Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Adding of the word "Nazi"

Mamalala (and probably his/her IP, 99.64.215.189) has been adding the word "Nazi" around this article where I do not believe it belongs. Examples:

• Original: "pre-war German provinces transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union after the war"
• Changed to: "pre-war Nazi German provinces transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union after the war"
• Original: "The majority of the flights and expulsions occurred from the former eastern territories of Germany transferred to post-war Poland and the Soviet Union"
• Changed to :"The majority of the flights and expulsions occurred from the former eastern territories of the Nazi Germany transferred to post-war Poland and the Soviet Union"

In these cases, limiting the description of the provinces and territory to simply "Nazi Germany" is a bit too narrow, in my opinion. The territory had been conquered by Teutonic Knights, Prussia, etc., long before the Nazis came to power. I'm taking this to the talk page for comments, since this appears to have devolved into a revert war. --BaronLarf 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Mamalala should read some European history for the years, for example, of 1919-1931.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon, perhaps you should shut up if you have nothing else to say other than suggesting that somebody may be historically illiterate. BaronLarf, official name of the pre war German State was Nazi Germany and the territories transferred to Poland, Czechoslovakia and the USSR were provinces of the former Nazi Germany. I believe the word Nazi may be used n this instance.--Mamalala 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mamala, regarding your belief that ..."official name of the pre war German State was Nazi Germany" (sic), I think you're mistaken. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the baron. These territories in question had been part of Germany long before, to reduce that to the Nazi period is misleading. The territories annexed by Nazi Germany during the war are in contrast referred to as pre-war Polish/Czech territories annexed by Nazi Germany, and classifying these differently as is done makes sense given the historical context. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Americas

That whole section on the detention of a small number of German Americans never comes up in the historical literature on the Expulsions, only on Wikipedia are the two issues linked together. The source cited deals only with the detention of Japanese in the US, not about expulsions in Europe. In my opinion this is Original Research and has no place on Wikipedia. I suggest that we delete this section.

I agree, this section is not needed because there is no connection with the resettlements in Eastern Europe--12.130.116.227 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointer: included in the figure of German born persons in the US in 1940 are legal residents who were not US citizens as well as US citizens born in Germany. Note well that the 1940 population figure includes German Jewish refugees that fled Hitler Germany --Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever requested to delete this section, this is sourced material related to the article's subject and must not be deleted. One could instead create a spin-off, copy-paste the section there and leave a summary here - this is how stuff like this is usually handled. Concerning the OR allegations, please substantiate. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no special right to delete what "must not be deleted". The text in question does not belong to this article and has to be deleted. If you want you can create a spin-off article yourself. The editor who deletes that stuff which don't belongs to the article is under no obligation to create new articles.  Dr. Loosmark  19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite just one source on the topic of the Expulsions in Europe that includes the internment of German Americans. Without that source the section becomes OR. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The section contains references, the expulsion of Germans in the Americas is sourced. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the sources cited are not related to our topic, which is the Expulsions. Is there a source on the Expulsions that treats the internment of German Americans? Knowledgeable readers will see this section and suspect the other content. This section drags the rest of the article into the gutter. I am wasting my time here, I need to get back to The New Cambridge Medieval History --Woogie10w (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources explicitly deal with expulsions of Germans, and use the very term. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created a spin-off and reduced the section to a few lines. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been following up on your spin-off work. The more fundamental issue, I think, is that the "Americas" material has nothing to do with post-war activity and is fundamentally unrelated to the subject of this article. I've started work on German American internment, a topic to which I think these expulsions from Latin America and subsequent internment in the US properly belong. I'm also going to see if I can find an entry dealing with US-Latin American relations into which some of this material might be inserted if it isn't already there.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a corner of history in great need of further research. If I am not mistaken, the post-war aspect is that after the war-time detention none of those families were given their land back and some were expelled to West Germany in the mid/late-1940s. - Schrandit (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added this new short section: Latin_America_–_United_States_relations#Expulsion_of_Germans_to_the_U.S._from_Latin_America_during_World_War_II

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected?

why was the article semi-protected?  Dr. Loosmark  19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I semi-protected the article due to a content dispute which started to devolve into an edit war. When consensus is reached on here, I or another admin can unprotect it again.--BaronLarf 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Consenus is impossible to reach with user Skapperod because he blocks any changes which oppose his heavy POV. I request you lift the semi-protection which nuked out the IP contributors and left Skapperod free to edit. You should invite user Skapperod against initiating revert wars.  Dr. Loosmark  19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please dont personalize the debate by making unsubstantiated assumptions. In fact, the IP's version was protected. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my hope that all interested will discuss changes on here before making major edits to this page, including User:Skäpperöd. You are right, semi-protected does allow Skäpperöd (and you and I) to make edits to the page, while preventing anonymous IP's from doing so. But I hope that we all refrain from doing this, to prevent further edit wars and perhaps necessitating full protection before bringing it all back here again.--BaronLarf 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From wikipedia's policy on semi-protection a page can be semi-protected in edit wars, qoute, where all parties involved are anonymous or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. Please reverse the semi-protection or I will be forced to report you in the appropriate venue.  Dr. Loosmark  20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not reply to this message since I was doing non-Wikipedia things. (I notice that less than an hour later you reported this situation to WP:ANI.) I chose semi-protection rather than full-protection since, from an outsiders view at the time, it appeared that there was section blanking by an anonymous IP that was then protested by established users. It is unfortunate that Loosmark has assumed bad faith on my part. Since an admin that everyone appears to perceive as neutral (User:Wehwalt) has entered in to mediate the disputes on this page, I will leave it to him to help reach consensus and take care of the protection. Cheers. --BaronLarf 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not semi-protection vs protection but rather that the page should have not been protected in the first place. And btw I have not assumed bad faith but rather that you made an error due to poor judgment of the situation.  Dr. Loosmark  04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the lead section

