Talk:Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans

Temporarily removed

Temporarily removed, as it isn't estimates of number of deaths.

A German source from the mid-1980's gives the following estimates of the population transfers.

German Expellees
Expelled from	Number expelled
Eastern Germany	7,122,000
Danzig	279,000
Poland	661,000
Czechoslovakia	2,911,000
Baltic States	165,000
USSR	90,000
Hungary	199,000
Romania	228,000
Yugoslavia	271,000

--Wikimol 10:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And so, perhaps this is a problem with the title of the article. Someone suggested that the article be something along the lines of Historiography of the expulsion of Germans after WWII. This isn't quite Historiography. Can someone suggest a better name for the article that covers both the number of expellees and the number of deaths? --Richard 16:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, but to be titled Historiography of the expulsion of Germans after WWII the content would have to be different.

Now I feel the current article is of general use, not only as a dump for main Expulsion article. The estimate is quoted in several pages, where its possible to give the range + link here for details. It seems to me thats better than previous way (to pick one estimate + add some weasel words).

Maybe the table can be simply returned to Expulsion article - the estimates of population size don't differ that much and arent so politicaly flamable.--Wikimol

Done. --Richard 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Apples & Oranges

The data listed by Reichling on the number of German expelee deaths is 2.020 million which includes 310,000 from the USSR. The German government estimate of 1958 was 2.1 million deaths for Eastern Europe but excluding the USSR. The two sets of data are not comprable and should be mentioned in the article.--Woogie10w 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So do it. Be bold!

--Richard 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Another German sources

• Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000

Why on German source is canonical and others are ignored? BTW - the link above the table is empty. Xx236 09:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. the link was in the article:

• Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen. Bonn: Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen (Cultural Society of the German Expellees). ISBN 3-88557-046-7, 72.

Cultural Society of the German Expellees was a very biased institution in 1986. I haven't found any information about the author (BTW his name is misspelled once in the article, I'm not going to correct it, because I find the article biased). The same discussion continues since months, the majority quotes cold war and/or BdV propaganda. Xx236 09:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is "in connection with expulsion", but the table in the article says about "flight and expulsion". This is the problem for me - no Poles are responsible for the flight.

The Center against Expulsions as a source of data! The Center is biased, it ignores Polish victims of German expulsions. Xx236 09:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And it is biased to call the center biased - especially with that argumentation. Even if they are ignoring the polish victims ( what they are denying ) that doesn`t mean that the number of german expellee victims is wrong - that depends on the reliability of their scientific sources. But I agree that the polish concerns should be mentioned in the article. --Sushi Leone 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't quote any scientific sources there. BTW - historiography isn't a science. Xx236 15:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

400 000 - 473 000

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung of November 14, the total number of victims of the expulsion was estimated being 473 000 (1964) or 400 000 (1974). Xx236 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the article you are refering to? Do they talk about their sources? Is there a serious proof for the validity of this numbers? --Sushi Leone 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong title

The title Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII doesn't correspond to the text. The article discusses the problem of The population deficit. The article doesn't prove that the deficit was the result of the expulsion. Xx236 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Czy możesz dać mi web ling do tego "Süddeutsche Zeitung" andrewserfain@hotmail.com

keyword in the title is estimate, meaning roughly, aproximately, etc. etc. it does not mean it is a solid proven number, they did not go out and count all the bodies. perhaps you have a more respectable source that categorically denies every single one of these references in this article. We have multiple respected sources in this article, so in order to throw all of there information "out the window" we would need a couple of more respectable sources that deny their evidence.

--Jadger 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Congressman Reece charged that 3 million German civilians had died during the expulsion

Auschwitz doesn't quote old estimates (4 million). It's totally unimportant what Reece believed in 1957, he wasn't a historian. Eventually his source should be presented. A number of politicians more important than Reece also commented the subject, e.g. Joseph Stalin. German sources don't support the 3 million story. Xx236 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because he was not a historian does not make his viewpoint invalid or somehow less. No one has said the Josef Stalin's remarks on the matter cannot be added. If you can find them and correctly quote them from a reliable source I do not see a reason why we shouldn't add them. As that would be like not allowing the defendant to speak in his own defence. Although I dont think the testimony of a person who murdered up to 100 million people is really that strong of ground to stand on. As for someone "more important" than a congressman, that is yet to be debated. In the republican democracy of America, Congressmen are some of the most powerful people.

--Jadger 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... some Congressmen are very powerful. Others are not so powerful.

What makes the number worth mentioning is that it was read into the Congressional Record by a Congressman and therefore is a verifiable reliable source. Note: the source is reliable even if the number is not.

Personally, I don't think his number is necessarily reliable. We would have to understand how his number was arrived at in order to evaluate how reliable the number is.

--Richard 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is a respected and reliable source, so my point stands that it should stay in in the article and not be somehow deminished in the article. there are the other lower numbers that use sources in the article, so it is let the reader decide which source they will rely upon.

We would have to understand how his number was arrived at in order to evaluate how reliable the number is. ditto, I believe the same thing.

--Jadger 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Though you completely ignored me when I last tried to discuss your edit at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II and I now told you to kick off a discussion if you have grievances rather just edit war the hell out of the page, I'll try to initiate a discussion again.

In reference to the NPOV tag, the article is about the finding of a number only, not pinning blame on anyone. If you want to write or see the background of the expulsion, needless to say, see "Expulsion of Germans after World War II". Since it doesn't assert a POV on who's responsible, how can this breach the Neutral Point of View? In fact, your insistence on either the pov tag or "naming who's responsible" is ironic: it is your disclaimer that clearly flies in the face of NPOV.

As for the other tag, you're declaring that the article didn't cite its references or sources. But if you make it to the bottom of the page, you'll see that it even cites both. With only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia citing sources and references of all the sentences, the implication of the tag is that there are no references and sources at all (not where some sentences aren't sourced, or the tag would be everywhere, from the articles sound (1 ref) over Poland (6 refs) to George W. Bush (161 refs)), which is untrue.

The future product tag was not meant to describe anything that may be in the future, like feelings or, as you said, "future clames and arogance", but, well, like a new car that is not on sale yet, which might undergo changes before its final version. But I presume you've let go off the tag anyway now.

What is "recent"? What time frame does it encompass? In the POV of some the newspaper from last week isn't recent anymore. In any case, you're supposed to avoid statements that will date quickly. "Recently" is even cited as an example of it. You're also to Wikipedia:avoid weasel words. Which studies? How old? What makes them more recent than, say, other studies, to a point where only they're the recent ones?

You must be referring to Overmans and Ingo Haar, two historians. Does the total number two really justify a plural expression? Anyway, let's take a look at them.

Overmans published the first edition of "Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" in 1999[1], the second in December 2000 [2] (see bottom of the page), the third in 2004[3]. I doubt that it happened to be the part about the expulsion death numbers that were added with a new edition, if anything was added at all. But the fact is it must have been in there before the third one, because the post in the forum about this part was submitted in 2002. Is 2000 or, more likely, 1999 "a recent study"?

Ingo Haar's case is no better. (Not only was his opinion controversial - the Federation of Expellees, for example, claims that he was only referring to the number of those directly murdered[4] - but) He didn't make a study at all. All he did was say in a radio interview that 500,000 was realistic, basing this number on the studies from the late 60s ("Offenbar ist er aber in diesem Punkt nicht befragt worden, denn es gibt ja Zahlen von 1974 aus einer Studie, die damals in den späten 60er Jahren die Große Koalition aufgelegt hat"[5]). No, I was wrong. He didn't say 500,000 was realistic - but "500,000 to 600,000". Now even the plural "recent studies" becomes questionable.

Based on the German sentence you included, Haar didn't state he based the number on "the studies" but on one particular study launched at that time by the Grand Coalition (aus einter Studie die damals die Grosse Koalition aufgelegt hat).TheKurgan (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So these "recent" "studies" are more recent than anyone else's? Well, even my old history book is more recent and this said something about two million. Surely a German conspiracy, I can hear the unspoken voices. But what about, for one, Alfred de Zayas study in 2005(more recent) ? I'm unfortunately not superviser of all historians and their studies on the planet, but even confined to the Internet there are more "recent studies" than this; for example, Bernadetta Nitschke, a Polish historian who published a book on the expulsion in 1999, translated in German in 2003.[6] According to her, 1.1 million died in Poland, eg more than 400,000 as Haar said the number in the area beyond the Oder-Neisse line was ("Und danach betragen sich die Opfer jenseits der Oder-Neiße-Linie auf 400.000 und die aus der Tschechoslowakei auf 100.000."[7]). Sciurinæ 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (revised Sciurinæ 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Proposed change of title

The title of this article is "after WWII". There is a certian level of absurdity, under which no discussion is possible. I'm not going to discuss claims 2 000 000 of Germans died after WWII. If those Germans died during and after WWII, change the title. Xx236 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not perceived you attempt to discussion, sorry. Actually the article is doing worst possible by the so named “finding of a number only” there estimations which are intentionally increased like the “Centre Against Expulsions” work. Unnecessary you need to point on somebody who is responsible it is enough offensive providing numbers which are subjective and biased. There are official more or less numbers of all nations population killed in WW II. You should start from this, until I know the Germany lost 8.7% of population in it 2 810 000 civilians. Thus it is impossible that the numbers can reach 3 millions during expulsion. Are you count also those who were collaborators of Nazi Germany? Well, … I ask you to be reasonable. Do not put numbers which are just somebody biased “supposition”. Any way I found only one non-German estimation, which are Cold War effort most probably. Do you have UN or other independent sources regarding this numbers?

