

MCKINZIE: You look at the period between the Morgenthau plan and the Marshall plan, one of which represents a "salted earth" policy, and the other an industrial development policy. The question of historians who are always concerned with pinning things down to precise things inevitably comes down to: what was the turning point? Was there any particular event or any absolutely crucial time period in which the change from the Morgenthau plan to the direction of the Marshall plan was made?

LIGHTNER: I think it was fairly gradual. I think the military had their directives based, as I said before, very much on the philosophy of the Morgenthau plan, the basic JCS-l067. They had to accomplish the main chores, which everyone agreed had to be done at first, the denazification and the demilitarization. Germany never was to be in a position to wage war again. But how does one prevent a modern state from ever waging war again? Easy answer -- you strip it of its industries and you make it economically unable to produce the weapons of war

Now I'm getting fed up with this. Write what irelevant statements you like. I won't bite no more. I've left enough referenses to original documents for people to decide for themselves if they care to do their own reading. Stor stark7 13:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting this stale table talk? We now know that in 1946 West Germany sufficient food supplies and after 1947 West Germany was allowed to rebuild its heavy industries.--Berndd11222 14:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I have no self control. I just had to bite. But that's it, this page goes of my watch list right now.

Food and starvation in 1947. Just four pages, i.e. easy reading:[2] [3] [4] [5]

Industry... Hmmm.... I think I'll let a suffering german ship yard do the talking, they do it so eloquently, don't you think? [6]


"With the peaceful handover of the city of Hamburg to the British Twelfth Corps by its war commander General Major Alwin Wolz, a bad period of occupation began in the Hanseatic city and for Blohm + Voss it appeared to be the end and this was obviously strived for. The occupation forces immediately shut down the shipyard site and took away any documents that appeared at all valuable. They still have not been returned to this day. This was followed by a period of dismantling and destruction of the plant lasting several years, the like of which hardly any other firm in the Western occupation zone experienced. Nevertheless, they did not succeed in shutting down Blohm + Voss once and for all.

While Steinwerder was systematically turned into a field of rubble and everything which could not be dismantled was blown up, scrapped or destroyed in some other way, two small external firms with a few employees were allowed to continue to work on repairs for the municipal utility companies. In the short term, Blohm + Voss was also called upon for the repair of locomotives and in 1948, as the only concession of the occupying forces, was permitted to set up a construction and installation company, which was even allowed to purchase several machines dismantled at Blohm + Voss, i.e. its own property. Several other machines were procured in other ways by inventive employees and reappeared in the construction and installation company, which was ultimately betrayed. As a result, the two Blohm brothers and several senior staff had to appear before a British court. The court case which was observed by the public with great attention ended with jail sentences and fines for the accused.

In order to be able to finally recommence regular work, Rudolf and Walther Blohm founded Steinwerder Industrie AG in 1951 with the consent of the allies. Part of the former machine factory II was used as the production site. Shipbuilding, and anything that was associated with it remained prohibited, like the use of the company name Blohm + Voss. It should be noted however that at this time the Federal Republic of Germany already existed and other German shipyards had long since recommenced non-stop production of ships.

It wasnt until 1953 that the situation gradually began to improve for the company, after not only the owners themselves but also the Hamburg Senate headed by the highly respected mayor Max Brauer and even the Kanzler Dr. Konrad Adenauer himself had repeatedly pleaded Blohm + Voss case with the Allied High Commissioners, who still had a lot of influence." Stor stark7 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So What! Germany lost the war and they depended on the their former enemies to put food on the table. You bet it was a lean diet, no frills just enough to survive. I have already posted the statistics on the death rates in East & West Germany in 1946 & 1947. During those lean years the West Germans were dying at the same rate as 1939 when life was so great under the Nazi dictatorship. Life was hard in 1946 but there was no famine.
As for Bloom + Voss get real, this firm produced warships for Germany. Ah Shucks Stor Stark these folks built the Bismark, the UK wanted this firm to be shut down for a good reason, to the victor goes the spoils.
A little sideline- My mom worked for a US firm that did construction work in German shipyards before the war. The employees in her section were of German background but loyal Americans. In 1942 they turned over the shipyard blueprints over to the FBI. That made it easier for Bomber Command to pick out the right targets in Bremen.--Berndd11222 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the reference to a speech by Hon. B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee in The House of Representatives in an earlier Wikipedia version on Expulsion of Germans? He recorded a number of facts of the expulsions, starvations etc. It was not unknown to Americans and many groups (churches, Quakers) actively disagreed with the US government treatment.

