Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 11

message: In survey to lift:
#Suppport ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lift the protection 2 

message: After two months of protection, I think it is time to lift the protection and try again even though we have not managed to reach consensus on any of the issues that led to the protection.
I ask everybody to observe WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:3RR.  Actually, WP:1RR is probably a better rule to follow.  If you make an edit and someone reverts you, do NOT revert the revert!  Take it to the talk page for discussion instead and seek consensus.  
If edit warring reoccurs after protection is lifted, I think it will be time to bring this to ARBCOM for resolution.  It is time we stopped allowing this page to be held hostage by editors who will not observe the basic rules of the Wikipedia community.  
If you agree with the above, please add your support above.
--Richard 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: Well, it's not what I asked for but it is a way forward.  Here's the exchange between me and User:FayssalF that led to the semi-protection.
=== Seek your advice on a page that has been protected for over two months ===
I was going to leave a message on the talk page of User:Robdurbar, the admin who protected the page, but he has decided to stop editing Wikipedia.
Here's the problem.  The page in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, was protected by Robdurbar on January 18 due to editwarring (of which I was not a participant).  (To be precise, I have tried to seek an NPOV stance and I have made edits towards this but I have generally not been involved in the edit warring that led to page protection).
I have been trying to form a consensus so that we could request lifting of the protection but, frankly, I have failed as the editors in question preferred to fight on the Talk Page with incivility including personal attacks.  Even my suggestions that we seek mediation have been ignored.
In the last two weeks, the volume of debate has gone done but there has been little sign of increased civility and collegiality amongst the disputants.  Mostly, I would say that the worst offenders have quieted down and one or two editors have shown some interest in lifting the protection but without a willingness to agree to a consensus or even to abide by the principles of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA).
I have deliberately been waiting to see if things would change but, at this point, I think two months of page protection is excessive and it is time to return to editing.
If edit warring resumes after page protection is lifted, the only recourse that I see is to go to ARBCOM which I would prefer not to do but I can't see what else could be done.
Do you agree with my approach to this issue in the past and my proposed way forward?
--Richard 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is now semi-protected 

message: I was going to leave a message on the talk page of User:Robdurbar, the admin who protected the page, but he has decided to stop editing Wikipedia.
Here's the problem.  The page in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, was protected by Robdurbar on January 18 due to editwarring (of which I was not a participant).  (To be precise, I have tried to seek an NPOV stance and I have made edits towards this but I have generally not been involved in the edit warring that led to page protection).
I have been trying to form a consensus so that we could request lifting of the protection but, frankly, I have failed as the editors in question preferred to fight on the Talk Page with incivility including personal attacks.  Even my suggestions that we seek mediation have been ignored.
In the last two weeks, the volume of debate has gone done but there has been little sign of increased civility and collegiality amongst the disputants.  Mostly, I would say that the worst offenders have quieted down and one or two editors have shown some interest in lifting the protection but without a willingness to agree to a consensus or even to abide by the principles of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA).
I have deliberately been waiting to see if things would change but, at this point, I think two months of page protection is excessive and it is time to return to editing.
If edit warring resumes after page protection is lifted, the only recourse that I see is to go to ARBCOM which I would prefer not to do but I can't see what else could be done.
Do you agree with my approach to this issue in the past and my proposed way forward?
--Richard 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seek your advice on a page that has been protected for over two months 

message: The following is an exchange that occurred on this Talk Page but has since been archived in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 10
:The German Autorities tried to germanice the Polish. My father was fighting with several Polish soldiers on the German side, so the German did not expell the Polish they wanted more to make germans out of them while the Polish together with the Russian planned in follow up of the Polish goverment between the war to expell the Germans to  a border they believed was the Polish boder of the middle age. That is like the Mexican would expell all American from the east of the Missouri Missisibi only because it was some years part of spain.
Johann
::Don't be ridiculous. Literally hundreds of thousands of Poles _were_ expelled. A total number is something like a million. Poles expelled from Poznan area, Silesia, Pomerania, from military poligons, from Zamojszczyzna... Somehow, none in Germany talks much about that. Szopen 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanization of Poles and the [[Deutsche Volksliste]] 

