Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 10

message: * Please use copy-and-paste to present text here on the Talk Page. It's very disconcerting to look at text via links because the whole article ispresented and I don't know what fragment you think needs "complete rewriting from start to end". 
:Starting from less important. I am against the fragment:
::Polish enclave in Emsland
::An enclave of Polish military existed in Emsland from 1945-1947 with the centre in Haren, called Maczków. A number of Germans were transferred to make room for the Poles. Polish-German marriages were quite popular among soldiers.
:This was temporary settlement and has nothing to with the real expulsion on East. I believe also English and Americans did some expulsions to settle their military bases and military staff in Germany. I am not discussing the historical facts. It is just confusing inconsistent patch. I do not think there were some Germans murdered. On other hand, I imagine, it would not be fair to allow Poles from Labor camps (it should be probably Death Camps) and prisoner-of-war camps to live in field conditions for two years while the Germans could accommodate locally with their compatriots. Most probably no harm was done. 
:More important is the fragment:
::”In 1945, the former German Silesian, Pommeranian and East-Prussian territories were occupied by Polish and Russian military forces. Early expulsions in Poland were undertaken by the Polish communist military authorities already before the Potsdam Conference. To ensure their incorporation to Poland, the Polish communists ordered that Germans were to be expelled by whatever means necessary. [6] Germans were defined as either Reichsdeutsche, people enlisted in 1st or 2nd Volksliste groups, and those of the 3rd group, who held German citizenship.
::The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal. According to a Soviet report, the Polish military "related to German women as to free booty". [6] Historians disagree as to the number of Germans deported during this phase of expulsion. The estimates range from 300 thousand to 500 thousand people.[citations needed] Many Germans evacuated during the war weren't allowed to return to their homes.”
:It has to be rewritten completely. But you see, I already agreed in past that it can done in second step. First is the introduction of the article to be accepted.
* I confess that I have ignored the entire Naimark discussion because it was making my head hurt and I wanted to focus on the "number of deaths" controversy. I'll go back and read the discussion and form an opinion.
:But the same time you overlook the introduction subject.
*I only partly agree. The introduction should be short and simple but I have come to believe that it is not possible to divorce this topic from controversy.
:It is almost impossible but we can be very close to that if we will sustain with pure mathematic and logic. I will look on the 2005 Haaar book for some numbers and justification. I agree with you that in introduction can/should be the sentence about controversies. However there can be a link(s) only to section where the controversies are discussed.
*I think the intro should state (as it now does) that there are a number of controversies (without getting into the details of each controversy).
:I agree. Now we have the problem about the frame for xxx, yyy, zzz, numbers. Will you revise the note as given on 01Feb07 for Richard #2? Next we all, I think, can look for the sources and x, y, z’s.
:::If you haven't realized already, no one takes heed of a known vandal who is evading his block.  what are you planning on accomplishing here besides the extension of your block?
:::--Jadger 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't throw out all his edits an bloc. You don't know for sure it is Serafin. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, first assume good faith.  Second, even if it is Serafin, is the current discussion the kind of disruptive behavior for which you would request a block?  If not, then let us discuss the article in a way that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies, ignoring past offenses.  If the discussion improves the article and/or improves an editor's understanding of Wikipedia policies, then it is worth having. --Richard 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  02Feb07 #2 

message: Another interesting piece of the Original Research could be to see what was the percentage of the civilian deaths in each of the regions. Than this could be compared to different activities that happened in different areas, to yield some correlation between the actions and the death toll. An Original Research, as I said. E.g. the "wild" expulsions prevailed in the areas near Oder, while the evacuation and flight could be a major factor in East Prussia. Yes, I know it's not that simple but that's the general idea. --Lysytalk 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another OR idea 

message: In my opinion there are some arbitrary interpretations of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Potsdam Conference (Potsdam Protocol) - i.e. the paper where you can read the decisions the Allies made in Potsdam 17 July to 2 August 1945:
The Allies didn't establish the border between Poland and Germany. Several times they emphasized in Potsdam that an oncoming peace conference would have to decide definitely on this subject. Furthermore Truman (USA) stated on 25 July 1945 that all decisions made in Potsdam have to be agreed by the U.S. Senate.
In principle, the Potsdam Conference didn't approve of the expulsions of the Germans but wanted to bring it under the control of the Allied Control Council. So the Potsdam Protocol places emphasis on stopping the expulsions:
"The Czechoslovak Government, the Polish Provisional Government and the Control Council in Hungary are at the same time being informed of the above and are being requested meanwhile to suspend further expulsions pending an examination by the Governments concerned of the report from their representatives on the Control Council." (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade17.htm)
Well, creating "ethnically homogeneous nation states" by "removing the ethnic minorities that were viewed as troublesome" was an idea in that time to solve ethnically problems.
But Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia had been integral parts of Germany and the population there was overwhelmingly German. Poles had definitely been a minority group. 
If acting on the maxim of “creating “ethnically homogeneous nation states” had really been decisive for what was implemented after the war – as often asserted, not the Germans of Silesia, Pomerania or East Prussia ought to have been transferred.
It would have been sufficient to exchange German minority in Poland and Polish minority in Germany.
I think this is much more what the (Western) Allies had in mind in Potsdam.
The facts are: The occupation of the concerning German territory and pegging out the Oder-Neisse line had already been done before the Potsdam Conference – by Soviet and Polish authorities.
So, the expulsion of German population was just means to an end to create accomplished facts: The intention for the expulsion of the East Germans was mainly making irreversible the annexation of German territory. 
Pretty the same what German Nazis intended to do on Poland…
The U. S. etc. – from my point of view – are just to blame for “looking the other way”.
Wikiferdi 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read the "Potsdam Protocol" 