That was in 1957, ten years after the expulsions ended--Berndd11222 01:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 12 years after end of WW II, Potsdam Agreement and no peace treaty US Senator B. Carroll Reece held a speech in The House Of Representatives German Provinces East of Oder-Neisse Line, Economic, Historical, Legal, and Political Aspects Involved. In his 32 page speech Reece states: The Facts Of The Expulsion: The people of these eastern provinces of Germany, altogether 10 1/2 million, were summarily expelled and,in 1945 and 1946, were forced to leave the land which had been their and their ancestors' homes since the Middle Ages, or, as many of them were descendants of the indigenous tribes, since pre-historic days.

The next section is titled Genocide. Reece also states The Kremlin's Double-Track Foreign Policy: However, by continuing her illegal occupation of the German provinces east of the Oder and Neisse Rivers Poland acts, deliberately or unwittingly, as the servant of Moscow imperialism.

Seems like propagandic piece due to to height of Cold War, possible to attract voters of German ethnic background ? --Molobo 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I restored to previous version. The article is about the transfer of Germans during the period of war and short postwar period. Relations of today shouldn't dominate the article,as suitable articles on German minorities still present in Poland or Czech Republic exist on wiki.Also their were no sources. --Molobo 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed segment

Most Heimatvertriebene accept the territorial changes of 1945 and consider the Poles now living in former East Germany as friends and neighbors in the European Union.

I would like to see a source with a poll made among members of all those organisations showing that it is indeed true and not a POV. --Molobo 13:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources as well. Sciurinæ 13:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For what ? You question lacks the information I require to answer it.You don't what information needs sources. I hope however in light of your previous activity that you shall read sources and articles this time before deleting them. --Molobo 14:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"I hope however in light of your previous activity that you shall read sources and articles this time before deleting them." Ditto, dearest of all my friends. You deleted first. First of all I'd finally like to get a good source on your Polish-minority-in-Germany sentence proving its factual correctness, factual accuracy and factual importance in the context . I know you love to cherrypick statements from the web to push your view and you're aware that there's also such a thing as the NPOV policy, which you "cited" to support your ... *honest* analysis of the university article, whose version you're still opposing. User:84.73.200.192 is the one who changed yours, so while I get a little shut-eye for today, you can address him. Sciurinæ 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Russia?

There is a section in this article about the Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia. There should be one for Russia, as well. The Kaliningrad region in Russia was once part of Germany, the state of East Prussia. Germans were expelled there, too. Can someone fix it? 24.1.246.29 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Germans were being expelled in Russia also. You have to think about it, if you were a Geman, doesnt matter which side you were one, you were going to be expelled, espesially if you lived in Russia. 24.237.77.84

There is a section now on Russia. Check it out and expand or correct it as appropriate --Richard 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Brutal behaviour of Czechs in clearing out Germans

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf

C.M. 18(45). 7th August, 1945.


Review of Foreign Affairs.

  • E.B.

Berlin Protocol.

a) C.F.M. Vital need = good Secretariat.

e) War Crimes: Agreemt. to be signed to-morrow. Hope trials

h) Balkans: Commn on oil equpmt: powers of B. & U.S. repns on

b) Reparations. R. removals v. drastic. On percentages – had to yield to R. pressure, largely because U.S. willing to make concessions.

c) German Fleet. Subs. – satisf. solution. Merchant Fleet: 1/3rd subject to U.S.S.R. satisfying Polish claims.

d) Koenigsberg: Final settlement reserved to Peace Settlement: but will be fait accompli before then. will go on. U.S.’s anxieties about Hess.

f) Austria: no reparations agreed.

g) Poland W. Frontier: discussions with repns of P.P.G. Want to talk with C/R. & B/T. – insist tht. Poles live up to undertakgs: then trade ?exch will open from that area. C.C.’s must see this new formula is carried out.

i) Transfer of Populations. V. serious problems. Conduct of D.P.’s.

j) Inland Waterways. R. reluctant to duscuss. U.S. & B. think it important. But R agreed to serve on I.T.O.