Please do not remove the lead section into the background section. The lead does not contain background information, it summarizes significant issues of the article. The lead had been stable for month. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference format and article length

Part of the article's over-size, which in fact might cause problems for people with slow connections, is due to the reference format. Optimizing the format would save a lot of bytes - deleting sections certainly will not solve anything. It will take time though. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is over-size because a lot of stuff was piled in which belongs to some other article. I suggest you write an article about the situation of Germans in America and then you can link it back here. That was would help a little bit.  Dr. Loosmark  20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

I've been asked to look over the article, having at least some knowledge of events, since I've read one of the books cited (After the Reich). It may take me several days, depending on how much time I have to look at it. I am wondering about the long paragraph that begins the background section. That strikes me as OR and as POV, since it clearly seeks to justify the expulsions. Can someone enlighten me as to how that paragraph came to be in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That entire tedious background section needs to be trimmed down. It is like sludge in a pond that builds up over the years. --Woogie10w (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if people are willing to sit back and let me have a go at the article, I think I can improve it considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Wolfing. I moved the

IP additions

Migration is one of the key elements of twentieth-century European history. The concept of "extreme nationalism" requires ethnic homogeneity as a basis for political order, it became one of the most effective and powerful ideologies of the time. Ultranationalism considered transferring some of the European population as a legitimate political methodology, rationalizing the use of force against minorities and arbitrarily doomed millions of human beings to persecution, discrimination, contempt and deportation.

The historic German settlement in Eastern Europe, which developed over nearly a millennium, gave rise to populations of ethnic Germans who settled in other countries such as in eastern Russia. Its existence was used by German nationalists, including the Nazis, to justify their aggressive territorial claims to other countries, which led directly to the German invasion of Poland and World War II.

As Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia first and then Poland and other European nations, some members of ethnic German minorities in occupied countries supported the invading forces and the subsequent Nazi occupation. These acts caused hostility towards ethnic German minorities in occupied countries, and later were used in part as the justification for the expulsions. During the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, many citizens of German origin who lived in occupied countries applied for German citizenship through the Deutsche Volksliste. Some of them held important positions in the hierarchy of the Nazi administration or participated in actions and crimes of the invaders. When the Nazi regime collapsed before the advance of Allied armies, fear of reprisals drove these people to try to flee to Germany. It is documented by numerous German sources, medical reports and testimonies of forced labor that some members of the Soviet army committed numerous human rights violations, as revenge for what the soldiers of the German armed forces had done in their homeland . The news of these atrocities were exaggerated and propagated by the Nazi propaganda machine.

here and recovered the lead from the background section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I sliced a paragraph from the background section, completely unsourced. I suggest that we put in information on how it was people of German ethnicity (or whatever the proper terminology is) were scattered all over the Baltic, not to mention points south.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job, that paragraph was an unsourced POV push unrelated to the topic.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be a concise summary of the articles content, what we have now is a long rambling monlogue that is confusing. In my opinion the editors should assume the readers have little or no knowledge of the topic --Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the article should be structured generally as follows: historical background (scattering of Germans in Eastern Europe), decisions to expel (national decisions in the wake of WWII, any decisions at Yalta and Potsdam), then have the discussion of the individual national expulsions, broken down by countries. and maybe a section on total casualties, then a section on effect on Germany itself together with legal status of the people and their absorption into Germany, and then summary/legacy. I don't have my reference (After the Reich) with me right now, and it will be several days until I do. But that is my general thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt the legal issues related to the Expulsions need a better explanation in this article. As an attorney and a Wikipedia admin you can provide a professional presentation of the arguments and a neutral POV.

What was the legal rational for the decision of the Allies to expel the Germans and compensate Poland with German territory? Were the Allies justified in expelling the Germans? Poland refers to these lands as “recovered territories” that were historically Polish. What are the legal pros and cons of this Polish argument? The issue of war crimes comes up here, to what extent can German civilians be held accountable for the crimes of the Third Reich? Should the Soviet Union and it’s communist allies in Eastern Europe be called to account for the death of German civilians during the expulsions and war? Is there any justification for future German and Polish claims for compensation due to the loss of life and property in the era of WW II? Should the Expulsions be equated with the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, Sudan and Rwanda? --Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What is missing from Wehwalt's proposed structuring of the article are the indescribable crimes of Nazis which directly triggered the post war expulsions. Also a section about the German nationalists pumping up the number of deaths would be good too.  Dr. Loosmark  12:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, we need Wehwalt here to help us clarify those issues and give this article a NPOV.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how is Wehwalt going to give this article a NPOV based on one source pro-German source: "After the Reich". I suggest using other sources too.  Dr. Loosmark  14:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you'd suggest other sources, I'll see what I can do about getting them. And I meant them as broad categories. Obviously the actions of the Germans in WWII is a large part of what triggered the expulsions, and that needs to be covered. Not to mention before WWII, Czechoslovakia clearly would not want to go through a second Sudetenland crisis.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This may do for starters Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe Available as MS Word for Windows file (3.4 MB)

For a Polish perspective see PIOTR EBERHARDT POLITICAL MIGRATIONS IN POLAND 1939-1948 [1]

Nemesis at Potsdam covers the main points of the debate from a pro-German POV.

