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.

The Deportation to the Soviet Union section informs only about Germans working in the SU. Many Germans were killed or imprisoned. Xx236 ( talk) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by combining deportation and forced labor sections Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean that many Germans were arrested by the Soviets and deported to Soviet camps as criminals or executed. Xx236 ( talk) 07:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Example: Wilm Hosenfeld. Xx236 ( talk) 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "Of around 12.4 million Germans residing within the lands of post-war Poland in 1944, 3.6 million were expelled, one million were certified as Poles, 300,000 remained in Poland as a German minority, and up to 1.1 million are unaccounted for and presumed to be dead. [70]" This adds up to 6 million Germans. What happened to the other 6.4 million? Junes ( talk) 11:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The rest either

• fled or was evacuated during the winter of 1944/45 (see Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II, that was the bulk of the "missing" millions)
• was deported, interned or sth similar (see Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II#Forced_labor)

You might also want to read this article: Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"within the lands of post-war Poland" that's a pretty controversial wording as well. Eastern Germany didn't become Poland just Polish occupied territories cut off from the other zones of occupation. -- 41.151.218.121 ( talk) 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The section presents only POV of some Germans and quotes a specific German source. Xx236 ( talk) 07:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The section does not inform about persecutions of Nazis and alleged Nazis by Soviet authorities. Prisoners were deported to the SU, tried and deported to camps or executed. Xx236 ( talk) 07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You added a "disputed" tag to that section, yet I understand from your post you are rather proposing an expansion than actually disputing anything written, so I removed the tag. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I proposed this in August, no results till November. Xx236 ( talk) 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you expand it? Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What about you? Why have you removed my tag instead to replace it by your one? It's not exactly cooperative. Xx236 ( talk) 08:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as the Baltic coast west of Stettin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal. Who and when defined such war aim? Xx236 ( talk) 09:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is (not allegedly but definitely) this one: Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Harvard University Press, 2002, ISBN  0674009940, p.123, confirmable online ( e.g. here), written in English. N. is a contemporary expert on the subject, Stanford professor, the book was published in Harvard, it's almost impossible to be more credible. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC), updated Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed, since source does not claim Baltic coast and Rostock was Polish war aim. Rather, it says "The Poles went so far to demand OCCUPATION RIGHTS amongst Baltic coast... and sought to participate in occupation of the Kiel canal". Szopen ( talk) 12:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to remove, a simple specification would have done if you fear it could otherwise be misinterpreted as incorporation. It is highly speculative anyway what the Polish administration would have done with this territory if they would have gotten it. Skäpperöd ( talk) 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• When did the Poles demand occupation rights? Who were the Poles?
• There was no chance to have Polish administration in Poland, so please stop these speculation. Xx236 ( talk) 13:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you accept Naimark's anti-Polish POV. [1] Xx236 ( talk) 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't call me dear, I don't like you because of your agenda. Xx236 ([[User ::talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech opinion about NN's book [2]. Xx236 ( talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think the source is not reliable, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A German language article [3]. Xx236 ( talk) 15:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Governments, including Polish government in exile, make various demands, more or less serious. I have no problem with noting that Polish government in exile made certain demands (this probably should be discussed more in its own article), but we should not confuse political demands with "war aims" (one could misread this as "Poland started the war aiming for occupation of Eastern Germany" or something like that).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can split this discussion into three subsections:

• (1) Xx236's personal dislike of me
• (2) The question whether Naimark is credible
• (3) The question whether Naimark defined Rostock as a Polish war aim or not
• To (1):
• To (2): see Norman Naimark. Also, be careful with BLPs.
• To (3): Full quote:

  "But as the war progressed, Polish ambitions grew. The almost completely German city of Stettin (Szczecin) and the adjacent islands were claimed as "the key to Central Europe". The Poles went so far to demand occupation rights along the Baltic as far as Rostock-Warnemünde and Rügen and sought to participate in the occupation of the Kiel canal. Lower Silesia, inhabited by nearly three million Germans, also eventually became a central focus of Polish war aims."

Does Naimark give any sources for his opinions nor only about Szczecin, but also about Lower Silesia, since I have never heard of such Polish war aims while I know a bit about that part of history.