  • P.M.

Was there throughout. Not much done before our return. E.B. did v. well at short notice inpickg. up unknown threads. Diffy – whatever your ideas the facts keep moving on – e.g. Poland’s W. Frontier.R. ideas of repns – same delusions as we had in 1918. Don’t care,either, what happens to W. Europe.Not done too badly.

  • E.B.

R. pressure tht. Ruhr be declared part of Germany. Many ideas about that – considered on A.P.W. Cttee. Now to be examined by C.F.M. We shall have to watch our security.

  • E.Sh.

Moscow agreemt. tht. 8 yrs. 50 m. tons G. coal to be ready for export. Shall have to raise that issue.

  • P.M.

Food & fuel for Berlin this winter. Surplus food areas & Silesian mines both under R. control. Got nearer to agreemt. with R. on this – thro’ decision to treat G. as economic whole.

  • A.B.

Brutal behaviour by Czechs. in clearing out Germans.

  • P.M.

Cdn’t do more than we did on this – askg. Govts. to hold their hands.

Stor stark7 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do Something About This

I hate to sound like a total deletionist, but this article is horrible, and may need to be obliterated and totally started over. Not only is it written in disjointed english that seems to lack any encyclopedia-style grammar, but virtually every fact is disputable by both sides of the argument. I got almost NO information from it, aside from the fact that at some point, people were forced from one country to another. I think this article should either be completely re-written, or deleted. Even started over as a stub with a basic outline. But this version has got to go. --L.A.F. 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. The current state is result of people who have low ability to write coherent text but absolutely must present their truth here. Pavel Vozenilek 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
In the coming week I am going to try to sort through the text here and see if I can render something readable out of it; If it works I may try to do an edit. I hope I can please everyone, stay neutral, and remove this sorry excuse for an article at the same time.

--L.A.F. 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the offer - I hope you will succeed. There are lots of other articles connected to this, some of which could be merged/redirected here, see here for a partial list of the issues relating to Poland and Germany. Kusma (討論) 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Two thumbs up. I'll try to do something about the Polish section tonight. Halibutt 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A relevant fact

A relevant fact that I do not know where to include in the article as it is. Yugoslavia did expell ethnic Germans after WWII, but an exception was made for the minority of ethnic Germans that actively supported the resistance, and a substantial number of Germans remained in the country. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Russia

What is this all about? Xx236 14:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the later Kaliningrad Oblast (formerly Königsberg)

Both redirect to the same article. Xx236 14:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction

The Introduction ignores the historical context. One day the cruel Polish people started to expell and let starve good German people. I believe that German occupational policy, collaboration of the local German population with the Nazi authorities, exploitation of East European nations and expulsions should be mentioned. Xx236 14:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

historically Eastern German areas in present-day Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia

Which part of Hungary or Slovakia was historically German? Xx236 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ústí massacre

This article claims that thousands of men were shot, etc.. german nationalist propaganda in my POV. The Ústí massacre article states that 80-100 victims are estimated, 43 victims were confirmed. Could anybody provide source for the figures? If noone provides relevant information, I will delete the entire section. I respect the importance of such events to the germans, but I would not consider killing 100 people a special event in the context of the whole WWII, even if they were germans. ackoz 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And is there any evidence that the "Czech mob" was burning ethnically german school children in the main squares of the city? That's crazy. ackoz 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Explanation: I changed the POV tag to POV-check because this creepy piece of (in my POV) disinformation has obviously been here for a long time and noone disputed it. If anyone is willing to discuss this matter do change the POV-check tag to POV and post your ideas here. I will not change the article before someone else writes something. ackoz 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to your questions in order given:

  • why does it need to be a "special event" to be on wikipedia? there are war crimes sections on German unit pages, where the unit is accused of killing 10 Poles, and that is the whole war crimes section.
  • just because it sounds "crazy" does not mean it is not true, see the dispute on the Evacuation of East Prussia article. that being said, a {{Fact}} tag needs to be placed in the article there for someone to verify it.
  • I never saw this POV pushing as you called it, perhaps quote it or tell us what section it is in of this article.