message: This article has been semi-protected for a week.  There has been no edit warring and contentiousness on the Talk Page has been minimal.  Should we consider lifting semi-protection?  Yes, I know this exposes us to vandalism and leaves open the possibility of disruption from our friend anon IP 131.  The past week of editing without vandalism, POV pushing or edit warring has been a luxurious vacation.  However, Wikipedia's policy is to allow anonymous editing and I think we need to find a longer-term resolution to work with 131 than to rely on semi-protection.
For these reasons, I intend to ask for semi-protection to be lifted.  Comments? 
--Richard 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to lift semi-protection 

message: According to Götz Aly ( an interview  for Wprost) the German image of the expulsion is biased, because there exists a strong group coming from Silesia. About 50% of Germans from Yougoslavia were killed, including their leaders, so their tragedy is underrepresented - see Yugoslavia section of the article. Xx236 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Götz Aly about expulsion of Germans 

message: The paragraph is unproportionally long and contains a long quotation from de Zayas, who is biased, because he pretends that the expulsion of Germans was exceptional. In reality Stalin pushed tens of millions to the West. The expulsion of Poles was exactly in the same way (ill)legal as the expulsion of Germans. German revisionism undermines European peace. Xx236 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So cite one or more sources who make these points.  I remember reading somewhere on the Internet someone (I think it was a Pole) who said that we run the risk of decontextualizing the expulsions.  Find that stuff, summarize it and cite it. --Richard 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For inattentive readers: The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war (...) The convention was published on August 12, 1949, (...) The convention entered into force on October 21, 1950." Honzula 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jadger and Wikiferdi, I think I understand the distinction between natural law and positive law, but what you are complaining is that expulsion process didn't respect the nonexistent rules! As for your example, yes, Turks had to recompense Greeks, although Turkey hadn't signed the Human Rights Convention, but the H-R Convention in 70's already existed and many UN members respected it. But you cannot claim the "illegality of expulsion" (1945) or transfer (1946) with reference to Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) !!Honzula 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But I want to return to the "regrettable and unproductive" part No.1) What the prewar "unwritten laws", and "natural law" etc. are telling us about the staying of one state's citizens on the territory of an enemy state? --Honzula 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you like Potsdam Conference, let me remind you its statements , especially II.A.3.(ii) and XII. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Jadger, dear Jadger, you're trying to push my words where they never were directed. "H-R Convention did not exist during WWII...", yes, but I wanted to say something else - the mentioned article of 4th Geneva Convention, from which Ferdi extrapolates the illegality of transfer, didn't exist in the time of transfer. There is nothing in my words what can explicate the statement that the murdering of Jews (or murdering of anybody) was "certainly acceptable". You probably forgot the Haag convention which orders to respect the lives of persons in occupied territory. But I asked you (not only you personally) if there was a rule prohibiting to expel out of own territory the citizens of enemy state. Do you have any information about this? --Honzula 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: well, in countries where the law applies, everybody has the right to use the law. That is the very definition of the rule of law: that people have rights and responsibilities. So you cannot say that the one or the other person  "doesn't have the right" to use the law, just because you do not like that person's nationality. This would mean doing away with the whole idea of having a set of laws in general.--Chris Camp 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Beg pardon? What does British politics have to do with the legalities of population transfers and the acquisition of territory by war?--Chris Camp 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That may or may not be true, but why are you even dragging the UK into this discussion? Remember that the UK tried to save Poland from the Nazi aggression. This topic concerns potential legal disputes between Poland and Germany. So I don't know hat the UK has to do with it. As to your original statement - I do not think that your personal opinion that the rule of law should not apply where it is used against you is held by the majority of all the people in the world. Laws are there for everyone - not just for people you like.--Chris Camp 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is just childish. Here's a user who is making assumptions about me personally (including his speculation that I'm British, simply based on the fact that I live in Britain) and then evades discussion points by making puerile attempts to get a rise out of me. Instead of trying to provoke by making jingoistic comments about Britain which have nothing to do with any potential legal disputes between Germany and Poland, he should focus on what is actually pertinent to the issue at hand. I was interested in his earlier statement when he says that he does not care about the law the moment non-Polish(i.e. German) people seek to be protected by it. What is the intellectual merit of this? And how could this be included in a wikipedia article? Does it belong in a wikipedia article? What kind of a legal system is accessible to some people but not to others? And are there names for legal systems that give some people preferencial treatment?--Chris Camp 11:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. There is probably no one. ;-) Did you read the Xx's contrib. as the first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honzula (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. As far as my former contribs to discussion concerned the expulsion/transfer from Czechoslovakia, all my contribs still are, though it is not stated explicitly. So, can we leave the former East Prussia and talk about the transfer of German citizens from the Czechoslovak territory? Well, I start to be disapointed by your dodging in the topic. First you claims that non-restricted expulsion allows murdering, now you're trying to derive from "respecting to lives" also the respect to ownership and prohibition of forced transfer... And an "alien land" do I read it well? Didn't you hear the demand "Wir wollen heim ins Reich!" What an alien land - just the demanded Home! But back to the topic - this is not the discuss about the legality of murdering or confiscation, this is the discussion about the legality of expulsion. --Honzula 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people. nice told. Do you think -as probably senator Capeheart thought- that German people were enslaved or destroyed? Do you have sources or references that German people were forced to labor for free to the end of their lives? How many German communities were anihilated from 90% or how many Germans could say that 30-50 of their close relatives were killed resp. murdered? --Honzula 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of the expulsions #2 