Do you?

Instead public “findings” which are very irritating you should look for objective source of information. Private multiplication of possibilities is offending. Do you know it? It is particularly such if you consider that other nations in fact lost much more and were not responsible for spark the hell of war. In total proportion for one German in the WW II was kill ten people of other nations. When somebody unleash beware dog who the culprit is? Dog or the person, and this is the case. I do not contradicts that after the WWII could occur lawlessness and lynches. Are you surprised of it? I am not, but you see if in competition during the 80’s the Soviets would invade Poland and Jaruzelski would support it in some way – we would blame Jaruzelski for our deaths in first place. The Soviets we world also, but first and above all Jaruzelski. He was the totalitarian and collaborator. Exactly the Germans should immediately and in first place blame Hitler and Nazi, though some love the Nazi ideology and activity. Instead I see the article where numbers are juggled for God knows what. Thus I say to you the article look unbalanced and with bad faith. I just do not have time to discuss details as it is from the start bad. The tags are unimportant until you will point to Hitler and Nazi in first sentence as the primary culprits. You or others definitely opposed the introductions, so…? The “recent” is not for philosophical deliberations. I took the word and sentence from the same article written long before I knew about it. Just I emphasize existing points – maybe deliberately hidden somewhere in the back and under carpet. Again, somebody dos not like the truth? Put “most recent” if you like. Do you? You must be referring to Overmans and Ingo Haar, two historians. Does the total number two really justify a plural expression? Anyway, let's take a look at them. I agree that total number of German deaths in Poland could be 1.1 milions. Twice there, 6 years of ocupations and guerrilla warfare, escape front od Soviet Army in winter 1944 and last the expulssion, which I can be shure was fewest deadly. But be specific with this numbers do not stick others. I very much beleave that in the post war phase the were revanges, but again are you surprised ?– evry 5th person in Poland was killed. Are you expecting after the “total war” against civilians evry of Polish citizen will be ideal christian and give you other chick to hit. If that was expected so it means the Nazi sin is all the more bigger. Also, the XX236 sugestion is good . Change the title of the article. Best A.--131.104.218.46 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've previously stated, I would be supportive of changing the title to "...resulting from WWII" instead of "...after WWII" as many German civilians were murdered by the polish "Home Army" and other partisan groups before the official cessation of hostilities. I don't really care to respond to 131's comments, for obvious reasons.

--Jadger 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My answer to 131

The value of human life is absolute and indefeasible ( and so are human rights). To deny it systematically is nothing else but inhuman relativism that leads to totalitarism. When someone tries to rape a child or to burn it alive and you do not help it because your intervention depends on the ethnic background of the child, I would seriously question your moral integrity! The same when you help to conceal this incident – that would be a ( retrospective ) participation in this incident or at least an act of aiding and abetting it. But this article is not about moral philosophy, it is supposed to be an objective description of a specific issue – based on quantitative research. And it should be left to the reader to come to a ( subjective ) conclusion.

Xx236 argument is reasonable, so I agree to changing the title. --Sushi Leone 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

pretty much Ditto, except I believe the current title is satisfactory, but it can always be improved upon. It was not Xx that wanted to change the title, he wanted to remove the information and the number of people killed before the German capitulation in May 1945. I explained why the current title suits, I did not claim it was the best title ever. what does everyone else think of my proposed version (the only proposed version as Xx has not offered one). That is, my version Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans resulting from WWII?

--Jadger 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think it's not only expulsion, but also (and mostly) due to mis-organised evacuation and flight, prior to the expulsion. This has been discussed over and over again. --Lysy^talk 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Even many German texts specify Flucht und Verteibung, i.e. ~flight and expulsion. English Wikipedia shouldn't be more nationalistic German than many Germans are. Xx236 14:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The current title was developed because the original text of this article was extracted from the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I think the current title is awfully long and also focuses on deaths rather than on "total expelled and associated deaths". Only problem is that fixing these two problems makes an even longer title. Imagine Total number expelled and deaths associated with the evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans at the end of World War II. While a much accurate description of the topic, that would just be ridiculously long.

I propose instead that we change the title to Statistics related to the exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe. Still pretty long but shorter than the monstrosity in the preceding paragraph.

--Richard 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Xx, as I said repeatedly before, those who ran for their lives did not give up their land to the next Pole who wanted it, they didn't give their housemaid the deeds to their place when they left. Do you have any evidence that proves that ALL of them didn't want to return to their homes after the war? They ran for their lives, not because they all of a sudden got up the whim to give away their house and move to central Germany. I like Richard's version, except exodus should be replaced by expulsion

--Jadger 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, as I said repeatedly before, don't attack me.

If the title is after it means after, not during. The word one shouldn't be repalsed by the word two, even if you badly want it. Xx236 14:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

TO: Sushi Leone >The value of human life is absolute and indefeasible ( and so are human rights). To deny it systematically is nothing else but inhuman relativism that leads to totalitarism.

That is right. Thus put the number of other nation death close to German casulties. Putting the numbers separately suggests you “selective” intentions. One cry about his looses and forgot about the offended party casualties. I say put first think first. I proposed to mark in first sentence that the expulsion was direct result of Nazi German aggression and unprecedented savagery. Is not truth?

>When someone tries to rape a child or to burn it alive and you do not help it because your intervention depends on the ethnic background of the child, I would seriously question your moral integrity!

That is right. Unfortunately German Nazi did it and why? Germans supported Hitler so much or what? Why the Germans did not stop Hitler before he got to much power? Etc. etc. That question the ethic of all nation is not it? And, are you referring by some accident to others then the Nazis actions? Where is the proof that some bandits of Polish nationality did it? Do not you accuses others for German Nazi attitude just for “moral” confort?

>The same when you help to conceal this incident – that would be a ( retrospective ) participation in this incident or at least an act of aiding and a betting it.

You are damn right? So what is you explanation to Hitler success? Why he was not stopped before WW II started?

>But this article is not about moral philosophy, it is supposed to be an objective description of a specific issue – based on quantitative research. And it should be left to the reader to come to a ( subjective ) conclusion.

I do not think the spreading of ESTIMATIOM is quantitative research.

Estimation is a perfectly valid tool in science, especially in the social sciences. What is critical is to examine and test the assumptions and methodologies underlying the estimation process. Almost all "quantitative research" involves some level of estimation in the form of statistical analytical methods.

I challenge you to provide international research result.

Most research in any field is performed by individuals or teams that are located in specific national locations, whether German, Polish or American. Some research teams may consist of individuals of various nationalities. There are occasionally international bodies which sponsor and sanction research but there is nothing which indicates that only research sponsored by such bodies is admissible in Wikipedia. Thus, a challenge to provide "international research results" should not be considered as a challenge that dismisses all other available data. --Richard 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And about the subjective reader conclusion, let me remain you Dr. G. says: “A lie repeated many times become truth.”

TO ALL: I think those guys who are not Polish or German should voluntarily withdrawal from the argument. They do more harm to the question than both interested parties, I mean German and Polish, would like to see. I already have in my mine one particularly TROLLING individual. AS> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs)

(Trying really hard to keep civil.) Nonsense. Such a request is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. You do not have the right to make such a request. I would suggest that all POV-pushing editors, whether German, Polish or otherwise, voluntarily withdraw from their POV-pushing as their insistence on pushing their biased fixations do far more harm to this article than the NPOV efforts of disinterested parties. --Richard 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

POV check template

To Jagder et al.:

Please stop edit warring over the {{WP:POV check}} template. Let us give User:131.104.218.46 a chance to air his grievances in a more formal fashion.

To 131.104.218.46:

Please read Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View and specifically the guidelines on using the POV check template. Then follow the policies and guidelines as they are laid out. While there are a number of editors (including yourself) who have strong opinions that espouse a particular Point of View, there are others (like myself) who make a strong effort to make sure that all points of view are represented in the article and that the article truly adopts a Neutral Point of View. If you feel that this article does not have a Neutral Point of View, it is incumbent on you to explain why.