Emphasis added. So the source gives it as a war aim. And, in my understanding, everything that a party of a war wants to achieve within this war is a war aim anway, even if the source would not have stated it as such. You do not necessarily have to start a war to have war aims. Also, this sentence is within the background section, which gives a fair overview over the relevant wartime events, and states very clearly that this war was started by Nazi Germany - so even those who were unaware of this (if someone like this really exists) would know before getting to this sentence that it was not Poland who started the war. Skäpperöd ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• To (1) It's not the matter if I like you, but of your false tenderness. You write dear but your push your POV and you ignore a number of texts criticizing Naimark's bias. Xx236 ( talk) 09:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Dear" is just plain basic politeness. I did not write "My beloved". For the POV-pushing allegations: I did not push a POV, but cited a reliable source. I don't even know what a POV the sentence would push. It just states war aims, how can this be a POV ? Naimark's alleged bias regarding this sentence has not been proven yet. Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In all the cultures I have ever encountered, "dear" in an exchange betweeen otherwise unacquainted people is a sign of condescension, not politeness.

I am glad you are starting to try to be polite, especially after your previous texts how editors who you deal with are 'bande' (in plural form"banditen") [4]. I assure you that such wording is very impolite to Poles-as it was common German Nazi propagand phase during extermination operations in Poland.A word of advice. It's the best to stay emotionaly deteached and not engage in personal exchanges.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• To (3) What about finding any other source in the whole world, eg. a German one, confirming your story about the war aims? I have a number of German books, which don't conform your story. Who were the Poles? What was the real authority of the Poles? When were the war aims defined? A German historian has quoted a diary of a Polish officer to prove nasty Polish plans. Why hasn't he quote any document of Polish government defining the Polish war aims? Xx236 ( talk) 09:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not "my" story. See above. Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• To (2) I have read Norman Naimark and found He has been awarded the Officers Cross of the Order of Merit by Germany. Xx236 ( talk) 09:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Which underlines his credibility. Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when German government assigns credibility? Rather potential pro-German bias. Xx236 ( talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Szczecin is a "key to Central Europe", because it controls Odra river. Sudeten and Danzig were main reasons of WWII, so noone would be happy with new Danzig - Szczecin. Xx236 ( talk) 09:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter what is Naimark credibility, the sentence "Rostock was Polish war aim" is unclear, though one could argue not actually false. According to the Naimark, Polish "war aims" included "occupation rights" for Rostock etc. Since French, British and Americans left from their occupation zones, I see no reason why Poles wouldn't leave the occupational zone. However, initial (now corrected) sentence in article may suggest that the war aim for Poland was joining Rostock to Poland - which is not supported even by Naimark. The recent changes by Skapperod at least avoided this ambiguity. I would still want to be this clarified more, but because I don't know how, I won't edit the sentence. If I may suggest something, I havein my library several books about Polish-German relations during the war, which present the evolution of the Polish plans for western Polish borders. I can search there. Until now, I think Skapperod's version may stay, until someone proves Naimark is not credible. If Naimark wrote "the Poles", he probably meant some official people - and Naimark being historian probably based his opinion on some reliable source (I hope). The sentence in book is referenced, but free preview does not allow me to see this reference. Maybe this reference would solve the issue. Does anyone have access to the whole book? Szopen ( talk) 09:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The footnote states:

• 93: HIA, "Postwar Borders Poland", Kierownictwo Marynarki Wojennej, "Potrzeba Polityczno-Militarna Szczecina", November 1943, pp.7-8

Regards, Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So the Polish Navy (4 or 5 ships) demanded Stettin. Navies don't define war aims. Xx236 ( talk) 14:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish Foreign Minister Zaleski included the deportation of Germans from prewar Poland and East Prussia as a major Polish war aim. 94, page 123 - what does it mean? Can a ministry define any war aim? I doubt very much. Reference 94 isn't available for me. Xx236 ( talk) 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The footnote states:

• 94: , "Vorgeschichte zur Flucht und Vertreibung" [titles follow in German and in Polish] (Berlin: Gesellschaft für interregionalen Kulturaustausch, Stowarzyszenie Slaski, 1995) p.384