message: Minorities in Poland after the War  - there is no such paragraph.Xx236 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: I deleted following statement from the first topic of this article “…before the population transfers were officially sanctioned by the Allies at the Potsdam conference.”
Reason:
On 10 February 2007 I wrote here under 11. Read the "Potsdam Protocol":
This is a quotation of the Potsdam declaration. Hence it is not correct to speak of “officially sanctioned by the Aliies at the Potsdam conference”. - Wikiferdi 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of the expulsions #4 

message: particularly brutal was German occupation of Poland. If we keep particularly brutal in this article, we need extremely brutal or inhuman to describe the German policy. Xx236 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johann, if German occupation was so good for Poland, why 3 million non-Jewish Polish citizens died under that occupation? Anyway, if you think you can compare Czech occupation or France occupation to Poland, where people where regularly shot on the streets, hanged, where whole villages were razed without any rational reason, you are lunatic. How many street executions in Prague or Paris? Szopen 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exact numbers, but when you walk in the streets of Prague you can see hundreds of plaquettes rememebering people shot by Nazis. Everyone knows Lidice and Lezaky and Kobylisy shooting range. My ancestors lifes were destroyed and bothered by Nazis and I don't want to be bothered by anyone for what they did in the past. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With whole respect, you remember what were the words of gov. Frank when he was asked about difference in occupation between Poland and Czech? I didn't suggest it was paradise. However, I tend to kind a remember that in Poland there were hundreds of such Lidices. Szopen 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  particularly brutal 

message: I deleted this part of the article about the legality of the expulsions of the Germans:
It is not possible to maintain its affirmative connotation if you consider the opinion of Dr. de Zayas:
The Hague Regulations had been International Law, too, and therefore the expulsions of the Germans had to be considered illegal.
And regarding the Nuremberg trials:
(cf. both citations: )
Wikiferdi 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of expulsions #5 

message: Where? in Western Germany or the USA? "the silence has been broken" - there wasn't any silence ever. The Expelled (led frequently by former Nazis) were active after the war. Who writes such lies?Xx236 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there was little public knowledge of the expulsions  

message: On March 12, 1945 during World War II, Swinemünde suffered heavy destruction by USAAF bombing. At least 23,000 civilians died, mainly refugees fleeing from East Prussia and from surrounding areas Xx236 10:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Swinemünde bombing should also be mentioned with Dresden 

message: Which Poles? There is a basic difference between by the Germans (there existed one German state with no opposition) and by the Poles (there existed two governments, Poland was under Soviet occupation, fights and repressions were on the level of Nazi occupation of Western Europe).Xx236 10:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  by the Poles  (by de Zayas) 

