Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 3

message: It should be noted that the titles proposed above are not mutually exclusive.  That is, some of the titles could co-exist.  
I would propose two sets of articles.  The first set would be organized around the history of territorial changes (i.e. focusing only on the changes in the borders) and the second could be organized around the history of the German people living in those territories (focusing on important events other than changes in borders, important people, changes in culture, etc.).
Thus, changes due to Versailles, Yalta/Potsdam would be discussed in the first set of articles.
Documentation of Immanuel Kant living in Koenigsberg, East Prussia would be discussed in the second set of articles.  
My knowledge of German history is not strong enough to get the article titles exactly right so I am open to suggestions for improvement.
So, what you get is History of German settlement in Eastern Europe as a main article with the following sub pages
* History of German populations in Eastern Europe (prior to 1871)
* History of German populations in Eastern Europe (1871-1917)
* History of German populations in Eastern Europe (1918-1944)
* History of German populations in Eastern Europe (after 1944)
and 
History of territorial changes of Germany with the following subpages
* Territorial changes of Germany (Versailles)  (Is this article necessary?)
* Territorial changes of Germany (1918-1939)
* Territorial changes of Germany after World War II (covers Yalta/Potsdam + finalization of border at the Oder/Neisse line)
--Richard 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed re-organization across multiple articles

message: I have moved the article back because there was no clear consensus to move it. However I think it should be moved to Historical eastern Germany unless someone can come up with a better name around which a consensus can be built. Former Eastern territories of the German Empire this implies only those territories which were part of Germany between 1871 and 1919 because common English usage does not use the term Empire after that date. I don't think this is what is meant as there is also the interwar and post World War II period in this article as well. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would a rose by any other name

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Support====
#SupportChanging my mind per points made in the "Oppose" section. --Richard 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per nom and per prior straw poll.  I disagree with Philip Baird Shearer that there was "no consensus".  The consensus was not unanimous but there was a super majority.  Put it another way, if this article was already at "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe", it would be difficult to get a consensus to move it to "Historical Eastern Germany".  --Richard 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey - 14 February

message: #SupportChanging my mind per points made in the "Oppose" section. --Richard 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per nom and per prior straw poll.  I disagree with Philip Baird Shearer that there was "no consensus".  The consensus was not unanimous but there was a super majority.  Put it another way, if this article was already at "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe", it would be difficult to get a consensus to move it to "Historical Eastern Germany".  --Richard 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose changing only the name without doing the necessary merging and rewriting, as above. The current title is better for the present article. I support the new title once somebody volunteers to actually merge and redistribute the content in a proper way. The name of the article should fit its content. This article is about the Former German territories under Polish and Soviet administration (that's the West German POV term), not about the hundreds of years of history that the new title suggests. Kusma (討論) 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This "requested move" has been open for 6 days.  It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for the requested move.  I would propose that we close this "requested move" to clear the way for alternate proposals such as those discussed in the section below this one.  
If there are no objections by 21 February, we should close this Requested Move to clear the way for discussion of other alternatives.  Please do NOT begin discussion of alternatives here.  Only log your support or opposition to closing the Requested Move.  (e.g. if you think keeping the Requested Move could geenerate enough support to overwhelm those who oppose it).--Richard 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name should not contain the word "settlement" in it, as those against the move are generally agreed that this article is not about German settlements, but about provinces that were once in Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose closing this Requested Move as "No consensus"