Truth or Conjecture? By Stanislaw Schimitzek was published in Poland in 1966, The author presents a critique of the German position. It is available for sale at BookFinder.com. His arguments are basically the same as those presented in Poland today. It is still worth reading today.

I will be able to help with any requests for the number of ethnic Germans in the various nations prior to the war, the number expelled and dead. The sources vary and have been the subject of vigorous controversy.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt wrote, Obviously the actions of the Germans in WWII is a large part of what triggered the expulsions, and that needs to be covered. Not to mention before WWII, Czechoslovakia clearly would not want to go through a second Sudetenland crisis. The reply of many Germans would be the Allies applied a double standard in the case of the Germans after the war, the expulsions should be judged in the same manner as other war crimes during this era. Czechoslovakia expelled its Germans but France, Belgium and Romania did not. Note well I am not taking sides, only playing the devils advocate.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will look at them, when I get a chance (likely to be a couple of weeks). When I visited Poland last year to visit my grandfather's ancestral village, our tour guide took the perspective that the Germans had all left voluntarily. Maybe that's what they teach, who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

who knows? You are correct, it's Wikipedia. This article is a minefield, I plan to avoid this page in the future. Goodbye.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't get much enthusiasm up either. Look, I'm good at article improvement, but I can't do anything where there are fundamental conflicts.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nawratil

Woogie10w suggested at my talk to remove the sentence with Nawratil. I would be glad to do so - contrary to his assumption, I was not the one inserting him here. Any opposition? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, Nawratil's book is pure political propaganda, not an academic study of our topic. Steinbach is a politican who represents a group with controversial POV. We should try to use academic sources, even if they are controversial like the Schieder Commission.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

wikilinks

Udvisning af tyskere efter Anden Verdenskrig: no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.121.8 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the interwiki, but it does not work - neither in no nor in nn: [2] [3]. Is it possible for you to clarify? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion before August 1945

In this article are mentioned "three phases" of expulsion: "The displacements occurred in three somewhat overlapping phases, the first of which was the spontaneous flight and evacuation of Germans in the face of the advancing Red Army, from mid-1944 to early 1945.[21] The second phase was the disorganized expulsion of Germans immediately following the Wehrmacht's defeat.[21] The third phase was a more organized expulsion following the Allied leaders' Potsdam Agreement" - But what about the organized expulsion of people before August 1945? Like this in Juli 1945: [4]. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

POV title

The article is about the Flight and Expulsion of "Germans" during and after WWII, where "Germans" include several ethnicities. The current name misinforms. The German foundation is called "Flucht, Vertreibung, Versöhnung", not "Vertreibung, Versöhnung". Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see what is POV about the title. - Schrandit (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think the title does not reflect the article's content properly, request a move. As long as you do not provide sources confirming that people adressed as "Germans" in this article were in fact not Germans, there is no POV issue here. If there were expulsions of non-Germans not yet covered by another wikipedia article, you are free to start one. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"The article is about the Flight and Expulsion", not about the Expulsion only. What kind of sources can I deliver, when the title isn't compatible with the content?Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) There are two possibilities - either move or to limit this article to expulsion only (BTW - even the word expulsion is POV).Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The flight covered by this article is only the flight of those who were subsequently expelled, it is not the flight of Germans during WWII in general. Sources use "expulsion of Germans" [5] rather than "flight and expulsion of Germans" [6], but this is an issue for RM, not an NPOV issue. A POV title would be if the title adopts the view of just one or a few sources, like naming this article "genocide of the Germans". Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.strzelin.reformowani.pl/historia.htm Czech people living in Strzelin region left their homes either for Czechoslovakia or Germany.
• http://petertscherny.pe.funpic.de/strehlen/hussinetz/

Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are free to create an article about the flight? or expulsion? of these Czechs, and whoever else had to leave their homes and is not covered by this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Czechs, who went to Germany, are described here as Germans. The same many Upper Silesians. So this exactly article needs informations who were the "Germans" - citizens of many countries and people of several ethnicities.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The people did not simply fled and never came back. A part of them come back and were expelled shortly later or they were not allowed to come back or they were prevented from coming back. So its not a simply flight. If they did not fled, they were subsequently expelled. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the flight and expulsion, there exists discrepancy between the title and content. Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. "Population movements" or "relocation of ethnic groups" would be more appropriate terms.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nazi ethnic cleansing

I was reading the "Thoughts" section above and my attention was drawn to the "unsourced paragraph" that Wehwalt deleted via this edit so I went to review it. The paragraph may be "unsourced" but probably all of it could be sourced. I don't think it is the lack of sourcing that is the issue as it is a question of whether the material belongs in the article and the level of detail to which we should discuss this topic.

I think the paragraph is too long for a Background section but I do think it is important to mention that Nazi "ethnic cleansing" contributed to an anti-German attitude which destroyed centuries of more or less peaceful coexistence. I'm not trying to say that this justifies the expulsions legally or morally. I am trying to say that this helps explain why the many of the populace were willing or even glad to see the Germans go. Was it unjustified collective punishment? Perhaps. (IMO, it was.) However, we need to establish somewhere in the article what the Germans were being punished collectively for.