--Jadger 03:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • OK if you think so. But I think if there is a war crimes section irrelevant like this, it should be deleted either.
  • 2nd thing: doing a google search on "burning * german children" and "burning * german * children" and some other searches I did yielded only 1 result that mentions this event - and its this wikipedia article.
  • There is a remarkable difference between the Ústí massacre article and this article in the number of victims.
  • There is an ongoing struggle between some Germans and other Germans and Czechs about the pre and post-WWII events, some claim that:
    • The expulsion was actually a bigger crime than the 6 year occupation of this part of Czechoslovakia. This is a complete nonsense.
    • There was no Czech state before 1918 and the land was all German. - There was no Czech state because it was called Bohemian kingdom (started by the Přemyslid dynasty). However, Czech people never used the word "Bohemian", they always called themselves "Czesi". It was something like today's German being called German but calling themselves Deutsch. The term Czech/Tschechisch in English and German arised in the 19 century. That's why there was no "Czech" kingdom before.
    • There are constant efforts to exaggerate the events of post-WWII Europe and claim the lost property or financial compensation from the Czech Republic. Arguments like "ethnic cleansing", "mass murders", "genocide" are used in the process. You should refer to http://www.z-g-v.de for more realistic, although also biased (as written by the Sudetendeutsche), information about the expulsions.
    • The main argument of these Germans is that the Nazi occupation of Sudeten was more or less rightful, as the majority of the inhabitants of those areas was german speaking and wanted to be a part of Germany, whereas the expulsion was not rightful. I call this WWII revisionism. They disregard the fact that their predecessors were invited to Bohemia by the Bohemian (= Czech) dukes and kings to settle in the areas which were low-populated. AND - which is more important, the majority of them supported the Nazi party, which was actually a treason because they were Czechoslovak citizens.

See now you have areas in the western Europe with a majority of inhabitants from Islamic countries - who were more or less invited to the countries as Gastarbeiters. Would it be rightful if those areas decided to follow the Sharia law and re-join the land they live with Turkey or Saudi Arabia on the principle that they form a majority of inhabitants there? I don't think so.

Wikipedia serves as a source of information for many people, and they do not necesarilly check the corectness of the fact stated herein. Any disinformation leading to the ideas that ethnically german people as a group were "the poor victims" of WWII is unacceptable.

As I found no other texts on the internet that would support the theory that ethnically German children were being burned on the central squares of Prague, and this is a very sensitive matter, I think we should delete the section. I will do it now so revert and explain here if you want to. ackoz 11:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted a section about Germans being forced into an unequal union. It was written from the uneducated German POV. The uneducated Czech POV would say that predecessors of those Germans were invited to the Czech lands to live there and not to take the part of the country they lived in and join it politically with some other country. The oppression mentioned in the deleted section is also a matter of POV, because some say that the frustration arised from the loss of preferential treatment as the Austrian empire (which on the contrary oppressed the original Bohemians - Czechs) collapsed. My POV would be that after 700 years history of successful coexistence of German and Czech language speakers in the country, the nationalist movement destroyed what was created for actually no reason - I am pretty sure that the "ethnically German people" were in fact more of a German-speaking genetic mixture of Czechs and Germans. We should not continue to write in the nationalist POV.

I also oppose the use of the term Sudetendeutsche on Wikipedia, as the correct pre-nazi term for this group of people is "Deutschböhmer" i.e. Czech Germans or German Czechs.

ackoz 12:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you quite understand, you are substituting your own POV for another, which does not work.