It is not sufficient to say "That source is a German historian and therefore his results are not reliable." Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. The appropriate way to challenge data given by one historian is to provide data given by another historian. It is not for us to judge who is right and who is wrong. What we should do is provide sufficient information for the reader to make their own decisions or, failing that, sufficient references so that the reader can do further reading and then make his/her own decision.

--Richard 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

he keeps adding the unreferenced tag also though, and there are clearly references at the bottom of the article, he has been blocked before for this exact action, the admin called it vandalism. Also, the POV check template says to see the discussion on the talk page dealing with a POV check, there has been none. for a POV check, there must be previous discussion and a consensus on the talk page that a POV check is needed.

--Jadger 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The value of human life is absolute and indefeasible

Jadger, show me any your contribution, proving you apply your rule by yourself - describing any German crimes, even German crimes on German people. Xx236 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

see the Wola article for instance, I helped to expand the information on German crimes there substantially. and a sidenote, it is not my rule, maybe you should read the discussion more carefully (although I do agree with the rule). Also, your comment is non-sequitur, just because I value human life does not mean I know everything about every crime against humanity in history.

--Jadger 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, I have checked Wola, the same as always. Xx236 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the same as always? notice that before I started editing there, there was only half a sentence describing the crimes. But when I started editing, I pushed the people working on the article with me to cite sources, if it wasn't for my badgering, the article would never be as good as it is now. And that was just an example, and my first page I editted. But since we're attacking the credibility of other user's here(which is a personal attack), show me any edit of yours, oh great magnificent Xx, that altered the course of history and made Wikipedia ruler of the Internet.

--Jadger 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I’ve written that sentence, so I think I should answer as well. I MEAN what I said: I don’t care about the nationality of the victims or the perpetrators. ( here and anywhere else ) BTW: Thank you for quoting me – but unfortunately my plea not to relativize the incidences seems not to be heard. Again: We should leave the interpretation of this topic to the reader ( an encyclopedia should describe - not suggest ) --Sushi Leone 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

131's love of tags

If you follow the link on the {{POVcheck}}tag, it states The POV check template is not for disputes.

Also, he keeps adding the {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}} tag despite the fact that their is a reference section at the bottom of the article, with references. How can we solve this problem without blocking him or protecting this page?

--Jadger 01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you keep removing the {{POVcheck}} tag.

On the other hand, dear anonymous editor, why do you keep inserting the tag ? The reason for nominating the article for POV-check should be explained in its talk page, that is here. --Lysy^talk 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for the tags at all. On the contrary, they're as alternative to pinning all responsibility of the expulsion to the Nazis, which in effect means that either there is a tag questioning the neutrality, or breaching the neutrality. I've said it before. There is irony in violating the NPOV without success and then unconvincingly tagging it for NPOV. And how would adding a no-refs template be in the spirit of the template? Serafin had several days to give a reasonable and convincing explanation related to the case and considering the rules, but didn't. Sciurinæ 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is equally unbalanced as is the Centre Against Expulsion. The tab sits there from October. Most of the number manipulations are from there. Anyway we have infos there practically only from German sources and the differences are in range of magnitude. Where is the sense to put all the suppositions in Wikepedia. I know answer: to show that Germans again suffered wrong. However, if it grows for cleaning the conscious or for some more practical reasons? The conclusions are: 1) Germans do not know themselves the correct figure. 2) At the same time the are no place for Nazis' victims’ memory. In one words there is no mathematical nor ethical balance. This must be expressed in “visible sign”. AS>

So, can we get this page unprotected then? can we have a consensus as to wether the tags should be removed or not? I say remove them as a) the article is referenced, b)I don't see any real reason that is viable in Andrew's comment above, the reason this is called "estimates" is because the exact number is not known. by his reasoning (Germans do not know themselves the correct figure.) the statistics for the Holocaust should also be removed as no one knows the exact number of people murdered. I am in no way saying we should blank the number of murdered people in the Holocaust, I am simply pointing out the ludicrousy of Andrew's statement.

--Jadger 04:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, the POV check tag is meant to be used as a request for someone else to check to see if the text is NPOV. If you feel that it is not NPOV, then there are other tags for this. If you believe you know how to resolve the POV problems then be bold and fix it.

Or, at least put your concerns here with your ideas on how the problems can be fixed.

--Richard 19:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are falling on deaf ears I think Richard, since Andrew has been blocked the article's name has been changed, perhaps he does not know where it is located now. Or he is just ignoring the article and waiting for it to be unprotected, as his version is in place now. I think the article is NPOV, and I know it is referenced, so both tags should be removed. Can we unprotect this page now?

--Jadger 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source for estimates about Poland

I saw this several months ago but didn't pay much attention to it at the time. I'm not arguing that this person (R.J. Rummel) is right. However, it provides another perspective to consider...

R.J. Rummel Statistics Of Poland's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources

Statistics Of Poland's Democide: Addenda

--Richard 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rummel doesn't have any idea about the history of Central Europe after WWII. Xx236 09:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you think (or what I think either). Find a verifiable and reliable source who criticizes Rummel. --Richard 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written - there exists cultural imperialism, e.g. in form of Orientalism. Rich and free ignorants write books about Western stereotypes, copying data from another Western sources. The time has changed, you don't write the history of Afroamerican slaves from the point of view of of their masters, you even have to write Afroamericans. You don't have the right to copy German stereotypes because such stereotypes are written. No, the Poles haven't murdered 1.5 million of German civilians in 1945, even if one man on the Pacific island believes this.

Even the German politician admits he means both the flight and the expulsion.Xx236 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Estimaties in Czechoslovakia

Rozumět dějinám (Understanding history) ISBN 80-86010-55-4 printed in 2002 page 218: 22.247 violent deaths including 6.667 suicides in the Czechoslovakia during the expulsion 1945-1948. Allies headquarters approved it was a highly civilised expulsion (in the post-war period). 238,000 is ridiculous. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Czechoslovakia, there exists a report named Opinion of the Commission on the losses connected with the transfer, which was prepared by a joint Czech-German commission of historians. It suggests that, in the case of Czechoslovakia, the maximum number of deaths is 15,000 to 30,000 and that numbers such as the 220,000 estimated by the Centre Against Expulsions are not supported by the evidence. That Opinion has been rejected by other researchers, as the commission did not carry out any in-depth demographic studies of its own.

This is highly offensive, insulting and biased. It expresses that Centre against expulsions is a wisdom of the Earth and others are less then they. Who rejected that - centre against expulsions ? I demand this to be rewritten and results of the commission to be written without biased statements. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you would be OK with the text if the last sentence was deleted. The problem, as I see it, is that the last sentence uses a "weasel" phrase, specifically "other researchers". I think you have a valid objection. If this phrase cannot be made more specific by naming the researchers who have rejected the Commission's work, then the last sentence should be deleted. Would that satisfy you? --Richard 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you hit the point. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vital history

We have a problem here with the new title of this article - because now we are describing “vital history”. What means: The exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe hasn’t stopped yet – even 2007 there are still people emigrating from Romania, Russia, Ukraine, etc. If you take the new article title literally you have to mention them as well. Maybe now you understand what I mean with “problem”……. --Sushi Leone 08:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

so would you prefer soemthing like Demographics of the evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe?

perhaps the title of the Exodus of Germans from Eastern Europe article should be changed to Evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe?

would that solve the problem?

--Richard 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

so we could add examples such as Miroslav Klose or Lukas Podolski to the article then, of the modern day people leaving the weak post-communist societies and coming to the economically powerful west (in this case Germany). is that what is being referred to here?

--Jadger 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The former GDR isn't the economically powerful west (excluding Berlin) but rather a weak post-communist society. Neo-Nazis are active there, East-Germans are massively moving to West Germany. Xx236 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany has the largest economy in Europe, and people from lesser countries such as Poland are flocking there now that there countries are a part of the EU. Neo-nazis are active practically in every country, what are you going to say next? that there is gravity in Germany? I didn't realize that, thanks a lot.

--Jadger 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not practically every country has a neo-nazi party in two regional parlaments (MV - 6 places, Saxony - 12). Many German politicians want to ban the party. More than 150 000 Germans emigrated in 2004. Some Eastern German cities lost about 25% of their population during the last 16 years. Yes, people are flocking, creating islamic ghettos in Berlin and public schools, in which German-speaking children consist a minority. German industry is exporting working places against the will of the trade unions, e.g. into Poland.Xx236 09:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure – because not every country has federal /county parliaments (a lot of checks and balances) and a significant amount of Immigration (one in every five persons living in Germany has an – direct - immigrant background)[8] And the economical situation must be seen in following context: Germany is the most successful nation on the global markets ( in exporting goods ) and the third biggest economy in the world. I will not even start to talk about the amount of Hooliganism, Neo-Nazism / Fascism, the Post-Stalinistic Behavior Pattern, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Religious ( Catholic ) Fundamentalism which lingers around in Poland – because that would lead to nowhere ( except to pointless discussions )

Furthermore I don’t understand: What has all that to do with the article and the problem I’ve mentioned above?