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Leave the article where is at Historical eastern Germany====
Tally 5/11
* Support This name matches the content of the article from start to finish --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: commentand the ones you have supported below aren't OR?--Jadger
*Oppose - ask 10 random (English-speaking) people what an article with this title would actually be about, and you would get 10 different answers. Johnbod 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reliable for what? Johnbod 03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: comment: the article can still be changed, reformatted and added to, who says this article is a finished product? because it isn't in the article now does not mean it shouldn't be added. --Jadger 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suprisingly, I agree with Jadger on that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Tally 5/11
* Support This name matches the content of the article from start to finish --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: commentand the ones you have supported below aren't OR?--Jadger
*Oppose - ask 10 random (English-speaking) people what an article with this title would actually be about, and you would get 10 different answers. Johnbod 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reliable for what? Johnbod 03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave the article where is at Historical eastern Germany

message: Tally 0/7
*Oppose This is not a term used in English, Other than for the Third Reich which is never styled Third German Reich --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Eastern territories of the German Reich]]

message: Tally 2/4
*Oppose This term only covers the period upto 1918 --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Eastern territories of the German Empire]]

message: Tally 3/9
*Support this would be my second preference --Philip Baird Shearer 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former eastern Germany]]

message: Tally 5/5
*Oppose This would be my third preference. Has the advantage that it is used in the Potsdam Agreement, but as it includes the word German instead of Germany it is open to misinterpretation --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line]] 

message: Tally 8/3
*Support. Second choice. This should be less POVed and more correct ('territories of Germany' instead of ethnicity-implying 'German territories').-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line]]

message: Tally 6/4
*Support. First choice, based on the naming convention of Territorial changes of Poland after World War II. We can also consider splitting it into Territorial changes of Germany after World War I and Territorial changes of Germany after World War I, and we certainly need Territorial changes of Germany as a main article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Territorial changes of Germany after the World Wars]] 

message: Tally 6/4
*Support. More closely matches the content of the current article.  Is in keeping with the naming convention of Territorial changes of Poland after World War II. We can consider splitting it into Territorial changes of Germany after World War I and Territorial changes of Germany after World War II later if necessary. --Richard 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment: the article can still be changed, reformatted and added to, who says this article is a finished product? because it isn't in the article now does not mean it shouldn't be added. --Jadger 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suprisingly, I agree with Jadger on that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Territorial changes of Germany]] 

message: Tally 3/4
*Support per Kusma; second choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former German eastern territories]]

message: Tally 7/1
*Strong support Euphony; less suggestion of the Ostsiedlung because territories of Germany clearly belong to a state, not individuals or private companies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former eastern territories of Germany]]

message: Tally 6/3
*Support This proposal is motivated by the map in the article that is labeled "German territorial losses (1919-1945)" and captioned "Germany's territorial losses (1919-1945).  If you re-read this article, this is what the article is about so let's call it that. --Richard 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Territorial changes of Germany (1919-1945)]]

message: Tally 1/0
*Support - This would combine the most accurate/least POV translation of the German term, plus specify the timeframe. It would also clearly disambiguate it from "Former East Germany" referring to the DDR. - tameeria 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former eastern territories of Germany (1871-1945)]]

message: *Scholarly support: 10 hits in Google scholar and 4 hits in JSTOR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tameeria (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Former east German territories]]

message: *Scholarly support: 75 hits in Google scholar (English-language publications only) and 16 hits in JSTOR (English-language publications only) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tameeria (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to ''[[Ostgebiete]]''