Regards, Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So we have returned from the USA to Germany. Xx236 ( talk) 13:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Detlef Brandes published his book in 2001, so there is no need to discuss his early texts. From an academic review: Poles ratcheted up their claims to Danzig, Lower Silesia, and much of East Prussia. There is a little problem what was the Lower Silesia. The Polish politicians wanted more or less Polish ethnic lands, ie. the Oppeln Silesia, rather than Breslau. Xx236 ( talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC) This review [5] doesn't support your story. Xx236 ( talk) 14:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have here "Walka dyplomatyczna o miejsce Polski w Europie 1939-1945" by Włodzimierz T. Kowalski, wydanie szóste (uzupełniona), Książka i Wiedza 1985. ISBN  83-05-11212-8.

Some quotes which you may find interesting. Page 130-131: "Chronologically first document of government-in-exile which precisely formulated those aims was >>Biuletyn Informacyjny MSZ nr 1<< from 28 November 1939. :" ...(Poland should get safe borders, A.D ) ... "based on strategical borders which could be defended, which demands amongst others the condition of giving to us East Prussia". Page 132: Zaleski about German minority (1940, 19 February): "The question of population of German ancestry became special problem, which is outside the problem of minorities, and inseparably is tied to German-Polish relationship. Current suffering of Polish population create in this case special right for Polish nation, which MAY DEMAND (stress mine, A.D.) that their executioners should leave Polish territory, after defeat of the Reich, ..." "The above document points that in Polish emigree circles quite early was discussed ("rozważano" forgot how to say that in English AD) - or rather, taken into the account as one of many alternative - case of resettlng of German population from nw borders of Poland. Such discussion however, as one may conclude, have not resulted in creating any precise directives and giving this matter for broader forum as international forum. There is no basis therefore, for searching a link between those discussion and later decision made by Greater powers..."

page 243-245: the memo "The western boundaries of Poland" given by Sikorski to Sumner Welles, Decmber 4th, 1942. Text was never published in whole. The memo stipulated the need of incorporation into Poland Eastern Prussia, Opole and Pomerania, and TEMPORARY OCCUPATION of other German territories. "According to the concept of Sikorski, the territories which should be given the statute of >>strict occupation<< and which should be finally divided in peace conference, were on west from prewar Polish-German border, to the line >> along left bank of Nysa Łużycka and left bank of Oder, including Stettin, the island in estuary and including island of Rugen. The occupational state will be Poland, and in the southern region, Poland together with Czechoslovakia<<. .... Sikorski government however excluded the possibility of pusing the borders to the Nysa and Oder. The 4th point of mentioned document (not the memo, but Polish document from 7 October) stated: >> Extremely dangerous is gaving unrealistic ("fantastycznych", AD) territorial claims , for example pushing to Bobr or Nysa Łużycka and INCLUDING WHOLE LOWER SILESIA, with population which is fanatically anti-Polish, because Germans in Poland would count then 9 millions and NECESSARY REMOVALS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE, and one should not be illusioned about possibility of >>reslavisation<< ... Making such territorial claims discredits Poles in the eyes of anglosaxon opinion, making Poles the nation of unstoppable greed, which in fatal way damages our real aspiration in the west"

And so on.. later also never in the book it'smentioned that government-in-exile wanted whole Lower Silesia. Only Opole, Pomorze, Eastern Prussia. And strict TEMPORARY occupation of some more territories. And Zaleski memo does notinclude expulsion as war aim, but only as one of alternatives, never precised, and never it seems actually gave to the western allies. Szopen ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting your sources in so much detail. Now what are we going to make of it? The article as it is now does not mention expulsion of Germans from the western territories as a war aim (that however in one case is stated and sourced for East Prussia and pre-war Poland), but "only" occupation. It also clearly states that about what territories exactly should be occupied in the West there were different opinions at different times. Maybe you point out what part exactly you see in conflict with the sources cited above?