I just wanted to point out the fact, that the new title of the article would open a new chapter ( Immigration to F.R. Germany ) and move away from the subject “expulsion in the aftermath of WW2” From 1987 to 1999, Germany took in a total of 2.7 million ethnic German repatriates from the territory of the Soviet Union [9]– if you stick to the new title of the article we would have to mention all that. So I agree to Richards suggestion and would like to recommend to stay focused on the “Expulsion / Evacuation” Topic. --Sushi Leone 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany is the most successful nation on the global markets - you choose one indicator and ignore twenty other ones. Educated Germans emigrate and are replaced by uneducated immigrants who don't like to be integrated. It's not exactly a success.Xx236 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this thread. It has nothing to do with the article and is just a magnet of endless yada-yada. If you like, I can give you my opinion as to why the United States is the most successful nation on the global markets. Or Japan. Or China. None of it is relevant. --Richard 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia and not the GERMAN Wikipedia. Here, we like shorter words and shorter sentences because English speakers think in short words and relatively short sentences. The intended meaning of the phrase "German exodus from Eastern Europe" is to provide a shorter way of saying "Evacuation, flight and expulsion of Germans at the end of and shortly after World War II from Eastern Europe including eastern portions formerly part of Germany prior to World War II". I wouldn't put it past a German speaker to build an article title like that but English speakers just don't think that way.

Now, if you feel that this phrase is not the best way to express what we mean, by all means, propose a better way. I will comment that I chose the name of this article because there is already an article titled German exodus from Eastern Europe. I was just trying to establish some consistency between the title of this article and the title of that one. --Richard 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for patronizing and lecturing me – yes, I know I’m on English wikipedia! So I will keep it short: There is a difference between a historical event ( Expulsion ) and a present incident ( Exodus ) In other words: The expulsion was a PART of the exodus – but not the END of the exodus. Logical conclusion: You can’t use these terms as synonyms. Ok, you’ve chosen the word “Exodus” to shorten the phrase: ”Evacuation, flight……” Fair enough! But exactly that was…let’s say the faux pas. Why? Because they are no synonyms! This is all I wanted to point out in my humble post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, we’ve got two reasonable options to solve this problem: a.) We keep the title and add the immigration scenarios from 1950 – 2007 ( consistent with German exodus from Eastern Europe ) or b.) We change the title to “estimates of flight and expulsion” etc. and keep the focus on flight and expulsion in the aftermath of WW2 ( consistent with Expulsion of Germans after World War II ). --Sushi Leone 06:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you didn't know this was the English Wikipedia. I was trying to make a joke about the differences between the English language and the German language. Sorry if it came across as patronizing and pedantic. Thanks for not taking offense. I was hoping you would get a chuckle out of my "lecture".

That said, I get your point now. I see that a section about emigration exists in the German exodus from Eastern Europe article. I don't remember that being there. Seems like a relatively new addition. Although the easy solution is to add statistics about post-1950 emigration of Germans to this article, I think it would be a distraction here. So, we need to change the title to something like Demographics of the flight, evacuation and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe. I can't do it right now because the article is protected. One of us should do it once we get the article unprotected. --Richard 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, sorry for my flippant answer – but I really felt totally misunderstood. Sushi Leone 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there were at least two "exoduses", maybe three. One big one at the end of the war, another continuing from 1950 until the fall of the Berlin Wall and perhaps another one after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is all speculation on my part as I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I assume the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact had some impact. Assuming that I'm right, the question is whether German exodus from Eastern Europe should cover all three exoduses or just the first one. We need to figure out the number of articles and content of each first and then worry about the titles. And, as should be obvious, the discussion should take place on the talk page of German exodus from Eastern Europe. This article, IMHO, should remain dedicated to the first exodus and the title should be changed to reflect that. (I was just hoping to avoid a title which would extend beyond one line. Perhaps it was a forlorn hope.)

--Richard 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

die Opfer von Flucht und Vertreibung

Bergner discusses the number of the victims of the Flight and Expulsion. Xx236 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Meyers about the numbers

http://lexikon.meyers.de/meyers/Vertreibung Xx236 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My German is not very good but it seems these are the critical sentences in the above link from Meyers...

Bis 1950 sind etwa 12,5 Mio. Deutsche vertrieben worden, davon etwa 7,9 Mio nach Westdeutschland und 4,4 Mio. in die SBZ/DDR. Angaben zu den Todesopfern der Vertreibung schwanken; nach Erhebungen von 1950 oft mit etwa 2,1 Mio. angegeben, wird diese Zahl in der neueren Forschung stark relativiert.

In English

Up to 1950 some 12.5 million Germans were expelled, of which some 7.9 million went to West Germany and 4.4 million to SBZ/DDR (question: what is the SBZ?).

I need help with translating the second sentence. All I can understand is that the number of deaths was often given as 2.1 million but that the numbers have changed over time. What does "Angaben zu den Todesopfern der Vertreibung schwanken" mean? What does "wird diese Zahl in der neueren Forschung stark relativiert" mean?

If there are other important points made in the above link, please indicate them by pasting them onto this Talk Page.

Who is Meyers by the way? Why is he a reliable source?

--Richard 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Meyers Konversations-Lexikon

As the Wiki deffinition says: "Meyers Konversations-Lexikon was a major German encyclopedia that existed in various editions from 1839 until 1984, when it merged with the Brockhaus encyclopedia." [10]

---

SBZ - Sovjetische Besetzung Zone - Soviet Occupation Zone - Space Cadet 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Meyers Konversations-Lexikon Xx236 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DHM

DHM says 400.000 bis 2 Millionen, in another words - no idea what happened: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2/kriegsverlauf/massenflucht/index.html Xx236 11:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job Xx. Here is some translation from German:

"Until 1950 are approximately 12.5 million Germans been expelled, from it approximately 7.9 million to West Germany and 4,4 million Into the SBZ / GDR. Statements to the fatalities of the expulsion fluctuate; after rises of 1950 often with approximately 2,1 million boasted, this number is relativesed strongly in the newer research."

This need some consideration, if the numbers are correct 7.9+4.4=12.3 and 12.5-12.3=0.2 it can be twice so much but unlikely 2.1.

The second link is also good. Shows short story what happened during flight and what can be the causes of majority of deaths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

That is faulty mathematics 131. that is how many were expelled to Germany, that does not include how many didn't make it. and the word you ignore is approximately in approximately 12.5 million.

--Jadger 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

2,225,000

What does de Zayas claim? Did 2,225,000 die after the war? I hardly can believe such bias, you must misquote him.Xx236 08:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" (the German expellees in figures) concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished

The study by Dr. Gerhard Reichling "Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen" (the German expellees in figures) concludes that 2,020,000 Germans perished as a result of the expulsion and deportation - I doubt very much that someoene here has seen the book, because the name of the author has been misspelled twice. Does the author exclude the flight and war as causes of deaths? Do the numbers include POWs deported to the SU? Such small manipulations create the tune.Xx236 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to know how to spell his name, does that mean you've read the book? just because something is mispelled is not reason to delete it. It is however reason to correct the spelling mistake.

--Jadger 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

later the survivors were transferred to East Germany

It seems that civilian workers were (all?) transferred to East Germany but POWs were liberated in 1955 after Adenauer's trip to Soviet Union.Xx236 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Displaced" vs. "migrating"

The change of "displaced" to "migrating" is disingenuous. This is not a move towards NPOV language but an attempt to avoid describing what really happened. These Germans did not just "migrate" of their own free will. They were expelled. Perhaps that expulsion might have been justified but they were expelled nonetheless. I have reverted the edit by User:. 195.56.77.182.

--Richard 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally yes, but since a certain moment people started to migrate, to join their families or to have better jobs/cars.Xx236 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was no migration and it was not justified. The expulsion of the Germans was the greatest ethnic cleansing of European history. 15 million were forced to leave their homecountries of about 800 years. A severe violation of peoples`rights.--92.230.232.28 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the greatest cleansing. It's German nationalistic POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Brigade

I miss in this article the nummerous assasinations of Germans (in this case mostly Nazi's) after the war by the Jewish Brigade which was actively supported by the allied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.96.167 (talk) 16:19, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

How many is nummerous? 100, 1000? This article is about millions.

