![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2004. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are two headers now: the one by Ruhrjung and the one by Cautious. I must say I like the earlier more since it looks as if it was a good compromise. Cautious, could you please stop reverting it? Halibutt 12:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For comparison:
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the expulsion policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of all ethnic Germans from the eastern parts of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe.
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer, of all remaining Germans, from outside post-WW2 border of Germany, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference.
I think, this makes no sense to put POV staff: some believe it was ethnic cleansing some something else in the header. There is a place for discussion later in the article. Factual problems are 2: population transfer had to occur from outside of the new borders, not only from so called Eastern Germany of Nico. Eastern Germany must be then defined as Eastern Germany from 1937 and this makes no sense. Another factual problem is that it is stated ethnic Germans, and this is subject of our dispute. The POV staff includes mentioning SU, without mentioning UK and USA, and without collaboration from UK and USA the transfer wouldn't be possible. Cautious 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most Germans from the eastern parts of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe.
I agree on one of User:Cautious's points. My proposed wording is unlucky in that respect, that it literally says "eastern parts of Germany" despite the expulsions affecting also areas neither belonging to pre-War Nazi Germany, nor being declared annexed during the war. However, the expulsion of Germans from East Germany is that much more important, as it affected a large number of persons, that I thought it at this place, where brevity is important, waranted this deviation from the absolute truth. Furthermore, as I already have noted, I dislike the weaseling. However, we must also try to be pragmatic. How could this article reach a stabile maturity? If you ask me, not by trying to carry on where the Red Army halted in 1945. A compromise is called for.-- Ruhrjung 13:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So, is ths version acceptable?:
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most people considered Germans by the communist authorities, from all the areas located east from the post-war German border. This policy has been agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
To do:
Few things that i see as being controversial in article and headers: (by szopen) "The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the policy of ethnic cleansing of the Germans from the eastern part of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite powers in Eastern Europe. "
"- Property in the affected territory that belonged to Germany and Germans was confiscated. "
vs "Property in the affected territory that belonged to Germany and Germans was to be used as a partial compensation for property damages caused by Germany during the war and as compensation for Poles affected by population transfer from territories ceded to Ukraine. Most people, from either side, who lost their property during the war, have never been compensated. "
"The Heimatvertriebene in general are aware and recognize the fact that Poles since 1945 live in the eastern German homelands. The official proposed policy is not to repeat the Potsdam Agreement expulsions with new persecutions and population transfers. Most Heimatvertriebene welcome the Slavic peoples now living on German lands as welcome friends and neighbours in the European Union. "
I would call it highly controversial. Lands are not eternally German, Polish, or whatever. RIght now they belong to Poland. Period. Szopen
Ok, current state: Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Germans remaining outside of German territory as defined by Potsdam Conference.
previous state: Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer, of Germans, remaining outside post-WW2 border of Germany, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference.
My points:
Before you start adpersons: I'm Pole, born in Wroclaw and loving it and my grandpa was from Lwow, his family relocated. But I don't think that it matters when it comes to facts. Forseti 11:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nico, its to you: Your version of header can be disputed on grounds of factual and logical accuracy:
-- Forseti 11:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
SO, we again have "Eastern Germany"" despite the fact, that it was also expulsion from lands that were not parts of Germany?! Szopen
i.e. Poland, people that signed Volksliste were subject of legal persecutions as a traitors. They were also subject to death penalty during the war. We should put this detail to the article.
===Volksdeutsche=== were subject of severe persecutions in Eastern Europe. I tries to make an article World War II traitors hunt. They were persecuted as traitors, not as Germans. It is not fair to put them as German victims, without stating what was the problem. ===Some of Volksdeutsche were not ethnic Germans.=== In Poland there were 2.8 milions of Volksdeutche, while pre-WW2 German population were around 1 milion. Polish Volksdeutsche were more persecuted then German Volksdeutsche. Are we going to put them as Germans killed after WW2 or we state the truth? For example, the Lambinowice camp were for Silesians, partly positively verified afterwards. Killed there people can be shown as an example of Stalinist persecution of Poles or Germans killed by Poles. Wouldn't be better to state truth? Cautious 11:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The article son't mention the ongoing deportation of Germans and Volksdeutche to Siberia. ===
Cautious 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It seems as discussions dominate over warfare at the moment. That's good. May I ask which wordings you would have preferred?
