Talk:German exodus from Central and Eastern Europe

Proposed Merger

My comment is against the proposed merger of "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" into this article. I think that while there was certainly a mass exodus of the German people from Eastern Europe, there is a great difference between "exodus" and "expulsion." The word "exodus" does not account for the 3 million people who died on the forced march. It also does not account for the brutality and wrongdoing of the expelling peoples, including rape and infanticide. This is not to say that there was no wrongdoing from the Germans, but this article is specifically refering to what happened to them after the war. Therefore the two should remain separate, or, if anything, combined into a larger article that could contain both, ie like Cautious suggested below "Fall of German Populations in Eastern Europe."

Cautious, I moved the project from your talk page to your main User page. The purpose is to enable people to comment the article here instead of your talk page. I hope you don't mind.Halibutt 14:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Moved from my talk page:

Dawn_of_German_East

I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.

Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not at this time, sorry. I'll just comment that the title is —in my opinion of course— ridiculous, as 'dawn of' implies something new, while the 'German East' you appear to want to discuss is centuries old at least. Consider how this looks to others: would you like an article title "Invention of the Polish nation-state" to discuss the Polish Soviet satellite state? Something like "Former eastern Germany" or "Eastern German lands after WW2" would be a better, more NPOV title. — Jor (Talk) 10:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I must completely agree with Jor. This is goofy at best and a clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from the outset.

--Wighson 02:16, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

---

How about: "The Dusk of German East"?Space Cadet 17:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

<sings>Ain't no sunshine when she's gone</sings>. But seriously, The present title seems rather informal and Jor's proposals seem a little bit better. I'd vote for something like "Lands East of the Oder-Neisse line after 1945", but it might be a bit too long. So perhaps Jor's "Eastern German lands after WW2" could be modified to "Former Eastern German lands after WW2"?Halibutt 18:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am going to describe not only Poland, but also the general process that happenned everywhere in Eastern Europe.

My source of information is here: Sources for the Fall of German populations in the East

Currently I consider the name: Fall of German populations in Eastern Europe

Cautious 00:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was about to propose something along the line of

• westward migration of the Germans or
• German exodus from Central Europe

– but in all honesty, I don't know if that would be particularly good as article titles either. :-)

--Ruhrjung 00:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about Fall of German populations in Central and Eastern Europe or simply Fall of German populations in Central Europe, since most of Eastern European Germans simply fled or were evacuated or deported by Stalin long before 1945 (Volga Germans, Ukraine, and so on). Halibutt 10:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Nonsensical

Resources: Niemcy na Pomorzu Gdanskim

Germans in Slovenia

The expulsion of the Germans is a big cultural loss for those areas. The new inhabitants have never managed to fill those historical and cultural wastelands with new life. It is probably the same everywhere where people were forced out of their home countries.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thinking still goes on?? Hungarian, Romanian and Slavic culture goes on w/o the Germans very nicely.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Victims

While I'm not out to nitpik this article, "Not only people who had been citizens of Nazi Germany (Reichsdeutsche) but also ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) were successfully evacuated (around 5 milion people) before the rest were overrun by the Red Army." is pretty sanitized, isn't it? Do you intend to ignore the millions who were butchered, frozen and starved? Bwood 00:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the exact number of victims of organised persecution (as opposed to victims of war itself) remains unknown. The estimates vary from 10.000 to over 3 millions (remember Nico?), I see no way of presenting the facts without starting an endless revert war. Of course you are right that the maltreatment of German nationals should be mentioned, but I suppose it would be better if we agreed on the wording on the talk page first. What do you say? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:48, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Stating the range of estimates is best. I know you want to blame everything on the Soviets, but that's not very plausible. Even if the Poles of 1945 had some moral elevation than every other people on this earth, given the numbers of survivors who had endured unspeakable conditions and lost uncomprehensible numbers of loved ones, to pretend there were not sizable amounts of retributions against the German civilians is pure fantasy. Bwood 04:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please refer to what I say, not to what you think I might say in the future. I don't want to blame anything on anyone, please beware of such statements. As to the problem itself: I think we could handle it in a similar way to the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article: list all the historians and the numbers proposed. A table would surely do. Which wording do you propose? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:57, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

removed-Wiki is not a soapbox

15,000,000 terrorists?

I wonder what this clause, currently in the article, is supposed to mean?

This eviction of german people was the only possible way out from the situation, when all of this states Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Kaliningrad Oblast, have more then 15 000 000 terrorists with million of crimininal acts executed in their areas.

Any clues? I have no idea what the author meant, so it is hard for me to modify it. Thanks! --Irpen July 5, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I just deleted this until anyone figures this out. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Disputed?

Is this topic still disputed? It sure needs some editing. If there is no objection, i'd like to remove the tag and start with some editing to make it more readable. --The Minister of War 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

An earlier beginning

As German whose family has a Silesian background I have to notice that the "exodus" of my people out of this areas already began before WW2. With the industrialisation many Germans(and ethnic Poles) went westwards for example into the booming Ruhr-area while at the same time Poles from Russia moved westward into Germany's eastern territories, thus increasing the number of Poles there by some levels.

After WW1 many Germans left Posen, West-prussia and Upper-silesia, due to a better live in the west, because they didn't saw a future there but even so because they saw themselves opppressed by the new Polish state. Thus the number of Germans there had seriously decreased until the invasion of the Wehrmacht in these territories.

Note: I know that Poles in the Second German Empire sufferred some repressions, too and that this was a common way for most states to treat their miniorities.

Number of German victims

There is no war Polish and Czech historians against German historians. The division exists mainly between German historians. Xx236 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The division is between Communist historians and democratic ones. No democrat would deny that ethnic cleansing is a serious crime against humanity and people´s rights.--92.230.234.147 (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just about all historians on the war believe that, although saddened in how it was carried out in many areas, the only way to have eliminated German nationalism/imperialism/pan-Germanism as a cause for a possible THIRD world war was to expel ethnic Germans from those territories. It also undoubtably saved many of them from reprisal murders in those areas in the years after WW2. Please educate yourself on the literature on this topic, and see what the percentages actually are. Additionally, Stalin stated the opinion of many Russians when he said that Russia could not afford to fight Germany every generation, which was a real fear at the time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with some definitions

In "Territorial claims of German nationalists" it had been written that:

"German nationalists used the existence of large German minorities in other countries as a basis for territorial claims."

This is inaccurate since not every country with a german minority had to fear german claim. Romania had never been asked to give transylvania over to Germany, as hadn't been Hungary to transfer its german speaking areas.

Which is true is that the status of the territory annexed by Poland and partly of the Czechoslovakia after the war had not been accepted by most of the germans. The presence of germans in these territories can be explained with the fact that it either had been part of germany until the end of WW1, barely 15 years before the Hilter's size of power, or was part of a multi-ethnic state which had been dissolved in the end of WW1, without the germans given the chance to choose their state as promised by Wilson.

"The "Heim ins Reich" rhetoric of the Nazis over the continued disjoint status of enclaves such as Danzig and Königsberg was an agitating factor in the politics leading up to World War II..."