I think it is important to have this short paragraph about Polish territorial interests because the occupied territory in 1945 turned out to become the expulsion's site and was integrated into the new Polish state right from the start of Polish occupation. As it is stated in the article, expulsions even began at the most western frontier of the occupied territory (that turned out to be the Oder-Neisse line). That however does not imply that plans for expulsion/integration of the occupied territories existed already in 1940. It just turned out to make no difference in 1945. I think this can be drawn clearly from the article's current state. (I interpreted your main concern being that with the early 40s' demands occupied is not equal with integrated and/or planned expulsions from, I hope that is correct.) Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More or less, yes. First, I think that it's clear that there is confusion about "Lower Silesia" and when it was "war aim" for Poland. My impression is that up to 1944 Polish government-in-exile did not want Breslau (today I will dig into the second part of the book). However, it's true in-country organisation almost unisono demanded "back to the Oder" claim, including Breslau and Stettin, and sometimes even Rostock. But those were not representative of government opinion, those were just different people in underground expressing their own opinions. Second government wanted part of the land incorporated, and part only occupied temporarily, though there is one passage in memo which mentions "until future peace conference" which COULD be interpreted differently (but again, Sikorski and people at times clearly said they do not want Breslau). It's not clear to me what part of "Pomerania" government-in-exile wanted, and what part it wanted to occupy. Third I am not sure whether government-in-exile envisioned such large expulsions'; whether this option was discussed outside inner circles of the government (e.g. whether g-in-e actually proposed that to western allies); and whether it was just discussion of one of possible options for the future (e.g. one of many alternatives) or not. Zaleski does not actually mention East Prussia; he mentions "polish territories, on which for the future it's unimaginable to consider cohabitation of Polish population and German minority". Sikorski memo when he said that removal of 9 millions Germans is unrealistic and impossible may suggest, that he considered smaller-scale removal possible.

Right now, I am not sure how to incorporate this into the article. IMO, I would replace "expulsions as war aims already in 1940" with "expulsion were considered by Polish g-in-e as early as in 1940". Similarly, I would replace "Lower Silesia" with Śląsk Opolski (polish name because I am not sure what's correct name in German). I would want to hear the opinion from other editors before making any editions. Szopen ( talk) 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The terminology of the regions is indeed a little tricky. Śląsk Opolski is not Lower Silesia, but the western part of Upper Silesia (former Regierungsbezirk Oppeln of the Province of Upper Silesia) that has not become Polish during the interbellum (as opposed to Polish Upper Silesia, the Kattowitz region). Lower Silesia means the Breslau area. With "Pomerania", there is also some confusion, as Polish Pomorze usually referred to Pomerelia (Danzig region), while the Stettin region is "Western Pomerania" in Polish; from the German perspective, the region with Stettin and Kolberg is Pommern (Pomerania), while the Danzig region (Polish Pomorze) is Pomerellen.