--Richard S (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If sources can be found, go for it. Be weary of terms like "contributed". How much did they contribute? Was this the dominant factor or just a minor one? - Schrandit (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The introduction says: "it was the largest movement or transfer of any single ethnic population in modern history[5][10][11] and largest among the post-war expulsions in Central and Eastern Europe (which displaced more than twenty million people in total)." If such statement summarizes the article, the context should be also added:

-The Germans transferred, forced to run away or killed more than 14 million. (Are victims of one nationality in any way better than the ones of several etnicities?)

-The majority of Germans was transferred to Western Germany, hundreds of thousands of non-Germans were transferred to Soviet Union, many of those people to Siberia or Kasakhstan.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that informs anything. - Schrandit (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not sure, what "it was the largest movement or transfer of any single ethnic population in modern history[5][10][11] and largest among the post-war expulsions in Central and Eastern Europe (which displaced more than twenty million people in total)." means without a context. That Germans were the main victims of the century?Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, was the context? - Schrandit (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See above.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

POV title

This article is about the flight and expulsion, anyone can read it. It's not about expulsion only. Calling the flight and expuslion "Expulsioon" is POV, like calling "one" "two". Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Here are German sources http://www.dhm.de/sfvv/,http://www.hdg.de/lemo/html/Nachkriegsjahre/DasEndeAlsAnfang/fluchtUndVertreibung.html .

It's not only the problem of changing the title, maybe the article should be shortened and the facts regarding the flight should be moved to an another article.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal has been discussed at length and was refuted by the community. If you want to have another WP:RM, make sure you bring up new arguments which outweigh the counter-arguments provided in the last RM. I will therefore remove the tag. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not only the problem of changing the title, maybe the article should be shortened and the facts regarding the flight should be moved to an another article.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Who were the Germans

The article links such definition :"The German people (German: Deutsche) are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common German culture, descent, and speaking the German language as a mother tongue.". The "Germans" in this article included people of Slavic ethnicities and for some of them the German language wasn't a mother tongue. The context should be explained in this article.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please point to the sentences in the article that identify Slavs as Germans. You are free to create articles about whoever else was expelled, I encourage you to do so. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This Wikipedia defines Germans. This article isn't about Germans only. People deported as Germans had different ethnicities. Where is the problem?Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article are non-Germans declared as Germans? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "Germans" should be defined in this article, because it doesn't mean precisely Germans here. Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Xx236, this seems like a ridiculous splitting of hairs. The article deals with the expulsion of Germans. If by chance some other ethnicities were expelled during the process, that doesn't make them Germans. I believe that many of the people you are talking about are covered in separate Wikipedia articles. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You believe? It's a Wikipedia, not a church of believers. Check and return, please.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Czechs from Strzelin region left either for Germany or Czechoslovakia. Many Upper Silesians died in Soviet Union or run away or were deported to Germany and the majority of them had Slavic roots, they spoke Silesian language at home.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most folk will understand we are talking about the whole German ethnic group, not just the ones that live in Germany. I also think most folks already know that plenty of central European peoples were batted about by Stalin.

In the case of Poland here are some basic facts

1-The Polish census of 1931 listed 740,000 persons who gave German as their mother tongue by 1939 this would have been about 800,000 persons. Polish statistical data from the 1930's indicated that there were about 500,000 Poles who would work in Germany on a temporary basis as migrant workers.

2-During the war in the annexed territories the Germans enlisted 2.7 million persons on the Volksliste., of whom 1.0 million were Cat 1 & 2- German speakers. This was presented as evidence at the Nurnburg trials. There were about another 100,000 ethnic Germans in the Government General.

3-After the war in Feb 1946 the Polish census listed 427,000 persons who were not classified as Poles or Germans, they were being verified for possible Polish nationality or expulsion.

4-The 1950 German census listed 670,000 ethnic Germans expelled from pre-war Poland of whom 49,000 were bi-linguals.

5-The 1950 Polish census listed 1.1 former German citizens(in the recovered territories)that had been verified as Polish, most of these people were in fact bi-lingual Polish-German, about one half of these bi-lingual people eventually left Poland for Germany after 1956.

6-The 1950 German census listed 84,000 Polish nationals living in Germany at that time.

7-The 1950 Polish census listed 44,000 former German citizens (mostly from Ruhr)that had been verified as Polish, most of these people were in fact bi-lingual Polish-German.

8-In the 19th century about 400,000+ethnic Poles migrated to the Rhineland region, by the mid 20th century were considered Germans but many would still have had knowledge of the Polish language.

I hope this helps clarify the issue.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To help readers not familiar with the ethnic rivalries in this case understand the complexity of the issue here let me relate my personal experience, this is to only to further clarify this issue and to try to avoid a ethnic edit war on this page.

My grandfather spoke both German and Polish fluently because he had a Polish father and a German mother.

A good friends family are German expellees from Silesia, his father served in the Wehrmacht and spoke Polish., his uncle who also served in the Wehrmact remained in Poland. He was a member of the Polish United Workers Party (communist) and brought up his children to speak Polish.

I knew a former SS officer who lived in Germany, before the war he was a Polish citizen of ethnic German decent and spoke fluent Polish and German.