message: Based on the foregoing discussion about renaming this article, it seemed that there was support for an article about "territorial changes of Germany" although it has not yet been agreed whether this is all territorial changes of Germany (1871-1990), after the World Wars (1919-1945) or after World War II (1945-1990).
Some of the arguments in the above "rename" discussion have argued that a proposed title didn't fit the current article.  Of course, the counter-argument to such arguments is that the scope of the article does not have to remain precisely what it is now.
Back in October 2006, I proposed the following framework of articles related to the "Territorial changes of Germany"
The overview article would be History of territorial changes of Germany with the following subpages
* Territorial changes of Germany (Versailles)  (Is this article necessary?)
* Territorial changes of Germany (1918-1939)
* Territorial changes of Germany after World War II (covers Yalta/Potsdam + finalization of border at the Oder/Neisse line)
I figured that I would take a first whack at what a renamed and rewritten article might look like.  I have created an article titled Territorial changes of Germany after World War II.  My current revision of the article provides background that stretches back towards Ostsiedlung but that is only for background.  The primary focus of this article is the territorial changes of Germany after World War II.
Please take a look at the new article and give me your feedback.  
I am open to renaming and rescoping this article to Territorial changes of Germany after the World Wars (1919-1945) or even Territorial changes of Germany (1871-1990).  In particular, I am interested in hearing whether or not this new article should include the territorial changes resulting from the Treaty of Versailles.
Similarly, there are the series of annexations from 1937 onward that are "territorial additions of Germany" rather than "territorial losses".  Where should these annexations be discussed?
I think the key difference between my vision for the "Territorial changes of Germany" article is that I am more interested in describing the changes and how they came about.  Thus, I envision expanded sections that would describe how and why the Yalta and Potsdam agreements redrew the boundary lines of Central and Eastern Europe.
At the same time, I am less interested in giving a name to the collection of territories that were taken from Germany in 1945 and ceded in 1990.  Thus, the phrase "historical eastern Germany" is notably lacking from the new article.
As always, your feedback is solicited and welcomed.
--Richard 09:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Now, the only thing remaining is to move this article to a new name (to preserve edit history) and split/merge appopriate articles to fit the new names. I'd suggest moving this to Territorial changes of Germany after World War I. PS. I also would suggest splitting/merging parts of this article with Recovered Territories, and Antman has created a useful template: :Template:German borders.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to merge the articles, I believe that there are a few people who would take offense to 'Poland' not being included in a possible title, so how about "Polish-German Territorial changes following World War II"? Antman -- chat 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have Territorial changes of Poland after World War II which describes Polish border changes both east and west.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article - Territorial changes of Germany after World War II 

message: User:R9tgokunks just informed close to a hundred people about this vote on their talk pages, blatantly violating the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Canvassing. In light of this, I fear the validity of this vote is now in question. Balcer 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has also informed me that the only people he contacted were those listed as participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, just possibly not the most neutral and balanced group when it comes to determining the outcome of this vote.  Balcer 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Relevant guidelines are listed Wikipedia:Canvassing.  While some small amount of notification is acceptable, flooding the talk pages of close to a hundred Wikipedians with a vote notification seems to me to fall clearly into the spamming and votestacking category. But I invite other, more experienced users to make that call here.  Balcer 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, so far it's only been about an hour since he put up his notices, so it is difficult to say anything definite at this point about the influence this action has had on this poll. Balcer 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing by [[User:R9tgokunks]] 