  • just because google does not have references to it does not make something false, there are many things still not on the internet, not to mention that google does not fairly reference there links, rather the ones that pay the more money get to be at the top.
  • you are partially right, the Sudetendeutsche were invited to the lands by the Bohemian dukes and kings, but these "Bohemian" dukes and kings were Germans who ruled the lands, Bohemian referred to the land they ruled.
  • as to the citizens, you are thinking along the racist lines of Nazu dogma, a nation after the development of the Westphalian system (which we live under) is defined as a people of shared culture, language, history, etc. this brings the Sudetenland and its inhabitants more into the German camp then a czech one.
  • supporting an outside political party is not treason, I support the conservatives in Europe, but I live in Canada, does that make me a traitor? of course it doesnt.
  • the term Deutschböhmer means German Bohemians, not German czechs, for instance, the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia (as Czechoslovakia was called under Nazi ocupation) was Protektorate Böhmen und Mahren.


you said: "I also deleted a section about Germans being forced into an unequal union. It was written from the uneducated German POV. The uneducated Czech POV would say that predecessors of those Germans were invited to the Czech lands to live there and not to take the part of the country they lived in and join it politically with some other country"

you deleted a section that is well documented that prior to the German annexation of the Sudetenland, Germans were often oppressed and not given the same rights as Czechs. AND the German people who lived there were not invited by the Czech government, they arrived there in the time period it was in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, thus they cannot be accused of subverting a government that invited them when the government did not exist when they moved there.

do not simply delete information then say "revert if you want to discuss it on here" that only creates a revert war, it should be left as it was until you can provide enough credible evidence to the otherwise.

SUBSTITUTING YOUR OWN POV FOR ANOTHER IS THE OPPOSITE OF WIKIPEDIA'S AIMS --Jadger 18:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong statement as I did NOT substitute anything for anything. I just excluded all the unnecessary information about events, that are disputed even by serious historians. The article contained one POV, and there are at least two national POVs, and maybe more POVs from some other people. All of them should be listed and clearly marked as POVs (not facts). I excluded the POV from the article so YOU, being lazy enough not to even check the history to see that I did not substitute anything should not be accusing me of pushing my POV. Greetings ackoz 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I have more time to explain this to you. What I actually see, is that you are one of the people that think, that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was an actual state and that Bohemia, belonging to this conglomerate, must have been German. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia articles on Bohemia, or any history book on this matter. FYI: Bohemia was inhabited by Czechs (called Bohemians in English before the 19th century) since around 600, and joined the HRE even under the original Slavic Přemyslid dynasty. You can also read the Holy_Roman_Empire to find out that the Kings of Bohemia had some extraordinary priviledges within the Empire. It is simple yet wrong to assume that if the Empire is nowadays called of the German nation, all the countries and lands contained must have been German. So read carefully, at the dusk of the HRE:

  • There was no German nation at that time. The name "of the German nation" you used in your uneducated argument arised substantially later.
  • Bohemia was inhabited by Czechs (who defined its borders at THAT time i.e. more than a millenium ago) and under the rule of an original Czech dynasty (Czech_people did exist, as did the Bavarians, only they were not called Czechs in other languages - see the article Czech people for reference).
  • Czech lands were a part of the HRE not because some Germanic tribe conquered or acquired it, but because the Premyslid - Slavic dukes and/or kings of Czechia (Bohemia) joined the Empire.
  • Predecessors of Germans who inhabited the Sudetes were invited to Bohemia by Otakar II of Bohemia, a Premyslid - i.e. Slavic king in the mid-13th century.
  • Your argument, that the Premyslid dynasty was actually German is simply wrong and moreover, German nationalist POV pushing. It is nauseous to hear the old "Bohemia always was and will be German".

The dispute we are actually having here is:

  • Germans living in Bohemia felt hurt because they considered the land they lived on German, as they were living there for more than 600 years - which is understandable.
  • Germans were oppressed in the post-1918 Czechoslovakia + they felt hurt, because they lost their priviledges - that is a fact.
  • Czechs living in Bohemia felt hurt because they considered the land the Germans lived on a historical part of Bohemia, i.e. their land - also understandable.
  • Czechs felt hurt because they were oppressed in the pre-1918 Austro-Hungarian monarchy - another fact.

So they were all hurt by each other and had a BIG fight. And some of them are still fighting. This piece of information I deleted was left on the page by some German or pro-German "fighter". Now what. Are you going to lead this never ending dispute on Wikipedia which should be a source of information and NOT a place for presenting nationalist views? I will delete all nationalist POV information - be it Czech or German, because this conflict has no meaning.

Moreover, your arguments show, that you are disturbingly uneducated on the matter you are trying to discuss. You are exactly the type or person I was talking about when I said these disinformations were dangerous - YOU know nothing about the history of Bohemia, Czech people, the German nation or the HRE, still you are pushing your POV because somebody has been feeding you German nationalist stories. When I was living in Germany, I was surprised by the fact that I met people who thought that Prague was originally a German city (though they couldn't explain where the Czechs came from and how they stole the city from the noble Germans). This is superdangerous as exactly THESE disinformations lead to the misunderstandings between Germans and Czechs. No such stories should be allowed on Wikipedia.

Answer this: In your theory, how exactly did the Czechs get to Bohemia? Are they some Russians who invaded the German Bohemia and seized Prague and the rest of the country somehow in the 18th/19th century? How else would you explain their presence in that country, if you say that the land was German as it was a part of the HRE of the German nation. See?? Your theories don't even work.

The other part - about the Czech mob burning ethnically German schoolchildren on the squares of Prague - is unsourced, I couldn't find ANYTHING like this on the internet ie unverifiable, PLUS it defaces the Czechs (speaking about "the Czech mob" in a wikipedia article is an enough reason to delete I think).

ackoz 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To Jadger: If you can speak german, please go to http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sudetendeutsche german wikipedia. The article was written by germans and is correct. You can find some explanations to the terms you don't understand (for instance the fact that Bohemian more or less = Czech) at the bottom of the Talk page. ackoz 23:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that there were Czhech massacres and pogroms against Germans should be mentioned. Not mentioning it at all seems in fact POV. Unless anyone has a good source for burning German children I expect we can leave that out... But the rest deserves mentioning in my opinion. se the following:

This paper The Expulsion of German Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the second World War European University Institute, Florense. Makes an exhaustive description of the expulsions. It also deals with the Usti masacre, and gives references to a bunch of Books dealing with the subject, most in Czech.

If you want to make the article more accurate, and reference it, this would be an excellent starting point. (The paper does not allow copy-paste, so I had to transcribe by hand, hence some errors)

The anti-German atmosphere is dramatised by particular incidents, involving localised massacres of the German population. On the night of 18-19 June 1945 in Prerov in the Moravian lands the Czhechs organised a pogrom of the German population. 71 men, 120 women and 74 children were killed. On 30 May 1945 30 000 Germans from the second biggest Czhech town, Brno were forced to leave their homes. During the death march to the labour camps, located close to the Austrian border, they were brutally beaten. We do not know how many died during this march, however the estimates speak of several hundred people.

Another violent incident took place on 31 July un Usti nad Lebem. It was triggered by a series of explosions in the local munitions warehouse, that killed 28 people and wounded 39. The explosions were blamed on Werewolf organisations - gangs of German youngsters who alledgedly sabotaged Czhech installations and plottet to assasinate Czhech officials. Although there were no proof confirming this thesis, the Czhech militia and civilians initiated a real massacre in the town. Some women and children were thrown of the bridge into the elbe River and shot. Estimates of the numbers killed vary widely, even today, from 30-50, through to 200-400, and even as high as 600-700 civilians.

Stor stark7 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A few clarifying points

First, I agree that the article is horribly written and poorly notated. I might even have time between work, family, and friends to do the cleanup that is required. That remains to be seen.

Second, and more important, we must not let the poor quality of the article sway us away from the fact that the Allies sanctioned Ethnic Cleansing of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII (and peoples merely perceived as Germans, as well). The Potsdam Conference allowed it and the Red Army (assisted by the populations of the areas in question) carried it out.

de Zayas showed this in his excellent book "A Terrible Revenge," now recently revised. I don't happen to have the page numbers memorized, but his figures are those listed in the article, i.e. 15 million people forcibly removed from ancestral land that had been German since the Holy Roman Empire, with roughly 2 million dying in the process. This doesn't count the 2 million rapes committed by the Red Army (also detailed by de Zayas).