message: If you won't correct this idiocy, I'll remove it. It misinforms rather than informs. Xx236 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What precisely do you object to?  I have changed the tone somewhat but you need to be more specific about your objection before I can act on it. --Richard 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct the Legacy paragraph 

message: I removed this passage from the article:
Such comparitions should be better placed on Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II. Please cite reliable sources then. Well, if you consider the internment camps like Łambinowice which existed over thousand in post-war Poland, I disbelieve what this passage asserts. And what is known, too, is that German population were not allowed to carry much. And of what they carried many Poles dispossed them during the expulsion.
Bertrand Russel wrote in "The Times" on 19 October 1945:
Norman Clark from "News Chronicle" wrote on 24 August 1945:
F. A. Voigt reported in the "Nineteenth Century and After" in November 1945:
The Manchester Guardian's wrote on 10 March 1946:
All these citations are from the book "Nemesis of Potsdam" of Prof. de Zayas. (pp. 108ff.)
Wikiferdi 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Chronology of the expulsions 

message: The name of the article misinforms. Rename the article. The Wikipedia isn't a BdV board.Xx236 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rename it to what?  I've made several proposals.  You haven't indicated what you want to rename it to.  --Richard 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong namae of the article 

message: *Germans weren't allowed to run away in 1944, so the German administration was responsible for the Winter flight.
*German propaganda controlled a big part of the fear, eg. partially staging the Nmmersdorf murder. 
Xx236 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  driven by fear of the advancing Soviet army 

message: It's really a shame for Wikiferid to use such language and shame for neutral editors, who don't oppose it. Xx236 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, if you have to continue this kind of chatter, would you consider doing this in your userspace instead ? --Lysytalk 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And this would be really a shame for Poland. 

message: I have removed "After the World War II deportation of Jews to Transnistria (considered collectively), it was the largest mass deportation in modern Romanian history.". Let's concentrate on facts - number of expelled, number of dead victims.Xx236 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romania 

message: I don't know if Germans were able to travel spontaneously. Those who worked had to work. People obtained ration cards in their towns. Can someone explain the problem? The majority didn't run away during the Summer 1944.Xx236 07:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I understand your question, could you try to rephrase it ? The majority of Germans from East Prussia and General government ran away as the frontline approached. --Lysytalk 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Johann, please try to be polite and avoid using such terms as "nonsense" when addressing other editors. The Germans had detailed evacuation plans prepared long in advance. The problem is that these plans were not implemented in practice, and most of the people ran away on their own. Usually those who were responsible for the evacuation left earlier, so those who you think would be shooting dead the escapees were already not there. The flight and evacuation was a chaotic and ill-organised process and it was not started in time. The civilians were not evacuated before the soldiers and many escaping civilians collided with the withdrawing German army, which was given the priority in transport. German evacuation plans assumed that the civilians would be evacuated first, while the army fought, not that both would be fleeing at the same time. --Lysytalk 10:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Ilya Ehrenburg#Controversies and the Talk page before you accuse him. Soviet soldiers (not Russian) killed, robbed and raped in many countries, not only in Germany, there are thousands of accounts, eg. by Sándor Márai from Budapest. According to Milovan Đilas Stalin accepted the cruelties as a reward to the heroes. Many rapes of former KZ inmates, also Soviet citizens, are documented.   Xx236 15:03, 16 May 2007 
(UTC)
I dont need Ehrenburg, I have a book about him but not here it will take me a time to get my hands on it again, there is Lev Zalmanovich Kopelev Sovjet officer of jewish backgroung witch confirms in his books the sovjet propaganda against the german civilian population and their are speaches oft other sovjet Generals witch are recorded.
Johann
The situation was different in different places and times, which should be explained in the article. I have started this discussions, because the article says was composed of both spontaneous "flight" and organized "evacuation" starting in the summer of 1944 and continuing through spring of 1945 - I doubt that "spontaneous" flight from East Prussia were possible in the summer 1944. Xx236 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. The part of the article about flight and evacuation in various places remains to be written yet. --Lysytalk 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spontaneous 

message: Several lines by Richard were removed by Johann. I bet it's not allowed.Xx236 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes for deaths in Czechoslovakia - removal 