--
Ruhrjung 12:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd go for something like this:
German policies on the lands incorporated into the III Reich included forcing the inhabitants of Silesia and Pomerania to sign the Volksliste. In 1943 the number of pre-war Polish citizens to sign it reached 2.300.000. Many of them were ethnic Germans, however a big number of them were Poles. Until 1945 approximately 250.000 Poles were forced to join Wehrmacht, most of them in the Pomerania region. Almost 90.000 of them were taken POW on the western front and later joined the Polish Army. However, 50.000 Poles taken POW on the Eastern Front were treated the same way as the soldiers of German nationality and only 2.000 were allowed to join the army. After the war additional 30.000 Poles who signed the volksliste were arrested and sent to work camps.
People escaped, people were transfered, people also wanted to emigrate ===and after 1948 tobe-Germans were banned emigration. It is never stated in the article, that after the forcible transfers, most of people wanted to emigrate but couldn't. +
I think that approximately 5 milions escaped, 5 milions were transfered. Unknown number includes people deported to Siberia. If we come with 15 milion number, it means that approximately 5 milions emigrated when it was already forbidden. (Escaped, emigrated after W.Germany-Poland treaties and so on) + Cautious 09:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If we want to cover the whole subject, evacuation must be described in details. i.e decision of creation festung Breslau was followed with evacuation of 90% of dwellers (1943 - neraly 1 milion people, 1945 100 000 people). Cautious 09:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User:Cautious's call (above) for banning his opponent
User:Nico from discussions, and his repeated revertions to own version, without discussing it here, is maybe a habit which could be better adopted to a cooperative
modus vivendi?
--
Ruhrjung 13:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nico is not my oponent. Nico is somebody obsessed with the hate to Poles and Polish history (or maybe his family suffering). There is no resonable deal possible with Nico, since he:
and so on. The article prepared with cooperation with Nico, will be false. Cautious 15:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe, Sudeten Nazi POV. Quite interesting reading http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/sginferno/sgi00.html 81.27.192.18 10:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The problem is not POV, the problem is factual. I have no idea what is true in those informations, because they are about Czechoslovakia. I know, where exactly the German revisionists made factual falsifications, when they talk about areas of Poland. The main difference between Poland and Czechoslowakia is that Poles were treated as conquered nation. There were no nazi haven in Poland (in opposition what is described as nazi haven in Sudetas) and somebody had to be held responsible for this. Cautious 11:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so Nico again reverted from version which seemed to have more neutral wording (not: more resembling the truth, but: more neutral). My first reaction was to revert, but i decided that i will wait at least one day to wait whether someone else would also object.
Also, some of Nico's wording is highly misleading (some, especially from former Soviet satellite states, say - giving impression that the opinions are not revelant.) The question is still here: there was a lot of evacuation of Germans during war, the Breslau is not the only example. Are those numbers taken into account when giving numbers of Germans involved in post war population transfer? Szopen
The word "Nazi", as applied to ethnic Germans who were civilians and of unknown political affiliation already demonstrates that you are not NPOV. If you don't like Germans and don't want to get along with them... well, whatever. Most are happy to simply rationalize the crimes of the Soviets against the German people without trying to cover them up.
I removed rather extensive edits with several different controversial assertions, from an anonymous (Earthlink/Mindspring) contributor who elsewhere chiefly have added the claim that the Baltic peoples were "Germans".
I suspect this being an example of pushing one's own point of view.
-- Ruhrjung 06:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another anonymous contributor (from Prague) removed the second sentence from the following paragraph:
I don't know if that's motivated or not. I just think the removal ought to be documented here.