message: Clearly there are strong views.   Both ways.   If you understand (which I don't) Polish (Ziemie Odzyskane) you are linked to Recovered Territories which presumably refelects the way kids learned their history in post 1945 Poland.   But in Dutch (and presumably among German historians)  we have 'Voormalige gebieden van het Duitse Rijk in het oosten'.   There is clearly no consensus, least of all amoung wiki contributors   
As a starting point, it is (presumably) our job to describe the world as it is (or, in the case of historical articles, was) and not as we wish it to be (or wish it had been).
The article itself has very little on the eighteenth century carve up of Poland.   That's a pity because it makes it hard for people unfamiliar with the so called partitions of Poland to evaluate usefully the relevance of the word 'Recovered' as in 'Recovered Territories'.   'Recovered' implies harking back to another period.   But the period treated in the article was a period when these territories were integral to Germany.   Referring in the title of the article to their former Polishness makes no more sense to the average English speaker than setting up an article on western Ukraine headed Historical Eastern Poland.
To be pedantic, there are two subjects here.   They overlap massively.   But Koenigsburg/ Kaliningrad did not revert to Poland and Stalin has ensured that the population there is overwhelmingly Russian speaking.   The Sudetenland had only been part of Germany for less than a decade (and before that it was only part of Czechoslovakia AFTER Czechoslovakia came into being wuith the Versailles settlement).  So was the reversion of the Sudentenland a 'recovery'.   Sort of, but really it depends where you want to put the goal posts.   
The dramatic use of the word 'Historial' in the anglophone title reflects the way we anlophones like to romanticise our history.   Isn't 'former' less 'gratuitously exciting' than 'historical'... ?   It seems to work for German and Dutch speakers.   But 'Former German Territories in the East' or 'Former German Territories east of the River Oder'   seems less contentious in terms of the territories' acquisition during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries up to 1945 than slotting in the adjective 'historical' to the title.   And clearly for a separate but massively overlapping article 'Territories recovered by Poland after 1945' makes sense (unless you live in places that didn't get recovered by Poland).   In fact, it makes sense to me to merge Poland's massive 'recovery' of territory at Germany's expense into a single article that treats also of her massive loss of territory to the east.   Unless you learn your history from the Polish perspective, the extent to which Poles were subjected to massive "relocations" (a more neutral noun than the subject deserves in my heart)  from the (former) eastern half of the country in 1945 gets far less attention than the western half of the piece, but presumably the motivation of Stalin, who orchestrated the whole thing, was the same for both halves of the exerecise.
So ... two overlapping articles.   And substitute 'Former' for 'Historical' in a work aspiring to serious historical scholarship in the post Arthur Bryant era.   Or?.... Charles01 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name of the article on Germany's former eastern territories [[User:Charles01|Charles01]] 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 

message: I've been asked to take a look at this discussion, presumably as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany. I confess I haven't waded through all 24,000 words of it (yikes!), but it seems obvious that this is another overly complex, flag-waving brouhaha similar to others waged on Wiki over German-Polish ethno-historical issues.
Most reputable historians would agree that prior to 1945, the terms "eastern Germany" and "east Germany" (and Ostdeutschland) meant Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia, whether they were part of Germany (the German Reich), the Kingdom of Prussia or Brandenburg-Prussia. True, the issue becomes more complex prior to the Partitions of Poland, when some of these areas were politically controlled by or allied with the Polish crown, but nevertheless most of these areas were inhabited primarily or significantly by Germans for five or six centuries — until the post-WWII expulsions.
:This is precisely why "historical eastern Germany" is considered POV by some editors.  The phrase mixes "historical" which, in this case, characterizes "German populations in Central and Eastern Europe over five or six centuries" as being the "eastern" portion of "Germany" which has only existed since 1871.  This anachronistic admixture lends itself to the argument that these "eastern" portions of "Germany" have historically been German and therefore should be now or should have been in 1939 or 1945 part of Germany.  Oops.  That's exactly what German nationalists of the 20th century, especially Nazis were arguing.  Titles which avoid even the faint suggestion of this argument avoid trodding on the sensitivities of those who would sense the argument lurking behind the phrasing of the title. --Richard 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's not "historical" in die deutsche Ostgebiete.  In any event, I wonder if Poles would take kindly to the phrase die deutsche Ostgebiete without the ehemalige prefix. --Richard 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplify!

message: If I still had a chance to ask my late grandparents, they would probably say the page should be titled German homeland in the east (Deutsche Heimat im Osten). All four of my grandparents were Heimatvertriebene (expellees forced to leave their homes and any possessions they could not carry and join the refugee tracks at the end of WWII). I find it rather saddening that the term recovered territories made it into a Wikipedia article, but is not balanced by the German POV on the story. Why is there no article on German homeland in the east to balance the Polish POV with the German POV? I can only assume that it is because most of those who were forced out of those territories are nowadays dead and no longer able to tell their stories, much less create an English Wikipedia article about it. On the other hand, Poles living in those formerly German territories today have a continuing need to justify historic events that traumatized a great number of German people.
Having said all this, I think the article needs to list at least the Federation of Expellees in its "See also" section to balance the viewpoint presented in recovered territories. - tameeria 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So maybe you should write this article, keeping it NPOV, of course.  How do you write an NPOV article about a POV topic?  By not letting the text suggest that the POV is incontrovertibly "the truth".  --Richard 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another "historic" point of view 