message: The invasion was the smallest of German crimes in Eastern Europe. Auschwitz wasn't an invasion, neither millions of slave workers, state robbery, drafting, terror.
What is the idea of the "Nazi" dispute? The German state was responsible. If the crimes were Nazi or conservative - who cares? Xx236 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A desire to punish ethnic Germans for the German invasion  

message: German propaganda is also recorded, I'll quote (in German) if you insist. I'm not a fan of Stalin, but he was a copycat criminal. Xx236 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German and Soviet hate propaganda 

message: I think this is not really correct and just aims to supply an apologia for the atrocities done to the Germans (e. g. enslaving, killing or polonizing German people).
The Nazi plan was not to Germanize the world but to Aryanize the world. The best proof are the Jews. They were killed although many of them were patriotic (!) Germans, too. (Jews in Poland were often associated with Germany - and therefore even more hated (by Poles), isn't it? (Polish) Jews spoke Yiddish which is similar to German.)  So it was not the aim of the Nazi to Germanize people but to extinguish all people who didn't match to some racist, Aryan criteria. Germans were Aryanized, too. Aryan race as a higher Germanic (!) race. Germans who didn't match to these Aryan criteria were downtrodden, sterilized, send to internment camps etc., too - although they hadn' been Jews or Slavs.
Furthermore there hadn't been only (many? - please proof it) Germans in East Europe who were complicit in Nazi crimes. There were also Slavs recruited by Hitler as soldiers (also within the SS) and Slavs who extinguished Jews (e. g. Jedwabne pogrom). These Slavs were complicit, too.
Therefore I delete the above-mentioned section.
Wikiferdi 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiferdi. The sentence was about Generalplan Ost, and to this extent it was correct. The sentence is perfectly valid. How would you characterize the goals of the plan ? --Lysytalk 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They did not "do nothing", most Germans were a part the Nazi regime or supported it. --Lysytalk 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi collaborators 

message: What is the source? Xx236 11:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the reason was exactly as it was worded - a desire to collectively take revenge on german minority, of which large part joined different Nazi organizations and were denouncing Polish neighbours 

message: I reworded the sentence because it is wrong that most German expellees had been expelled from territories outside of Germany.
The contrary is correct. The most Germans had been expelled from territories which were annexed by Poland / the Soviets. To remind: E. g. Silesia hadn't been Polish for at least 600 years!
Concerning the Sudetenland remains the question if it belonged to its German population or to the Czechoslovak country in which it had been integrated contrary to the declared intention of the German population in 1919.
Wikiferdi 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sudetenland belonged to Czechoslovakia.  But otherwise the point you make is valid. --Richard 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsion from German territory 

message: František Emmert: Češi ve wehrmachtu (The Czechs in the Wehrmacht), Nakldatelství: Vyšehrad, 2005. ISBN: 80-7021-805-3.
In this book Czech author František Emmert lets contemporary witnesses from the Teschen region  report (besides their memories as Czechs in the German Wehrmacht) about the occupation of this region by Poland in 1938. 
During the German occupation of Czechoslovakia Poland followed the German and Hungarian claims for Czechoslovak territory. In the Teschen region lived in 1920 (!): 18.000 Czechs, 5.000 Germans, 15.000 Poles and 1.000 Jews. On 30 September 1938 Poland occupied this territory. 
Immediately they had closed all Czech schools and the population had been terrorized by jingoistic cliques from Poland. On 24 of December 1938 many Czech families received an ultimatum of 6 hours to leave their houses and properties for the instantenous "departure" to the Czechoslovak Republic. 
To the turn of the year 20.000 to 30.000 Czechs and around 5.000 Germans had been forced to leave.
Wikiferdi 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsions of Czechs by Poland 

message: This discussion is about the "Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII". Please return to the subject.Xx236 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII  

message: *Auschwitz
*German AB Action operation in Poland
*Pacification operations in German-occupied Poland
*Generalplan Ost
*Zamość
The subject of this forum is the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII. If you prefer other subjects - be welcome, ~there is a long list of German subjects.Xx236 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany killed millions of civilians 