I knew a Polish MD his parents were ethnic Germans from Poland before the war, they remained loyal to Poland and were imprisoned by the Nazis. His uncle served in the SS and was expelled from Poland.

I ask readers the question- are these people Polish or German.?

--Woogie10w (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure "readers" are totally qualified to answer your question with the limited information provided. In the case of your grandfather, Polish-German seems to be the answer. The long and short of it, however, is that especially in border regions of countries there is often a mixture of nationalities. Often the individuals themselves are unable to determine their nationality and claim it under various circumstances. Even change it back and forth. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of my grandfather I will provide a definite answer, he came to the US on Oct. 29, 1886 and became a US citizen on Jan 1, 1906. As for the others I can only feel sorry for them because they became pawns in a horrible war.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Woogie, your "definite answer" isn't an answer to your own question..."are these people Polish or German". Obviously your grandfather became an American citizen. Today a very large portion of American citizens when asked what their nationality is will mention their ancestral origins (if they know them). Do you think your grandfather was Polish-German, or did he lose such a distinction upon obtaining U.S. citizenship? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article could elaborate on the issue of why some persons were expelled and others allowed to remain. Anyway lets drop the issue of my grandfather.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. That's the main reason that I dislike anecdotes based on personal experiences and encounters on the talk pages. Rarely is anything helpful gleaned from them. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I only mentioned these cases to only illustrate the difficult issue of ethnic identity in the case of the Expulsions after the war, I never intended to include them in the body of the article. They will help the people in the English speaking world who are not even aware that these events took place and Wikipedia may be their first introduction to the topic. Many administrators on Wkipedia may not be well informed on this topic and will find it hard to pass judgment in the event a dispute arises on this page. On Wikipedia we should strive for a NPOV and avoid the polemics in modern day Germany and Poland. A NPOV would include the an explanation rational of the Allies for the expulsion of the Germans and the events that occurred from 1945-50 told in a matter of fact manner avoiding emotional language. We should also avoid the polemics that seek to justify the expulsions based on the war crimes of the Nazis. On the other hand avoiding the polemics in Germany which turn the expulsions into atrocity propaganda. The article should bring Germans and Poles together to write an account from a NPOV, not to reopen old wounds and turn the article into an arena of ethnic warfare.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Yes, Woogie I didn't think you wanted to include these individuals into the body of the article. Regarding your other contention..."The article should bring Germans and Poles together to write an account from a NPOV, not to reopen old wounds and turn the article into an arena of ethnic warfare". Sounds good. But I have to ask you, since you opened up this issue, just what percentage of the ten million Germans expelled (give or take a few million on the high or low side of the various estimates) fit into this neat little explanation dealing with, as you put it, your personal experiences, about bi-lingual S.S. men, Polish Communist Party members, physicians, and members of the Wehrmacht? I'm not asking you in bad faith or with an ulterior motive, but I suspect that the percentage is probably quite lower in reality than by the examples you gave. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, just what percentage of the ten million Germans expelled (give or take a few million on the high or low side of the various estimates) fit into this neat little explanation

A-In the territories annexed in 1939 by Germany the total population was 9.5 million. 2.7 million persons(28%) were put on the Volksliste of which 1.0 million(11%) were considered German. The other 17% had German ancestors and were considered sympathetic to the German cause. Given the totalitarian nature of the Nazi occupation many of these people felt pressured to sign the Volksliste. In Feb 1946 the Polish census indicated that their were 228,000 persons from pre-war Poland being subject to verification for their role in the war. The German census of Oct. 1946 indicated that there were 611,000 ethnic German expellees from pre-war Poland.

B.In the Recovered former German territories and Danzig there were about 9.3 million persons before the war (not including an additional 1.1 million in Soviet annexed East Prussia). Due to war losses there were about 9.0 million in 1946. The Polish census of Dec. 1950 indicated that 1.1 million persons were former German nationals. The German population in Soviet Kallingrad was nihil. That would mean about 11% of the prewar population was of Polish-German background. Some of the expellees living in Germany from this region were bi-lingual German-Polish, that means the figure of 11% would be the minimum figure for those persons who fit into the category of Polish-German.

The accounts given in the Schieder Commission go into considerable detail on the process of the verifications by Poland and the local decisions to expel persons after war. In many cases expulsions depended on the whims of the local Polish officials.

I hope this helps you to better understand the issue of the Polish/Germans--Woogie10w (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interpretation, Woogie, although it might be a little more helpful to others. I feel that I have a particularly good understanding of the subject. If the figures are correct it will benefit many who are less familiar with the subject than you or I are. Am I correct that according to your analysis 90% of the people expelled were Germans (89%) and 10% (11%) were German-Polish, give or take a percent or two? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote If the figures are correct

The figures I have presented here can be verified in the following sources:

A. The population of the annexed territories and the Volksliste

Nürnberg Document No. 3568. Data from this document is listed in Martin Brozat, Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik Fischer Bücheri 1961.

B.The Polish 1946 census

Statistical year book of Poland [microform] / Central Statistical Office of the Republic of Poland.Warsaw : 1947-

C.The Polish 1950 Census

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

D.The German 1946 and 1950 Censuses and figures on Expellees

Steinberg, Heinz Günter. Die Bevölkerungsentwicklung in Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg : mit einem Überblick über die Entwicklung von 1945 bis 1990. Bonn 1991. ISBN 3885570890

Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Woogie,

the section titles Who were the Germans?