This merges two topics on a diffused way. Königsberg was the capital of the prussian province of "East Prussia", which has been divorced of Germany after WW1 by the "Polish Corridor", which had been the prussian province of "West Prussia" with Danzig as its capital.

East Prussia had economical problems by being cut of from the rest of germany, while Danzig had been forcefully recreated in the "Free City of Danzig" under the "protection" of the League of Nations. Indeed this meant for Danzig to be independent against the will of the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants(95% were germans to this time) who wished a reunification with Germany.

Sure this gave many reasons for trouble.

"According to the 1920 Czechoslovakian constitution, German minority rights were carefully protected; their educational and cultural institutions were preserved in proportion to the population."

In proportion to the population the germans made the second largest group in the Czechoslovakia without it being given the rights of independece as the slovaks had.

Even when this article shouldn't go into detail too much, it should be noticed that the germans in the Sudetenland had voted for being part of "Deutschösterreich", forming the rest of the german-speaking territory of the former monarchy of Habsburg, but were being invaded by the czech military.

This was one of the main reasons why the germans abandoned this republic in 1938.

The points above may have been written this way because of the lack of time or knowledge, but for a neutral point of view it is important to know all details of the moved history of the germans in this region.

The Germans wanted self-determination, but they were disadvantaged. Czechs were settled into German areas to weaken the Germans, to impose the Czech language and culture. The Czech president Masaryk even called them "settlers" after 800 years there.--92.230.234.147 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the benefit of the articles, which you don't cite anywhere in your statement above. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger

Some articles contain sometimes the same informations:

• Recovered Territories
• Historical Eastern Germany
• Evacuation of East Prussia
• Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Isn't it too much? Xx236 12:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

they are all different though, as Recovered Territories is a Polish propoganda term, as they were never really recovered as much as stolen. Historical Eastern Germany refers to all German lands now under foreign administration, not just the polish lands as in "recovered territories". Evacuation of East Prussia refers to the wartime exodus from the province, while expulsion of Germans after WWII describes the post war years.

--Jadger 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Poland had been divided and had not been a unified nation until World War 1. After that time, however, Poland wanted an ethnically-cleaned state and to get rid of Germans who had been there for 800 years.It also tried to get as much of land as possible.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like your language (stolen) as some other statements in your texts. Would you be so kind to observe the rules of Wikipedia?

The articles contain the partially the same informations. In fact at least 10 articles contain the same informations (sometimes biased) about the expulsion of Germans. Your answer is about something different. Xx236 11:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

and what rule did I break here? please assume good faith and don't be so uncivil. while articles are supposed to be NPOV, an editor can be as straightforward as he wants on the discussion page, and an editor does not have to be NPOV, as that is impossible. I fail to see how my answer is about something different, you offered to merge the articles because they were all containing the same information as you claim, but what I assume you meant is they are all on the same subject, and we should merge them into one article, which I denied seeing as they are on similar subjects, but not the same ones, as in my explanation before.

--Jadger 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry to be unprecise - I'm against repeating the same informations in several articles. I don't demand merging if they are logically structured.
2. O.K. - I assume your good faith and I inform you that:

• the Oder-Neisse border was defined in Potsdam by SU, US and UK, not by Poland. BTW - which article uses the word stolen desctribing territorial changes?
• There existed two Polish propagandas - the Communist one and the London one. You should define which one you mean.
• According to you you have the right to use in the future any insulting word against me ("as straightforward as he wants") , because I write that 2.1 million story is questioned (eg. by Overmanns)? Where is such a rule written?

Xx236 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

--- Historical fact is that Poland did not respect the Oder-Neisse-Line: In violation of the Potsdam conference results Poland annected a lot territory to the west of the Oder-river ("Vorpommern"), including the city of Stettin. Only Stalin supported this polish action against international law. (User, Dec. 1st, 2006)

• No article that I can think of uses the term because they don't want to offend nationalists into POV edits and from that, edit wars.

• I mean the communist one, the one that used the term "recovered territories" to justify taking German lands and expelling the inhabitants.

• In no way does straightforward mean insulting, how did you get that out of my writing? we are still talking about how I referred to the forceful annexation of German lands as a theft. Unless you are an extreme nationalist who believes in a Polish version of Manifest Destiny, I don't see how it can offend you. And, I don't see how it would offend you even if you are an extreme nationalist, as it simply puts your position as bluntly as possible. where is such a rule written? please show me what rule on wikipedia states that a user can't be brutally honest?

--Jadger 18:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, I find your texts agressive. I assume you aren't aware, so I inform you.

• Unless you are an extreme nationalist who believes - it's ad-personam.
• if you are an extreme nationalist, as it simply puts your position as bluntly as possible

The level of my nationalism isn't a subject of German exodus from Eastern Europe.

I repeat, which article (of the Wiki) uses the word stolen desctribing territorial changes? Unless you haven't found one, would you be so kind to use the same words like the ones used in another articles?

Xx236 11:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

you said: I repeat, which article (of the Wiki) uses the word stolen desctribing territorial changes? Unless you haven't found one, would you be so kind to use the same words like the ones used in another articles?

I don't have to, this is not an article, but a talk page, if what you are claiming where an actual rule, then you would have no need for a wikipedia account, as nothing you have ever typed (that was original from you and not a revert to another person's version) would be allowable on wikipedia.

and secondly, Wikipedia is constantly being improved upon, it is never a finished product, much of the time people are too busy reverting extremist POV pushing and stopping your ad-hominem attacks to be able to edit wikipedia as effectively as they should be.

--Jadger 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree those articles should be merged, or at least put in a clear structure, with one main article, and cleary identified subarticles. Currently it's a mess.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

more than 2.5 million lost their lives

The discussion about the number of German victims is here Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII. Xx236 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to go further back in Time

I have studied that the German people themselves originally arose as distinct Indo-European people millennia before 0 CE near the headwaters of the Elbe river. I do not see such information at all in Wikipedia at all, just does not seem to go back that far. I think this will need to be stated … something I hope I might be able to add as long as the references line up as my time permits. Nonprof. Frinkus 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the above post, I sloughed it off as irrelevant to this article (which it is). However, upon re-reading it, I am appreciating that there may be a valid point. If you look at History of Germany, it starts at about the 6th or 8th century A.D. If Nonprof. Frinkus wishes information about Germanic tribes before the 6th century A.D. to be included in Wikipedia, we will probably have to start a new article titled something like History of the German people or Prehistory of the German people. I am going to copy this thread to Talk:History of Germany. Please continue the discussion there.

--Richard 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The first Germanic settlements of later cities in Poland and the Czech Republic are documented on the "Map of Ptolemaios" dating back to the 2nd century, which was recently found in Istanbul and is published in Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.14.39 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Polish criticism of German "revisionism"

"politicians who certain Germans claim play the anti-German card for political reasons"

I would rather say, that elderly people are more critical, than the majority of the politicians. One of the main Polish politicians Donald Tusk has probably German family. Quite many German texts about the expulsion sound crazy for many Poles, so we don't need any politicians to lead us. Xx236 15:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Both this section and the "German criticism of the Polish collectivist view" are highly POV and totally devoid of citations. We need to say things like "According to X, A is B" and support the sentence with a citation instead of just saying "A is B". I have tagged both sections with the {{pov-section}} tag.