I'd like to work on the article with those interested in clearing up the really bad syntax and make this article presentable. The horrifying events deserve better treatment.

TheKurgan 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not recommend rewriting the article or performing any cleanup on it using only one book as a source. If you want to do that, you should use other sources too. If you speak german, http://www.collegium-carolinum.de/ (which is a German institution for Bohemistik=Czech studies) or relevant pages on german Wikipedia would be a good start. My question for you - the Bohemian (= Czech) lands were a part of the Holy Roman Empire since the 9th century. Their inhabitants were Slavic Czechs=Bohemians since the 6th century (follow the link for Bohemian/Czech explanation). Their dukes and kings at that time were the Premyslid (ie Slav-Czech) dynasty. Germans were invited to settle in the 13th century by the Premyslid Otakar II. Since when was Bohemia "German"? The article Bohemia could give you an idea. There, you can also find an 19th century map with Bohemia proper (or Czech proper if you want to use current English names) as a part of Austrian Empire.
I am increasingly tired of people performing "cleanup" on the article after reading one book. I do agree that the expulsion was a terrible thing to do after the ethnic cleansing experience of WWII. But people should either know more than one book or stop changing the article. I dont want to hear another "Bohemians and their kings were Germans and have been cleansed from their Fatherland by the evil Slav Czechs", not even knowing that Bohemian is the actually the original english word for Czech and not even being able to explain where the Czechs came from. If you start changing the article like that, I will be only reverting with no explanation as you should read the discussion above, I do not want to discuss the same things over and over.
ackoz 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed Bohemian Kings were German

The point is, whether kings of countries were Czech or German is not the issue. Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia, and the Swabian lands of the Danube were all ethnically German. Bohemia (and the Bohemian forest, or Böhmerwald) were always Czech with significant German populations, much as Alsace Lorraine was always German with a significant French population.

Well, not _totally_ right. Silesia had Polish minority in Opole region, while East Prussia tiny Polish minority and Masurian minority. Szopen 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And, please don't think I would consider revising the article without proper notations; however, I must also stress that there are only a few books that treat this ethnic cleansing for what it is (we still suffer under "Victor's History").

TheKurgan 10:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being suspicious. Read the previous discussions and you will see that I already had some difficulties with persuading people that Bohemia was not a German land before the Czechs seized it around 19/20th century. If you decide to rewrite the article, I will be happy to help you. ackoz 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

I think this article needs some images to show that it was actual humans that this happened to, instead of just dry statistics.

I've added some links to images in the External Links section as I'm not sure of how their copyright can be handled. A picture that probably can be used is the picture used in both the Hungarian and German article, showing Sudeten Germans being offloaded from the trains. http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/de/4/41/Vertreibung_1.jpg Stor stark7 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't let copyright paranoia get to you - I am sure those images classify as fair use. Btw, please give a link to the image page (which may have source and copyright info), not the image file itself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but the point is mote in this case. The webpage is based on Flashplayer, which means that the link to the picture opens upp the whole page, and that the image cannot be downloaded, just viewed on screen (as far as I can tell, maybe someone else more knowledgeable would be able to download it) Stor stark7 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, then what you need is a little trick. I'll post a short 'how to' on your talk as this is OT here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Some images can be downloaded here: http://www.galleryjk.cz/rozument/index_us.htm E.g. this one would be good, imo: http://www.galleryjk.cz/images/319006NE.jpg Correct caption can be found in the book, which can be downloaded here. I don't know about copyright status, if someone feels comfortable with fair use, please upload it to Wikipedia.
I'd advice caution even with images from sources of dubious reliability. In the book is given an examle of image of Czech resistance fighters shoot by Gestapo, which was now published in Austrian media with a caption suggesting it were Germans murdered during expulsion. --Wikimol 08:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Would you have links to the article - and the book page (Google Print, perhaps)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Its here page 215. In fact as I see now my memory also wasn't correct: from the caption, it's not clear if the murdered Czech were resistance fighters or normal civilians, and they were shot by SS, not by Gestapo. --Wikimol 17:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I can see luggage lying next to them, which would suggest that this was civilians on the move that were shot. Doesn't the presense of luggage make it more likely that the victims are fleeing Germans? Stor stark7 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Ask the authors. With some help of google the text is by Jiří Pešek and Zdeněk Beneš. Both seem to be reputable scholars. Contrasted to pure speculation based on the picture, I would say it is much more likely they are right. --Wikimol 18:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Will do so.Stor stark7 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
As notable scholars they deserve articles (Jiří Pešek, Zdeněk Beneš), unfortunately my Czech is not good enough for that :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Genocide category or not?