The southern aerea of the former East Prussia was bilingual. A large part of its inhabitants were ethnic Kashubians who spoke a Slavic dialect. It was an area, which belonged to Germany before the war and there was no 'Volksliste', in which people could register as Germans like in the Nazi occupied Poland. This area was hard to look through, in order to decide, who was Kashubian and who not. What do you think, who were the people, who were expelled there? --Henrig (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

These people were actually Masurians , mostly adherents of the German Evangelical Church who voted in the 1919 plebiscite to remain in Germany rather than Roman Catholic Poland. The Kashubians lived in a different area, near Danzig on the Baltic sea. After 1956 many of the Masurians left Poland for Germany, but there are still about 59,000 Polish speaking adherents of the Evangelical Church in Poland today. For example the former German Evangelical Church in Dzierzgoń, my grandfathers birthplace, was abandoned in 2002.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. May be Masurians were also called Kashubians in common usage, or my informer, whom I used to know and who was expelled as a child with his family, didn't know the difference. On some maps I've also seen, that Kashubians were located near Danzig.

I heard one day, that he came to Germany a few years after the war (about 1950) and asked him about his story. He told me, that after the war in this confusing area there was something similar to the 'Volksliste'. People, who signed, they want to be Poles, could stay for a while. The others were expelled immediately. The next few years the authorities had the possibility to watch who speaks German in public and who not. So they drew a 'Black List'. One day they came to all those families and they had to leave their houses within hours. The only reason seemed to be, they used German language in public and were seen a Germans. Only a story, heard by a man, who himself was a child of nine years at this time. (The complexity in the south of former East Prussia and in Upper Silesia is the reason, that these are the areas, where still today exists a small German minority.) --Henrig (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Henrig, if you get a chance visit Poland. Many young Poles speak English, the staff speaks German at the large Hotels and you can hire a German speaking cab driver as a guide. When I first went to Poland in 1970 I was advised never to speak in German, today things have radically changed, there are regular groups of German tourists that make bus tours to the major cities.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Woogie, thanks. I know about such bus tours, but would prefer to be more independant. Poland is still a white place on the map of my visited countries. By the way, I don't know, which was the exact area of southern East Prussia, he came from. I've formerly seen that some border areas were also inhabited by Kashubians. I'll take the next opportunity to ask about. And there is also the possibility, that Kashubians and Masurians had changed in my mind. --Henrig (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Henrig: Masurians lived in southern East Prussia, Kashubians live(d) in southern (and central) West Prussia/Pomerelia, else, your information about the post-war selection is correct (see here). Basically, the authorities decided who was "too German" to stay, the focus was on keeping as many Masurians, Kashubians and Silesians in these former border strips as possible, declare them as Poles and thus prove that these areas rightfully belong to Poland ("Poles" live there!). These are the 1.1 million "verified Poles" whom Woogie10w correctly lists in his stats, of these, 900,000 were in Upper (i.e. Southeast) Silesia. However, this does not really have an impact on the ethnicity of the expellees, since most of these so-called "autochtones" were not expelled, but emigrated as soon as they were allowed to (Masurians) or stayed (many Upper Silesians). This article does not include these emigrations, they are covered in Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II. Further, this affected only few former frontier areas, not the expulsion territories as a whole. Those who were expelled were expelled exclusively because they were Germans, thus the article is named "Expulsion of Germans". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Henrig:The documents and reports in the Schieder Commission give a detailed account of the expulsions from Poland

Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder Neiße - in 3.Bänden-Bundesministerium für Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge und Kriegsgeschädigte (Hrsg.)

An abridged English edition was published

Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central-Europe, Vol. I: The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse

--Woogie10w (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Kashubians lived in Poland or Free City of Danzig since 1918, not in West Prussia/Pomerelia. Please don't use Nazi terminology.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"West Prussia/Pomerelia" is not Nazi terminology. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It was, under Nazi occupation, and the opponents were killed or imprisoned in Stutthof KZ. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you're going with that. - Schrandit (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"In many cases expulsions depended on the whims of the local Polish officials." - exactly. So the officials sometimes defined who was German in 1945. But calling the officials "Polish" needs some explanation. Do you call people ruling a Western movie town "US officials", especially when the rulers are criminals? Communist "Poland" was created by SU, US and UK against the will of majority of Poles and Polish administration removed by the Red Army and NKVD 1944/1945.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem(s) with the article

I think this article needs to be completely rewritten because it makes a complete mess of the following "categories", people who:

1) were drafted into the Wehrmacht and then disappeared
2) were killed as the war-zone reached them
3) fled before the war-zone reached them
4) who voluntarily left Poland
5) who were actually expulsed.

Apart from that the article is still way to long and perhaps needs to be split.  Dr. Loosmark  18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mess"? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is not only messy but also biased. Moreover, as I recall you do not let anyone to touch this article.--Mamalala 05:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"you do not let anyone to touch this article" and opponents perish, like in the Bermuda triangle.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Loyalists-American Revolution.

Americans could perhaps understand the expulsions when we consider the fate of the Loyalists after the American Revolution.

The Paris Peace Treaty required Congress to restore property confiscated from Loyalists. The heirs of William Penn in Pennsylvania, for example, and those of George Calvert in Maryland received generous settlements. In the Carolinas, where enmity between rebels and Loyalists was especially strong, few of the latter regained their property. In New York and the Carolinas, the confiscations from Loyalists resulted in something of a social revolution as large estates were parceled out to yeoman farmers.

About 100,000 Loyalists left the country, including William Franklin, the son of Benjamin, and John Singleton Copley, the greatest American painter of the period. Most settled in Canada. Some eventually returned, although several state governments excluded the Loyalists from holding public office. In the decades after the Revolution, Americans preferred to forget about the Loyalists. Apart from Copley, the Loyalists became nonpersons in American history.

Source: [7]

My GGGgrandfather fought on the American side and was given 100 acres of conficated land in 1784.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Woogie, the information provided by your link [8] is great information. Thanks, I enjoyed it. However, your analogy is far-fetched and hardly relevant. Regarding your GGGgrandfather, I would say "ditto" to your earlier suggestion [9]. Respectfully, Dr. Dan (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The analogy is not that far fetched, right here in NYC there is a monument for the 7,000 dead American POW who perished on British ships in the harbor. In the south there was a brual partisan war that took lives of civilians. Feelings were bitter toward the British for generations afterwords.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand all of that, but we're talking about the forced expulsion of millions of people, many whose ancestors lived on these territories for a millennium in most cases. The analogy is quite weak, I'm sure there has got to be some better ones out there. As for the analogy helping Americans understand this event by comparing the plight of the Tories after the Revolutionary War to the forced expulsion of millions of Germans from close to a third of pre-1939 German territory, that's a stretch. Hope it helps. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My analogy is not that far fetched. There are direct parallels between the two historical episodes. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the US history of that era. A general introduction to the topic is The Forging of the Union 1781-1789 by Richard B. Morris. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long.

Once again, article is too long.--Mamalala 05:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fears of irredentism

If I remember correctly, between one quarter and one third of the inhabitants of west Germany are from the east of the Oder-Neisse line, which explains the sensitivity of this issue among many Germans and fears of irredentism expressed by the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland.--Mamalala 06:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about any irredentism of rich Germans. The problem is rather German state propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be the European Union Court System controlling such events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Is this article really about expulsion after WWII, or about all German population movement in and after the later stages of the war? The content seems incompatible with the title, and when total numbers are given we don't know what's being talked about.--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about those who fled from the later expulsion territories and were barred from returning, those of the same group who returned and were evicted, those who did not flee and were evicted, and those whose flight turned into an expulsion somewhere on their way, all of whom are usually grouped as expellees in literature and by German law. The article is not about the later, more or less voluntary emigration, which has its own article. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So do you agree that the title is wrong? Both the word "expulsion" and the word "after" would imply a narrower scope than we have. And starting off the article by saying "By the end of WWII..." implies that the end of the war was some kind of watershed for what we're about to discuss. Then when it goes on to give total numbers it looks like these were the total numbers for flight/expulsion during the war (if that's what they are, then surely they shouldn't be given such prominence in an article which is about something else, but I suspect they're actually totals for the whole process, which isn't made clear at all).--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest a title for the article, then, that properly defines its scope? Would something like "Flight and expulsions of Germans (1944–1950)" suit? (Or whatever date range the article is intended to cover.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII is currently a redirect to this article, we might change the titles. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me (though "WWII" should be spelt out). Any objections?--Kotniski (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The article begins: "The later stages of World War II, and the period after the end of that war, saw "the flight and forced migration" of millions of German nationals (Reichsdeutsche) and ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) from various states and territories of Europe."Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since yesterday it does. What is your point? Do you agree with the proposed renaming?--Kotniski (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Either the title or the article should be changed.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've started a move request below. I also note that Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II is effectively a fork of part of this article; see Talk:Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II#Merge or refactor for the possibility of merging the two pagse or otherwise redistributing their material.--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Are big nations more important?

Some German editors claim here that the deportation of Germans is the biggest because the Germans consist a single ethnicity. The Germans forced to run or deported more than 14 million people during WWII. Are the victims less important because they belonged to several ethnicities? BTW German sources inform about Deutsche and Deutschstammige. Are Deutsche and Deutschstammige one ethnicity? Are Slavic Upper Silesiand of the same ethnicity as Bavarians?Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you read too much into this - the article just says the biggest such movement of a single ethnic group. It doesn't say or imply that this is worse or more significant than other occurrences.--Kotniski (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner. - Schrandit (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why a fate of a "single ethnic group" is so important do mention it in the intro? It's a nationalistic POV. BTW - prove it was a "single ethnic group". The 20 century was also the time of socially motivated persecutions. I don't think that etnic persecutions are more important than the social ones. The quoted sources say about "Europe". It's OR to omit the word. Please read the text you send me to. Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources listed in note 175 don't say "in Europe". Do you have an example of a larger such displacement somewhere outside Europe? (And don't think of this in terms of anyone's POV - we're not judging, we're just describing what happened and its significance.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In China 12 million is a statistical error. The revolution, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution caused immense numbers of victims. I'm not the expert in Chinese matters, but any person claiming that the "expulsion" was the biggest isn't apparently one. Pakistan and India exchanged about 14 million people and if one claims that the "expulsion" was worse should know the problem. Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet evacuations 1941-1942

To compare them with the discussed ones we need to add German crimes - mass executions, making POVs starve, kidnapping of Ost-workers, so we obtain numbers around 30 million. I don't have ethnical division, but the area was Slavic and differences between Eastern Ukrainians, Belarusans and Russians are comparable to the ones among the "Germans".

(Thank you for the help)

• Contemporary Soviet military affairs: the legacy of World War II, Page 4

Jonathan R. Adelman,Cristann Lea Gibson

Another 17 to 25 million people fled eastwards in the path of the German advance in 1941 and 1942

• The Bread of Affliction: The Food Supply in the USSR During World War II

William Moskoff page 30-31

Gives 16,5 milion http://books.google.com/books?id=gMNlerxYVuwC&pg=PA30&dq=soviets+evacuated+million&lr=&ei=wP_MSo7XBpW-zATY5LnkBw&hl=pl#v=onepage&q=soviets%20evacuated%20million&f=false

• US intelligence perceptions of Soviet power, 1921-1946

Léonard Leshuk page 182 In fact though, 20 million was close to the true number of for the post-Barbarossa formal evacuation Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your premise, that "the area was Slavic and differences between Eastern Ukrainians, Belarusans and Russians are comparable to the ones among the "Germans"" does not comply with WP:NOR. Whom did you "thank for the help"? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are no academic texts about differences between the "Germans" who arrived into Germany after WWII and about Eastern Slavic languages, Russian Empire etc. I'm sorry to present my OR.Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the links in the body of the article and in the see also section suffice. - Schrandit (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand you.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Article too long

This article is too long (over 160 KB) and should be divided into smaller articles. I perceive that the article also has other serious problems that are discussed in the archives[[10]].--Mamalala 08:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the same point a couple of months ago, so I completely agree with your observation.  Dr. Loosmark  14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already is the main article for a lot of spin-offs, and I do not see much room for further splitting. Wikipedia usually allows for articles covering extraordinary events to exceed the common recommended size. Rather reduce bytes by reformatting refs. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is simply too long[[11]] + problems (see talk pages)--Mamalala 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rules of thumb for splitting articles: > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) ≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) < 40 KB Length alone does not justify division This one is 160 KB plus.--Mamalala 08:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mamalala you did a good job on that lead, it really needed to be cleaned up. Thanks, keep up the good work.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are much longer pages, e.g. History of Poland with 291,386 bytes. -- Matthead  Discuß   12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The current article is poorly written and sorely needs a lot of cleanup work. Over the years this article has become a hodgepodge of edits by editors who acted in good faith but unfortunately lack historical expertise. Overall my POV is sympathetic to the plight of the German civilian population who became the victims of the expulsions. The historical facts need to be narrated in a credible scholarly article rather than the current disjointed, poorly written mess that exists at this time.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that this article has a number of very serious historical inaccuracies and is biased. It seems that it was written by the person or persons possessing neo-Nazi tendencies.--Siekierka (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that article is poorly written, too long and hard to read. Many sources are cherry picked by the creator. I think the reduction of content would even help to better understand the problem of the Germans who were expelled after the war.--Siekierka (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The comparable articles on German Wikipedia de:Vertreibung and de:Heimatvertriebener do a much better job covering this controversial topic. On German Wikipedia they have a zero tolerance policy for persons possessing neo-Nazi tendencies.This article cites Heinz Nawratil as source, Nawratil has also written for the Institute for Historical Review, which has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization [12]--Woogie10w (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about this, the article does not use Nawratil as a source. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans does.Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The president of the Federation of Expellees, Erika Steinbach, relying on a work by an author associated with the extreme far-right, Heinz Nawratil[118], who also has written for the Institute for Historical Review The mention of Nawratil is there and he drags the article into the gutter. He is mainstream and persona grata in Germany, however in the English speaking world the Institute for Historical Review is considered neo-Nazi. You ruin the article by dragging his name on the page, why?--Woogie10w (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was not me who inserted that. That was the EEML, and the purpose - well, speculative. I agree however that the Nawratil fuzz was not helpful for the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Already a long time ago when I read this article I had serious doubts about the neutrality and the political orientation of its authors. I think more German editors should be invited to address the issue. Wider participation of neutral editors is also needed. So far this article was written by one person (quick look at the history page) who clearly controls its content and does not allow others to present their views.--12.130.116.227 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the sheer amount of material being removed in the name of "clean up." I hope the sourced material is restored to other places within the article, or into new articles with a "see also". --BaronLarf 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will look at it later. Thank you for the comment. PS. I think German editors should be more active here because it is the history of their nation.--12.130.116.227 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point Baron, the material on the German Americans belongs in the article on that topic, not plugged into the Expulsions in Europe. The section deleted is sourced, however it is never included in the historical liturature on the Expulsions and belongs elsewhere. To include the unrelated issue of the detention of a tiny number of German Americans is Original Research, even though the material has sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the information about German Americans; I was more concerned about paragraphs regarding where Germans fled/emigrated from. This looks like it's devolved into an edit war, so I soft-protected the page. Registered users can still make edits, of course. Cheers --BaronLarf 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that my entries have been erased by the editor in question. I intend to cease further edits until this problem is solved. More improvements to the article are recommended.--12.130.116.227 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Germans inhabited the border area of Bohemia for about 800 years. In some places the German population was more than 90%. The history and the culture was German. After the Treaty of Munich 1938 the Sudetenland (as this part of Bohemia was called after the beginning of the last century)became part of the German Reich. After 1945 3 million Sudeten Germans were expelled according to the Benes Decrees - an obvious violation of human and peoples´rights.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)