--Richard 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

removed-Wiki is not a soapbox

was tolerated by the Potsdam Agreement

The Potsdam Agreement paragraph says something different. Xx236 13:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about, "The expulsion of up to 100% of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe was tolerated by the Potsdam Agreement, which stated that the process should be undertaken in a 'humane' and 'orderly' manner, though it failed to specify detailed rules for the population transfers, or supervision of the process to prevent crimes against the transferred populations."?ANNRC (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In Sudetenland the wild expulsions had already started before the Potsdam Agreement, which wanted them happen in an orderly way. But orderly or not - it was a crime against peoples`rights.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Further improvements

I hope I have wikified the article to the satisfaction of those editing here. Can I suggest your next steps to improvement?

I take it that the page is not going to be merged with Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Therefore it might be useful to think again about the scope of this article. It is not currently clear when the exodus that this article deals with began. After WWI, I guess, but there is far too much detail, to my mind, about how German speakers came to be living in eastern countries. The reader will be worn out before getting to the actual exodus.

This is my fault. I originally wrote that stuff as background for the Expulsion of Germans after World War II and then moved it here because it was applicable here as well. Any suggestions for cutting it down would be appreciated. --Richard 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there might be enough material for a separate article on the present-day movements related to the exodus.

Referencing is the most important thing of all. There are extra guidelines for history articles. References should ideally be only to books and scholarly papers written by historians (people with postgraduate qualifications in history) who publish in the field. Preference should be given to material written in English, so that people who speak only English can verify the facts. I really enjoyed reading the article. It is a fascinating topic in modern history. Itsmejudith 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm going to boldly cut most of the history out, and then you can feel free either to undo the whole edit or put back piecemeal anything you consider essential. I don't get on with sandboxes much. Just see how it looks. I'm not going to hang around to defend my changes. Itsmejudith 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the "Background" section

User:Itsmejudith trimmed the "Background" section which is a great improvement. However, in doing so, she dropped the following paragraph:

The expulsion of Germans after World War II must be interpreted in the context of the evolution of global nationalism in general and European nationalism in particular. It is also useful to compare the mass migrations and forced expulsion of ethnic Germans out of Eastern Europe with other massive transfers of populations, such as exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey and population exchange that occurred after the Partition of India. In all cases those expelled suffered greatly.

I think some of the above information is useful even if the wording could be improved. What do you think?

--Richard 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the major trim was an improvement, but perhaps a shortened version of the paragraph Richard cites could be restored. Jd2718 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My advice, for what it's worth, is to refer to what good historians say about this, rather than the views of lay editors. The phrase "must be interpreted", in an unsourced paragraph, rang alarm bells for me. If the context is important, could it not be enough to refer the reader to ethnic cleansing? I'll leave it to your collective wisdom to consider this though, and won't be watching the page any more. Itsmejudith 23:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think she's right even though I wrote the paragraph in question. Anybody know of a good source for this material? --Richard 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

link to disambig page

User:IZAK just put a disambig line at the head of the German exodus from Eastern Europe article that says "For other uses, see Exodus (disambiguation)."

Why is this necessary? I don't see any way that someone could come to that article and not know what it was about or, frankly, have gotten there by accident and actually want to get to any of the other articles in the disambig page instead.

IZAK, can you explain your reasoning to me? I'm totally befuddled.

--Richard 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Absurd claims

There is no Polish minority according to German law, so there are no rights. Even German Wikipedia says so de:Polnische Minderheit in Deutschland. Xx236 (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

True regarding German law, but that doesn't mean they had no rights. The source [1] and [2] sum up the relevant issue. Sciurinæ (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The original text: The agreement also gave minority groups in both countries several rights, such as the right to use national surnames, speak their native languages, and attend schools and churches of their choice. It's not true, so it should be rephrased.Xx236 (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit wave

It contains some true aspects, in that as far as I know, it was the largest exodus in history and that it was not carried out in a truly humane manner - but not "utmost brutality", either. Wordings like "terrorist actions" are POV and "two million were murdered", not only is emotional wording, but it's also incorrect as that would imply that they were all killed rather than died in part in snowstorms and the like. It is also biased in that the historians Overmanns and Haar, by contrast, argue that 500,000-600,000 is more realistic.[3] Sciurinæ (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

15 million Germans were expelled, 3 million of whom died during expulsion. Those numbers are generally accepted in history.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

German pre-WW2 minorities

Recent edit taken from the article to the talk:

German nationalists used the existence of large German minorities in other countries as a basis for territorial claims. However one has to distinguish between small German minorities who were scattered all over Eastern Europe like e.g. German Sprachinseln(Language Islands) in Czech territory, and German native land that had been cut off from their nation by the controversial Treaty of Versailles like the Sudetenland, a German-speaking traditionally Austrian Territory for over hundreds of years which had been incorparated into a multi-ethnic Czechoslovokian state against people's will. Taking into account that in this Czech-dominated state less than half of its population were Czechs, it is doubtful whether the term "minorities" can be applied at all for this former state. Likewise, the Treaty of Versailles had put 2 Million Germans in former Posen-Westprussia and Upper Silesia under Polish rule, against people's will; altogether 10 Million Germans had been placed under foreign rule, their right of self-determination had been violated, and they had not been allowed by the Allies to vote about their own fate in their Parliament.

The above is an interesting point of view, but belongs to the discussion page rather than the article itself. The conclusions below are simply false.

The Governments of Czechoslovakia and Poland had persecuted and oppressed those Volksdeutsche (Ethnic Germans) in those territories, which implied torture and murder in many cases by the Poles and which to led to at least 700 000 Germans escaping the Polish-occupied land. The German minorities and the German government had filed several thousand protests to the then League of Nations, but without any consequence. In Polish-occupied Posen-Westprussia the oppression of the German population on their own homeland was so strong, that within few years the majority had fled; of about 1 Million Germans (1920) only 300 000 remained by 1926.

Not to mention the POV wording. --Lysy^talk 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Germans in the newly-founded states Poland and Czechoslovakia were denied home rule and self-determination, which they had been promised by Wilson after World War 1.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect - Wilson wished that the treaty settlement would be based upon his suggested "Fourteen Points" - but he was 1) not the head of the only Allied Power at Versailles, and 2) he couldn't possibly "promise" anything, especially in areas where Allied, let alone American, troops were not present to enforce policy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Potsdam Conference

"The northeastern third of East Prussia was directly annexed by the Soviet Union and remains part of Russia today." Not Exactly! How about the more realistic context: "The Northern part of East Prussia was placed under Soviet Administration, pending the final Peace Treaty. The 1990 Peace Treaty in effect permanently assigned that Soviet administered area to the Soviet Union. In that regard, Russia is the internationally recognized successor state to the Soviet Union."ANNRC (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone measured to compare how much area of 1937 East Prussia was administratively assigned by the Potsdam negotiations to Poland, and how much was administratively assigned by the Potsdam negotiations to the Soviet Union?ANNRC (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was tolerated by the Potsdam Agreement

To the reverting linguist Mendaliv: Is it your position that the Potsdam Agreement didn't provide for the expulsion of 100% of the people identified by the "authorities" of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary as "ethnic Germans"? Are you saying that those "authorities" were somehow limited by International Law from making a "Clean Sweep" if it had been in their interests to do so, whether it be in the then immediate future, or some time later? Please explain your interpretation of International Law which justifies your revert.ANNRC (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Potsdam Conference was dominated by Stalin. Churchill stated,"We have slaughtered the wrong pig". But the Western Allies were too weak and Stalin had his way.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Polemic and historical incorrect article

I consider this article very biased and one-sided. Alone calling the expulsion of Germans "exodus" is historical incorrect (it make associations to the exodus of the Jews from Egypt - THE exodus; but that was totally different).

The article states at the beginning:

"These were part of negotiated agreements between the victorious Allies to redraw national borders and arrange for "orderly population transfers" to remove ethnic minorities that were viewed as "troublesome"."

Well, Silesia, Pomerania or East Prussia had been territories with only or predominantly German population of what the plebiscites after WWI had clearly given evidence. Polish nationalists used the existence of small Polish minorities as a basis for territorial claims... Not the Germans had been "minorities" - in those eastern German territories. The western Allies/world new this more or less but they needed Stalin and so they accepted the annexation of huge German territories by Stalin & Poland.

BTW: After Hitler invaded in Czechoslovakia in 1939 Poland invaded Czechoslovakia, too.

Then the article states:

"In effect, the final agreements compensated Poland with 112,000 km² of former German territories for the 187,000 km² located east of the Curzon line, which would now be part of the USSR."

There were no final agreements. The Potsdam Agreement left open the question about the Polish-German border.

"It was also decided that all ethnic Germans remaining in the new and old Polish territories should be expelled, to prevent any claims of minority rights or possible land claims by any future German government."

Who did decide this? Of course Stalin/Poland decided it, because the Potsdam Agreement put the German territories only under Polish administration (no territorial sovereignty). German minorities had to be transferred from Poland but not from German territory. If you do not believe this then please, read the "Speech of Hope" (6.9.1946) of US Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes - who participated at the Potsdam Conference.

Poles not alone expelled but also annihilated the German population - especially in Upper Silesia (Lamsdorf/Łambinowice) - exactly as mentioned in the article "to prevent any claims of minority rights or possible land claims..." ...well, by the offspring...". Wikiferdi (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC) "Stalin/Poland decided" - what does it mean? Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Misquotation

"50% of the Germans residing in areas annexed by Germany during WWII and almost 100% residing in unannexed occupied areas were evacuated" - alleged quote from Nitschke. Nitschke informs only that some authors use such method. Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 01:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

European refugees and expellees have united and formed the EUFV with headquarters in Triest, Italy. This organisation is already in close contact with the EU administration.--92.230.232.79 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole article

This whole article is a mess and full of absolutely wrong numbers and even absurd racist comments. Obviously, it is either written from antigerman people, or brainwashed germans. It indicates that the most expelled (or murdered) germans lived in territories the nazis occupied in WW2, but by far the most of the expelled and killed lived in territories which were for centuries only german settled. The genocide on the "Donauschwaben" from Vojwodina, the Germans from Russia (who were deported or executed in 1940 as traitors although they never saw a german soldier) and others are not even mentioned.

I even missed the expression "genocide" in this article and introduced it. Together with the genocide on the anatolian christians 1915-1923 and the genocide on the european jews, the genocide on the east european germans was the worst crime in history. And it was not the consequence of Nazi politics, it was the consequence of germany incabability to defense itself in 1945, polish plans to conquer Silesia etc were long before the war made. Don`t forget that Poland occupied -together with nazigermany- Cechoslovakia in 1938... Cheers Lüderitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.210.154 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The expulsion of the Germans - 15 million people - was the greatest ethnic cleansing in European history. Many of those expelled had been living in Sudetenland, Silesia, East Prussia, Pommerania and so on for about 800 years.--92.224.205.0 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=8657. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

synth

This [4] is a violation of WP:SYNTH. There's no indication given that the source provided is specifically referring to Tony Judt. Additionally, since this formulation of the text ("However, there is low confidence in that interpretation...", etc.) cannot be checked (I can provide stuff from Judt if need be) since the relevant portion is not available on gbooks, I'm asking SS7 here to provide the relevant text for verification. Volunteer Marek  17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor currently calling himself Volunteer Marek. This [5] violates WP:UNDUE, and as does in fact the whole segment on opinion polls. It is no more relevant to discuss political opinion polls among Germans than to discuss how many Polish were communists. In fact, if you even want to keep it, you need to show that:

1. that including this topic-irrelevant item is not a ploy of eastern right wing nationalists to somehow claim that the Germans "deserved" to be expelled due to their political opinions.

2. that the political opinions of the expelled is in any way relevant for an article entitled "German exodus from Eastern Europe".

3. that Tony Judt mentions the expelled as respondents of the questionnaires. Otherwise it certainly has no place in an article about the exodus, any more than questionnaires in other countries where the expelled ended up, as in Australia.

Furthermore, we are not discussing the author Tony Judt, as you somehow seem to want to make it into. We are discussing the questionnaires, to which you are attributing an interpretation of to Tony Judt. I provided a source with a more detailed and less biased interpretation of the "37%" questionnaire item, which discusses the interpretations of precisely that item. I suggest you go to a library and look it up.

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The info that was removed by the anon ip was a source by Tony Judt, so yes, it is about him. He is the secondary source discussing the questionnaires. Whether you think his interpretation is "biased" or not is beside the point. And if I ask you to provide text from the source which confirms the info you're trying to insert it, then it's actually up to you to provide this text for verification, not me "go to a library and look it up".

As to your extremely bad faithed "points" (including this whole "Dear" and "currently" and all that - cut it out please);

1. "Eastern right wing nationalists ploy" - I'm sorry but I'm not even gonna dignify that kind of nonsense with a reply. Is Tony Judt a "eastern right wing nationalist?" No? Then cut it out.

2. The relevance of this one is obvious. I mean, if these were their political opinions on ... I don't know, legalization of marjiuana or something you'd have a point. But that's not the political opinions we're talking about.

3. I don't see why this should be a criteria - and besides, as Hans points out below, the high # is probably due in significant extent due to the answers of the expellees. Your last statement is a non-sequitur.

 Volunteer Marek  20:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please show me Wiki policy where I have to provide you with anything beyond a reference to a reliable source. If you want to verify it, be my guest. It should not be a problem for you to get the book, at least 990 libraries carry it. And there is nothing bad faith-ed about "dear", its a politeness phrase well known in English, so please refrain from inventing bogus "bad faith" claims. And I am entitled to note your change of user name, for which you have provided no explanation as far as I know, as I please. But fine, I'll just call you "Volunteer Marek" then. In return, how about you just calling me Stor stark7 in the future. Is it a deal?

1 & 2 & 3. Please don't try to obfuscate my comment or pretend you don't understand what I mean. Post-war political opinion questionaires in Germany have a place in articles about the development of public political opinion in Germany, or in an article about political questionnaires. To include questionnaires of public opinion in Germany in an article about the "exodus" is a very blatant attempt to use wikipedia to try to justify this "exodus". There is currently nothing in the text attributed to Judt that provides a link to the topic of this article. I.e. also a clear case of WP:UNDUE, as you should know since you have some editing experience, which is extra funny as you in addition engage in an attempt at WP:Synth in your note "3.".

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please show me Wiki policy where I have to provide you with anything beyond a reference to a reliable source. - ay ay de wha wha? WP:V. If you insist on putting in some controversial stuff into an article and add a an inline citation to the end of it, and the source that you're citing is not easily available, I have every right to ask you to provide more information. Hell, this has been asked of me more than a dozen of times on various articles and I've always been happy to oblige. Also, on a very practical level, I have seen people lie, misrepresent or misinterpret sources, particularly on controversial topics, many times - and then they put a little [1] type inline at the end to make it seem legitimate. Of course, here I'm concerned about the possibility of "misinterpretation" not the other kinds. As the policy states, the burden of proof is on you in this case. It doesn't matter if 990 or 999.1 libraries carry it.

And there is nothing bad faith-ed about "dear" - given our past interactions, which have never been cordial, a person could be excused for taking it as a case of undue sarcasm. Normally I wouldn't have paid attention but you had found it necessary to combine it with the "presently named...". And "stork stark7" is a long thing to write, hence the abbreviation, SS7. You can abbreviate my user name as VM, which is what most everyone else does.

Re 1 & 2 &3, it really depends on what the questionnaires you're talking about are questioning, doesn't it? Like I said, if these were questionnaires of political opinions, on marijuana legalization, abortion, tax cuts, whether video games are contributing to the decline in the moras of the youth, hell I don't know - other irrelevant stuff, then yes, you'd be right. But here, we're discussing questionnaires of the opinions of the subjects of this article concerning the very people who participated (rightly or wrongly) in their exodus, and whom the government of those being queried was busy wiping out just a year or two earlier. That certainly seems relevant.

Ok, I know that was a convoluted sentence so here's the digest version: Nazi Germany invades Poland and commences with a genocide of Poles and Jews. Some (maybe many) of the Germans living in the affected areas are cool with this and benefit from it (the extent of 'some' is in fact the very question that the questionnaire is trying to gauge). But then things go wrong and Germany looses the war. The Poles and the remaining Jews are like, "gee guys, you tried to kill us, we don't think we want you around anymore, you better leave". And then because there's also a communist takeover it's like "we're not gonna bother trying to figure out which folks were supportive of all this that happened, like the Holocaust, and which ones were just going on by their way while it happened, we'll kick out everyone" (the commies had a way with just not bothering about the details). Then there's this "exodus". And as it turns out many of these exodees (according to the source, 37% - though that's for Germany as a whole, not just the exodees), go home thinking "goddamitt, sure I regret what happened, but not because it was a bad idea, but because we lost".

All of this is called "context" and it's an essential part of WP:NPOV. That's a general problem with all these expellee/exodus articles - they try as much as they can to pretend that these things just happened all of sudden ex-nihilo, without any reason, in a void, just out of spite on the part of ... ummm... a conspiracy by "eastern right wing nationalists" (whoever or whatever that is). Now, this is a very difficult topic, a very convoluted one and to do justice to it would require quite a nuanced, delicate, sensitive and thorough approach. At some point in my Wikipedia experience I actually thought this was possible. But that was like 6 years ago. Now I'm much older and cynical and I'll just settle for people not removing reliable sourced pertinent information from the article.

There is currently nothing in the text attributed to Judt that provides a link to the topic of this article - dude, the whole thing started because an IP removed an article by Judt. I'm starting to suspect that you think that just because the IP claimed it was "a Polish source" it must've been by a Polish author. In other words, that you didn't bother actually looking at the source. Judt has written a lot about this (as well as post war Europe in general). His works have been translated into many languages, including, crazily enough, Polish. Whoever put that part in just cited it to the version (of this English speaking author) which was most accessible to them. See the second half of number six [6]. Actually, how many of these have you already hit? Volunteer Marek  01:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

At first I got confused and reverted Stor stark7, but then I had to self-revert after I realised this was about the 37% support for genocide claim, which I had at first missed in the diff. This is, in fact, a surprising claim, so I looked a bit closer at it. I am basing the following on this German source by Martin Rothland, which has a lot of details, though not the 37%, and looks very convincing to me.

Rothland points out that the surprising post-war approval rates for Nazism in the Allied zones must be seen before the background of a period of national socialism that was in many respects highly successful. Before the Nazis, there was a lost First World War and huge reparation payments. There was a series of chaotic coalitions between small and tiny parties, which governed the country by means of emergency regulations. There was hyperinflation. There was civil war between the extreme left and the extreme right. There was high unemployment. The Nazis the modernised the country, eliminated unemployment, instituted social equality, improved certain types of social benefits, provided physical security in the streets etc. Of course all of this is only from the POV of the lucky members of the majority population and came at an extremely high price for the others that should never have been paid. But only in the 1970s did the majority of Germans collectively connotate national socialism primarily with its crimes as opposed to the improvements from which they had profited. (In surveys in 1951/52, 41% saw more good than evil in the idea of national socialism, and 36% saw more evil than good.) Therefore the post-war approval rates for Nazism constitute primarily approval for social equality, high employment, sexual liberty, motorways etc.

We can therefore expect approval rates for Nazi atrocities to have been significant lower than those for Nazism overall, something that makes the number 37% appear rather too big. On the other hand, Rothland says that in 1950, in a survey of 1,000 women, 22% were of the opinion that Hitler had made some mistakes but was a good statesman overall, and 10% said that he was the greatest statesman of the century, and that it will take some time for his greatness to be recognised. The total of 32% is quite close to 37%. The fact that a lot of Germans expelled from Poland were arriving in Germany at the time may also have played a role, as it will have been interpreted as confirmation for the Nazi ideology concerning "Lebensraum".

Given the confusing nature of the survey question, but also the fact that literacy has been decreasing in the second half of the 20th century due to television, it is my personal guess as a layman that the number 37% may have been too big, but probably not by far.

Do with this what you want. Hans Adler 19:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll look up more information on it shortly but I have seen similar numbers in other sources as well. I think the big difference between the numbers that Judt is talking about and Rothfeld's numbers is 1947 vs. later. Yes, I know 1950 is only three years later, but those were 3 pretty crucial years and for 1950 it's still comparable, as you point out. And with regard to the Nazi's social policies, yes, that probably did play a significant role in the overall approval of Hitler, but here the question was specifically about the genocide, not overall policies. Volunteer Marek  20:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And whatever still completely irrelevant to include in this article or to discuss here in this talkpage unless the author specifically posits that it has connection to the "exodus", otherwise including opinion polls is very much WP:UNDUE, and indeed also WP:SYNTH.

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the same info by the same author, but not exactly the same as the source which was being removed is here [7]. This basically supports the view that for the first... five?... ten? years after the end of the war, the opinion in Germany was "it was a good idea, it just sucks we've lost". (I know my way of putting it is a bit ORish, but then again, I'm not asking for my wording to be put into article - just that the data itself is not removed). Volunteer Marek  02:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(By the way, if you've ever looked at studies of public opinion after (and during) various wars, revolutions or other traumatic upheavals, or even studies of individuals after a significant messed up experience, none of this should be surprising - people try to justify their actions, collectively or individually, as much as they can, no matter how bad they are. The realization that someone somewhere did something wrong only comes later with a good bit of introspection (for societies as whole it takes longer then for individuals, though that part's messy) and often only with an outside stimulus. So it's not exactly like these opinion polls are reflecting something crazy - at least nothing more crazy than just basic human nature). Volunteer Marek  02:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

people try to justify their actions

This was not a question to perpetrators, like members of the Einsatzgruppen, but a question to simple average people! The human nature would suggest, that 0,00...% had had answered 'yes' to a simple understandable and not twisted and not confusing question, what means 'yes' and what means 'no'!

( But even perpetrators, like members of the Einsatzgruppen usually only tried to justify themselves, by pretending, they had to follow orders, when ever possible, even in cases, when they acted on their own accord. ) Henrig (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The action which was being rationalized and justified was of course not the direct perpetration of the genocides by the people being surveyed themselves (though in some cases, particularly among the eastern expellees that would indeed have been the case), but the support that those being surveyed had given to those who perpetrated the genocide. So yes, this 37% is among "simple average people".

And with this whole argument that it was so high only because it was worded in a confusing way - maybe a few of those percentage points where due to that (though why not the other way?) - but the fact that the answers here correlated pretty closely with answers to other, less confusing questions - like 25% having a good opinion of Hitler, 37% believing it a good thing for Germany not to have any Jews on its territory, 36% believing that Jews should not have the same rights as "Aryans" (all post war, post Nuremberg) see link I provided above - suggests that it wasn't just confusion. And as the text says, contemporary German politicians had few illusions over whether these surveys were accurate, even if they did not admit it in public. Volunteer Marek  14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have no illusions about the clear questions in your last posting. Frankly, I had estimated, that rather still more than 25% had a good opinion about Hitler at that time. Obviously the rate had already considerably dropped after Nürnberg. Let me guess, that the 25%, who had shortly after Nürnberg still a good opinion of Hitler made the bulk of those, who still didn't believe in the Holocaust. Previously Goebbel's propaganda had penetrated nearly every aspect of life and made Hitler appear as a kind of a messiah. For those, who had believed it, it was afterwards hard to realize, that he was simply evil. (Others partly had always been of the opinion, that he was a pig. But they were powerless.) Even, when the evidence about the mass murders became overhelming, the hardcore believers often didn't believe, that Hitler himself did know it. When it was clear, that he was the engine of all, I heard myself decades later the argument, that he had had been good in the first years and at one point must have become mad. (A kind of self-justification for former beliefs.) Others clearly explained, how silly they had been in this time, while influenced by the propaganda. Henrig (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC) P.S: Hmm, I think, about 1950 there were hardly much people, who really still doubted the Holocaust. I once heard a few remarks, that said "initially" (after the war).Henrig (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC) PPS: Hmm, for people who starved (in western Germany until 1948) and had only few possibilities to inform (mostly the radio), the term 'initially' may have had another meaning than today.Henrig (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the text of the source put in by StorStark7 to be provided. It's been more than a week. Either you have access to the source, have actually read it, and can provide relevant info for verification, or simply don't use a source in the article. Volunteer Marek  13:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

this needs to be rephrased in the Lede -

" The exodus ... and was implicated in the rise of Nazism. "

That doesn't make any sense - poorly worded. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what are we really trying to say here? Was there an influx of Eastern Germans into the Weimar Republic in the 1920s? Did that influx result in the growth of the concept of Lebensraum and Heim ins Reich? If so, it's news to me but that is what is suggested by the phrase "and was implicated in the rise of Nazism". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Dramatic reduction"

The lede is POV. If this reduction is dramatic what should be said about the Jews? Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the word "dramatic" is probably too weak. What percentage reduction are we talking about? If it's over 50%, "dramatic" is decidedly the right word. If it's closer to 80-90% reduction, then something like "near elimination" is probably more accurate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have now had a chance to look at Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans. The 1958 report by the West German government estimated that the population dropped from almost 17million Germans to about 2.7million Germans by 1950. Forget for now whether they fled, were expelled, killed or died of disease. The bottom line is that, in 1950, there were less than 20% of the number in 1939. That is at least a dramatic reduction. We can debate forever what happened to them and whose fault it was. The bottom line is that there used to be a lot of Germans and then there weren't very many by comparison. I would guess that 60 years later there are even fewer. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So again I'm asking - what is the English word to describe the "reduction" of the number of Jews? "Mega-hyper-dramatic"? BTW - there is a basic difference between emigration to Western Germany and dying in Auschwitz. An article, especially it's lede, should inform about the context.

Do exist here articles about dramatic reduction of numbers of Poles and Hungarians? Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The English word to describe the "reduction of the number of Jews" is Holocaust although the word "holocaust" has also been used to characterize the allegations of deaths due to the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe . Holocaust is, of course, a very emotion and POV laden term. A more neutral term to describe the "reduction of the number of Jews" would probably be something closer to "near elimination". Six million out of the 7.3 million Jews were killed, approximately 80%. The major difference between the Jews and the Germans is that 80% of the Jews were killed whereas nowhere close to 80% of the Germans were killed. For the most part, they were expelled, evacuated or fled. At most 15% of the Germans were killed, and according to some estimates, the real figure is more like 4-5%.

As for articles about "dramatic reduction of numbers of Poles and Hungarians", the question would have to be: what areas were the subject of massive population transfers? I know that the Nazis effected a major population transfer of Poles out of Western Poland after 1939. This is documented in Expulsion of Poles by Germany and Expulsion of Poles by Nazi Germany. I don't know anything about expulsion of Hungarians; there does not seem to be an article in Wikipedia about it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

does that mean that the term "dramatic" is now reserved for certain lobbying? so the reduction of passengers at the sinking of the Titanic can not be described as "dramatic", because three times as many people died at the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff? ...so the term is assigned to one topic only? Is there maybe something like a "dramatic-chart" where we can measure? --IIIraute (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No... I think that is misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that, as terrible as the expulsions may or may not have been, there would have been a substantial difference between reducing the German population by 10% from the prewar total vs. reducing it by 80-90% from the prewar total. Killing 10% of the German population and leaving the other 90% in place would have been abhorrent and tragic but it might not have had as significant effect on the cultural composition of Eastern Europe as the death or departure of 80-90% of the prewar total. Having 80% of the German population die or leave did create a significant change to the cultural composition of Eastern Europe (it made certain areas more ethnically homogeneous). We can debate forever whether this change made things better or made things worse. However, I don't think it's debatable that the change was quite "dramatic". If editors don't like the use of the word "dramatic" in this context, then by all means propose a better word. Yes, we have to set the expulsions in the context of significant population movements (much of it forced) in postwar Europe. However, AFAIK, the two most significant population "movements" were the killing of Jews (and their subsequent exodus) in Germany and Eastern Europe and the expulsion of ethnic Germans (and their subsequent exodus) from Eastern Europe. If there are comparable population movements that involved as large a number or as large a percentage of an ethnic population, we can perhaps discuss them here to see if the word "dramatic" is hyperbolic or inflammatory. I didn't think it was but I'm open to discussing the issue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Poles run away from Soviet Union after the Revolution, Soviet Poles were murdered or deported to Kasakhstan. During the war Poles were deported to Soviet Union, moved by Germans (what you mention), expelled and murdered by Ukrainians. During and after the war Poles were expelled from Soviet Union (Poland was moved to the West). Borderlands by Snyder summarize many of those crimes.Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

German exodus... to German flight and expulsions (1944-1950) move request

Could we add the article German exodus from Eastern Europe two Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)? They are essentially two articles about the same thing. And the name exodus is a bit dramatic and grotesque in its relation to Judaism --Gironauni (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

oppose - they are not.--IIIraute (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

oppose - they are not about the same thing, this article covers the historical background of the German emmigration from East Europe in the 20th century. I suggest that editors take the time to read both articles before proposing a merge.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, they are actually about the same thing. In fact they even use the exact same structure, sources, almost the same graphics and ... language. Verbatim. Very large chunks of the two articles are EXACTLY the same, copied word for word, with not even a spelling correction or a comma. For example, the whole part beginning with "The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, ..." is exactly the same. So is the part with "As Winston Churchill expounded in the House of Commons in 1944,...". It's the same article twice over, content forked (probably in order to raise the google visibility of the topic.)

Rather than just posting a meaningless "nyah, nyah, no it's not yes it is no it's not" can EITHER one of you actually articulate what makes the "Flight and Expulsions" article different from the "Exodus" article. Is it just that one has years attached to it and the other one doesn't it? That's pretty superficial considering what the articles actually cover (the same thing, same time period).VolunteerMarek 00:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Would you please remove all mechanical and apparently thoughtless copy-paste jobs from this article? It creates a totally false impression of considerable size. Poeticbent talk 00:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case my hunch is that this is all talk, nobody is willing to cooperate to improve both articles. Group A wants to remove any mention of the fate of the Germans in Eastern Europe, Group B wants to chronicle the atrocities committed against Germans. The recent book by R M Douglas Orderly and Humane [8] is a reliable source that we could use to improve both articles. I am reading this book and recommend it to other editors. I have no interest in participating in a Wiki pissing contest, only in improving both articles.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget about Group A and Group B, let's be Group C. But the question still remains - what exactly is the notable difference in the scope of the two articles?VolunteerMarek 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

let's be Group C- and expand article to include the German nationalist/neo Nazi movement in Eastern Europe 1919-1939, and the WW2 support for Hitler Germany and how allies used this as the reason for expulsions . Douglas covers this Si! Si! let's be Group C. BTW title would change to say German Nationalism in E Europe 1919-1945. These are just some random thoughts. BTW Douglas is a gust of fresh air in the English speaking world that clears the DeZayas trial lawyer BS. Marek thats a hint, get the Douglas book--Woogie10w (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

let's be Group C- My train of thought is that the Flight & Expulsion article will cover the actual course of events 1944-50 that are chronicled by Schieder and the German sources. We need another article to give readers the historical background 1919-1944. The duplications in this current Exodus article would be stricken and we add new material on the ethnic German support for Hitler’s policies, this was off limits in Schieder.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been a long while (i.e. several years) since I was a major contributor to these articles but much of the structure (including the repetition) of the two articles and related articles (e.g. Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia) was developed by me. I am open to discussing and revising my approach but I figured I'd explain what my thinking was as far as I can remember it.

Due to repeated text, it may seem that German exodus from Eastern Europe and Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) are basically the same topic but there was a rationale for having two separate articles. To wit, the argument is that not all Germans left Eastern Europe due to "flight and expulsion". Some left willingly perhaps because they had moved during the war as part of the Nazi occupation, perhaps because they felt uncomfortable remaining. Part of this exodus occurred during the years 1944-1950. I believe that some of it occurred afterwards although the "Iron Curtain" may have made it much more difficult for Germans to move after 1950. I would appreciate being enlightened by someone who is more knowledgeable than I am.

The phrase "flight and expulsion" is meant to cover those who fled before the advance of the Soviet Red Army, those who were evacuated and those who were expelled (either through "wild" expulsions or formal expulsions). This "flight and expulsion" constitutes the major part of the exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe but not all of it. We could simply fold all of it into the article on the German exodus from Eastern Europe but that article title does not adequately convey the POV that Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) does. There will be members of Group B who will object to having no article that focuses on the expulsions but, if the two articles are to remain separate, we would have to expand German exodus from Eastern Europe significantly to justify the existence of both articles.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not seeing it. "Flight and expulsion" seems most certainly to cover pretty much all of it. What exactly - precisely - is the difference between the "flight and expulsion" and "exodus" (and why that particular word anyway?). VolunteerMarek 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets cut out the duplication on post war expulsions and expand article to give readers a solid account of the history 1919-1944.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

1. This article should exist, but should be rewitten. Some parts should be expanded, some reduced, because the maintenance of the same text in two articles is difficult.
2. Articles about Polish exodus from Eastern Europe and Hungarian Exodus from Romania nad Slovakia should be created. This Wikipedia is biased, it describes Germany and German people rather than Slavs or Hungarians. The reasons are political (Germany was free since 1945, Poland and Hungary since 1990), economical, linguistical (some academicians read German, almost noone reads Polish or Hungarian).
3. There existed massive migration from Poland to Germany:
   1. 1956-1970
   2. 1970-1980
   3. martial law
   4. economical migration since 1989
4. The ratio of ethnic Germans among emigrants decreased between 1956 and today. It's however very difficult to define if emigrants were German, Silesian or Polish. They declared German ethnicity to become visa or a "green card" but frequently joined Polish communities in Germany.
5. There existed massive migration of Germans from Russia nad Romania after 1990.
6. Post-WWII borders, expulsions of German and Poles, Soviet domination in Eastern Europe were decided by Soviet leaders and accepted by Western allies as one package in Teheren and Yalta. There is no connection between Polish politics and the Oder-Neisse border. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to back up our statements on Wikipedia talk pages with reliable sources that can be verified. Thats a hint, get the Douglas book--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please prove that Douglas isn't biased or ignorant ([9])."Between 1945 and 1950, Europe witnessed the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland." It's a series of nonsences, much below this Wikipedia. "perhaps the biggest" is like "probabaly the best beer".

Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are probably reasonable suggestion but they are a bit off-topic. Again, what exactly differentiates "Flight and expulsion" from "Exodus"? VolunteerMarek 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand this article should describe the whole century (but it repeats mostly the other article and doesn't inform about many subjects).Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

→→reviews: “Orderly and Humane is an outstanding and well-written work that fills a significant gap in books written in English about this large subject and the very period of its compass. It ought to be in every serious American library and should be required reading for scholars interested in the history of the end of the Second World War and the years thereafter in Europe.”—John Lukacs, author of The Future of History and Five Days in London, May 1940

“R.M. Douglas has written a fair-minded, deeply researched and courageous book that carefully demystifies the claims and accusations surrounding the awful history of the expulsion of the ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. A first-rate work, Orderly and Humane compels us to admit that the postwar expulsions were not simply a regrettable accident but a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing on a breathtaking scale that decisively shaped postwar Europe’s history.”—William I. Hitchcock, author of The Bitter Road to Freedom: The Human Consequences of Allied Victory in World War II Europe

“The tragedy of the post-World War II ethnic German refugees and expellees has been told before but no account is based on so many original documents from so many countries as Douglas’s eminently readable work.”—Istvan Deak, Columbia University

“This important, powerful, and moving book should be on the desk of every international policymaker as well as every historian of twentieth-century Europe. Characterized by assured scholarship, cool objectivity, and convincing detail, it is also a passionate plea for tolerance and fairness in a multicultural world.”—Richard J. Evans, The New Republic [10]. --IIIraute (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And once again, you are posting completely irrelevant stuff to the talk page and not making sense what so ever.VolunteerMarek 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr Douglas shoot himself in the foot writing nonsence about his book [11]. The book is probably better than the article, so I don't cancel it.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

you don't - really - are you sure.... good to let us know. Does that mean we are allowed to use this book that was published by Yale and praised by some of the most recognized contemporary historians? Because if you don't... just let us know.--IIIraute (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I know the bad article. Is it possible to write a bad article about a good book? Probbaly yes, but the reader should be careful. I check 1 1 maths even if some of the most recognized contemporary historians claim it's three. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion vs. exodus

Volunteer Marek has asked more than once "How is 'flight and expulsion' different from 'exodus'"?

I have tried to answer this question previously and I will try again but first I want to reiterate that I am not terribly knowledgeable nor am I confident that "exodus" is a term used by scholars in this context so I will yield to someone who is more knowledgeable than I.

That said, it is my understanding that there German culture does not exist today in Eastern Europe the way it did for centuries leading up to WWII. As we all know, the primary reason for this is the flight, evacuation and expulsion of Germans 1944-1950. However, I'm curious as to what happened to the Germans who stayed. Did they all ultimately assimilate and intermarry with the surrounding cultures? How many left and how many assimilated? Of those who left, where did they go? Are there still enclaves of German-speaking peoples in Eastern Europe? To me, the phrase "German exodus" would cover all substantive movements of Germans from Eastern Europe, not just during the period 1944-1950 although we recognize that the vast majority of departures occurred during that period.

If we don't like the phrase "German exodus", then how about "The decline of German culture in Eastern Europe during the 20th century"?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

P-Richard, thanks for trying to articulate the difference. But - I'm sorry - I'm still not clear on this. What exactly does the article "Flight and expulsions" cover that this article shouldn't cover? What exactly does the "Exodus" article cover that the "Flight and expulsions" article shouldn't cover? You can throw in the "German migration from Poland" into that comparison as well.

As far as I can understand what you're saying, it is that the "Flight and expulsions" article should be about the actual physical movement of Germans from Eastern Europe, whereas the "Exodus" article should be about the cultural impact of this movement. I think that's actually an important distinction but I have two problems then: 1) That's not how the two articles (especially the "exodus" one) are structured right now and 2) I think the topic of the decline of German culture can be adequately covered in a section in the "Flights and expulsion" article.VolunteerMarek 21:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this article should summmarize the whole Eastern Europe and 20 century.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in former Germany. In some ways the German culture blooms here from pop-culture to German classical musics and architectural monuments. Universities have big German languge faculties. One can watch German TV and German movies. German children have bilingual schools, sometimes better than German schools in Berlin dominated by immigrants. German people can live in Poland, if they don't its their choice, maybe they prefer German medical care or German administration (much better than Polish ones).

I wouldn't call a decline the change from Nazi German culture of WWII based on slave work and mass extermination with 2000 liberal one. If you compare 1901 and 2000 - the main factor of the decline was German Nazism and Germany supported Soviet revolution, not any Slavic nationalism.

Germans emigrated from Poland to Germany in several waves - see my text above - or declared themselves recently as "Schlesiers". Please remember that the border area between Warsaw and Berlin was always multinational. German language dominated till 1945 as the language of masters in a colonized country. Germans murderd or forced to emigrated German speaking Jews. Some of the Slavs accepted German culture and emigrated to Germany (some of them act as Slavs in Germany), other returned to their Polish or Silesian roots, some emigrated to Czechoslovakia.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of your questions are answered in German minority in Poland, the article is obsolete, it doesn't describe the recent move from German to Silesian. Germans massively emigrated from Romania.Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my lack of knowledge. BTW, when I used the phrase "decline of German culture", I did not mean that the culture was once great and is now poor. It was perhaps a bad choice of wording. All I meant was the "decline in German populations in Eastern Europe" and, by decline, I meant only numerical decline in population size.

When you say you are in "former Germany", where exactly do you mean? Are you in Pomerania, Silesia, East Prussia? In the Danzig/Gdansk area? Is the situation you describe true as far east as Danzig, Memel and East Prussia? It seems to me that the situation you describe may be more true of areas that are closer to Germany proper than the pockets of German population that existed as far east as Hungary, the Balkans and Russia. However, it seems that there is still a sizable German minority in Hungary, at least large enough to be granted minority rights. This would not seem to be the case in places in Russia such as Kaliningrad. But, as I have stated, my knowledge is weak.

The emigration of Germans from Poland is covered in Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II. Some of that text belongs in this article. In order to differentiate this article from the "flight and explusions" article, we need to focus on the overall process and reduce the emphasis on the details of the "flight and explulsions" in this article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote about Poland (and one phrase abour Romania), mostly Silesia. The situation in Danzig area is different because Kashubians are different than Upper Silesians. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hungary lost very big areas according to Treaty of Trianon. I don't know how many Hungarians migrated but cultural and political changes were important.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead

The lead suggests continuous exodus. Germans invaded and occupied a big part of Eastern Europe 1939-1944.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, the word exodus is not used in this article even once beyond the single paragraph of wp:lede which is not supported by an inline citation. Clearly, there's a bigger problem here. Poeticbent talk 04:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Addendum. Assuming good faith and all, as I look further into this matter, the more violations of our norms and practices I notice. According to WP:COPYPASTE (about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another): "Copying more than one paragraph is content forking and is to be avoided." The Wikipedia:Content forking policy/guideline makes it even clearer. "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines... All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia... Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors..." And finally: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." Here's where the magic word exodus comes in. It is an idea, not a subject, because the subject is already covered by other articles including Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950), Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II and other articles in the Category:Ethnic cleansing of Germans, a WP:REDFLAG in its own right. Poeticbent talk 20:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The original article started with "dawn of German East", so it was probably the title.Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Pomerania (1945–present) presents the same informations and opinions. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor sources

I have checked a number of refrences, at least one doesn't work, alleged 1931 data contain a 1900 map.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about exodus of Germans from Romania.Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)