The genocide cat was added and removed, then my independent edits were reverted in what seems to be a mistake by User talk:Interestingstuffadder#Your accusation.

Also, this talk page is rather big at 160kB, who can archive it? --Matthead 15:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to archive a page. As for genocide cat: 1) does this event fits the defintion of genocide as we use it in genocide article? 2) are there any academic publications that make a case for it being a genocide? 3) if so, is it disputed by other academic sources? If the answers is yes, yes and no, then I have no objections to adding this category. But I doubt this is the case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
1)this event seems to meet the defintion at the genocide. 2)We already have notable individuals in this article referring to this event as a genocide. 3) Do you suggest we remove all disputed genocides (eg the armenian genocide) from the genocide category? Interestingstuffadder 23:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we went over it before, but I'll endulge you. Let me stress the important part of the defintion of genocide which this event fails to meet: acts committed with intent to destroy and Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Now, please show me proof that the deliberate intent of the expultion was to destroy German race/nation/culture.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia article, the intent required is "intent to destroy, in whole or in part"....race/nation/ culture. Here, there was clear intent to destroy that part of the German race/nation/culture that existed in eastern europe (and in the former East Prussia, in particular). The expulsion amounted to "[d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"...here those conditions were a forced migration in which, by some estimates, millions died. I really don't see the ambiguity here. Interestingstuffadder 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that clear intent. Please show me academic sources that argue that this event classifies as genocide.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii, seems to think that the Poles at least were guilty of Democide. His definitions are as follows:
Genocide: among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).
Politicide: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.
Mass Murder: the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.
Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
I left a link to his page in the "inspiration" topic section below this one. Cheers Stor stark7 23:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case we can quote him for democide, but not for genocide. Note that Rummel seems to be somewhat controversial, and his view may not represent the majority view.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe he was not the best choise to use in the argument. Try instead making a search for genoside or ethnic cleansing in this document though: The Expulsion of German Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the second World War European University Institute, Florense. It seems to support the ethnic cleansing side. I also did a quick internet search. I do not know how representative it is though, but I think they at least tentatively support the ethnic cleansing argument:

Stor stark7 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, but the last time I checked the ethnic cleansing does not equal genocide. I do agree that the expulsion was ethnic cleansing, but I don't think it reaches the genocide scale of it. Do you have an academic source that cleary states it was a genocide?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was obviously still thinking about a previous diskussion I had a few days back where I had to defend the position that use of the term ethnic cleansing for the expulsions is legitimate. In the University paper I provided above the term genocide seems to be used in conjunction with ethnic cleansing though. However, I really do not know enough about what the criteria for genocide are to take any firm position in this argument, so I think I'll back off with a final observation. If you look at which other articles are currently listed in Wikipedia under the category genocide, then this article definitively belongs there too. Stor stark7 18:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the bottom line is it's a controversial subject, and the best way to deal with such - in my personal experience - is to present a series of academic references supporting your POV. The more, the better. One of two can be enough to claim that 'some claim that...' but doesn't seem to represent the prevailing, majority view.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration

This seems to be a cool page to gain inspiration from.

Democide Stor stark7 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And this paper seems to contain absolutely everything that should be summarised in the article. I see no reason why facts mentioned in this paper should not be made part of the article, and referenced to the paper. It seems to be the most NPOV source available.

The Expulsion of German Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the second World War European University Institute, Florense.

Stor stark7 18:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)/Archive_4&oldid=1178775821"