There took place also Jewish revenge - a number of POWs were poisoned.Xx236 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked French MacLean's and Gerald Reitlinger's books, most nazi functionaries involved in the Holocaust [the targets of Jewish retribution] also held military or paramilitary [e.g., SA] rank, and neither they nor PoWs would therefore be counted as 'civilians', the ostensible population under discussion herein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.126.248 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jews murdered by Nazi Germany are counted as "expelled"

Notable thing about criticism of the Federal estimate, it also includes murdered Jews during the war as "victism of expulsion"--Molobo (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

please give a source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.235.204 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give a source Molobo is wrong. Please register.Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Finer-grained estimates

The table comes from the dubious Centre against Expulsions and contains German POV, cold war accusations. The table dosan't mention US and UK as responsible for the death of tens of thousands refugees bombed in several towns. The table should be removed. Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is a collection of sources for estimates. US and UK are not mentioned in the table, because the deaths are not attributed to anyone. The table just states they happened. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The original table does. So you quote a biased table, selecting certain numbers. Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Asterisk in the table

What does it mean?Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

census data for 1950

I doubt very much that the census included data about German POWs and prisoners in Soviet Union and other Communist countries. Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Total refusal

Noone wants to discuss this biased article. The article quotes absurd cold war propaganda from the period, when German POWs were imprisoned outside Germany. Later many of them returned.Xx236 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Two quoted autors are referenced as Dr. - Gerhard Reichling and Hans Nawratil. Both aren't historians, both present biased German POV. Either all authors should be referenced with their academic titles or none.Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How can there be bias about the obvious fact of the greatest expulsion in European history? Everythins else is Communist or nationalist view.--92.230.232.28 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical facts are never biased. Why can`t Poles and Czechs look at the skeletons in their cellars with an open mind and an open heart, too, like all other countries - especially Germans with their strong feelings of guilt?--92.230.232.28 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 01:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Overmans Remarks on 1974 Archives Report

Here is the German text of Rudiger Overmans remarks made in Warsaw in 1994 on the 1974 Archives Report. He starts out by comparing it to the Church Service documents & 1958 report.

I have included my own translation below,(forgive me I did not use German special characters, I need to buy MS Word auf Deutsch)

Leider sind die Ergebnisse mit den beiden andern Studien nicht vollig vergleichbar, weil die UdSSR, Rumanien und Ungaren fahlen und die Opfer des Luftkriegs nicht berucksichtigt sind. Abgesehen von der UdSSR, die auch in der Bilanz der Vertreibung fehlt, sind die andern “Lucken” quantativ jedoch nicht gravierend. Der erste Einwand gegen eine solche Auswertung ist naturlich die Frage , ob die Berichte vollstadig sind. Es ist zumindest vorstellbar, das gerade die blutigsten Ereignisse erfasst sind, weil niemand sie uberlebt hat. Im Einzelfall mag dieses Argument zutreffen, die Fulle vorliegender Berichte (ca. 40,000 Dokumente) lasst es jedoch nicht vorsellbar erscheinen, das underttausende von Todesfallen unerfasst gebleiben sein sollen. Die Ergebnisse der Auswertung geben also zumindest die Grossenordung der Verluste zuverlassig an.

(the word underttausende appears in the text. It may well be a typo by the Polish Journal Dzieje Najnowsze that published the article, German is not my native language, I hope a German will be able to clear this up)

Unfortunately the report(referring to 1974 Report) and the two studies( referring to the Church Service & 1958 Report)are not totally comparable, because the USSR, Romania and Hungary are missing and air raid victims not taken into consideration. The absence of the USSR, which is also missing in the Bilanz der Vertreibung, are the other gaps quantitative however not serious. The first objection against such a study is naturally the question, whether the report is complete. At least it is possible to consider, that just the bloody consequences are not covered entirely, because nobody survived. In separate cases one may present the argument, the complete report (c. 40,000 documents) remains not totally complete, that Hundreds? of thousands of cases of deaths remain not covered. The results of the study therefore are at least useful in the total coverage of casualties.

--Woogie10w (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Overmans is clear re: the 1974 report. He does not support it as definitive. All other claims that he does are incorrect, he in fact supports new research to clarify the issue.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stay tuned, Tomorrow I will post the Overmans remarks on the Church Search and the 1958 report. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article is in the process of expansion according to discussions at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II and my talk. In particular, an agreement has been reached to expand the sections on the actual studies rather than just cite books mentioning the results of these studies, and to check if the figures given in this article match the figures in the references. The expansion of the studies' sections will most probably result in some re-organizing, and the article might for some time look odd until the expansion is finished and copyediting is done. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Overmans Report in Warsaw in 1994

Dr. Rűdiger Overmans- Personelle Verluste der deutschen Bevölkerung durch Flucht und Vertreibung. This paper was a presentation at an academic conference in Warsaw Poland in 1994), Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI-1994 Here is a brief summary of the main points of the article in English, if other editors need further details, I can provide the exact German text and my translation into English.

• Overmans starts out by remarking that the reported deaths of 2 million Germans is taken seriously in Germany, a moral issue.
• Overmans says sources WW2 Casualties are not all in agreement, including figures on the expulsions.
• Overmans outlines the definitions used for the word “Vertreibung” in Germany.
• Overmans then goes into the details sources used for Investigations
• In 1950 the first attempts were made to register the names of the dead and missing, they established about 3 million persons including military dead.
• In 1953 the German government set up a Search Service that would investigate losses. The concept behind the Search Service was to establish the identity of each person.
• Overmans then provides a detailed table with figures on the losses in the Church Service Report.
  • The figures included 473,016 confirmed dead and 1,905,991 missing civilians
  • The issue of who was actually a German in the figures is not clear
  • The Search Service was not coordinated with the separate investigation of military deaths
  • Information from the GDR was not complete
  • The reported losses were "too low" because they relied only on newspaper reports of deaths
  • Data on those deported to the USSR was incomplete
  • The cases of reported missing is not reliable
  • All we can say for sure is that the Search Service could confirm c. 500,000 dead
• He then mentions that the Schieder commission did not investigate the numbers of dead
• Overmans points out that the 1958 Bilanz der Vertreibung which is based on the work of the Church Service is the most imoprtant source regarding figures on losses.
  • The 1958 Bilanz der Vertreibung has mathamatical errors
  • The 1958 Bilanz der Vertreibung figures include persons of doubtfull German ethnic origin
  • The 1958 Bilanz der Vertreibung figures overestimate who was "German"
  • Military losses were estimated and too low
  • Figures for those Expellees living in GDR were only estimated
• Overall the results of the Search Service and the 1958 Bilanz der Vertreibung are not conclusive and definitive.
• Overmnans then goes on to outline the 1974 Archives study
  • He found the results of this study to be incomplete and not definitive(see full text of his comments above)
• In summation Overmans says German research can only confirm 500,000 of the reportrd 2 million dead.
• He then outlines his current research to establish the number of German military dead.
• Overmans then suggests a new joint Polish-German investigation to study the losses.

I can provide additional details if needed--Woogie10w (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Details 1974 Report

Thank you Skapperod, Very good work. I can't wait for the mail from Germany with my copy of the book.

What do they say about Czechoslovikia? How did they derive the nr of 130,000?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add the missing stuff in about half an hour, as time permits. Unfortunately, I was not able to add it all in one run. The report has another two chapters on ČSR and Yugoslavia which need to be summarized. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet this is the very first time ever that this information is posted in the English language, Wikipedia is working for once, thanks again Skapperod.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"the total amount of victims of the expulsion [from Czechoslovakia] 15,000 - 16,000 (this excludes suicides, which make another approximately 3400 cases)", sources given in Expulsion of Germans from CzechoslovakiaXx236 (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not so the Joint German-Czech Commission put the death toll at 15,000 to 30,000 [11], We cant use Wikipedia as a source. That is what the Commission reported it is clear to see, Wikipedia is wrong.We cannot change the actual number reported by the Commission 15-30,0000.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is in Czech Čísla však podléhají interpretaci celé události, a proto citujme stanovisko Společné česko-německé komise historiků, která v roce 1996 provedla statistické s demografické šetření: „Hodnoty uváděné v německých statistických propočtech kolísají mezi 220 000 a 270 000 nevyjasněných případů (= rozdíl mezi počátečním a konečným počtem obyvatelstva), které se mnohdy interpretují jako úmrtí; údaje uváděné v dosavadních výzkumech se pohybují mezi 15 000 a 30 000 úmrtími.[12]--Woogie10w (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)“

You have quoted only the first part, the next lines support the numbers and reject the 220 000 number.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Expelled by 1950"

"Expelled" includes fligh and deportation here.Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what the German source says "Vertriebene im September 1950" We cannot change the wording of the source. Many were not allowed to return, so they were in fact expelled.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

However, it is reasonable to elaborate on the definition of "Vertriebene/expelled" according to the source. Even better, if you have a source that criticizes the conflation of flight and deportation into "Vertriebene", it would be eminently reasonable to present that criticism in the text citing the source that makes the criticism. --Richard S (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In Poland these events are not referred to as expulsions, rather they use the expression Wysiedlenie i emigracja ludności niemieckiej

This is explained in the section on Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell the Germans refer to the Expelled in the Flight and Expulsion because those who fled were not allowed to return. The Polish object and refer to these events as 'The Deportation and Emmigration of the German people. The German Source cited is very clear they refer to those Expelled not those Deported, we cannot change the wording of the source.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

died during evacuation due to Soviet military operations

Not only Soviet, the refugees were bombed by the USAAF and RAF, see Bombing of Dresden in World War II, de:Luftangriff auf Swinemünde, Bombing of Königsberg in World War II. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• The 1974 report does not include refugees were bombed by the USAAF and RAF only those killed in Poland by Soviet forces

• The 1958 report does include refugees who were bombed by the USAAF and RAF as well as those killed in Soviet military activity, The figures are tiny and are buried in the report, which is ambiguous. Using separate figures from another 1956 German government report the number of deaths was 127,000 due to military operations, mostly in Silesia not in US-UK air raids. The 1958 report also includes those killed in Soviet military activity in Czechoslovakia (38,000); and Hungary (4,000). In my opinion the issue of refugees who were bombed by the USAAF and RAF is of minor significance and not worth mentioning, they are included with deaths during the flight.

BTW I knew a German woman who was evacuated from Silesia in Feb. 1945. Her train was just ready to enter Dresden when she saw the city go up in flames and later went into the ruins to help rescue the survivors.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--Woogie10w (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Golm War Cemetery informs about the bombing of Swinemünde.Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC) "the number of victims varies from about 5,000 to 23,000"Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Estimates of the number of displaced Germans vary in the range of 12.0-16.5 million

The article says 12, I haven't found any other number. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewd Riechling's book and have posted the difference between the figure of 11.9 million and 16.5 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's 1986 Cold war BdV book, what is your source about any 1996 research ?Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The cold war and the BdV cannot change the numbers, 11.9 million were actually expelled, 1.4 million deported in the USSR; and 460,000 Reich German settlers were displaced. 2.7-2.9 million people remained behind(ie:the bi-linguals in Poland)--Woogie10w (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the BdV plays games with numbers just like all political organizations, we need to bore down check those numbers. But I do give the BdV credit because they are doing a lot of good work to make sure that the the Flight and Expulsions are not fogotten and censored out of the history books.

BTW, in the Schieder Commisson report which I have read, they mention that many Poles joined the Germans in 1945 in the flight from the advancing Red Army.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reichling published in 1986. Was his book reprinted in 1995 or it's an error? Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• The book was first published in 1986, a reviesed edition was published in 1995. I own a copy of the 1995 edition, if you have questions regarding the details in this source. I have seen the 1986 edition of the book at the NY Public Library, they seemed to be the same, any changes were minor IMO--Woogie10w (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • How did he get 16.5 using the same sources as other authors? Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What is his name - Reichling or Reichning?Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• In this Wikipedia Expulsion is a disambig, so probably you mean Deportation (a poorly written very short article), or Population transfer (requiring a cleanup) which gives highes estimates than here regarding "German" victims but doesn't give sums regarding victims of Germans - double standards.
  • I understand that all "Germans" who fled are automatically qualified as expelled, which includes Nazi criminals or NSDAP members. An example - the family of Peter Glotz run away to Germany, because Glotz senior was a NSDAP member and administered a former Jewish businnes. The family could have staied in Czechoslovakia because the wife was Czech. Vietnamese are called Boat people, not expelled. Double standards.
• There is no consesnsus to use the word Vertreibung (expulsion), see „Unsere Heimat ist uns ein fremdes Land geworden...“ Die Deutschen östlich von Oder und Neiße 1945-1950. Dokumente aus polnischen Archiven.
• "fogotten and censored" - what is your source? The Vertreibung was a basic myth in Western Germany since the 1945, there existed there such parties, organizations and foundations. MV Wilhelm Gustloff is quite popular since 1959 (Nacht fiel über Gotenhafen "Night fell over Gotenhafen", feature film) - (BTW "Gotenhafen" was a Polish city of Gdynia annexed and renamed by Germany, from which many Poles were expelled or died 1939-1944, but the fate of them doesn't seem to be important and they weren't "expellees").

The article MV Wilhelm Gustloff contains a list of selected books and movies.

• • Es begann an der Weichsel, 1948, Das Ende an der Elbe, 1950 Jürgen Thorwald, reprinted till today in Germany, second corrected edition in Poland.
  • „Unsere Heimat ist uns ein fremdes Land geworden...“ Die Deutschen östlich von Oder und Neiße 1945-1950. Dokumente aus polnischen Archiven. has been published in Poland and Germany, vol. 1 available as pdf.Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1974 German Archives report documenting war crimes against Germans in Eastern Europe is a reliable source that cannot be ignored, excused away or censored from history. It is not right wing nationalist propaganda, it documents historical fact.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly censors or ignores something? Any sources? As far this article as several others impose BdV POV - mixing war and post-war events, German Nazi crimes, Soviet crimes, common criminality. Are there any other such "projects" in this Wikipedia?Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Xx236, I know that you are a sincere person who edits in good faith, since you read Polish you can make a valuable contribution to the project by including the findings of Polish scholars on this controversial topic. The following two books may provide valuable information for us.

• Stanisław Jankowiak, Wysiedlenie i emigracja ludności niemieckiej w polityce władz polskich w latach 1945-1970, , Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, Warszawa 2005, ISBN 83-89078-80-5

• Gawryszewski, Andrzej. Ludność Polski w XX wieku.Warszawa : Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego PAN, 2005

We all need to use reliable sources and work together to improve Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have written Gawryszewski is available as pdf to anyone, he uses sometimes very old censored sources (1960) so don't expect much. Jankowiak is available only in several libraries and I'm not able to visit such a library and take notes or ask a copy of maybe 100 pages. Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet war crimes

Xx236 wrote: "As far this article as several others impose BdV POV - mixing war and post-war events, German Nazi crimes, Soviet crimes, common criminality. Are there any other such "projects" in this Wikipedia?"

Xx236, I'm not sure what you're asking. There is an article titled Soviet war crimes. Perhaps we should have an article titled Soviet war crimes in Poland. What do you think? --Richard S (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean the so called "expulsion of Germans" as it is seen by the BdV, some German politicians and some editors here. Anyone can have his/her POV and the mentioned POV should be described here but it's not a simple "fact" but a summary of - as I have written - "war and post-war events, German Nazi crimes, Soviet crimes, common criminality". So I aggree with you that a comparable article for Poland should exists and be named eg. Extermination and expulsion of Poles 1939-1956 and describe Nazi, Soviet (and UPA) crimes. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... there is clearly argument for the creation of a number of articles with titles such as Soviet war crimes in Poland, Nazi war crimes in Poland, Soviet campaign to exterminate and expel Poles 1939-1956, Nazi campaign to exterminate and expel Poles or something along those lines. Now, I was going to object to the specific title Extermination and expulsion of Poles 1939-1956 because it melds together two separate phenomena (to wit, the Nazi efforts and the Soviet efforts) which were basically independent of each other with the exception of the Hitler-Stalin pact. However, upon reflection, I realize that one could make a similar argument about the expulsion of Germans at the end of World War II. In some sense, the expulsions were considered by the Allies and sanctioned (sort of) by them. On the other hand, the expulsions were implemented more or less independently in each country. Are you sincerely arguing for a unified article scope such as Extermination and expulsion of Poles 1939-1956 or is that just a rhetorical device to argue against having a unified treatment of the expulsions of Germans across several European countries after World War II? --Richard S (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about B. Carroll Reece's opinion ?

The USA had hundreds of congressmen since the war, the same the UK and many other countries. I'm not interested in POV of a Tenesse man, who appparently ddidn't know, what he was talking about. A serious Wikipedia cannot collect any trash which suits POV of a certain group of any editors. This article doesn't quote Communist opinion, eg. J. Stalin's "There were no Germans, all of them run away", so please don't put this trash here.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2007 "We would have to understand how his number was arrived at in order to evaluate how reliable the number is." - we still don't know. Enough is enough.Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

B. Carroll Reece quotes "a preliminary estimate of the losses by the West German government and is no longer considered valid". Why to repeat one more time a wrong estimate?Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The source isn't being stated as definative nor is the importance of its issuer being exagerated. It is sourced and put in proper context, I don't see why wouldn't include it. - Schrandit (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understaqnd that you puts here some POV trash, but I don't see any reason to repeat the same trash twice. Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Xx236: I am the one who found the Reece speech where he mentions 3 million. This was at least 2-3 years ago when I was working on the main article Expulsion of Germans after World War II. IMO, the goal of this article is not to provide an accurate estimate of the number of Germans who fled or were expelled. Providing an accurate estimate is impossible. IMO, the goal of this article should be historiographical in nature in that it provides the reader with an understanding of how those estimates vary depending on the source, the methodology and also when the estimate was made.

The subtext here is that Congressman Reece was making a speech in which he was protesting the ill-treatment of Germans. Given that the speech was made in 1958 and that the alleged ill-treatment had happened mostly in Soviet-occupied countries, I suspect there was a bit of an anti-Communist slant to the speech. Naturally, it was in his interest to provide the higher number for shock value. The primary value in presenting Reece's number here is to show that the estimate has decreased dramatically from Reece's 3 million to 2.1 million and even as low as 1.2 million.

Look at it this way, someone who believes the "correct" number is 2.1 million might consider the 1.2 million number to be "trash". NPOV requires that we present all POVs without giving any of them undue weight.

--Richard S (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But also Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

Please compare Auschwitz concentration camp#Death toll and this article. Why this article is several times longer than the Death toll section? Does it say that the "expulsion" was more important than the Auschwitz camp? Expulsion of Germans after World War II and this article contain more letters than The Holocaust.

If this article is to discuss history of the estimates rather than correct numbers let's change the name. We know much more than 30 or 50 years ago, because many archives were opened around 1990.

This article presents exclusively German POV. Labelling German POV "US" misinforms.

As I have written there exist other estimates, including the Stalin's one - "All Germans run away". Why aren't they included here?Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you quote Reece twice? Why do you quote him under "Other Demographic studies"? With all due respect to Mr Reece, he apparently didn't do any "study" but quoted a West-German source. Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

A number of refugees died in Dresden.Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source with statistics that we can cite? In other words, reliable source X says y number of refugees from the east were kiled in the Dresden bombing. Without a reliable source your statement has no place on Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Prove "No refugees died during the bombing of Dresden" to not mention the bombing in this article.It's fascinating that during several years no author informed about the connection between the bombing of Dresden (and other bombings) and the demographic estimates .... Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is available since 2008 http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/2901/das_ende_der_legenden.html and says "several hundreds".Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I know it to be true. About 40 years ago I knew a German woman who was being evacuated from Silesia, her train was delayed outside of Dresden that day, she saw the city go up in flames!--Woogie10w (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources - POV

Either none or all sources should be listed. This selection is POV.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Expulsion of Germans after World War II contains long lists of Sources and Further reading. Do we need another lists here?Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Source will be verified

The book Vertreibung und Aussiedlung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus Polen 1945-1949 by Nitschke is at the NY Public Library. I have requested this book and will verifify the edits that cite this book--Woogie10w (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of the relevant portion of the book Vertreibung und Aussiedlung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus Polen 1945-1949 by Nitschke - The section needs to be corrected and updated.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources List Update

In order to maintain a balanced NPOV I have updated the list of sources so that it now includes scholarly sources in Polish and those sources in German and English that discuss recent research on the topic by scholars. The list also includes those older German government sources that are currently being disputed. In my opinion we should use scholarly secondary sources and avoid those tertiary sources that are written from the POV of political propaganda. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

German media STERN, SPIEGEL and ZDF are searching eye-witnesses.--85.181.48.121 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

misleading lede

The lede states "The deaths of about 500,000 to 600,000 are verified; estimates derived with the population balance method put the death toll at about two million."

The thing is that most (all?) modern historians don't buy the numbers implied by the outdated (and flawed) "population balance method" - the consensus seems to be converging to something like what the "verified" numbers suggest. But this lede suggests that in fact 2 million died but only half a million have been verified. This is misleading. 500,000-600,000 have been verified and that's probably the actual death toll.VolunteerMarek 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the point you raise is a problem. However, the assertion "500,000-600,000 have been verified and that's probably the actual death toll." is a POV and we, as Wikipedia editors, should not take sides. The lead should provide the full range of estimates with some indication as to what the current range of estimates is. We could say something like "In the latter half of the 20th century, estimates of deaths have ranged as high as 2-3 million. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, new data became available which caused historians such as Overmans, Haar, Hahn and Hahnova to revise these estimates downward to 500,000 to 1 million. However, the German government's official estimate remains 2 million." (NB: I haven't taken the time to get these numbers exact. We would want to replace the round numbers with numbers that represent actual figures rather than the hand-waving numbers presented here.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concern about POV and not taking sides. I'm also concerned with giving a skewed view of current state of research on the subject. In fact, your suggested wording is exactly the kind of thing I think it should say.VolunteerMarek 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the figures

1-3,000,000 – The preliminary estimate made in West Germany in 1950, this figure is no longer considered in discussions of casualties.

2-2,300,000- Per Schieder in 1953-1961. His figures are still cited in some English language academic sources.(ie Stefan Pauser) They don’t tell readers that the author was an ex-Nazi and his population figures were based on Nazi statistics.

3-2,225,000- Per West German Statistical Office 1958. This figure is currently gospel truth in the eyes of the German government. The figures are still cited in some English language sources such as De Zayas. They don’t tell readers that the authors included ex-Nazis and the population figures were based on Nazi wartime statistics and West German estimates of the postwar population in east Europe and the GDR. Overmans, Ingo Haar and the Hahn’s all find fault with the methodology of this report and dismiss its findings.

4-473,000 confirmed dead and 1.9 million missing per the German Red Cross in 1964. First disclosed by Overmans in 1994 who does not accept the figures as definitive. Overmans wants new research on the losses. However Ingo Harr and the Hahn’s consider the figure of 473,000 confirmed dead to be a reasonable account of the losses. The German government includes the 1.9 million missing to arrive at their higher figure of 2.2 million.

5-600,000 dead due to crimes against humanity per the German Federal Archive in 1974- crimes against humanity includes those killed by shellfire as well as deliberate killings, also they include forced labor and internment deaths. The authors claim figure does not include additional deaths due to malnutrition and disease. The footnotes to the report indicate that it is basicaly a cut and paste job that took figures from Schieder and the German Red Cross at arrive at their total of 600,000. First published in 1989, Overmans does not accept the figures as definitive. Ingo Harr has spoken in support of the of the figure. The Hahn’s mention the data from this report without endorsing its findings.

6-2,020,000 per Gerhard Reichling in 1985- Reichling was an official in the West German Statistical Office. Overmans does not mention his work. Ingo Haar mentions Reichling only briefly. The Hahn’s consider his figures to be “old wine in new bottles”

7-2.8 million per Heinz Nawratil Erika Steinbach finds his ultra right propaganda to be just fine; the NPD website reccomends the book.

Those are the figures in a nutshell, if you are looking for the definitive number it does not exist. Overmans wants new research on the topic.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. So out of these, 1, 2, and 3 are "old". The 1974 figure is "in between" both in terms of its vintage and its estimate. Reichling, 6, is somewhat recent, at least more than 1, 2, and 3, but per your comment he is regarded by other contemporary researchers as just rehashing the flawed "old" figures. Nawratil is WP:FRINGE. This leaves Overmans (who wants new research) but currently is closer to the half-million number, and Harr and Hahn, as the recent estimates. VolunteerMarek 21:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This leaves Overmans (who wants new research) but currently is closer to the half-million number Not so, Overmans is not closer to the half-million number. He makes it quite clear that the figure of 500,000 could be understated because there are no eyewitnesses to the events.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No eyewitnesses in Europe? It's not a desert.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

But this does not necessarily validate the "population balance method" as is implied in the lede. See Richard's comment above for something like what it should say.VolunteerMarek 21:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But this does not necessarily validate the "population balance method" as is implied in the lede How does the lede validate the population balance method? I

BTW the Polish losses in the war using the population balance method are 5.6 million and only 1.5 million are verified, Jewish Holocaust dead using the population balance method are 6 million and 3 million are verified.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? 3 million of the 5.6 are Jewish. Which numbers aren't verified - the Jewish or the gentile? Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Harr and Hahn, are not recent estimates. They use 1964 German Red Cross figures that were secret in West Germany until 1994.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

German government finances the SVFF foundation in Berlin, which has recently published http://www.dhm.de/sfvv/docs/Conceptual%20framework%20SFVV.pdf . Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All the figures given here are estimates which take the latest research into account; nonetheless, scholars continue to come to different conclusions. Most figures are quoted from the Lexikon der Vertreibungen. Deportation, Zwangsaussiedlung und ethnische Säuberung im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts (Encyclopedia of expulsions. Deportation, forced migration and ethnic cleansing in 20th-century Europe), eds. Detlef Brandes, Holm Sundhaussen, Stefan Troebst with Kristina Kaiserová and Krzysztof Ruchniewicz, Vienna, Cologne, Weimar, 2010. Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that, we can use it to improve articles on WW2 era expulsions, not only Germans--Woogie10w (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mehtodology