message: I've looked through a couple of English sources I could find online and it seems many of them simply use the German term "Ostgebiete" or "Deutsche Ostgebiete" or even "Germany’s Ostgebiete" to refer to this region, sometimes combined with a translation or explanation.
Translations I found in English scholarly literature include:
*German eastern territories (several different authors)
*German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line
*Soviet Union (I think we can discount this one as patent nonsense...)
There are also articles that talk about:
*"Eingegliederte Ostgebiete" in specific reference to those parts of the Ostgebiete that were annexed into the German Reich during WWII.
*"Occupied eastern territories" (in translations for the Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete)
However, these would have to be seen as subtopics of a broader treatment of the Ostgebiete as they are much more specific in region and timeframe. This part of the topic appears to be covered already by Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany.
Scholarly sources and references I found:
Tomasz Kamusella (2003): Dual citizenship in Opole Silesia in the context of European integration. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology Vol. 2, No 10, pp. 699-716. PDF
*Uses: "deutsche Ostgebiete (German eastern territories)"
Tomasz Kamusella (2003): The Szlonzoks and their language: Between Germany, Poland and Szlonzokian nationalism. EUI working paper HEC No. 2003/1, European University Institute, Florence. PDF
*Uses: "deutsche Ostgebiete (German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line)"
Tomasz Kamusella (2001): Nations and their Borders: Changing Identities in Upper Silesia in the Modern Age. German History, Vol. 19, Number 3, pp. 400-407. SAGE Publications – also listed in Google Scholar
*Uses: "deutsche Ostgebiete"
John Farquharson (1997): Governed or Exploited? The British Acquisition of German Technology, 1945-48. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 32, No. 1, 23-42. SAGE Journals Online - JSTOR – also listed in Google Scholar
*Uses: "Ostgebiete" - defined as "Polish occupied territories to the east of their (the Russian’s) German zone"
Ruth Büttner (publication date unknown): Impact of National Socialist Rule: the Case of Estonia. (DAAD, Eriwan) PDF
*Uses: "German eastern territories (Ostland)" - in reference to German-occupied Estonia
Carl-Gustaf Thornstrom and Uwe Hossfeld (publication date unknown): Instant appropriation - Heinz Brücher and the SS botanical collecting commando to Russia 1943. Plant Genetics Resources Newsletter Issue No.129, page 54 to 57. HTML
*Uses: "Ostgebiete (Soviet Union)" (an example how easily patent nonsense makes it into publication, I guess the authors were more into botany than history)
Ulrich Raiser (publication date unknown): Mapping minorities and their media: The national context – Germany. Humbolt University Berlin. PDF - EMTEL II research on diasporic minorities and their media in the EU - Minorities Reports
*Uses: "the so-called Ostgebiete"
Adolf M. Birke and Günther Heydemann (eds): Grossbritannien und Ostdeutschland seit 1918. Prince Albert Studies, 9, Munich etc. Saur, 1993, 151 pp. HTML – see abstract 136)
*Uses: "Germany's Ostgebiete"
Other references published in English for potential use as sources in this and related articles (found through a search on "Ostgebiete" on the JSTOR scholarly journal archive – free access for academic users):
*Richard Blanke (1990): The German Minority in Inter-War Poland and German Foreign Policy - Some Reconsiderations. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 87-102. JSTOR
*Ihor Kamenetsky (1961): Lebensraum in Hitler's War Plan: The Theory and the Eastern European Reality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 313-326. JSTOR
*Geoffrey North (1958): Poland's Population and Changing Economy. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 517-527. JSTOR
*Katrin Sieg (1993): The Revolution Has Been Televised: Reconfiguring History and Identity in Post-Wall Germany. Theatre Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, German Theatre After the F/Wall, pp. 35-47 JSTOR
*John Borneman (1993): Time-Space Compression and the Continental Divide in German Subjectivity. The Oral History Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 41-58. JSTOR
*R. C. Raack (1990): Stalin Fixes the Oder-Neisse Line. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 467-488. JSTOR
*Aviezer Tucker (1996): Shipwrecked: Patocka's Philosophy of Czech History. History and Theory, Vol. 35, No. 2 (May, 1996), pp. 196-216. JSTOR
*Ludwik Gelberg (1982): The Warsaw Treaty of 1970 and the Western Boundary of Poland. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 119-129. JSTOR
In summary, it seems the German term has been used by scholars also in English literature and can be used successfully in searching scholarly archives. It appears to be most commonly translated as "German eastern territories" in the literature I found, if a translation is given at all. - tameeria 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, for what it's worth:  Ehemalige dt. Gebiete is a subcategory on German eBay, within the category of collectibles and rarities (Sammeln und seltenes) — dt. being the abbreviation for deutsche. Sca 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly sources and references for ''Ostgebiete'' 