--
Ruhrjung 09:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the mass deportation (generally considered ethnic cleansing) of Germans living in the eastern part of Germany lost after WW2, as was ordered by the Potsdam Conference.
Factual problems: there is no consensus, that it was an ethnic cleansing and obviously, it was not limited to former German territories. Even if refer to former German territories, it is not clear, what is meant. (It remaindes me the pre-WW2 joke: "German teacher: Hans, please show me the borders of Germany. Hans: Herr Lehrer, I haven't read todays newspapers yet") Nico wants Eastern Germany to refer to 1914 borders, some discuss 1939, 1937 or 1944 borders. Cautious 07:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your point so far. The wording is sub-optimal and the article is, in general, a mess with dozens of inconsistencies. However, you are wrong if you see Nico as your enemy whom you have to beat one way or the other. You would better try to rephrase sensitive wordings in a way which you seriously believe also Nico would agree to, or if not agree, at least accept.
A msg:disputed-header might seem warranted for, but in reality, I believe there is a NPOV-problem in the background. Don't you?
I think it's time for you guys to read the
Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial for some guidance!
--
Ruhrjung 08:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Did we reach a compromise and all accept this header? Halibutt 00:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've just read nice article in which it was pointed that terms "expulsion" and "resettling" are forced because of political reasons. "Expulsions" is used to create impression that it was illegal, and with mass-crimes. "Population transfer" quite the opposite. It can't be therefore compromise here; I propose mention _why_ there is argument over using these words and finish the case. Szopen
Optimism is a good, and often necessary, feature! :)
I think you are right, that an analysis would be wikipedic!
But the quarrels can surely continue over the wordings of the analysis too. :-((
But please, make a try!
--
Ruhrjung 23:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.
Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK, here are some casualities [1]
Vertreibungsverluste:
Tote und Vermißte während der Vertreibung
Gesamt: 2.111.000
Die Gesamtverluste betragen 3.211.000 (Kriegsverluste 1.100.000 und Vertreibungsverluste 2.111.000). Von den 1939 in den Vertreibungsgebieten ansässigen Deutschen ist somit jeder Fünfte gefallen oder umgekommen.
Nico 01:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok, but what about 15 million number of displaced? How many of them were expelled, how many evacuated or escaped during war? Szopen
15 million is the number the Bund der Vertriebenen provides. It includes "Flucht, Vertreibung und Aussiedlung". It should not be impossible to find detailed casualities, if necessary. Nico 07:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Exactly:
Flucht means Evacuation (5 mil)
Vertreibung means Expulsions (5 mil)
Aussiedlung means Emigration (5 mil)
Do you suppose that we Poles, forgot German language??
This article is dealing with the expulsions only. Casualtis number, this 1200 000 include also the victims of the evacuation.
Cautious 08:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. It's all covered by "Expulsion of Germans after World War II", and it makes no sense to have three separate articles dealing with German "evacuated", "emigrated" and "refugees". "Vertreibung" has a wide meaning in German. That's why the Bund der Vertriebenen are calling themselves, exactly, Vertriebene, which includes those who fled, those who remained and were forced to leave and those who had to emigrate when their country was occupied.
Nico 08:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I feel that it is completely unapropriate to put the heading "Expulsion" then in the header "DEPORTATION" and reference to the people, that were so lucky to get passport for emigration from communist Poland. Do you know, that some people waited 8 years to get an approval for emigration?
The artcile named Expulsion should be about expulsion. By the way, I am preparing the article under working name
User:Cautious/Dawn of German East
that should deal with all that subjects.
Cautious 08:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Those figures from Ostpreussennrw.de - what are they based on? Do they include civilians killed by Soviet armed forces during the war? Or killed by allied bombing? Or died due to food shortages in Europe?
Ostpreussenrw.de is a pressure group representing displaced Germans and their relatives. Not a neutral site!
Exile 20:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've just reverted this (mosty Nicos) version
Wikimol 08:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's good that the both of you take such a constructive approach to this edit-matter. A major problem has until now been the very lack of constructive attempts to find wordings that can be accepted also by others than the editor and his/her closest. Nico isn't the only one here around. And this is wikipedia: No-one owns a text one has written. If you don't believe you can convince Nico (which I really hope you can and believe), well, at least try to adapt your wording to other people who would find blatant pro-Soviet or Poland-glorifying POVs of
User:Gdansk's vein unconvincing!
--
Ruhrjung 09:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
ethnic nation states / ethnically homogenic / states / nations / countries
IMO current ethnically homogenous nation states is good, homogenous is propably bettert English than homogenic, and avoids logical problems of "ethnic... ... nation". Link to article explaining concept of nation state is IMO also in its place. Are there any objections against it, or is it only Nicos wish to add some defamations of expulsion/transfer advocates?
Numbers - for a change, I restored them in second paragraph. Anyhow, first paragraph with is many ; statements is allready overweighted. Wikimol 10:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I do not like this article for various reasons.
I do not like this article for various reasons.
* It cites dubious numbers without source (e.g. "between 12 and 15 million people moved to Germany and over 2 million German civilians were killed or died during the process")
* some wordings lack neutrality (e.g. "Another explanation is even simpler."),
* there are numerous language mistakes (even very obvious ones like "around around 2 million Poles"), indicating none of the people this encyclopedia is written for (english speakers) care for it.
* The style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "The issue of the expulsion is still quite contentious and is thus not easy to judge. For example, take the case of Erika Steinbach")
* There is a message at the top that this "article should be merged with World War II evacuation and expulsion" but both badly written articles still exist.
*I feel quite significant difference between words "expulsion" and "transfer". I would appreciate the latter one. Miraceti 14:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I came across this page and noted that its NPOV disputes seem to have calmed down. Therefore, I made an effort to improve the language. Almost all changes were purely to bring the article to standard written English. If I made any errors that changed the meaning, those were unintentional. Gwimpey 06:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2004. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are two headers now: the one by Ruhrjung and the one by Cautious. I must say I like the earlier more since it looks as if it was a good compromise. Cautious, could you please stop reverting it? Halibutt 12:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For comparison:
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the expulsion policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of all ethnic Germans from the eastern parts of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe.
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer, of all remaining Germans, from outside post-WW2 border of Germany, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference.
I think, this makes no sense to put POV staff: some believe it was ethnic cleansing some something else in the header. There is a place for discussion later in the article. Factual problems are 2: population transfer had to occur from outside of the new borders, not only from so called Eastern Germany of Nico. Eastern Germany must be then defined as Eastern Germany from 1937 and this makes no sense. Another factual problem is that it is stated ethnic Germans, and this is subject of our dispute. The POV staff includes mentioning SU, without mentioning UK and USA, and without collaboration from UK and USA the transfer wouldn't be possible. Cautious 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most Germans from the eastern parts of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe.
I agree on one of User:Cautious's points. My proposed wording is unlucky in that respect, that it literally says "eastern parts of Germany" despite the expulsions affecting also areas neither belonging to pre-War Nazi Germany, nor being declared annexed during the war. However, the expulsion of Germans from East Germany is that much more important, as it affected a large number of persons, that I thought it at this place, where brevity is important, waranted this deviation from the absolute truth. Furthermore, as I already have noted, I dislike the weaseling. However, we must also try to be pragmatic. How could this article reach a stabile maturity? If you ask me, not by trying to carry on where the Red Army halted in 1945. A compromise is called for.-- Ruhrjung 13:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So, is ths version acceptable?:
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer policy, by some seen as ethnic cleansing, of most people considered Germans by the communist authorities, from all the areas located east from the post-war German border. This policy has been agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments in Central Europe in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
To do:
Few things that i see as being controversial in article and headers: (by szopen) "The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the policy of ethnic cleansing of the Germans from the eastern part of Germany lost after World War II, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference and undertaken by the Soviet Union and its satellite powers in Eastern Europe. "
"- Property in the affected territory that belonged to Germany and Germans was confiscated. "
vs "Property in the affected territory that belonged to Germany and Germans was to be used as a partial compensation for property damages caused by Germany during the war and as compensation for Poles affected by population transfer from territories ceded to Ukraine. Most people, from either side, who lost their property during the war, have never been compensated. "
"The Heimatvertriebene in general are aware and recognize the fact that Poles since 1945 live in the eastern German homelands. The official proposed policy is not to repeat the Potsdam Agreement expulsions with new persecutions and population transfers. Most Heimatvertriebene welcome the Slavic peoples now living on German lands as welcome friends and neighbours in the European Union. "
I would call it highly controversial. Lands are not eternally German, Polish, or whatever. RIght now they belong to Poland. Period. Szopen
Ok, current state: Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Germans remaining outside of German territory as defined by Potsdam Conference.
previous state: Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the population transfer, of Germans, remaining outside post-WW2 border of Germany, agreed to at the Potsdam Conference.
My points:
Before you start adpersons: I'm Pole, born in Wroclaw and loving it and my grandpa was from Lwow, his family relocated. But I don't think that it matters when it comes to facts. Forseti 11:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nico, its to you: Your version of header can be disputed on grounds of factual and logical accuracy:
-- Forseti 11:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
SO, we again have "Eastern Germany"" despite the fact, that it was also expulsion from lands that were not parts of Germany?! Szopen
i.e. Poland, people that signed Volksliste were subject of legal persecutions as a traitors. They were also subject to death penalty during the war. We should put this detail to the article.
===Volksdeutsche=== were subject of severe persecutions in Eastern Europe. I tries to make an article World War II traitors hunt. They were persecuted as traitors, not as Germans. It is not fair to put them as German victims, without stating what was the problem. ===Some of Volksdeutsche were not ethnic Germans.=== In Poland there were 2.8 milions of Volksdeutche, while pre-WW2 German population were around 1 milion. Polish Volksdeutsche were more persecuted then German Volksdeutsche. Are we going to put them as Germans killed after WW2 or we state the truth? For example, the Lambinowice camp were for Silesians, partly positively verified afterwards. Killed there people can be shown as an example of Stalinist persecution of Poles or Germans killed by Poles. Wouldn't be better to state truth? Cautious 11:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The article son't mention the ongoing deportation of Germans and Volksdeutche to Siberia. ===
Cautious 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It seems as discussions dominate over warfare at the moment. That's good. May I ask which wordings you would have preferred?
--
Ruhrjung 12:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd go for something like this:
German policies on the lands incorporated into the III Reich included forcing the inhabitants of Silesia and Pomerania to sign the Volksliste. In 1943 the number of pre-war Polish citizens to sign it reached 2.300.000. Many of them were ethnic Germans, however a big number of them were Poles. Until 1945 approximately 250.000 Poles were forced to join Wehrmacht, most of them in the Pomerania region. Almost 90.000 of them were taken POW on the western front and later joined the Polish Army. However, 50.000 Poles taken POW on the Eastern Front were treated the same way as the soldiers of German nationality and only 2.000 were allowed to join the army. After the war additional 30.000 Poles who signed the volksliste were arrested and sent to work camps.
People escaped, people were transfered, people also wanted to emigrate ===and after 1948 tobe-Germans were banned emigration. It is never stated in the article, that after the forcible transfers, most of people wanted to emigrate but couldn't. +
I think that approximately 5 milions escaped, 5 milions were transfered. Unknown number includes people deported to Siberia. If we come with 15 milion number, it means that approximately 5 milions emigrated when it was already forbidden. (Escaped, emigrated after W.Germany-Poland treaties and so on) + Cautious 09:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If we want to cover the whole subject, evacuation must be described in details. i.e decision of creation festung Breslau was followed with evacuation of 90% of dwellers (1943 - neraly 1 milion people, 1945 100 000 people). Cautious 09:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User:Cautious's call (above) for banning his opponent
User:Nico from discussions, and his repeated revertions to own version, without discussing it here, is maybe a habit which could be better adopted to a cooperative
modus vivendi?
--
Ruhrjung 13:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nico is not my oponent. Nico is somebody obsessed with the hate to Poles and Polish history (or maybe his family suffering). There is no resonable deal possible with Nico, since he:
and so on. The article prepared with cooperation with Nico, will be false. Cautious 15:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe, Sudeten Nazi POV. Quite interesting reading http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/sginferno/sgi00.html 81.27.192.18 10:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The problem is not POV, the problem is factual. I have no idea what is true in those informations, because they are about Czechoslovakia. I know, where exactly the German revisionists made factual falsifications, when they talk about areas of Poland. The main difference between Poland and Czechoslowakia is that Poles were treated as conquered nation. There were no nazi haven in Poland (in opposition what is described as nazi haven in Sudetas) and somebody had to be held responsible for this. Cautious 11:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so Nico again reverted from version which seemed to have more neutral wording (not: more resembling the truth, but: more neutral). My first reaction was to revert, but i decided that i will wait at least one day to wait whether someone else would also object.
Also, some of Nico's wording is highly misleading (some, especially from former Soviet satellite states, say - giving impression that the opinions are not revelant.) The question is still here: there was a lot of evacuation of Germans during war, the Breslau is not the only example. Are those numbers taken into account when giving numbers of Germans involved in post war population transfer? Szopen
The word "Nazi", as applied to ethnic Germans who were civilians and of unknown political affiliation already demonstrates that you are not NPOV. If you don't like Germans and don't want to get along with them... well, whatever. Most are happy to simply rationalize the crimes of the Soviets against the German people without trying to cover them up.
I removed rather extensive edits with several different controversial assertions, from an anonymous (Earthlink/Mindspring) contributor who elsewhere chiefly have added the claim that the Baltic peoples were "Germans".
I suspect this being an example of pushing one's own point of view.
-- Ruhrjung 06:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another anonymous contributor (from Prague) removed the second sentence from the following paragraph:
I don't know if that's motivated or not. I just think the removal ought to be documented here.
--
Ruhrjung 09:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the mass deportation (generally considered ethnic cleansing) of Germans living in the eastern part of Germany lost after WW2, as was ordered by the Potsdam Conference.
Factual problems: there is no consensus, that it was an ethnic cleansing and obviously, it was not limited to former German territories. Even if refer to former German territories, it is not clear, what is meant. (It remaindes me the pre-WW2 joke: "German teacher: Hans, please show me the borders of Germany. Hans: Herr Lehrer, I haven't read todays newspapers yet") Nico wants Eastern Germany to refer to 1914 borders, some discuss 1939, 1937 or 1944 borders. Cautious 07:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your point so far. The wording is sub-optimal and the article is, in general, a mess with dozens of inconsistencies. However, you are wrong if you see Nico as your enemy whom you have to beat one way or the other. You would better try to rephrase sensitive wordings in a way which you seriously believe also Nico would agree to, or if not agree, at least accept.
A msg:disputed-header might seem warranted for, but in reality, I believe there is a NPOV-problem in the background. Don't you?
I think it's time for you guys to read the
Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial for some guidance!
--
Ruhrjung 08:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Did we reach a compromise and all accept this header? Halibutt 00:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've just read nice article in which it was pointed that terms "expulsion" and "resettling" are forced because of political reasons. "Expulsions" is used to create impression that it was illegal, and with mass-crimes. "Population transfer" quite the opposite. It can't be therefore compromise here; I propose mention _why_ there is argument over using these words and finish the case. Szopen
Optimism is a good, and often necessary, feature! :)
I think you are right, that an analysis would be wikipedic!
But the quarrels can surely continue over the wordings of the analysis too. :-((
But please, make a try!
--
Ruhrjung 23:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.
Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK, here are some casualities [1]
Vertreibungsverluste:
Tote und Vermißte während der Vertreibung
Gesamt: 2.111.000
Die Gesamtverluste betragen 3.211.000 (Kriegsverluste 1.100.000 und Vertreibungsverluste 2.111.000). Von den 1939 in den Vertreibungsgebieten ansässigen Deutschen ist somit jeder Fünfte gefallen oder umgekommen.
Nico 01:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok, but what about 15 million number of displaced? How many of them were expelled, how many evacuated or escaped during war? Szopen
15 million is the number the Bund der Vertriebenen provides. It includes "Flucht, Vertreibung und Aussiedlung". It should not be impossible to find detailed casualities, if necessary. Nico 07:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Exactly:
Flucht means Evacuation (5 mil)
Vertreibung means Expulsions (5 mil)
Aussiedlung means Emigration (5 mil)
Do you suppose that we Poles, forgot German language??
This article is dealing with the expulsions only. Casualtis number, this 1200 000 include also the victims of the evacuation.
Cautious 08:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. It's all covered by "Expulsion of Germans after World War II", and it makes no sense to have three separate articles dealing with German "evacuated", "emigrated" and "refugees". "Vertreibung" has a wide meaning in German. That's why the Bund der Vertriebenen are calling themselves, exactly, Vertriebene, which includes those who fled, those who remained and were forced to leave and those who had to emigrate when their country was occupied.
Nico 08:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I feel that it is completely unapropriate to put the heading "Expulsion" then in the header "DEPORTATION" and reference to the people, that were so lucky to get passport for emigration from communist Poland. Do you know, that some people waited 8 years to get an approval for emigration?
The artcile named Expulsion should be about expulsion. By the way, I am preparing the article under working name
User:Cautious/Dawn of German East
that should deal with all that subjects.
Cautious 08:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Those figures from Ostpreussennrw.de - what are they based on? Do they include civilians killed by Soviet armed forces during the war? Or killed by allied bombing? Or died due to food shortages in Europe?
Ostpreussenrw.de is a pressure group representing displaced Germans and their relatives. Not a neutral site!
Exile 20:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've just reverted this (mosty Nicos) version
Wikimol 08:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's good that the both of you take such a constructive approach to this edit-matter. A major problem has until now been the very lack of constructive attempts to find wordings that can be accepted also by others than the editor and his/her closest. Nico isn't the only one here around. And this is wikipedia: No-one owns a text one has written. If you don't believe you can convince Nico (which I really hope you can and believe), well, at least try to adapt your wording to other people who would find blatant pro-Soviet or Poland-glorifying POVs of
User:Gdansk's vein unconvincing!
--
Ruhrjung 09:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
ethnic nation states / ethnically homogenic / states / nations / countries
IMO current ethnically homogenous nation states is good, homogenous is propably bettert English than homogenic, and avoids logical problems of "ethnic... ... nation". Link to article explaining concept of nation state is IMO also in its place. Are there any objections against it, or is it only Nicos wish to add some defamations of expulsion/transfer advocates?
Numbers - for a change, I restored them in second paragraph. Anyhow, first paragraph with is many ; statements is allready overweighted. Wikimol 10:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I do not like this article for various reasons.
I do not like this article for various reasons.
* It cites dubious numbers without source (e.g. "between 12 and 15 million people moved to Germany and over 2 million German civilians were killed or died during the process")
* some wordings lack neutrality (e.g. "Another explanation is even simpler."),
* there are numerous language mistakes (even very obvious ones like "around around 2 million Poles"), indicating none of the people this encyclopedia is written for (english speakers) care for it.
* The style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "The issue of the expulsion is still quite contentious and is thus not easy to judge. For example, take the case of Erika Steinbach")
* There is a message at the top that this "article should be merged with World War II evacuation and expulsion" but both badly written articles still exist.
*I feel quite significant difference between words "expulsion" and "transfer". I would appreciate the latter one. Miraceti 14:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I came across this page and noted that its NPOV disputes seem to have calmed down. Therefore, I made an effort to improve the language. Almost all changes were purely to bring the article to standard written English. If I made any errors that changed the meaning, those were unintentional. Gwimpey 06:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)