With the "war aims": I am not sure if the above sources refer to the same memos/speeches/whatever of Sikorski and/or Zaleski as the sources cited in the article. If they do, we have two different secondary/tertiary source interpretations of the same primary source, and those must be stated and attributed as different POVs. If they don't, and that's what I think right now, they should either be added or in some other way be integrated (e.g. as additional references to specific parts of the sentences, maybe slightly reformulated without interfering with the initial refs). I would not object to your proposal of changing "war aims" to "considered by g-in-e" (to me, that is the same just differently formulated), yet it must be clearly stated that these considerations in 1940 were about the territory of pre-war PL with "minor" annexations such as East Prussia, as it is stated now. The "plan" to expel every German east of the O-N-line arose to my knowledge only later, when it was clear that Stalin would not let go his annexations east of the C-line, and Polish as well as Soviet officials had learned toward the end of the war that the Western allies would not intervene to anything they were about to do in territory controlled by them. For the reasons above, I would object changing Lower to Opole Silesia. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WT Kowalski was a biased Communist and his books were censored, so I would check any letter in it. Xx236 ( talk) 15:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish military means both Soviet controlled Polish military and Polish military in the West. Xx236 ( talk) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is written too much like emotional essay rather then encyclopedic article. Also a lot of needed information was removed-for example the fact that territories in which the population transfer was made by the Allies were not seen as really Germany but Germanised Slavic and Baltic territories and this was thus seen as de-Germanisation. Currently its hard not to see that the article has very pro-German view on things and uses overwhelmingly authors noted for pro-German bias.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony Judt writes most of the people in population transfer were in fact women and late-adult men. However as I know that several polls and surveys were done regarding various things associated with German Nazism by the Allies-was there any survey done regarding the percentage of Nazi members within the number of Germans in population transfer ? It is certainly a scholary issue to consider.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"German settlement in the former eastern territories of Germany " Actually this sentence is about settlement in Piast Poland, Bohemia, Austria that later became part of Germany, it now reads as they always settled in Germany. This is innacurate and should be corrected in such way that will not confuse the reader.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It concerned Poles as well. And in places like Silesia German population increased actually in that period.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Writes several times that the main reason from the Polish side for population transfer were atrocities carried out by Volksdeutsche in 1939 and later. This isn't represented in the current form of the article. Seems relevant as this is a major work regarding the subject. Additional Detlef writes that another reason, but of secondary importance was the strategic border that allowed better defence against German invasion-the 1939 border was seen as reason for rapid defeat of Poland. Third-Brandes writes that the to understand the situation one needs to see not only Nazi Germany but overall German and Prussian treatment of Poles, Czechs throughout earlier centuries that culminated in those events. This is barely represented in the current articles. -- Molobo ( talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A bot at Bundesarchiv has been uploading images to the Commons. Here's one that could be used in this article. There are many more. Binksternet ( talk) 19:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your example is a bad one as it shows the Nazi plans to expell Poles and Jews, not the "Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II", coincidence or agenda? But there are indeed several interesting pictures. HerkusMonte ( talk) 07:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No agenda, mistake. I was quickly looking at the whole string of photos and thought I saw one that was appropriate. Binksternet ( talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article relies in 70% on German sources, 25% on English ones and only in 5% on Polish ones. This likely means it is heavily biased towards German POV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Define "German POV". Is it "Get off my farm, punk"? This certainly is the position of some Germans, but not of all. Is it "We are collectively guilty for every single WWII-related sorrow and deserved no better"? Another position upheld by some Germans, but not by all. Is it "I don't care, I need some €uros for dope"? Etc pp. POVs don't have a nation and vice versa. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the countries the sources were written in: In Poland, non-Communist scientific research began only in the 90s, while (West) German and Anglo-Saxon research started half a century earlier, with the Germans naturally being more active because with 12 million expellees, almost everyone was directly or indirectly affected. So the percentages you estimated above pretty much mirror the scientific research done so far. I am however convinced the percentage of Polish sources will rise as there are many archives in Poland holding information on this issue, and there are now independant and interested researchers in Poland who will certainly release more in the near future. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all communist era research was biased, and overall, Western German historiography was as biased toward Poland as Polish was to German. Thus writing this article and relying almost completely on only one side's version is quite POVed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide the POV you dispute. The ethnicity of authors is not a POV. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. Historiographies have national biases when it comes to controversial issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You link Historiography and nationalism to support your assertion, but thereby forget that the sources used here are from the post-nationalist era, and fail to prove that any source used here is nationalistic. (Btw, the article you linked has lots of unsourced paragraphs, will you go there now and tag it as you did here?!). I must again ask you to reconsider adding templates solely on the basis of the ethnicity of the autors. That is simply inacceptable. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Post-nationalism era? Since when?? There are still plenty of nationalist historians in Poland and Germany. Even if our article uses only reasonable, mainstream German sources, by relying almost entirely on them, it still has a German POV. PS. I agree that POV tag is not perfect here; I've proposed creation of another template here, inspired by our problem. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The nationalist era is usually seen as the 19th and early 20th century, though even that does not mean all sources from this era are nationalist. "Our problem" is not going to be solved with a template. The problem here is that you judge sources solely on the basis of the ethnicity of their authors. And I have been very very polite and AGFing to only use the term "inacceptable" for this. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that German historians tend to present past events in a slightly or clearly pro-German way, same with Polish historians. Ideal solution would be to base the article on neutral (non-German, non-Polish) sources. If it is impossible, we have to balance German and Polish sources. Tymek ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a sad view of the world. It also is wrong. After how the Nazis treated most German intellectuals, there was a very strong backlash after WW2, and much of German academia, especially in the social sciences, was (and is) very anti-nationalistic. I agree about the "neutral sources", but I'm very much convinced that there are neutral sources produced by German and Polish historians. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that as sad as this view is, nationalism - often moderate - still dominates most historiographies. Just compare Polish and German views on Regained Territories, Bloody Sunday, or war crimes of Werhrmaht, for example... or the fact that von Stauffenberg is a hero in Germany but still seen as a Nazi war criminal in Poland... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find that on a certain issue all or nearly all German and Polish or whatever sources disagree, then this should of course be stated. But this does not work the other way around, if German sources state something there is no base whatsoever to assume that this must be in opposition to Polish sources. You failed to provide anything - you just saw the sources, looked at the ethnicity of their authors, made up a national or even nationalistic POV from nothing but that, failed to even point out what kind of a POV on what kind of an issue that would be, and needless to say failed to provide an opposite view, but anyway placed a POV-tag. I hope that you are able to take a step back and reconsider your moves. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should be deleted and restarted from scratch. It reads like NPD campaign letter.-- Gwinndeith ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Section "Allied decisions: Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences" discusses the conferences and the British policy, but not the policy of USA and USSR. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this section to talk: it was poorly referenced, tagged for months as NPOV, and likely represents UNDUE weight (or sneakly advertising) of the POV of Niels Redecker (Google search doesn't return any meaningful hits that could assert his reliability).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Niels Redecker argues that Poland's legal environment has changed since 1990 and describes opportunities that expellees and their descendants may pursue. He notes, for example, that despite a widespread belief that land ownership by foreigners is still effectively banned in Poland, there are in fact no longer major obstacles to the acquisition of real estate by non-citizens. So expellees and their descendants can already return to their former homeland in Poland if they so wished and have the necessary amount of money.