message: * Well, in the Middle Ages, around 800 years ago - and just because Poland conquered it by brute force. German people instead had settled there peacefully. Around 700 years Silesia for example hadn't belonged to Poland. It was one of the most stable borders in Europe!
** Yeah, Poland conquered it by brute force in the 800 A.D, veeeery bad Poland. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Wikiferdi 

message: Some info that might merit inclusion in the article, especially since it comes from Poland and thus is less susceptible to Polish accusations of "bias".
Bernadetta Nitschke. Vertreibung und Aussiedlung der deutschen BevÃ¶lkerung aus Polen 1945 bis 1949. Translated from Polish by Stephan Niedermeier. HNET-review
Intresting datums that should be included in the article: 
* 3 phases to the expulsion, 1. Wild 2. After Potsdam 3. “organised transfer”.
* Germans forced to wear special armbands. (similar to yellow stars?)
* Germans used as forced labor by Poland.
* Up to 1.1 Million died in the expulsions from what became the territory of “post war” Poland.
Extracts.
Chapter Two also sketches the conditions facing the five million Germans remaining in reconstituted Poland in 1945. Though the degree of mistreatment varied widely, Germans were often humiliated, forced to wear special armbands, denied access to public transportation, and sent off to camps and forced labor.
During a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945, the Polish military drove up to 400,000 Germans across Poland's new western border. Though apparently inspired by a similar expulsion frenzy in Czechoslovakia, Poles were neither as brutal nor as thorough as their Czech counterparts.
The second wave of expulsions came after the Potsdam conference, but before the "organized transfer" of remaining Germans began in early 1946. From August to December, 1945, Poles expelled close to 600,000 more Germans in poorly organized transports. Thousands starved and froze to death in slow and ill-equipped trains. (picture from another site) The final phase involved the transfer of 2.25 million Germans in a process coordinated with British and Soviet authorities in occupied Germany in 1946 and 1947. Many still died on route, but conditions were far better than those in 1945.
Nitschke is particularly interested in establishing the numbers of expellees, and her conclusions (drawing from a wealth of regional studies) confirm the estimates of leading German scholars.[2] Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died.
…coming from the Polish side of the discussion on the expulsions, it is an important contribution towards finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath.
Extract from a review of another intresting book, this time German in origins but drawing on Polish sources HNET review
“The editors also show some concern, probably misplaced, that readers might take the language of Polish officials too much at face value. One introduction, for example, takes pains to emphasize the deplorable conditions in labor and transit camps, even including one expellee's rather overwrought equating of the camp at Sikawa with Auschwitz (p. 56)”
--Stor stark7 Talk 12:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Polish publication on the expulsions

message: Is to be found here
"Anglo-American Responsibility for the Expulsion of the Germans, 1944-48" by ALFRED DE  ZAYAS
From 
* Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: "Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe" ). Columbia University Press, (2003)  
An interesting quote:
On 18 October 1945 General Eisenhower sent a telegram to Washington:
"In Silesia Polish administration and methods are causing a mass exodus westward of German inhabitants.... Many unable to move are placed in camps on meagre rations and under poor sanitary conditions. Death and disease rate in camps extremely high. Germans who attempt to hold onto homes and land are terrorized into "voluntary" evacuation. Methods used by Poles definitely do not conform to Potsdam agreement.... Due to mass migration into Brandenburg and Saxony, health conditions in these regions tragically low.... Reasonable estimates predict between 2 1/2 and 3 million victims of malnutrition and disease between Oder and Elbe by next spring. Breslau death rate increased ten fold, and death rate reported to be 75% of all births. Typhoid, typhus, dysentery and diphtheria are spreading.... Attention is invited in this connection to serious danger of epidemic of such great proportion as to menace all Europe, including our troops, and to probability of mass starvation of unprecedented scale."
--Stor stark7 Talk 13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on the reasons for the expulsions

message: The IPN (The Institute of National Remembrance - Commission of the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation) has a very nice homepage, but what I would like to know, is, wether there is also a institute in Poland, which investigates crimes done against other nations by the Polish (communist...) State.
--Wikiferdi 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPN 

message: Would someone explain me the Curzon line theory in the article? The Polish-Soviet treaty was legal, signed by Poland and the SU. Millions of POles were to be expelled from the East. It wasn't possible to mistreat the Poles the Nazi way in 1945, sending the to destroyed Warsaw, Poznań and other piles of brics.
The wording is typical for anti-Polish (probably German) propaganda. Xx236 12:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curzon line 

message: The numbers are wrong, maybe the same persons are accounted many times.Xx236 12:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 million in German concentration camps 

message: I am advocating for renaming this article in "Expulsions of Germans", because this expulsions were started already after World War I when Poland reappears on the world map. Poland annexed parts of East Germany although the majority of the (German) population there voted for remaining with Germany. Poles... can't blame the German Nazi's for this because it was long before that time (1921).
(Not to discuss here but just food for thought: Why decided the countries (not just Prussia, Austria and Russia) congregatet at the Congress of Vienna 1815 that it would be better that Poland kept disappeared from the world map?)
Wikiferdi 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is long enough already. I think Expulsion of German after World War I (once somebody has written it) and this do not need to be merged, as circumstances were different enough. Only after this hypothetical merging has taken place does your new name make sense. Kusma (討論) 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiferdi, what about the article about some pre-war and during-war Prussian proposals for solving Polish question after WWI? Szopen 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the expulsion of Germans not of Poles... Wikiferdi 00:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsions of Germans 