message: As I showed above based on a reliable source from a Czech author, Poland expelled people (Slavs and non-Slavs) already before WWII (on Christmas day!!!). This shows clearly that obviously the atrocities done by German Nazi not be the (only) reason for expulsions perpetuaded by Poland during and after WWII. I think there are urgent needs to discuss such issues.
Wikiferdi 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsion of Germans 

message: *It was not until after 1945 that forced population transfer became considered a violation of human rights.
I think this is not correct. Well the wording "human rights" may be coined especially after the experiences of WWII (Appalled by the barbarism of the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. cf. Human rights), but the subject matter itself was known and accepted by most civilized nations quite long before (cf. e. g. Hague Conventions).
Not "forced population transfers" had been considered "legal" but "population exchanges" at best.
 
Wikiferdi 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Alfred de Zayas argues along these lines.  A detailed discussion probably belongs in Population transfer.  The only source that I know of on this topic is Alfred de Zayas and he is clearly biased.  --Richard 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality of the expulsions

message: This article is about the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII, so there should be maps of the whole area included in it. Maps of Poland should be eventually included into the other article.Xx236 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the deletion of the map showing Poland in 980.  However, the other two maps are OK if we also add similar maps of Czechoslovakia.  These two maps should be included in the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after WWII article. --Richard 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased selection of maps 

message: Wikiferdi,
I understand that you have strong and passionate opinions on this topic.  Nonetheless, the current text represents the net result of a lot of collaborative discussion and research.  If you disagree with a point that is made in the article, please discuss it here first and assess whether there is a consensus to support your POV.  If not, then discuss it further and build a consensus before inserting text that has a strong POV.  I will attempt to address below each of the edits that you made and that I just reverted.  I do not wish to get into an edit war over these points.  I understand what your position is and I would like to find a way to present it as ONE OF the multiple Points of View on this topic.  Please discuss your concerns with civility and without personal attacks.
--Richard 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which are the specific parts that you object to and why ? --Lysytalk 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, West Germany was the only country that did not accept the Polish-DDR border, because of its revanchism. Are you aware of any other country that contested it ? --Lysytalk 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I meant official position of a government, not a statement of any individual. Was there any ? What government ?--Lysytalk 06:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiferdi's recent edits 

message: I think this caption is anachronistic because Silesia, Pommerania etc. were annexed by Stalin/Poland...
There was no minority problem of Germans in those regions until Stalin/Poland incorporated these territories in their dominion.
Hence, this caption / passage should be rephrased.
*now belonging.. 
This is/was Stalin's/Poland's POV - but not of the western world. Clearly the Potsdam agreement stated that a forthcoming peace conference should have decided about the dimension of territory separated from Germany. "now belonging" = "accomplished facts", accomplished by Stalin/Poland!
Wikiferdi 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, West Germany was the only country that did not accept the Polish-DDR border, because of its revanchism. Are you aware of any other country that contested it ? --Lysytalk 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I meant official position of a government, not a statement of any individual. Was there any ? What government ?--Lysytalk 06:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distrust of and enmity towards German communities in 
Poland
  ->annexed territories

message: I think we should reword this passage because the forced migration (=expulsion) of Germans (why ethnic?) hadn't been orchestrated (???) by the Western Allies. Actually, they accepted the plan to transfer Germans and they turned a blind eye to the atrocities done against Germans but the expulsions and atrocities themselves had been accomplished by Poland, Czechoslovakia, UdSSR of course - and other countries in the south-east of Europe. Why not call a spade a spade?
Wikiferdi 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To call a spade a spade

message: Prof. Tomasz Szarota related yesterday in Polish TV a last week conference in Berlin, during which some German historians acknowledged that old estimates (2.5 million) were exaggerated. I don't know anything more, even the name of the conference. Xx236 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent conference in Berlin 

message: "Overwhelming Polish majorities" - I think this is wrong. As I am informed more or less the same number of Ukrainian as Polish speaking people lived in those eastern regions (Kresy). (Read Polish-Ukrainian War... - I would like to know where in Wikipedia is something written about the Polish-Ukrainian battles during WWII. - These must have been grim battles.) 
Well, after WWII Polish population from the Kresy were transferred to Poland (o. k. Poland transferred them to the eastern German territories which had been occupied with the end of war, for Polonizing them) and Ukrainian from Poland were transferred there... i. e. a "population exchange" between Poles and Ukrainians.
Wikiferdi 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, the map is based on numbers which were published somewhere.  It would be preferable to provide a citation to that source.  --Richard 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish majorities? 