Removed the "" from around the word methodology in the section regarding population balance. The "" indicated to me a derision of the method that slanted NPOV. An encyclopedic text should not influence opinion but instead allow the presented data to speak for itself.TheKurgan (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Critisism by Dr. Heinz Nawratil

My english wikipedia version mentioned the polemic attacs on me by the historian Martin Broszart of the Munich Institute of Contemporary History, but did not mention that he was rebuked and cautioned by the Bavarian State Government which is the supervisory athority of this institute, see the original letter on Heinz Nawratil`s home page. .Kunibert 2Kunibert 2 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I posted this to the section on Heinz Nawratil. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Government as a source of the Highest Truth, the super-Academy? Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The letter posted on Heinz Nawratil`s home page does not mention Nawratil or Broszat by name, it was dated 3 April 1985. The remarks of Martin Broszat of the Munich Institute of Contemporary History were published in 1987. The two are not directly related. In this case, what should we do as editors of Wikipedia? Tell me please.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I must point out that on Wikipedia all information posted must have a reliable source that can be verified. With regard to the posting of polemic attacks by the historian Martin Broszart of the Munich Institute of Contemporary History, the source cited is:

• Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts „Bevölkerung“ vor, im und nach dem „Dritten Reich“ Zur Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerungswissensch: Ingo Haar Die deutschen ›Vertreibungsverluste‹ – Forschungsstand, Kontexte und Probleme, in Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts „Bevölkerung“ vor, im und nach dem „Dritten Reich“ Springer 2009: ISBN 978-3-531-16152-5 Page 373

I have a copy of the text of this article should any questions arise--Woogie10w (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The historian Martin Broszat.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Allied Strategic Bombing

Does the section describe the same cemetery or two separate ones?Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Source Der Spiegal does not describe that detail but says most of the dead were local people from Swinemünde killed in air raid. Do you have source that describes two separate cemeteries?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

About 500 victims of the raid were identified and buried close to the entrance of the Golm War Cemetery and the remaining dead were buried in mass graves. The estimated number of victims, including residents of Swinemünde who were also encompassed by the expulsions, varies from about 5,000 to 23,000. The German War Graves Commission estimates that 20,000 victims are buried at the cemetery with further burials within the town limits.1958 the West German Government demographic study of expellee deaths estimated the total civilian dead in the East Pommerian region due to Anglo-American air raids after 1/31/45 at 8,000.

Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What is your point?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the original section suggests there are two cemeteries and I want to rephrase, see above. The cememtery article should be linked when mentioned for the first time.Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

One or two cemetaries, what is so important about that? The unfortunate people were killed.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Prisoners among victims?

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,14699758,Koniec_z_falszowaniem_prawdy_o_V_2__Zbrodniczy_projekt.html Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Article is about Peenemünde not Swinemünde. Clear cut case of apples and oranges--Woogie10w (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• According to a German academician the number of victims of Swinemünde is 10 000 and not 20 000 [13]. The article uses obsolete sources.
• You are right that Peenemünde prisoners didn't have the right to be buried at Golm, the place was for their German masters only. I'm sorry about my illusion. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ruhestätte von tausenden Toten des Zweiten Weltkrieges- Auf Englisch, The resting place of thousands of dead from the second WW. Not 10,000--Woogie10w (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ethnic groups of 12 Million German Refugees

After WW2,（1945-1948） There are 12 million Refugees ,Are they all ethnic germans or just refugees from east Europe？and how many Refugees arrived Germany finally？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.172.9.84 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The West German sources listed on this page consider the 12 million expelled persons as Germans. The refugees from east Europe were in a separate category who were resettled outside of Germany under UN administration after the war. In addition to the expellees the 1950 West German census of 1950 does list 540,000 foreign nationals residing in West Germany including 70,000 Poles. Among the 12 million expelled Germans there were some who could also speak eastern European languages such as Polish and Hungarian. The bottom line here is that that they remained in Germany and were assimilated into German society. In the past I have known expellees who spoke Polish and Hungarian, the Germans from SE Europe spoke Schwäbisch , which is only marginally intelligible with standard German. There are many Germans with Polish ancestry see the Polish diaspora. de:Lothar Dombrowski was known as a master of the German language, he was born in Poland

By 1950 12 million persons were expelled. According to West German figures from 1951-84 1.1 million ethnic Germans emigrated from E Europe, they also claimed the total in 1982 was 16.2 million by adding the natural increase in population from 1951-82.

I hope this helps--Woogie10w (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

16.2Million german expellees all residing in West Germany...i remembered there also a lot expellees in DDR，or you mean there are 16million expellees in Whole Germany in 1982 and this 16.2million expellees are all German ancestry，right?now，will the government regarded these（540,000） foreign nationals（Poles and others） as Germans or immigrant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.172.83.124 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Demography for further details. The figure of 16.2 million includes 11.0 million W. Germany,4.070 million E. Germany, 400,000 Austria and 750,000 in other countries Source:Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, part 1, Bonn: 1995, p. 59. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC) You Wrote "will the government regarded these（540,000） foreign nationals（Poles and others） as Germans or immigrant? They were listed as foreigners not German citizens. The expelled persons on the other hand were given German citizenship See Population of West Germany & W. Berlin, Paul Myers and W. Parker Mauldin, U.S. Bureau of Census 1952 pp.28-29.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

People in Nazi Germany were radically homogenised 1933-1945 (the Volksdeutsch respectively since 1938, 1939, 1941) in Nazi organisations, army, participating in crimes, under influence of Nazi propaganda.

Kashubians, Warmiaks, Masurians and East-Uppersilesians were Slavs who Germanised step by step. There is no page here for Słowińcy/Slowinzen, who were already fully Germanised. Sorbs were also expelled or emigrated.

I have read a book written by a Volksdeutch woman (a girl during the war), she was told - You aren't German, because you wear earings.

Germans speak many dialects till today.

The 12 million were expelled legally, but many of them run away and never met any Pole or Czech (some of them were transported as prisoners of the Nazis). The second group run away and wanted to return but wasn't allowed. The third group was expelled, but some of them lost their farms and houses, some of them didn't have anything. The other group was deported to Soviet Union and later transported to Germany. The leaders of the Expellees were - a daughter of a German soldier (the girl returned with her mother to the mother's home in Germany), and a son of a German man and Czech woman (the family ran away to Germany probably because the father was a small Nazi). Some of the expelled were imprisoned or mistreated during long transports. Some Germans moved less than one kilometer inside their towns, like some Goerlitz or Frankfurt/Oder inhabitants. Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

NKVD special camps in Germany 1945–49

This article doesn't discuss NKVD special camps (which existed also outside Germany).Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Germans from former eastern territories of Germany

Well the article defines "expulsion people" as German nationals of various ethnicities and ethnic Germans,so is that means the "Germans"（7 million from former eastern territories）here are actually ethnic poles of German citizens fled to now germany after war? because I've read that the number of ethnic poles are More than ethnic Germans in the Eastern Province.（Don't know if is true) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You wrote " I've read that the number of ethnic poles are More than ethnic Germans in the Eastern Province.（Don't know if is true)" Please cite a source for this observation. On Wikipedia we need to support our edits with reliable sources. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinz_Schlesien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Posen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Prussia check this， Although the census was in 1919 but you can find the germans are not in the majority of the population in the east province. In a way, I'm not trying to prove anything here, and i don't know much about that neither,So i put this here and want find answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

People were expelled for being of German ethnicity and speaking German, so I wonder how people come up to the idea to speak about Poles.. The People of Lower Silesia, East Brandenburg, Pomerania and Danzig were expelled nearly completely, because they were inhabited mostly by Germans. And the Province of Posen and West Prussia were not part of Eastern Germany / eastern territories since 1919.. --Jonny84 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There were Polish activists in Germany Union of Poles in Germany#Structure and number of members and bilingual people, who generally left Poland either during the Expulsion or later. Many of them spoke both dialects, so they were criticized both in Poland and in Germany.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I don't know how to reference, so I don't criticise. However our list repeats the same texts, compare to WWII.Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018004836/http://www.igipz.pan.pl:80/zpz/Political_migrations.pdf to http://www.igipz.pan.pl/zpz/Political_migrations.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018004836/http://www.igipz.pan.pl:80/zpz/Political_migrations.pdf to http://www.igipz.pan.pl/zpz/Political_migrations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The map - several problems

The map doesn't explain history nor ethnic composition of the lost areas.

The map shows only lands assigned to Poland and Russia. Bohemia was a part of Austria and later some of the ethnic Germans run away or were expelled to Austria. So the map should be moved to Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802025300/http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/?id=59 to http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles?id=59
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722000000/http://www.tschechien-portal.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=134 to http://www.tschechien-portal.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)