message: In a letter to the German bishops on 1.03.1948 Pope Pius XII. wrote:
“Special consideration will always deserve the east refugees, which were expelled from their homeland in the east by force and under expropriation without compensation…
If we come to speak on them, Us does not occupy here so much the juridical, economic and political point of view of that in the past of Europe unprecedented action. About the called points of view the history will judge. We fear, admittedly, that her judgment will be severe. We believe to know what has happened during the years of war in the wide rooms of the Vistula up to the Volga.
But was it allowed as counterstrike to expel twelve million people of house and court and to abandon to impoverishment? Are the victims of that counterstrike not in the quite prevailing majority people which were uninvolved in the indicated events and misdeeds, which had been without influence on them? 
[…]”
Wikiferdi 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For you own good Wikiferdi the expulsion happen, for you own good. After WW III the result for Germany would be much more severe. --- Holy Spirit
==========================================
Wikiferdi, have you quoted the Pope in another articles here? What was his opinion on the German crimes? Xx236 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Pius XII. 

message: Wikiferdi, have you quoted the Pope in another articles here? What was his opinion on the German crimes? Xx236 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ==============================

message: Please read here about Wikipedia:No personal attacks or do you want to risk a blocking? (The same to Xx236!)
Of course Poland has the right to exist, to reappear on the world map. Also the Jewish people had the right to reappear on the world map. Also the Silesians, East Prussians and so on... would have the right to reappear on the world map...
This is not the point. The sticking point is h o w Poland reappeared on the world map. By breaking International Laws (annexing other people's ancestral homeland, expelling people from their ancestral homeland, disregarding votes of people, their right of self-determination and so on...).
How do you call people which act like this?
Well, all this has unveiled especially Alfred de Zayas who is employed at the U.N. in Geneva. If you read his books maybe you would understand better what I mean here.
Wikiferdi 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being ridiculous Wikiferdi. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion with my statements above I supplied evidence for what I am maintaining here. If you don't agree with me you should disprove it. You shouldn't just say: "It's ridiculous", you should argue w h y it be ridiculous. Wikiferdi 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Under "History" (Poland) is written that "all the Allies agreed on the restitution of Poland". Well, let's take a look to the German Wikipedia site to Polish history: de:Geschichte Polens. It's flashy that this article is much longer than the English counterpart: History of Poland. In the German article is stated that William II, German Emperor proclaimed a "Polish Kingdom" on the 5 November 1916. - I don't want to discuss here Polish history and I am not holding that this act was motivated by an altruistic German attitude but I am thinking in that time did exist a certain sympathy for Polish people and their wish for (democratic) independence. A proof could be the Hambacher Fest (1832) - a step forward for democracy in Germany. - This is linked to the November Uprising in Poland (1830/31). Wikiferdi 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Poland existed sinde 9th century, Germany lost the war and that was term of surrender. It is more then 60 years after the war, nobody blame today's Germany of course for what happened so far in the history. But if you still insist that you want to align with your history then shut up and keep your mouth in silence. Do not try to blame polish, russian or czechoslovak people and do not try to force them to apologize arguing with Nazi propaganda from 1938. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Tulkolahten 

message: The Wikipedia article German minority in Poland states: “The vast majority of Germans were expelled, but some remained.” As I know, some of this Germans had to do forced labor... Now, since the beginning of the nineties - after the cold war - is it possible for this Germans in Poland to avow that they are Germans. They have founded some registered associatons like the VDG  - But I have heard that there would still be discrimination against them in Poland: E. g. there would be a law which makes forced labor and war captivity creditable for annuity computation – but just for Poles which “always” had been Poles, i. e. not for Poles with German origin. For them this law would define that such time in the annuity computation is counted as “inactive time”. 
Wikiferdi 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really. Where do you get these from ? --Lysytalk 10:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worthless Lysy, at the end of this discussion you will see that Poland caused the World War Two... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Xx236, I am struck dumb with astonishment. You of all people are making this suggestion. Well as I am informed the Prussian Trusteeship is doing something near it. I am surprised that you agree on this option. Wikiferdi 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Lysy, I heard this from Polish friends some years ago - well I could call them to verify if this law is already amended, but maybe Tulkolahten or Xx236 could investigate it because they are able to speak Polish and so they can look for such laws (in the Internet...). Wikiferdi 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German minority in Poland 

message: Unfortunately Haar 2005 – reviewed the book this is not about explsion 1944-1948(1950) it is about ethnic cleanings before 1945 done by Germans and scientists who supported this ideas.
Overmans book 2000, “Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg.” Is strictly about German military losses nothing more – nothing there about expulsion?
*I confess that I don't know what Nitschke has to say on this subject.
::She says: “Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280).”
Thus that means TOTAL: 1.1 millions deaths.
::She also says: “Though estimates of the dead range widely, as many as ‘’’a million Germans’’’ perished during flight and expulsion from Poland in 1944-45.”
::It means in years 1946 - 1950? 100.000. Take for consideration that so call wild expulsion started on May 1945 and the 1944 and first part of 1945 was actually the flight.
::Next she says: “In the long fourth chapter, Nitschke turns to the expulsions, which came in three waves. During a period of "wild expulsions" from May to July 1945, the Polish military drove up to 400,000 Germans across Poland's new western border.”
::“The second wave of expulsions came after the Potsdam conference, but before the "organized transfer" of remaining Germans began in early 1946. From August to December, 1945, Poles expelled close to 600,000 more Germans in poorly organized transports.”
::“The final phase involved the transfer of 2.25 million Germans in a process coordinated with British and Soviet authorities in occupied Germany in 1946 and 1947.”--Serafin 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another figure: Andrzej Brożek claimed 1.02 million. Nietschke dismisses this number. --Lysytalk 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Richard 20Feb07

message: Full text of the book is available here (in Polish):
http://zbc.uz.zgora.pl/  
 
Nitschke quotes Overmans, doesn't estimate any number of post-war victims herself. I don't know however other editions of the book (one German and one Polish).Xx236 10:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitschke's book 

message: The following text is from a Glassheim's review of The Expulsion of Germans from Poland, Revisited by Bernadetta Nitschke provided by User:Xx236
:In a welcome departure from standard East Central European accounts of the expulsions, Nitschke briefly follows the German expellees across the border into occupied Germany. Drawing on German archival sources, she describes overcrowded refugee camps in the British Zone, where typhus outbreaks continued to kill expellees once they had crossed over from Poland. On the other hand, there is much that Nitschke leaves out. We get little sense of the interconnected policies of German expulsion and Polish resettlement. We also hear little about the Polish Communist Party, which used expulsion and resettlement to further its political goals. 
:Nitschke is particularly interested in establishing the numbers of expellees, and her conclusions (drawing from a wealth of regional studies) confirm the estimates of leading German scholars.[2] Of around 12.4 million Germans within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, six million fled or were evacuated, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were verified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million died (p. 280). In its focus on the "balance sheet" of German losses, Nitschke's account is a conventional one. Even so, coming from the Polish side of the discussion on the expulsions, it is an important contribution towards finding a common German-Polish narrative of the war and its aftermath. 
:Notes: 
:[1]. RFE/RL Poland, Belarus, Ukraine Report. 26 August 2003, Volume 5, Number 31. http://www.rferl.org/pbureport/2003/08/31-260803.html. 
:[2]. See Theodor Schieder, ed. Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bev?rung aus den Gebieten ?ich der Oder-Neisse. Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost-Mitteleuropa 1. Bonn: Federal Ministry for Expellees Refugees and War Victims, 1954. 
</blockquote>
If we believe Nitschke, it is not hard to believe that 1.5 to 2 million Germans died as a result of the flight, evacuation and expulsions from Eastern Europe.  This is, I know, OR but it would be crazy to assume that all of the deaths happened in Poland and so, if 1.1 million Polish Germans died, then some number more than 1.1 million East European Germans died in total.
Moreover, if we accept Nitschke's numbers which state that 6 million fled or were evacuated and 3.6 million were expelled, we could conclude that approximately 60% of the deaths occurred during the flight and evacuation and 40% as a result of the expulsions.  Once again, this is OR.  It's very possible that the numbers are 50/50 or 40/60 but it would be difficult to claim that 1.1 million died as a result of the expulsions and none died as a result of the flight and evacuation.  Or vice versa.  --Richard 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But: I've just downloaded the book from the link provided above. It does not have page 280. But on its page 231 the author says that the most probable number of the victims is 600 thousands (I know it's in Polish but you can see the number at the bottom of the page). So, again, where do we have 1.1 million from ? --Lysytalk 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitschke 

message: Year	Estimate           	Source                                                   	Reference                                                                                                                                                                                                              	Provided in                        	Link/source verified by	Comments
1958	more than 2,100,000	Statistisches Bundesamt  German Federal Statistics Office	Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, 1939-50 (German losses from expulsion, 1939-50)   German Federal Statistics Office.                                                                                                	Demographic estimates...           	Unverified             	According to Nitschke, the number given by Statistisches Bundesamt was 1,600,000 (pp. 38, 45-46 of the report)
1965	2,100,000          	                                                         	Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, (General compilation towards accounting for the fate of the German population in the areas of expulsion), Munich, 1965	                                   	Unverified             	
1965	1,020,000          	Andrzej Brożek                                           	"Losy Niemców w Polsce po roku 1944/1945", Opole 1965, p. 16)                                                                                                                                                          	Nitschke, "Wysiedlenie ...", p. 240	Lysytalk               	according to Nitschke, who dismisses this number as too high.
1965	473,000            	A "Special Church Commission"                            	Polish translation of Haar after Süddeutsche Zeitung                                                                                                                                                                   	Gazeta Wyborcza                    	Lysytalk               	
1974	400,000            	German Federal Archive                                   	Polish translation of Haar after Süddeutsche Zeitung                                                                                                                                                                   	Gazeta Wyborcza                    	Lysytalk               	
1977	2,225,000          	Alfred de Zayas                                          	Die Nemesis von Potsdam. Alfred de Zayas, Die Nemesis von Potsdam, 14th revised edition, Herbig, Munich, 2005, pp. 33-34.                                                                                              	Demographic estimates...           	Unverified             	
1982	2,800,000          	Heinz Nawratil                                           	Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948 (the black book of the expulsions 1945 to 1948) (Universitas Verlag, Munich, 9th edition 2001, p. 75)                                                                        	Demographic estimates...           	Unverified             	
1986	2,020,000          	Gerhard Reichning (Reichling?)                           	"Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" (the German expellees in figures) , Teil 1, Bonn 1995, Tabelle 7, page 36                                                                                                       	Demographic estimates...           	Unverified             	2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation to slave labour in the Soviet Union
2000	< 500,000          	Ruediger Overmans                                        	Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg (German military losses in the Second World War)                                                                                                                   	axishistory forum                  	Lysytalk               	"hardly higher than 500,000"
2003	600,000            	Bernadetta Nitschke                                      	"Wysiedlenie ...", p. 240                                                                                                                                                                                              	"Wysiedlenie ...", p. 240          	Lysytalk               	Nitschke supports Overmans and claims 610,000 (including Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, resp.: 400,000 + 130,000 + 80,000; in "Wysiedlenie ...", p. 240). She also presented 600,000 in her earlier book available online at http://zbc.uz.zgora.pl/ (page 232)
2006	500,000 to 600,000 	Ingo Haar                                                	                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	Deutschlandfunk web site           	Lysytalk               	
DO NOT FORGET THAT any of the numbers 500.000 to 2 millions are the expulsion death this is (EXPULSIO+FLYIGHT) and this is no 50/50 its merely 1/10. Richard you did not see the Xx236 enters above again I think. It is not enough to say it is not the 2 millions. It MUST be say the EXPULSION loses is no more than 10% of the fixum/myrdum 500thou-2million. I can not discuss intensively because Germans blocked me for entering:
::Nazi Germany aggression and savagely cost immeasurable sufferings other nations. Only in Europe the casualties were over 35 millions deaths, however the majority of casualties occurs in East Europe – about 29 million (5,6 million in Poland and 23.2 Soviet Union) .
Best regards, Serafin'''
:Can you provide a source for the assertion that the ratio is 1/10 rather than 50/50?  --Richard 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Estimates of deaths during the flight, evacuation and expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe

message: DO NOT FORGET THAT any of the numbers 500.000 to 2 millions are the expulsion death this is (EXPULSIO+FLYIGHT) and this is no 50/50 its merely 1/10. Richard you did not see the Xx236 enters above again I think. It is not enough to say it is not the 2 millions. It MUST be say the EXPULSION loses is no more than 10% of the fixum/myrdum 500thou-2million. I can not discuss intensively because Germans blocked me for entering:
::Nazi Germany aggression and savagely cost immeasurable sufferings other nations. Only in Europe the casualties were over 35 millions deaths, however the majority of casualties occurs in East Europe – about 29 million (5,6 million in Poland and 23.2 Soviet Union) .
Best regards, Serafin'''
when you start providing sources for your claims Serafin, such as this ratio that you seem to have created out of thin air, maybe then you will be taken more seriously. and maybe when you stop evading blocks and creating sockpuppets you might earn some credibility. so again, are you ever going to provide a source?
--Jadger 05:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those unaware, User:Serafin has been blocked for a month for a Checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry case. Olessi 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jadger, just the case it is Serafin it doesn't mean he is off-topic. But maybe you are driven by the quote "wasting other people's times on a internet page that isn't even in your language" ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thread on the number of victims

message: I found a reliable source:
James L. Gormly: From Potsdam to the COLD WAR. Big Three Diplomacy 1945-1947. Scholarly Resources Inc. Delaware, 1990 ()
James L. Gormly was educated at the University of Arizona and the University of Conneticut, from which he received a Ph.D. in history. The author of numerous articles on U.S. foreign relations, in 1987 he completed The Collapse of the Grand Alliance, 1945-1948.
He is currently a professor of history at “Washington & Jefferson College” in Washington, Pennsylvania.
Quotations from his books:
"The president (Truman) complained that there were now five occupation zones because the Soviets had turned over the area extending along the Oder and western Neisse to the Poles. This was in violation of the Yalta agreement. The president did not see how economic controls or reparations could operate if Germany was thus broken up." (p. 49)
"Churchill spoke strongly against giving the Poles control over an area in which some eight million Germans lived. Stalin insisted that the Germans had all fled and that the Poles were needed to fill the vacuum." (p. 50)
"On July 24 the Polish delegation arrived in Berlin, headed by Prime Minister Boleslaw Bierut and including Mikolajczyk and Foreign Minister Wincenty Rzymowksi. They consistently held to the position that the Oder and western Neisse rivers should be the frontier, and they vehemently argued their case before the foreign ministers, Churchill, and Truman, in turn." (p. 50)
The next day Churchill said to Stalin:
"The Poles are driving the Germans out of the Russian zone. That should not be done without considering its effect on the food supply and reparations. We are getting into a position where the Poles have food and coal, and we have the mass of (the) population thrown at us." (p.51)
"To the Soviets, reparations were more important than boundaries, and Stalin might have sold out the Poles if they had not so vociferously protested when, in spite of his 'illness', he consulted with them during the evening of July 29." (p.55f)
End of quotation
Wikiferdi 09:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice quotes out of context ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No Xx236, it was contrary: In Poland had existed a drive to the west for a long time. Actually during WWII all political and social denominations in Poland worked out plans and claims for an expansion of Poland to the west. Stalin and the Communists acted on this political basis for obtaining acceptance within the Polish population. The result was a quite schizophrenic situation: After the resurgence of Poland during WWI Polish Communists had advocated for changing the Polish borders in favor of Germany and Russia. Thus they were difamed as Jews and traitors. Now, after WWII the (Soviet) Communists assumed German territory for Poland... - I read this in some trustworthy books some time ago. When I find them again I will cite the pages... - Wikiferdi 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles and Stalin 

message: Xx236 I downloaded a file named 3818.zip from University Zielona Góra, there inside is file nitschke.djvu.  How to open and read the file?
:don't waste space on discussion pages, ask him on his user talk page. And stop evading your block
:P.S. you need winzip, it comes with any OS after Windows 3.1, well, atleast in the English speaking world. I don't know about them old soviet computers, to make a bad Yakofff Smirnoff joke "In Soviet Russia (or Poland), computer types you!"
:--Jadger 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Xx236 

message: It is politically incorrect to call Central Europe Eastern Europe, so I would avoid it. If you split Europe into two roughly equal parts, Czech R., Poland etc. will be in the western part. Prague is west of Vienna. If Hitler, followed by Stalin did not come these countries would not be called Eastern (or the people would not care). Jirka6 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where ? Article already has a topic "Expulsion of Germans after World War II". ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, in the section A restoration of pre-Nazi Eastern European demographics. Jirka6 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Eastern Europe to Central Europe 

message: For User:Serafin and others who protest that "there were two Polish governments" and that the postwar Polish government was a puppet of the Soviet Union, it may be instructive to read the Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II article and consider whether the discussion of the Radescu government's stance toward the expulsions is relevant to the discussion of the Polish government's stance towards the expulsions.
To wit, is there any record of the Polish government-in-exile making any pronouncement in support of or in opposition to the expulsions?
--Richard 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II]] 

message: I think Xx236's challenge above ("Facts") is worth taking on board.  One of the major issues of controversy has to do not so much with the total number of deaths (500,000 vs. 2 million) as it does with when the deaths occurred, where they occurred and what the cause of the death was.  I don't agree fully with Xx236 but I think it's worth thinking about the points that he, Serafin and others have been raising.
===Rapes===
Addressing the rapes question first, it is plausible that many, if not most, of the rapes were the result of lack of discipline among Soviet troops, Polish militia and the general breakdown of civil order at the end of the war.  Thus any text that suggests that widespread rape was specifically and primarily the result of the expulsions needs "extraordinary support".
===Timing and Causes of Deaths===
Another difficulty is determining how many deaths happened "before the war" vs. "after the war" (i.e. before vs. after May 8, 1945).  Of course, nobody took a census on May 8 or any time near that date.  Thus, we will never know for sure how many deaths happened before the war ended and how many afterwards.  This is important because it affects how many deaths are attributed to the post-Potsdam expulsions.
We have been debating back and forth about whether Nitschke indicated that 90% of the deaths happened at the end of the war and 10% of the deaths were due to the postwar expulsions.  I have reviewed the discussion on this page and, as far as I can understand it, Nitschke says 1.1 million in one context and 1 million in another context leading some editors to conclude that the math is 1.1 million - 1 million = 100,000 deaths due to the expulsions (10:1 ratio).  As far as I can tell, Nitschke never explicitly says this and I fear this sort of calculus risks being OR.  I would invite those who support this interpretation to lay out the supporting evidence in a way such that we can clearly conclude that Nitshcke intends this meaning. 
Thirdly, I noticed that one of our sources commented that typhus epidemics continued to kill many Germans after they reached refugee camps inside the new borders of Germany.  Unless someone can document how many died in evacuation, how many died in refugee camps, etc. it becomes even more difficult for us to separate deaths from Allied bombing, evacuation losses, diseases in refugee camps.  
The inability of historians to attribute specific numbers to various causes is a central criticism of a number of editors and is, perhaps, the roadblock which is keeping us from forming a consensus to unprotect this page.  I think we should hesitate to attribute specific numbers to various causes if the historians haven't been able to do so.  This would clearly be OR.
===General breakdown of collaboration===
I think it would be difficult to resolve all the specific edits needed to resolve this issue here on this Talk Page.  I think the prolonged page protection is an indication that there is a breakdown of collaboration between editors.  It should be clear by now that you cannot win this discussion simply by pushing your POV.  What is needed is a willingness to compromise on a middle ground which represents all viewpoints that can be supported by reliable sources.
===Proposed compromise===
I propose that we agree that early estimates of deaths were 2-3 million but that recent studies have suggested downward revisions as far as 500,000 to 1.1 million with some historians still supporting estimates of 2 million.  More importantly, these deaths are often reported as being "the result of the expulsions" but are arguably better characterized as "happening contemporaneously with the expulsions but not necessarily caused by the expulsions".  We could then explain the difficulty of attributing the number of deaths to specific causes (wartime bombing, evacuation casualties, disease in refugee camps).  
I will comment that the above caveat about the difficulty of attributing causes of death is getting very close to being OR and thus it would help immensely if we could quote a reliable source who makes this argument for us.
===Call for support to lift page protection===
If you are willing to support a return to editing (i.e. lifting of page protection) on the basis of the above stated compromise, please indicate your support below.  If not, indicate your opposition.  Please make only brief comments in the support and oppose sections.  Please do not discuss votes in the support and oppose sections.  Reserve discussion for the discussion section.  And, if it looks like the discussion is going to become extended, then start a new section so that we can focus on the building of a consensus if such is possible at this time.
I understand that, given the heated and often vitriolic and personal nature of the debate in recent weeks, it may be difficult to trust that your perspective will be represented in future edits.  I can only pledge my personal commitment to finding a middle ground that balances all perspectives.  I ask that you give it a try.  If we are unable to build a collaborative editing community, the page will probably get protected again and you will be no worse off than you are now.
--Richard 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your position.  However, I wonder if you see any way out of page protection or if you think we should just give up and leave the article protected in its current state. --Richard 15:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm German and I would actually support the above attempt at consensus. But I won't cooperate with Xx236. Quite frankly, after observing his postings and the all-encompassing martyr complex coupled with a fish-eyed view that Germans and Germany are always and have always been agressors and liars, I just can't. I can take some vitriol, but not that much. Anonytroll 09:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: comment perhaps you are on the wrong webpage.  if you are looking to speak with Germans, try the German wikipedia. here, this is the URL you were probably looking for: [de.wikipedia.org]. Unless of course you mean that only those with a vested interest (i.e. Germans and Poles)should be able to contribute, which is extremely wrong.  Ironic isnt it? you are trying to limit discussion based on each editor's race/nationality. just shows we haven't progressed that far in 60 years. well, not necessarily "we", more "you".--Jadger 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forming a consensus to unprotect this page 