message: Regarding Poles coming back to Poland after WWII the current article states:
 
IMHO, this text is not specific. "Not known in such a scale in Western countries." - Germany for sure had been destroyed by carpet bombing, much more than Poland... Germany (the cities) had been one large expanse of ruins. Around 7 mio Germans died in the most stupid war of the world, more than Poles and Jews but less than Russians.
Above mentioned "justification for expulsion" would mean: Around 10 mio Germans had to leave their houses in Poland and in east Germany (Silesia, Pomerani, East Prussia...) for making place for around 3-4 mio Poles? - It should not been ignored that other nationalities had to leave Poland, too. E. g. around half a million Ukrainian.
Well, as already mentioned some time before, Churchill opposed such enormous population transfers. 
Wikiferdi 00:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re mentioned Ukrainians, maybe many stayed where they were & the Ukrainian Border came to them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One large expanse of ruins 

message: The article isn't linked from any article. It should be linked, integrated or removed.Xx236 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century]] 

message: There are many speculations in this article, why the Germans were expelled. The decision was made by a small group of Soviet leaders, mostly by Stalin . It was a part of mass population transfers in Europe. The speculations should be reduced and labelled as speculations.Xx236 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly speculations 

message: In the section 'Chronology of the expulsions' I found the following sentences.
"The Potsdam Agreement called for equal distribution of the transferred Germans between American, British, French and Soviet occupation zones in the post World War II Germany. In actuality, nearly twice as many expelled Germans found refuge in the occupation zones that later formed "West Germany" than in "East Germany" (Soviet Zone)"
After first reading them I figured that the French, British and American zones got a larger share of the refugees than was called for by the Potsdam Agreement. But then I realised that since they were three zones they should have gotten three times as many refugees as the Soviet zone if all zones had gotten equally many. Hence the most logical way to interpret this is that the Soviet zone got a larger share than was called for. Is this the right way o interpret it? Either way I think the wording is confusing, maybe even misleading. Jkej 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentences 

message: Just before the Background headline I found this sentence:
"It should be noted here that no expulsions would have occurred at all except for the invasion and brutal occupation of most of Europe by Nazi Germany."
I also noted this and similar sentences had been added and removed a couple of times.
I'm not disputing causal relations between the occupations and the expulsions but it seems like the underlying message of this remark is: "Germans shouldn't complain. They started the war."
The rest of the paragaph seems to be describing that there is a controversy over, among other things, the resposibility for and moral justification of the expulsions. This is done in a good and npov way but this last remark totally disrupts the neutral tone.
If this remark was intended to discuss the responsibility for and moral justification of the expulsion I think it would be better suited in their respective sections and in a more neutral tone.
Can anyone convince me that this sentence should not be removed?
Although not as important I'd like to point out that the use of the word 'except' in the meaning 'unless' is deemed archaic by my Oxford dictionary. Jkej 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocative remark? 

message: The facts are mixed up. Either the two paragraphs should be integrated or separated. The Russian paragraph should be much longer than the Lithuanian one because of the numbers of the expelled.Xx236 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuania and Russia paragraphs 

message: "As Nazi Germany invaded first Czechoslovakia and later Poland and other European nations, some members of the ethnic German minorities in those countries aided the invading forces" - not true, Nazi terrorist/political networks were created years before the war, see . Xx236 09:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German networks 

message: The article contains a picture of the trucks. They aren't Stock car (rail). Xx236 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cattle trucks 

message: Just interested in the  mechanism. There is an broken ref tag which just needs a slash. Lycurgus 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? --Richard 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Background § at end of the ¶ beginning "As Nazi Germany ..." Lycurgus 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Sandstein 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo