Talk:Volksdeutsche

message: The term Volksdeutsche was used before the Nazis and denominates people of German culture living outside the borders of one of the German speaking countries (which are Germany, Austria and Switzerland).
The term does not mean "of German origin" as migration from Germany to the Balkans started as early as the 12 century! ("Siebenbürger Sachsen"). 
The term does refer to people who considered themselves to be German by language and culture, predominantly because their ancestors migrated to the areas they lived in. (Past tense because there are practically none of them left).
The reason why "Volksdeutsche" is often mixed up with nationalism and even racism is first of all due to Nazi legacy, but there is also another factor. Germany was not a nation state until 1870 and thus the cultural elites forged the term of Germany being a "culture nation", rather than a nation state and this culture nation comprised all the people speaking German. So in the understanding of a lot of people, Germany was much "bigger" than the boundaries of the tiny duchesses and kingdoms that formed the only formally existing German nation.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.26.229 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Volksdeutsche" 

message: Ethnic Germans are people whose first language is German, even if they have no German citizenship. They call themselves "Deutsche" (Germans) as members of a German minority ("deutsche Minderheit"), historically also "Volksdeutsche" (although this term was abused by Nazis who excluded Jewish Germans from the definition "volksdeutsch", which is nonsense. Of course, Jewish Germans are "Volksdeutsche", "ethnic Germans", too). To avoid the correct translation for "ethnic Germans" which is "Volksdeutsche", we could also use the word "ethnische Deutsche", but the word "Deutschstämmige" is not an accurate translation for the term "ethnic Germans", because "Deutschstämmige" just means "of German origin". Not everyone who is "deutschstämmig" (of German origin) is an ethnic German, because normally, someone who is just "of German origin" doesn't have German as his first language or he doesn't speak German at all, like millions of U. S. citizens who have German family names. Just use "ethnische Deutsche" to translate "ethnic Germans", if you don't want to call them "Volksdeutsche". But remember, the Nazi abuse was just to exclude Jewish Germans from the definition, although they were and are Germans, too. 11:45, 11-12-2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.92.196 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Deutschstämmige'' doesn't mean "ethnic Germans", it means "of German origin"

message: "Prior to World War II well above ten million ethnic Germans lived in Central and Eastern Europe (outside Germany, Austria and Switzerland)."
This seems to suggest that there are also Volksdeutsche living in Austria and Switzerland. Why do you exclude them from the count? Perhaps I am missing the difference between Volksdeutsche and Deutsche.--branko
:The difference is apparently between Volksduetsche and Reichsdeutsche. I will check if the article mentions it.
----
The opening paragarph perplexes me utterly. To break it down:
:Volksdeutsche is a term for ethnic Germans, living outside and east of Germany. This is in contrast to Reichsdeutsche (literally "Germans of the realm").
Okay, so Volksdeutsche are ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe outside of Germany proper.
:Volksdeutsche only referrs to ethnic Germans from eastern European countries, which have been expelled and deported.
But they don't live in eastern European countries, because they've been expelled and deported. (One can parse it as the countries having been expelled, which makes even less sense.)
:Austria or Switzerland or other western countries were not a part of the German Reich in the 20th century and are not included. While they have German language speakers, they did not expell or deport ethnic Germans as the Soviet lead countries did.
So where are the Volksdeutsche? They're not in Germany by definition. They're not in the west, because they haven't been expelled and thus don't meet the definition. And they can't be in the east, because they've by definition been expelled!
I can only make sense out of this by assuming that the explusions from Eastern European countries occurred after a period of time in which the term Volksdeutsche was used for people who did live in Eastern Europe. Of course, this means that having been expelled can't be part of the definition... at least of that time. Are we supposed to refer to as Volksdeutsche only those who would be expelled? Kind of time-travelley. Or, is this opening paragraph just completely wrong? --Brion 10:52 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
----------------------
To Brion,
Appr. 9 million Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) plus 9 million Reichsdeutsche (German citizens were expelled/deported etc.  see Heimatvertriebene of those at least 2 1/2 million did not survive. The others have been taken in as refuges in the remaining part of Germany and in many other countries. The expulsion occurred over several years 1944/45 to 1950, while the Soviet installed governments took control of eastern Europe including several German provinces. The ethnic Germans, who received refugee status in Germany, are now German citizens. There are Bundeslaender who are made up 1/4 of refugees and decendends. Millions of other expelled Germans and ethnic Germans are scattered in different countries.
user:H.J.
:I'm well aware that a large number of ethnic Germans were expelled from eastern Europe. And maybe it's all Eisenhower's fault; I've never been a big Eisenhower fan anyway. My question, however, is: how do you define the word 'Volksdeutsche'? --Brion 11:20 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
---------------------
The definition or translation of Volksdeutsche = folks German, German folks, German people as compared to German citizens or Reichsdeutsche.
user:H.J.
---
:Thank you. Is the article then wrong when it says, "Volksdeutsche only referrs to ethnic Germans from eastern European countries, which have been expelled and deported. Austria or Switzerland or other western countries were not a part of the German Reich in the 20th century and are not included."? --Brion 12:06 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
-----------
Brion, I added a little more info. Please check , if that clarifies it for you.
user:H.J.
-----
Removed:
Volksdeutsche only refered to ethnic Germans from eastern European countries, which have been expelled and deported. All Germans or Ethnic Germans, which were expelled and received refugee status in western countries, became then known as Vertriebene or Heimatvertriebene. Austria or Switzerland or other western countries were not a part of the German Reich in the 20th century and are not included. While they have German language speakers, they did not expell or deport ethnic Germans as the Soviet lead countries did. 
If the term preexisted the Nazis who then popularized it, it cannot be defined by something that happened after the Nazis lost power. Also removed line about Danzig - unless Danzigers were exempt from the Volks list or were not considered, it is irrelevant and the article doesn't say they were.  --rmhermen
: I like to add Switzerland was neutral during WWII and not every Swiss citizen was ethnic German, you have French and Italian speakers, and the Romansh minority in Grissons canton facing Austria. I wonder if the Swiss banking influence on Nazi Germany to pay their war industry costs had persuaded Hitler and the Nazis not to invade or occupy Switzerland, despite its' historic ties with the German people and the Swiss Germans are "Alemmanics" or High Germans alike most Austrians and Bavarians of the once independent state of Bavaria. +71.102.32.144 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't cite a reference, but most likely they did not invade Switzerland because it was not worth the effort. The Swiss allowed the Germans to use their railway systems for support of the Italian front and the Swiss industry was producing for Germany. Plus, Switzerland was a neutral country and an important gate to free markets, e.g. for metals like Chrome or industry diamonds, desperately needed for war production. So why invading the country?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.26.229 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of ''Volksdeutsche''

message: Okay, I'll bite. Why are Ethnic German and Volksdeutsche two seperate articles? It seems to me that the 'pedia is better served by merging the two articles, and mentioning the Reichsdeutsche/Volksdeutsche split of ethnic Germans in a header inside that article, rather than this duplication (triplication) of content. — Jor (Talk) 11:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As both here and on the Germans page it is specified that the two terms mean the same, I have linked Ethnic Germans to Volksdeutsche. The term indeed has strong nazi conotations in German, and there is no equivalent non-nazi term. --68.228.33.111 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why duplicated articles?

message: Isn't
"Before and during WW2, some Volksdeutsche in some countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia, actively supported the Nazis by espionage, sabotage and other services against their countries of origin" POV?
It implies that the Volksdeutsche did or should have identified with Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia, rather than Germany. If they were actively helping Germany they might have said that their country of origin was Germany, they had just been born in Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia. Avalon 00:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: During Nazi Times

message: Slight expansion and corrections in regards to history and nature of Selbstschutz. Needs more on methods to ensure signing of the volksliste and cooperation with Nazis.--Molobo (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight expansion 

message: The article points to Expulsion of Germans after World War II as the main article on the subject of casualties around the time of the expulsions. While that article is now the subject of controversy - due, apparently, to an alleged German nationalist bias - it does discuss at length current scholarship, which
contradicts the higher figures used by some advocacy organisations and the West German government in the immediate postwar period. 
The text previously at this page stated:
"At least two million people perished due to flight and expulsion, 400,000 to 600,000 of whom by physical force."
As [] makes clear, this is an interpretation given by a handful of non-historians to the newer historical research - an interpretation that is explicitly disavowed by all historians cited. To go by what 
[] states, it seems to be an attempt on the part of a far-right politician and a writer for a Holocaust denial website to grasp at straws. It seems clear that the figure of 400,000 to 600,000 represents all eastern German citizens or Volksdeutsche civilians who died during the very last stages of the war and the following years, however loose the connection of their deaths to the expulsion to the west. 
At any rate - isn't it the case, as the lead paragraph states, that "this article is about the origins and historical use of the term Volksdeutsche. For the article about the people this term describes, see Ethnic German."? If so, this entire topic may be out of place here. Feketekave (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not inclined to engage in discussion on whether Earth is flat with a user that seems solely devoted to push disruptive anti-German POV on numerous articles. Your edits are no different from Holocaust denial and will be reverted as such. There are established figures supported by established and official sources and we use these figures. If you think official German sources is propaganda, then get yourself a blog and tell the world about it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Urban XII (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for confirming a case of wiki-hounding. Please avoid name-calling. You have failed to follow the links I have provided to consensus texts in Wikipedia; to use your words, you are failing to engage in discussion. Feketekave (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think you can push your extremist POV by wikilawyering, you'll have to think again. Your edits are clearly disruptive and you are here clearly not to improve the encyclopedia. Urban XII (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Urban XII your accusation that Feketekave's edits "are no different from Holocaust denial" is unbelievably incivil and I suggest you withdraw it at once. Loosmark (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures 

message: The two million dead figure is no longer tenable, as discussed in the main article on the topic (Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Demography). Feketekave (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: According to the text at the top of the article, this article should simply discuss the origin of the term;
the main article should be Ethnic Germans. However the case may be, the present article has evolved into
a longer text, sometimes duplicating what apparently should be the main article.
:I have now linked the two articles together as the terms apparently mean the same thing.--Johanneswilm (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: This article as well as Germans seem to state that Ethnic Germans in the English translation of Volksdeutsche. Neither one is equivalent to modern-day usage of Germans, so I explained that. I have therefore relinked the article to reflect this. Also, I have tried to exchange the term "ethnic Germans" in the definition of Nazi-usage of "Volksdeutsche" so that the definition wouldn't be circular. This definition is however unreferenced and someone with more intimate knowledge of Nazi literature and ideology should probably try to improve this definition. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Some cleanup

message: It is a very wide term, and also covers people who were forced to enlist to a very specific group. It doesn't even mean ethnic German, it is even explained within the text.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to this_article, which is linked in the text, it is the dictionary definition of it. Additionally, throughout the text of that article, the terms "ethnic Germans" and "Volksdeutsche" are used interchangeably.--Johanneswilm (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volksdeutsche is not direct translation nor does it mean :ethnic Germans-it's even in the text if somebody would bother to read it before editing 

message: I just checked out the Bergen article. The sentence For Hitler and other Germans of his time, the term "Volksdeutsche" also carried overtones of blood and race not captured in the common English translation 'ethnic Germans'. appears just about word for word in that article, right at the start. It says: 
Hitler himself supposedly coined the definition of 'Volksdeutsche' that appeared in a 1938 memorandom of the German Reich Chancellery. The Volksdeutsche, that document rather blandly explained, were people whose 'language and culture had German origins' but who did not hold German citizenship'. But for Hitler and other Germans of the 1930s and 1940s, the term Volksdeutsche also carried overtones of blood and race not captured in the English translation 'ethnic Germans'.
Although there is a reference to that article, it is not marked that the text is directly copied. Additionally the definition has been twisted in a way that makes it sound as if there are other English translations of "Ethnic Germans". Thirdly, the definition the Nazis apparently employed officially, is apparently the same that also people who now talk about "ethnic Germans" employ. This is however left out, and instead a reference is employed that comes out of the author's own interpretation of events and views and which isn't referenced. The original text also assumes/believes what some (all?) Germans of the 1930-1940s understood by the term, but not what they understand by it now. In other words -- it is not clear that there is any difference between the two now. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that "ethnisch deutscher" is the German translation of "ethnic German". That is a whole different debate, and I haven't considered that and it doesn't apply here. I am saying that "ethnic German" is the English translation of "Volksdeutsche". That is in fact also what that source says that you originally claimed was the proof that ethnic Germans is not the same as Volksdeutsch. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And Kulturkampf means Cultural Combat or Cultural Struggle but is not translated this way. Some German loanwords are not translated if they mean something specific in English that the translation would misinterpret. The same with Volksdeutsche.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plagiarism is a serious problem, everything plagiarized should be removed on sight. Mymoloboaccount, please collaborate in the effoprt to remove the plagiarized content. Otherwise sanctions may be necessary. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Manus-I did not put this into the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry! My bad.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: The offender seems to be Pseudo-Richard who contributed that here. He did include a reference as to where the information generally came from, but "forgot" to put quotation marks around the sentences that were directly copied, and he made small but significant changes to them that changed the meaning of them quite significantly. He has also contributed numerous other things to this article. --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now put quotation marks around the two sentences I found and made it clear where they come from. I am not sure whether this is permissible according to WP guidelines, but at least it's not plagiarism any more. I thought that way Mymoloboaccount can work on fixing it properly. Someone would likely spend a few days going through this article and check all the sources that are referenced directly and possible some more articles on the subject to really clean this out. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for that. --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, if this isn't fixed, there is no longer anything that claims that the English translation of Volksdeutsche is not "Ethnic Germans". Right now the entire argument is based on a historian's personal opinion -- which goes contrary to the references she presents -- writing in 1994, 50-60 years after the fact. Additionally, she herself uses the terms interchangeably within that same article and confirms that the official translation fo the term is "Ethnic Germans". If it is determined that there is no difference between the two, then either Imperial Germans should be moved to Reichsdeutsche or this article should be moved to Ethnic Germans outside of Germany or some such thing. --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No.This is a very specific and historic term applied by English scholarship regarding Nazi period in Europe and the valid term is Volksdeutsche-used in countless scholary sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what you claim, but the article that is referenced and that you rely upon for your whole argument so far claims quite the opposite -- that the term indeed is directly translatable to "Ethnic Germans". Other sources (the one I found for example) make it clearer that "Ethnic Germans" are "deutschstaemmige" and Volksdeutsche "Ethnic Germans" without German citizenship (not the same as not residing in Germany). Please find references that explain that Ethnic Germans are something else than Volksdeutsche. --Johanneswilm (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what scholarly sources are saying. And Blitzkrieg is directly translated into Lightining War or Kulturkampf to Cultural Combat-you miss the point that this is a German loanword used in countless publications and that has specific meaning and is not directly translated just like Kulturkampf or Blitzkrieg. As to finding sources that debate your theories made up on the spot-that is not how wikipedia works-again read Original Research. Anyway-you simply don't understand what this article is about I am afraid.For instance the term "ethnic German" certainly is not an insult in Poland as you edited in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is used in countless publications then it shouldn't be a problem citing one. Again -- the only one you have so far states that Ethnic Germans = Volksdeutsche and uses it that way throughout the text. I am now convinced that there is a difference, as Volksdeutsche are ethnic Germans without German citizenship (no matter where they live) according to Nazi definitions -- the source that you use does however not say that. Please go and read it. I don't know what theory I make up "on the spot" or how any of this is original research. It says it all quite plainly described in the texts that are cited here and in the article. As far as your next insult -- that I'm looking for sources that say that my claims are true. I don't see anything wrong in that, but reality is that that was actually not what happened. I went out to research Volksdeutsche in Weimar Republic, as your changes removed all references to the Weimar Republic, which had been with the article for quite some time. It was suggested, according to that, that the Weimar Republic employed a kind of "soft" definition of Volksdeutsche. Instead I found sources that talked about how the concept of Volksdeutsche was used in some famous essay in 1930, and that the term was used for various things, quite publicly already in the early 1930s. Secondly, the source talked about how Auslandsdeutsche was a term in active use by the Weimar Republic. All I did with that was to remove the adjective "modern" in front of "Auslandsdeutsche" as the term obviously is not more modern than "Volksdeutsche", and if it meant to say modern Auslandsdeutsche instead of old-school Auslandsdeutsche then it also makes no sense, as the source describes quite clearly how the exchange of Auslandsdeutsche with Volksdeutsche had implications in the understanding of who exactly was German: only those with German passport or also those "ethnically German". In that sense "Auslandsdeutsche" still means the same as it did in the Weimar Republic -- German citizens outside of Germany. Btw, please stop the insults. I'm sure it is against some Wikipedia policy, which I'll  take the time to find if you don't stop. --Johanneswilm (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: If Hitler coined the term "Volksdeutsche" in 1938, and we are not to understand Volksdeutsche as the same as "Ethnic Germans" (which apparently was used as a category before that year), then how can "Volksdeutsche" have been used in the Weimar Republic? I see the sections on the Weimar Republic have now been removed. Was that material all false/made up? --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through what I get access to through the free Google Books preview, it seems the term really was used in the early 1930s as well, and some RV Broeker wrote a text entitled "Der Volksdeutsche fremder Staatsangehörigkeit" in 1930. You can see that there was also a magazine with the title "Der Volksdeutsche" for Germans living abroad. That historian from whom we plagiarized, seems to not have looked at all the sources. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Someone added the adjective "modern" to "Auslandsdeutsche". That must have been based on some unspecified WP:OR or just the assumption that the term Auslandsdeutsche was invented later. Please justify the usage of the adjective "modern" for "Auslandsdeutsche" if Auslandsdeutsche is the older term. The relationship between the words is stated quite directly in the source given above, that's not based on my research. It's just that the absence of an adjective (in this case "modern") isn't usually referenced on Wikipedia. --Johanneswilm (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weimar Republic 

message: This article should be about ethnic Germans, not about Nazi-history  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.35.148 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnic Germans

message: Volksdeutsche is a specific historical term-like Blitzkrieg, Kulturkampf or Ostsiedlung. We do not translate it as it has its own unique meaning. It is very widely used in historical research. If somebody argues that it should be moved he has to make request to move. But such request would be flawed anyway, as it is a existing historic definition.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A re-direct for the word "Ethnic Germans" should be made to forward a reader to this article even though this article covers others, as well; and it describes the events and actions around this particular German term. If there ever is consensus to move and re-name the article, then so be it. But, in reading the "Talk" page, it is clear that has not occurred. BTW-The article does need additional citation work and some clean up as to English language spelling and grammar. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Footnote: Now, that a separate article entitled, "Ethnic Germans" is in place, there is no need for the re-direct as mentioned above; and the quest of other editors to rename this article should be moot. Kierzek (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. I also think that a link or expansion in the article to the German concept of Volk might give some clarification. The German concept of Volk also lacks a good translation into English (the current redirect to the Folk article is disputable imo), but it can best be seen as translating to Nation. Volksdeutsche in this sense means a member of the German cultural nation, which in turn is defined mainly by speaking one of the German languages. The term can also be found in the full name of the Medieval HRE: "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (the "First Reich"). It's all not something that was suddenly made up by the Nazi's. Wiki1609 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wikil609... is there a wide usage of the word "Volksdeutsche" prior to the Nazi era, either during the time of the HRE or afterwards?  The Nazis may not have invented the term but they might have given it a different spin in order to further their agenda.  We should look for significant uses of the term and contrast the usage prior to the Nazi era to that during the Nazi era.  It is no accident that Hitler referred to the Third Reich as an attempt to restore the glory of the Holy Roman Empire (the First Reich) and that he promoted the irredentist vision of reuniting all German peoples (Volksdeutsche) in the Heimat of the restored Third Reich.  
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: @Ophelia1712 - No, it's not.  The point is to focus on the use of the term "Volksdeutsche" by the Nazis as I explained in my response to Wikil609 immediately above.  The place to provide a detailed history of ethnic Germans outside the boundaries of Germany is in the article Ethnic German.  If there is significant use of the term prior to the Nazi era, please be bold and feel free to expand the text of this article accordingly. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again regarding the title 

message: There's a difference, as you know... -- megA (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[Talk:Ethnic Germans]] redirect here? 

message: I'm going to propose that this article be considered for deletion. The distinction between this article and the one simply on "Germans" is fuzzy at best, as the latter article has wavered among different definitions of Germanness: First, it was essentially an article about ethnic Germans; then there was one user who tried to make the article solely about citizens of the German state; currently it jumps confusingly among different definitions. I think the article on "Germans" ought to be about ethnic Germans, and the article on "ethnic Germans" ought itself to be deleted, with important content being shifted to the "Germans" article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.6.151 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion 

message: It takes this article way too much time to finally say - or actually just imply - that many Volksdeutsche were not even Germans by ethnicity NOR origin. Why is that? It should be stated in the beginning. 
Volksdeutsche were people presumed German by the nazis - and those presumptions were often based on pseudoscience or just propaganda. Certain non-German ethnic groups were considered "ethnic Germans" by the nazis (and the nazis only), despite being Slavs or Balts (they didn't even need to be germanized, an example would be Gorals who were not Germans, didn't speak German, yet were "presumed German" by the nazis and encouraged to sign up as Volksdeutche). This information, in my opinion, should be included in the beginning of the article: that being considered Volksdeutche by the nazis didn't really mean an actual ethnic German origin (not to mention identity). I feel it is very important to clearly state this in the lead, in order not to erase the experiences of those ethnic groups who were forced into a foreign identity and often drafted to the German army, and whose true origins and identities were sometimes ignored once again when they were treated as Germans by the communists.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Able to source these claims? Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead needs to clearly include non-Germanic "Volksdeutsche" 

message: Herewith citations: http://www.safrika.org/deusa_en.html; http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=25880; http://www.safrika.org/schiff_en.html
41.220.172.117 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Germans also emigrated to South Africa during the 1850's and 1860's, and settled in the Eastern Cape area around Stutterheim, and in Kwazulu-Natal in the Wartburg area, where there is still a large German-speaking community.[citation needed]

message: What is this about ? Volunteer Marek 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. They are two separate articles... Peacemaker67  (send… over) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a very weird situation occurring, which I misread. Talk:Ethnic Germans redirected here, and I had thought, stupidly, that because of some kind of page move the talk page and the article did not align. Instead, it seems, someone screwed up the talk page for Ethnic Germans, and made it so that article stole redirects from this one. I shall get in the process of fixing that…I apologize for not having found this article. It was hidden. RGloucester  (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm... 

message: A lot of the sources referenced within this article are outdated. A lot of new information has come to light recently and which is portrayed within recent historiography, especlly regarding Danzig-West Prussia and Wartheland. This means some of the information that has been written in this article is not entirely true, or at least does not depict the whole story.Kerr97 (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article relies mainly on sources written in the 1990s and 2000s so there's plenty of scope to include newer scholarship. Would you be able to suggest some sources, perhaps create a 'further reading' section as a useful next step? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated historiography