message: If you are willing to support a return to editing (i.e. lifting of page protection) on the basis of the above stated compromise, please indicate your support below.  If not, indicate your opposition.  Please make only brief comments in the support and oppose sections.  Please do not discuss votes in the support and oppose sections.  Reserve discussion for the discussion section.  And, if it looks like the discussion is going to become extended, then start a new section so that we can focus on the building of a consensus if such is possible at this time.
I understand that, given the heated and often vitriolic and personal nature of the debate in recent weeks, it may be difficult to trust that your perspective will be represented in future edits.  I can only pledge my personal commitment to finding a middle ground that balances all perspectives.  I ask that you give it a try.  If we are unable to build a collaborative editing community, the page will probably get protected again and you will be no worse off than you are now.
--Richard 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for support to lift page protection

message: #Support Let's stop the useless polemic and personal attacks and get back to editing the article. --Richard 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #I don't see any German partners to cooperate with. Xx236 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: To Xx236: Please don't get into a stance "I won't cooperate first because THEY won't cooperate first."  Try to assume good faith and ask yourself if what I propose is a middle ground that you can live with.  I would hope that the "German" side would surprise you by finding the proposed middle ground acceptable to them as well.  
Another way of looking at this is: Are you saying that you are happy to leave the article as it stands today?  Are you saying that the current text is preferable to what I propose above?  If we can show a consensus to proceed civilly, we can get this page unprotected and we can move towards changing the article text to reflect the points that we have learned through the last six weeks of debate.  
--Richard 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your position.  However, I wonder if you see any way out of page protection or if you think we should just give up and leave the article protected in its current state. --Richard 15:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm German and I would actually support the above attempt at consensus. But I won't cooperate with Xx236. Quite frankly, after observing his postings and the all-encompassing martyr complex coupled with a fish-eyed view that Germans and Germany are always and have always been agressors and liars, I just can't. I can take some vitriol, but not that much. Anonytroll 09:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: comment perhaps you are on the wrong webpage.  if you are looking to speak with Germans, try the German wikipedia. here, this is the URL you were probably looking for: [de.wikipedia.org]. Unless of course you mean that only those with a vested interest (i.e. Germans and Poles)should be able to contribute, which is extremely wrong.  Ironic isnt it? you are trying to limit discussion based on each editor's race/nationality. just shows we haven't progressed that far in 60 years. well, not necessarily "we", more "you".--Jadger 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I am really frustrated and tired of the endless polemic of the last six weeks.  This page and the related page, Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe have been protected for over six weeks.  It seems that there are a number of editors who prefer to argue on the Talk Page than to cooperate in editing the article.  
At this point, there are a number of dispute resolution approaches suggested by WP:DR.  I do not believe that a third party opinion will be helpful here nor do I believe that a Request for comment will be helpful.  These approaches only work if the disputants are willing to listen to and respect a 3rd party opinion.  Based on the discussion to date, I can't imagine that asking for yet another opinion would change anybody's mind.  However, if anybody does think we should pursue either of these, I am open to giving it a try.
We can ask a mediator to help us either via the informal mediation cabal mediation cabal or the formal mediation committee.  I think this may be a more fruitful approach.  I have been trying for several weeks to act as an informal mediator and move us towards a solution but, since 131.104.218 has suggested that I am biased, I wonder if this perceived bias hinders me from being an effective mediator.  It may be time for us to request a mediator that is perceived as being truly neutral.  However, in order to do this, the parties to the dispute have to agree to mediation.  The mediation is not binding so agreeing to mediation does not commit you to abiding by the results of the mediation.
However, I should point out that, if mediation fails, the last resort is binding arbitration by the arbitration committee.  ARBCOM decisions typically wind up blocking or banning editors from editing articles.  I do not want to go down this route.  I have never been involved with an ARBCOM case and I don't wish to start now.  However, if we need to block or ban editors from this article in order to get the page unprotected, then so be it.
--Richard 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for a way to move forward 

message: I quit this discussion as it leads to nowhere and is full of original research, offensive statements, revisionism mainly by Wikiferdi, I've never seen anything like this before. Wikiferdi's last entry is the last I can hold, it is too much for me ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: auf weidersehen wiedersehen (clearly a Canuck and not a German.) --Richard 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --Jadger 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tschüs. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No it is not, you are far from knowledge about it in Canada, it is not uncommon that Tschüs is said in the shops mainly in the west Germany. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quit

message: Ackoz suggests that, because the real world has not yet hashed out "the truth" about the expulsions, it is therefore impossible for us to know the truth and thus impossible for us to write about it.
I reject such a stance.  I think it is difficult but quite possible to write a quality Wikipedia article about a topic that is murky and/or controversial.  Where many Wikipedia editors "get it wrong" is that they believe Wikipedia's job is to report the truth.  This is wrong.  Wikipedia's job is not to report the truth precisely because it is difficult to determine what the truth is.  Any attempt to do that is original research.
Instead of "truth", Wikipedia aims for "verifiability".  Put a different way, Wikipedia is committed to recording the state of human knowledge and opinion (not our opinions but those of reliable sources).  If the truth is clear and uncontroversial, it is easy for us to report that.  If the truth is murky and controversial, it is more challenging but possible for us to report on what different reliable sources assert and think about a topic EVEN if these reliable sources conflict.  Where Wikipedia editors get into trouble is when they start siding with one side of a controversy and asserting that the side that they have selected represents "THE TRUTH" and not just one perspective (or POV) on the topic at hand.
I have been trying to hit this NPOV "sweet spot" but it is difficult to do so in the midst of a running polemical debate between the two sides.
--Richard 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiability - good concept, but doesnt work here. There are dozens of "respected" sources here, each of them presenting a different POV. Presenting all verifiable sources is beyond the scope of a wikipedia article in this case, and we have no right to decide which historian is more reliable than the other. We will never be able to report on _all_ relevant reliable sources. Exclusionism is the way to go in this article. Ackoz 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously is, because some users (Jadger and Wikiferdi) don't want to discuss in fact, they want us to agree with their POV, that's not discussion about the NPOV edits. That's why I quit from the discussion about the form of the article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As purely ad personam argument, I would endorse removing these rants from the discussion - both Tulko and Jadger. Try to talk content. Ackoz 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion the only person who is turning this discussion site in a quarreling site is at the moment Tulkolahten. When I cite a reliable source he calls it "just my POV" but very seldom he cites any reliable source. Wikiferdi 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why confusion and controversy in the "real world" does not preclude the writing of a good Wikipedia on the topic 

message: In survey to lift:
#Suppport ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lift the protection 

message: I will support the request to lift the protection when I see the following editors (Tulkolahten, Xx236, Wikiferdi, Jagder) agree to the following conditions:
#Reaffirmation of a commitment to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV and WP:AGF
#Agreement to the compromises that I outlined in "Forming a consensus to unprotect this page" or a good faith proposal to negotiate a different compromise
Failing that, an agreement to enter mediation or an agreement not to edit the article when page protection will also suffice.  If we are going to return to editing after a two month hiatus, the least that we can ask for is that we will not return to "business as usual".  I do not want to have page protection lifted only to descend quickly or slowly into "edit war hell" again.
--Richard 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ~~~~ •  [ log]
</small></div>

Please add an AFD tag to the article.
AFD was closed as a Speedy keep on the grounds that AFD is not for content disputes.
Ackoz, I owe you an apology.  I was focusing on the technical aspects of getting your deletion proposal presented and didn't focus on the principle that "AFD is not for content disputes".  I guess that shows that, after almost a year here, I am still not 100% familiar with Wikipedia policy.  Every day is a learning opportunity.
In any event, please accept my apologies and see my suggestions for next steps.
--Richard 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: I am frustrated by the apparent unwillingness of some editors to agree to abide by the principles of Wikipedia and their indifference to my attempts to forge a consensus.  
Ackoz suggested that we trash the whole article and start over.  I disagreed.  The proposal was put on WP:AFD but rejected because "AFD is not for content disputes".
Fine.  My bad.  My "Wikipedia policy brain" was not fully engaged and my keystrokes ran ahead of my brain.
While the page is protected, we can use sandboxes to present alternate proposals for restructuring and rewriting this article.  For example, I created this sandbox.  I copied the exact text of the current protected version of the article.  You can make proposed changes to this sandbox or you can create one in your userspace and invite us to review your proposed changes.
Alternatively, you can describe your proposed changes here and even provide short proposals for changes.  If your proposed change runs more than a paragraph or two, however, the sandbox approach is probably a better way to go.
--Richard 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: This decision was just concluded by ARBCOM.  It's instructive and worth reading.  This could happen to us if we don't "straighten up and fly right".
--Richard 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A relevant ARBCOM decision 

message: (Cf. Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 )
"The problems of 'German minorities' in Europe dates back to the territorial settlements made at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Before the First World War there had been no troublesome German minorities in Europe, since most Germans lived either within Bismarck's Reich or within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 'Splinters of German nationality' in tsarist Russia, Romania and Serbia were mainly engaged in agriculture and lived at peace with their rulers.
Large and discontented German minorities were the result of the Treaties of Versailles and St Germain, which too often failed to apply the principle of nationality in redrawing post-war European frontiers." (pp. 2f.) Wikiferdi 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German minorities