message: :::Stop! If we start talking about all the places in central-eastern Europe ever inhabitated by Germans, it gets way too complicated and byond the scope of this article, which as I understand it concerns territories that were part of Germany prior to the post-WWII border changes (not, of course, including Nazi annexations such as the so-called "Wartheland"). 
:::At Postdam, the Big Three began their discussions about the western border of Poland based on the borders of 1937, although Stalin noted that this was "only as a starting point." (See Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy, Boston, 1953, p. 651; Charles Mee, Meeting at Potsdam, New York, 1975, p. 111.)  Again, it's these areas within the internationally recognized borders of the German state in 1920-37 that were specifically transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union by Potsdam (although not de jure, but that's another story), agreed to by West Germany in 1971 and affirmed by the 1990 treaty on Germany unity. And it's these areas, plus for former Free City of Danzig, that usually and generally are under discussion today under the rubric "ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete." 
:::This term can be further clarified by translating it into English as "Former Eastern Territories of Germany" — the "of Germany" stressing that the territories in question had been internationally affirmed as part of the German state prior to WWII and the Nazis.
:::If we get into discussing every territory that was ever part of some German state or entity at some time, we hit a minefield of complexity and conflicting claims. Take for example eastern Upper Silesia, which had a sizeable German plurality and had been developed industrially by Germany, but which was assigned to Poland after the League of Nations plebiscite in 1921. A very complex topic, politically and ethnically. Or consider the case of Klaipėda/Memel, which had a German history dating from Teutonic Knights in the 13th century but was part of a mixed German-Lithuanian (and later, Russian) area ethnically. Ditto re complexity. And let's not get into the "Polish Corridor" or the Sudetenland; mention either and you'll ring Polish and Czech alarm bells, and start people arguing about who and what was or would have been "right" in this or that time in history.
:::Let's just stick to the changes made at (Yalta and) Potsdam. And I can't emphasize enough how important it is to explain the geopolitical rationale for these changes:  "Compensation" for the Soviet annexation of eastern Poland.
:::Sca 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really compensation... Poland had annexed those territories in Russia in a war of aggression against the Soviet Union. Moreso, Stalin wanted to make sure Poland had to rely on Russia for defense, by making it so the Germans could still claim their territory back. A system of control, really. Antman -- chat 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much!

message: Although another administrator has declared the discussion to not have achieved consensus here, I have decided to move the page to Former eastern territories of Germany. I don't think that's the best title possible, but it seems to be far less controversial than the current title, and I really don't want us to have precisely the same discussion again in a couple of months. I won't do anything if my decision is reverted, but hope that this title can bring us a little more peace than the old one. Kusma (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also removed the POV-title template. Kusma (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this move.  The consensus is clear that the current title has minimal support.  If someone really feels that there is a better title, they can propose it and we can see if there is more consensus for that title than this one.  --Richard 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved