Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 7

message: I removed the tag. I already provided you with the name of a book Der 'Volksdeutsche Selbstschutz' in Polen 1939/40 von Christian Jansen, Arno Weckbecker.. As both are German authors and university teachers, I would hesitate to claim that Molobo is doing some original research about Selbstschutz here. Your main objection (Sciurinae) was that no internet sources mentions Selbstschutz as important to the prewar nationality struggle background. I would say, that if there are historians who write books of this topic, we shouldn't consider it irrelevant. ackoz  17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: I finally focused on what this table is and how it was constructed.
I now believe this table is based on unacceptable original research.  Here's my argument:
Immediately above the table, the text says 
: According to Federal Statistics Bureau of Germany in 1958 more than 2.1 million had lost their lives during this process.  The monumental statistical work of the Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, Bd. 1-3, München 1965, confirms this figure.  The standard study by Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation to slave labour in the Soviet Union.   The Centre against Expulsions estimates that just under 2 million German civilians died.  
: One German researcher, Rüdiger Overmans, has claimed that only 1,100,000 people lost their lives.  These lower figures and the methodology for obtaining them are disputed by some scholars including Dr. Fritz Peter Habel and Alfred de Zayas, who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was well over two million. 
Four of the above sources are mentioned as sources for the table (Reichling, Overmans, Habel and de Zayas).  However, these sources differ in their estimates of lives lost.  Specifically, Overmans believes it was 1,100,000 whereas the others believe it was over 2 million.
The notes for the table indicate that Overmans estimate was used to adjust the numbers in the table downward.  As a result, you have a set of numbers that none of the sources would agree to.  This is most easily understood by looking at the "Civilian losses" row.  The total is 1.3 million which is not a number that any of the four sources would agree to.
I believe this is a good example of how easy it is to slip into original research.  One or more of the Wikipedia editors built this table as a composite of the research done by the four sources.  This would have been marginally OR if every number in the table could be sourced to a specific source.  (An example would be numbers for Poland from one source, numbers for Czechoslovakia from another source.)  
However, when you start modifying numbers by using one source to revise the numbers of another source, you are definitely in the realm of OR.
The problem is that you have no guarantee that any source would agree that the methodology used to apply Overmans estimate to come up with 1.3 million would be accepted by any reliable source.  Three of the sources would say "Nein.  2 million +".  Overmans would say "Nein. 1.1 million".  So, who can you cite that would support "1.3 million"?  Nobody.  That makes it OR.
A better way to present this information is to find a set of numbers that one source (Reichling, Habel or de Zayas) presents and then present Overmans adjustments as a separate idea in a follow-on paragraph.  It may be reasonable to blend Reichling, Habel and de Zayas in one table IF the numbers are close.  The text of the article say the Habel and de Zayas estimate "well over 2 million".  I don't know what "well over" means.  Are we saying 2.1 million or 2.3 million?  If it's 2.1 million, their numbers could be blended with Reichling's numbers.  If it's 2.3 million, then it's debatable whether their numbers are effectively the same as Reichling's or are substantially different.
However, it's not obvious why we would need to blend the three sources.  If they are in substantial agreement, it should be sufficient to pick one and say that the other two are in substantial agreement.
If there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that my analysis above is correct, then we will need someone to fix the table according to the points made above.
--Richard 12:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table in "Summary of German Expellees" 

message: After all the effort I have to say I'm a bit unsatisfied with the numbers section. 
*mostly drawing ideas from this source I recently discovered: http://www.ce-review.org/01/16/odsun16_2.html (I highly recomment reading)
According to Federal Statistics Bureau of Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt) in 1958 more than 2.1 million lost their lives during the expulsions. Statistisches Bundesamt, Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, Wiesbaden, Kohlhammer Verlag,
EH: Similarly, the more detailed census in the Federal Republic in 1950 has not—and hardly could have—offered satisfactory information about how many Sudeten Germans had lost their lives in post-war Czechoslovakia. In fact, these results merely said that there should be around 238,000 persons about whom there was no information.[24=Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, Bevölkerungsbilanz für die deutschen Vertreibungsgebiete 1939-50, Wiesbaden 1958, p. 355.]
One is general number, other relates to Czechoslovakia, but the question stays - what does the source actualy say? "2.1 million lost their lives", or "according to statistical ballance, there are 2.1 milion persons about whom there was no information". The later claim is also supported by quote from Overmans
The standard study by Dr. Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation to slave labour in the Soviet Union. Gerhard Reichning, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Teil 1, Bonn 1995, Tabelle 7, page 36 (2.020.000). A more recent statistical table which takes into account the newest demographic studies suggests a higher figure 2,225.000. Alfred de Zayas, Die Nemesis von Potsdam, 14th revised edition, Herbig, Munich, 2005, pp. 33-34.
+
However, these estimates are challenged by some as inflated because they include deaths resulting from diseases, malnutrition (post-war humanitarian catastrophe), suicides etc. For example, it is difficult to determine how many Germans... + several ways, by which they could have been kmurdered
...but few paragraphs later, in the Downward revision of the numbers, its exaplained the numbers are challenged on other basis - the numbers dont come from counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons
So, the challenge isnt "the people died, but because of eg desease" but "the people in fact did not died, or even did not existed at all, as the number of deaths is just product of some statistical calculation"
Moreover, the quote from Overmans contradicts the beginning of the article stating Estimates of the number of deaths of ethnic Germans during the expulsions range from 1.1 million to 3 million.
I'm not sure what is the "standard study" is. (measured among scholars, not by circulation, in witch de Zayas excels) It is quite possible the standard is Overmans (and other "downward revisionists"?) and Alfred de Zayas is considered fringe research. Via Google search on expulsion losses I come to this Let me begin with the facts. Since the book focuses on German suffering, it is imperative to be precise about the extent of that suffering. Yet Barnouw's numbers are consistently inaccurate or simply wrong. The figure of "more than 16 million Germans" (p. 53) who fled or were expelled from Eastern Europe and the alleged death tolls of 2.5 million (p. 143) are wildly exaggerated. Current estimates amount to 14 million refugees and expellees and death tolls of as low as 500,000 (ref. to Overmans) Frank Biess, Department of History, University of California-San Diego, in book review
Czech and Polish sources give a much lower estimate (Czech historians arguing that most of the estimated population drop is because of the soldiers that were killed at the front).
...???, obviously unreferenceable. What are the "Czech sources", who are "Czech historians"? I've seen several serious works by Czech historians (eg. widly known book by Tomáš Staněk) and from what I remember, the usual way is to cite several estimates and statistics, elaborate on thir problems and advantages, lenghty explanations which number means what. Probably  the same range of estimates can be found in Czech works as in non-Czech works. 
The whole Results section can be easily attacked as highly POVed by selection of the facts. Imagine there would be several tables mainly from Czech and Polish historians from communist times, one big table from "League against Prussian nationalism", several comments from "uninvolved" soviet politicians, some work from 1990s by Russian historian widly acclaimed among Slavic nationalists, and one quote of a Czech claiming the numbers are higher. And in the end, there would be this sentence:
German and Austrian sources give a much higher estimate (German historians arguing that most of the difference in population estimates is because the unaccounted people were murdered ).
The solution towards NPOV obviously wouldn't be to delete something, but to include more tables and estimates, and link various estimatiates to various POVs / sides of the dispute. 
So, I propose
# lets remove the whole number mess to separate article, eg. Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII 
#here include very brief summary with ranges
# in the separate article
#*try to separate estimates from different times and add descriptions of what political bias was asserted to various estimates
#*get rid of statements of obvious disputes, such as These lower figures and the methodology for obtaining them are disputed by some scholars including Dr. Fritz Peter Habel and Alfred de Zayas, who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was well over two million in part about Overmans, and its possible counterpart 'These high figures and the methodology for obtaining are contradicted by scholars including Richard Overmans + ..., who maintain in the newest editions of their publications that the death toll was under half a million which can be readily inserted under paragraph about Reichling.... 
--Wikimol 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant, where the contradiction is obvious, it donesn't help the reader to add rebuttals. Like "Researcher A states numberA. However, that number is questioned by researchers such as B, who in newest editon of his study concludes the number is in fact numberB. However, that figure numberB and the methodology for obtaining it refuted by A..." and vice versa "Researcher B states numberB. However, that number is questioned by researchers such as A,..." If de Zayas states >2mil and Overmans said <500.000, I think the disagreemnt is obvious, and the rbutals add little information. But if you feel adding a note about disagreemnet under both estimates is uself, do it. --Wikimol 10:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The results 

message: Please vote here. Also please try to propose the name for the article.
* Support. ackoz  11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the German Exodus article into this one and then rename the whole thing 

message: I oppose the proposed merger because I think it's still reasonable to have one general article on the exodus and a separate one on expulsions even if it is hard to quantify exactly how many were evacuated, how many fled and how many were expelled.  You may not be able to put hard numbers to the number expelled and the number killed but you can describe what happened.  Expulsion is qualitatively different from evacuation, though it is arguable that expulsion and flight are difficult to differentiate from each other.
I have been bold and moved the "Background" section from this article to the German exodus from Eastern Europe article.  Perhaps this latter article should be renamed German exodus from Eastern Europe after World War II.
The good news is that this article is now only 43kb long which while, long by the official Wikipedia guideline, is well within the recommended 30-50kb range.
Please take a look at both articles and comment on whether you like this approach.
--Richard 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Was Yougoslavia "Soviet-occupied" when the Germans were expelled?
"parts of Germany" - Romania, Yougoslavia, Poland (1939 borders) weren't parts of Germany.Xx236 12:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   from Soviet-occupied areas  

message: #"expulsion of Germans after World War II was the escape and mass deportation".
#"Due to the postwar atmosphere..." 
#"German civilian casualties during the expulsion were very high".
So again the victims of the war escape and Soviet army are moved into the postwar time and assigned to Poles.
Xx236 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsion 

message: After the war?
Xx236 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  resettlements and expulsions of millions of (...) Jews. 

message: It's not obvious what meant "German" in 1945. Germany defines all former German citizens as Germans, including Polish nationalists who wanted to stay in Poland in 1945 and were expelled or emigrated later because of political or economical reasons. Polish Communist administration and/or criminals persecuted local people on the basis of their dialect or because they had good farms or houses needed by someone. There were also Czech people in Silesia, who stayed or emigrated to Germany or Czechoslovakia.
Xx236 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German ethnicity 

message: I have removed twice the word "Russian". The state and the army were Soviet and about 50% of soldiers were non-Russian.
Xx236 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet isn't Russian 

message: It's the name of the Treuhand. I don't know if the claims are made by "members" or shareholders or by the Inc., so I have removed the word members. 
Xx236 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian Claims Inc. 

message: Has any British or US citizen asked for human treatment of Poles deported from the Soviet Union in 1945? Has any British or US citizen protested against mass crimes committed by the Communists in Poland in 1945? 
Xx236 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gollancz 

message: have or has?
Xx236 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the German minority in Hungary have minority rights 

message: True only utside of Western Germany. In Western Germany the knowledge was popular - memorial tables, memorial rooms, documentation of the expulsion, movies (e.g. about 'Wilhelm Gustloff'.)
Xx236 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  During the Cold War era, there was little public knowledge of the expulsions  

message: There exists a union of expelled in Austria.
Xx236 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verband der Volksdeutschen Landsmannschaften Österreichs 

message: There existed German party of the expelled. If they got 5% (?) of votes, at least 10% knew they existed.
Xx236 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Party 

message: You are using German ethnicity as an argument here - as you could know, the concept of ethnicity can be quite dubious in Central Europe. Was Peter Glotz German because of his ethnicity? No - his mother was Czech. If he ever chose so, he could also be Czech. I have a friend whose grandfather was "German", allowed to stay here after WWII. His children are Czech. Another example Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia after 1918. He was a Czech - Czech / German speaking, he felt Czech. However, his father was from Slovakia, and his mother was from a German-speaking family in Moravia. As for the "German-speaking", that doesn't neccessarily mean that she was German (see this article http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/books-literature/czech-language/ by a Finnish linguist). Konrad Henlein's mother's last name was Dvořáček originally (then changed to Dworzatschek to sound more german, but still - however written, it's a czech name), and although there are some disputes about her "ethnicity", I don't think that a true German would have a Czech name, right? :) 
What I am trying to say, ethnicity is a terribly weak argument. ackoz  21:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: two of the best czech forwards were out. bad luck too. ackoz  20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  213 

message: What is wrong with the treatment? I'll remove the statement.
Xx236 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the treatment of the current German minority in Poland  

message: OK, now I understand that "according to German company law, a company or foundation is seated in a city".  However, this phrasing sounds really strange to an American ear (and possibly a British ear as well).  
In the U.S., there are "county seats" (a county being an administrative unit larger than a city but smaller than a state).  However, corporations and foundations do not have "seats" and thus the current phrasing is confusing to an American.  As far as I know, it is probably confusing to most English speakers.  If this is so, then the phrasing should be changed.  
If it is important to include the Anglicized translation of the German "seat" then it should be done in parentheses.  I will do this.
--Richard 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "seat" vs. "headquarters" 

message: I thought it was POV-pushing that drove the deletion but since it was the same anonymous IP editor that put it in and took it out, the rationale is probably something different.  Please explain your rationale for deleting it.  Thanks.
--Richard 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops, just realized the Oskar:Krejčí was deleted by the same anon who put it in 

message: I removed the following text contributed by User:Daborhe
: It came as a reaction to what the germans did. The Germans attacked the poles in 1939 thereby starting world war 2. The germans then enslaved the poles and were able to extreminate 6 million poles. Hitler watned to kill them all but the war ended before he could do that.
: In 1941 the germans invaded the Soviet Union and the plan was to claim and settle all areas towards the Ural mountains. The german people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class. But the germans failed, the Soviets unlike the Poles fought back and crushed the nazies. And unlike the germans the victories Soviets allowed the germans to live to exsist they did not plan a full extremination unlike what the germans had in mind for the Soviets. And when the germans lost they war they, the germans, were forced only to give up land and not its whole population. During the war of 1941-1945 the nazies killed atleast 20 million soviet civilians and inslaved huge amounts of its population. The germans also inslaved Poland and were able to exterminate 20% of polands pre-war population.
Aside from numerous typographical, orthographical and grammatical issues, there is also the problem that the text is a polemic against the Nazis and therefore the tone is unencyclopedic.  The underlying point is made later in the article although with an NPOV stance that indicates that this may have been a motivation without passing judgment on whether this motivation was a reasonable, justifiable or moral stance.
I also re-introduced the  tags that 
User:Daborhe removed because it is not adequate to say that assertions are documented in another Wikipedia article.  The assertions should be supported with citations here in this article.
--Richard 08:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no need for fact tags since all numbers can be seen on the world war 2 casulties page. And no where is it said that the germans started the war there is no mention about the extermination campaign, the quest for lebensraum and that the germans invaded poland and then invaded the soviet union and that the germans lost the war. Things need to be put in perspective the germans were not innocent they had tried to extreminate every last man woman and child of eastern descent and faild and no where in the article does it say that. Daborhe 12:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of [[User:Daborhe]]'s contribution 

message: User:Daborhe has reintroduced text into the introduction which falls far short of the requisite quality of writing.  Among other things, in English, proper nouns are capitalized.  This means "Germans" and "Poles", not "germans" and "poles".  Also, much more importantly, the tone of the text is polemic in nature.  This means that the text is basically beating on the Germans for their sins and arguing that the expulsions are justified retribution for those sins.  This is the sort of POV pushing which has given rise to counter-productive edit-warring in the past.  The edit-warring grew so bad that an Request for Comment was created and that's how I learned of this article.
To understand this, you need to read the archives of this Talk Page from earlier in the year.
The "Purported Reasons" section discusses the possible reasons why the expulsions were ordered.  It is unacceptably POV to say that the sins of the Nazis were the only reason why the expulsions were ordered and to imply that the expulsions are justified by retribution for those sins.  There is a much more complex set of reasons and motivations which are discussed at some length in the "Purported Reasons" section.  If you feel that this section does not adequately cover the topic, then add to it.  If you feel that the "Purported Reasons" section should be summarized in the intro, then do it.  But please don't insist on a narrow anti-German explanation of why the expulsions were ordered.  This constitutes unacceptable POV-pushing.  Please maintain an NPOV tone in the article.  Thank you.
--Richard 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is there is no "discussed at some length in the" there is no mention what so ever about how many the nazies killed what they had in plan and that the nazies started the war. There is aboslut ZERO discussion about this and why do you keep on removeing the sourced facts that have been sourced and the add a fact tag? And nothing of what i have written in any way is wrong I am only telling facts real facts and by removeing such real facts you are white washing what the nazies did. Without these facts the article can be read as that the poor germans were attack by the evil allies and that the evil allies for no reason what so ever forced the poor germans to give up land and to move. Daborhe 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second reversion of Daborhe's contribution 

message: There has been some debate over whether the following text should remain in the Erika Steinbach article because it is an article about a living person.
: Steinbach's public pronouncements have been criticized for causing a deterioration in German-Polish relations due to stirring up controversy regarding the rights of Germans who were expelled from Poland after World War II.   This controversy has led to Steinbach earning a strong negative reputation in Poland which associates her and the Centre against Expulsions with fascism and a German return to Nazism.  One example of this was a 2003 cover montage of Polish newsmagazine Wprost that depicted her riding Chancellor Gerhard Schröder while wearing an SS uniform.
Please note the  tag.  It seems obvious that the statement is true but since there is debate over whether it should be in the article, a citation would help quite a bit.
Seems to me that it would be pretty easy for a Polish editor to dig up a citation for this sentence.  If someone would do that and insert it in the appropriate place in the Erika Steinbach article, I would appreciate it very much.
--Richard 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with citation for [[Erika Steinbach]] article 

message: Reverted the text again but this time tried to insert text into the introduction that characterizes the position that User:Daborhe seems to be trying to make.  (in a balanced NPOV way, of course).
In Wikipedia, A may be an undisputable fact (e.g. Germans were expelled) and B may be an undisputable fact (e.g. Nazis committed aggression and atrocities).  However, asserting that B caused A is not necessarily an undisputable fact.  A and B should probably be supported by citation of a reliable source.  However, asserting that B caused A absolutely requires citation of a reliable source or else it is open to the charge of being original research.  If this is a common belief, then it should be easy to find a reliable source that says it.  Of course, the counter assertion that B did not cause A also requires a citation.
What is totally unacceptable in this context is to argue that B caused A and that this causality is indisputable fact and that there is no other interpretation of the motivation for the expulsion.
This is not just my opinion.  It is the result of many months (indeed a couple of years) of discussion on this Talk Page, most of which preceded my involvement with this article.
--Richard 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question is why dont you answer any of my questions and why do you make new paragraphs all the time perhaps answering a question or 2 would be better. Daborhe 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third reversion of Daborhe's contribution + justification for the insertion of {{Tl|Fact}} tags 

message: I'm getting ready to prepare a Request for Comment to help resolve this dispute.  I would appreciate comments from other editors of this article first.  Thank you.
--Richard 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request opinions from other editors regarding difference of opinion between [[User:Daborhe]] and myself 

message: I think, by now, User:Daborhe has figured out that I am not the only one who objects to his/her text.  Daborhe is a new Wikipedian and is perhaps not used to the standards and processes in place here at Wikipedia.  Daborhe's talk page shows indications of similar problems at other articles.  It is my hope that Daborhe will learn the ways of Wikipedia and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia.
However, since I went to the trouble to compose an addition to the intro that covers Daborhe's POV, I re-present it here for your consideration.  I am not strongly attached to this text (the current version of the article is OK with me).
However, I'm interested in finding if anybody other than User:Daborhe likes this version of the intro better than the current one.
: The expulsion of Germans after World War II describes the escape and mass deportation of people considered Germans (both Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche) from Soviet-occupied areas outside the Soviet occupation zone of Germany, and is a major part of the German exodus from Eastern Europe during the end of and after World War II. 
: These expulsions and migrations affected German citizens remaining after the war, some of whom had become German citizens during the war, and people considered ethnic Germans.  These people were expelled from historically Eastern German areas in present-day Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia (mostly from Vojvodina region), the German province of East Prussia, the later Kaliningrad Oblast (formerly Königsberg area) of Russia, Lithuania, and other East European countries.  Some were persecuted because of their activities during the war; most were persecuted solely because of their German ethnicity.
: There is a continuing controversy regarding the justification for the expulsions.  One point of view argues that the expulsions were a justified action targeted at the German population of Eastern Europe and Russia in retribution for the aggression of Nazi Germany, the death and destruction and the atrocities carried out by the German military, the SS and others who collaborated with the Nazis.  This point of view tends to assign culpability and complicity for these war crimes to the German populations of Eastern Europe as Nazi sympathizers and collaborators.  
: An opposing point of view argues that the expulsions were motivated by the pragmatic need of the Allies, specifically the Soviet Union and Poland, to realign borders and populations in postwar Eastern Europe.  This point of view tends to consider the German populations of Eastern Europe and Russia as innocent victims who unjustly bore the brunt of anger and desire for retribution on the part of the populations and governments of Eastern Europe and Russia.  
: More than half a century after these events took place, the relations of Germany and its East European neighbors remain somewhat difficult due to heated and emotional controversy about the morality of the expulsions and the rights of expellees (Heimatvertriebene).  Much of the controversy revolves around unresolved issues of demands for official apologies, compensation for lost properties and proper attribution of the reasons for the expulsions.
--Richard 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request opinion on this expanded introduction 

message: What I think should be mentioned about the expulsion of Germans in Lithuania is the fact that Memel or Klaipėda was a Samogitian city before Germans conquered it during the crusades; therefore it should not be called a part of Germany. It was taken over my Germans temporarily but most of the inhabitants of the city and surrounding areas were Samogitians and they still are to this day.
--Ioda
The city had been German since the Northern Crusades, there has been a plethora of migrations of people in Europe, by the reasoning above we must always note the previous inhabitants of a city. While some Samogitians did remain, they were not in the majority.  and define "temporary" as things are always changing, I would not call a couple hundred years "temporary", but rather an era in its history when it was German. see for instance Danzig/Gdansk, where, when it was German it was called Danzig, then when the Poles dominated it was Gdansk.
This is exactly the kind of discussion the forced expellations tried to answer, but as long as 1 person of a different ethnicity exists in that city, there will be different claims about its history. For instance, you claim it was Samogitian ruled by Germans, do you have any census statistics to back this up? from pre-WWI before the territory started being tossed between the two nations
--Jadger 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite right about Danzig/Gdansk. It was always Danzig in German and Gdansk in Polish. I see that you still prefer to link to Danzig (see above) even if it's Polish now, wonder why is that ? As for Memel/Klaipeda, the fact that it was German for many years is only the result of German (then Teutonic) expansionism towards east, nothing more. Similarly the later expulsions of Germans were the result of Russian (then Soviet) expansionism towards west. --Lysytalk 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsion of Germans after World War II: Lithuania 

message: An interesting comment to the revenge thread could be a citation from Marek Edelman, one of the surviving leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising:
:They say there were evil and good Germans. But why didn't I have the luck during this whole time of finding a good one? I didn't meet a single good German, only those who hit me in the face. Yes I am sorry for the girl that died during expulsions. But I have no pity for the Germans as a nation. They put Hitler in power. German society lived for five years from occupied Europe; lived from me, and my friends. To me they gave two slices of bread, while Germans ate as much as they wanted. That is why it is important that they continue penance. Let them cry for long, long time - maybe then they will finally realise that to Europe they were the executioner [...] They don't deserve mercy, they deserve penance. And that for many generations, because otherwise their arrogance and haughtiness shall return
I'm not mentioning it in order to aggravate the discussion, but to illustrate how the Jews and Poles could have felt about the expulsions and that the perspective on the events may differ. --Lysytalk 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "revenge" perspective. 

message: Copied from Talk:Prague#war_aftermath_in_prague.
this part of the history section is in my view untrue – the added sentences of User:Smith2006 especially that: "German schools were attacked and even ethnic German children were hanged and burned alive in the squares of Prague in acts of revenge." are 1) out of my knowledge (and obviously google's knowledge also - i have found just some expelled german's statement on this subject, no historical article on that) about what was happening in this period (schools were running during the uprise???) 2) not at all mentioned in the cited reference (as far as my german skills and limited time allow me to judge) 3) from talk page of smith2006 i have an impression that this user's contributions about german history are somewhat problematic.
also the statement about "massacres" (Meanwhile, massacres against the German minority occurred in revenge of German cruelties. )seems to me strange, since under this term i understand some organized killing of several (bigger number) people in one act - in prague of that time, number of innocent people were killed (and many people feel about that today very uneasy and ashamed) among those who were cooperating with SS and actively helped in their cruelities, but not some large-scale accident as in few other places in czechoslovakia. --PowerCS 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just revert much of User:Smith2006 edits (,  and ). We need more sources to verify "revenge against the German population, especially against the elderly, against women and children". --mj41 08:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  war aftermath in prague