Redecker also expresses optimism about pursuing property restitution claims in Polish courts. Although the Polish courts continue to uphold the validity of the laws governing expropriation, they have shown a willingness to overturn individual expropriations that did not fully conform to the intent and the provisions of those laws. One group of cases that would certainly seem to fall into this category involves German Jewish claimants whose property had been confiscated by the Nazi regime in the 1930s and then nationalized by Poland after the war. While judgments on these cases have so far been mixed, Redecker argues that such claims are likely to make headway, especially in the context of Poland's entry into the European Union. This could, he suggests, serve as a wedge opening up the way for broader challenges to the expulsion laws and successful restitution claims by non-Jews. Redecker is careful to note that because German expellees, aware that full restitution or compensation from the Polish state is unrealistic, would "be satisfied with symbolic compensation".

Ref: von Redecker, Niels. Die polnischen Vertreibungsdekrete und die offenen Vermögensfragen zwischen Deutschland und Polen. Studien des Instituts für Ostrecht München. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2003. 129 pp. ISBN  9783631506240. (p. 55).

No mention of milions of German colonists as part of the Germans who left Poland. Why ?-- Gwinndeith ( talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Twice a reference is used where all that is cited is, "Overy, ibid". What does that mean? I'm assuming Overy is refering to Richard Overy and ibid of course means: Ibid (Latin, short for ibidem, "the same place") is the term used to provide an endnote or footnote citation or reference for a source that was cited in the preceding endnote or footnote. But the same as what reference? Which of Overy books is the information from? -- Esemono ( talk) 10:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this article was at one time part of Expulsion of Germans after World War II, I guess it refers to "Overy (1996), The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich, pp. 111.". I hesitate to insert that though because I am not able to re-check this book. Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well here is the ref code if anyone wants to insert it:

^[1]

<ref name="Overy">{{cite book | last = Richard Overy| authorlink = Richard Overy| title = The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich|edition= July 1, 1997|pages= 144| publisher = Penguin (Non-Classics) | isbn= 0140513302}}</ref>

'The flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland was the largest of a series of flights and expulsions of Germans in Europe during and after World War II.' The number of Germans (Volksdeutsche) was the largest in new Poland - so it is quite logical the expulsion was the largest. Also, it must be remembered that the atrocities committed by those Germans against the Polish citizens (incl. Polish Jews) during WWII were the most horrific any nation has suffered from - it is then quite logical the way the Polish citizens treated the Volksdeutche after the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.195 ( talk) 04:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

... edits by topic-banned user Smith2006 which were provocative and POV. radek ( talk) 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has proposed that Expulsion of Germans after World War II be moved to Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII. Of course, there already is an article entitled Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II - this article! Editors who are involved in this article, but who do not normally follow Expulsion of Germans after World War II, may want to get involved in the move discussion, as it could evolve into a merge discussion and would obviously have implications for this article. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Belarusians weren't deported, the section is unprecize. Xx236 ( talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

" Stanisław Mikołajczyk, Polish prime minister of the Polish Government in Exile, supported the expulsions" - the statement was unsourced. The article informs that Stanisław Mikołajczyk supported the expulsions not as a Polish prime minister of the Polish Government in Exile, but as a member of the puppet government, when expelled Poles arrived from former Eastern Poland. Xx236 ( talk) 12:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The quality of such data is here very low. Xx236 ( talk) 10:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous(that's and understatement) problems with the article. Several reasons for the population transfer are completely missing from the article. There is extensive use of problematic and controversial authors. Issues like Nazi German settlement during the war(and the fact that it was reversed post 1945 with the numbers counted as expelled) are missing from the article. The summary is not line with Wiki standards and needs to be trimmed.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a new German book "Die Vertreibung im deutschen Erinnern. Legenden, Mythos, Geschichte" by Hahn and Hahn, which describes German legends and myths about the "Expulsion". This Wikipedia should inform about facts, rather than legends and myths. Xx236 ( talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kamusella uses the same numbers many sources do, but he uses the word "expulsion" instead "flight and expulsion". Xx236 ( talk) 11:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC) No serious source supports Kamusella's story, there weren't 7 million Germans East to Oder-Neisse line in May 1945. Xx236 ( talk) 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Erwin Ay, Rettende Ufer: Von Ostpreußen nach Dänemark, BoD – Books on Demand, 2005.

Needs to be removed.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

During the war some Polish citizens collaborated with Hitler Germany, most were from the pre-war German minority. Some were nominal "Volksdeutsche" and rehabiliated. However, among the collaborators were Polish citizens who committed crimes against humanity during the war. Those that remained in Poland were put on trial. What was their fate? What do modern Polish sources tell us? -- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are rather poor articles Pursuit of Nazi collaborators, Organised persecution of ethnic Germans.

• http://niniwa2.cba.pl/volksdeutsche_wylaczanie_wrogich_elementow.htm Xx236 ( talk) 11:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• http://www.internationalresearchcenter.org/en/european-history/zdrajcy-narodu-losy-volksdeutschow-w-polsce-po-ii-wojnie-swiatowej-polish-edition
• http://obiektywnie.blog.onet.pl/Golgota-lodzka-Radogoszcz,2,ID398119982,n Xx236 ( talk) 11:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• http://www.palestra.pl/index.php?go=artykul&id=3138 Xx236 ( talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Norman Naimark's book "Fires of Hatred. Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth - Century Europe" is quoted 7 times in this article. The book is biased, it describes the expulsion of Germans but not the expulsion of Poles. Naimark's views have been rejected by Hahn and Hahn (Alte Legenden und neue Besuche im Osten. Über Norman Naimarks Geschichtsbilder, in: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 54/2006, S. 687-700). Naimark is "returning to the tradition of the German populist (völkisch) historiography". Happy völkisch propaganda, dear editors.

The main war aim of Poland was independent Poland. Any discussion if Poland wanted this or that is absurd, because the superpowers designed post-war Europe, Poland was one of their victims. Norman Naimark himself admitted in some way he had been wrong publishing "Stalin's Genocides" in 2010. Xx236 ( talk) 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Norman Naimark is a Stanford University Professor, definitely a reliable scholar. HerkusMonte ( talk) 17:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, any scholar listing the Holocaust and the "Expulsion" as two biggest Ethnic Cleansings is reliable for some German extremists. Standard scholars write also about German crimes against Slavs but Slavs seem to be less important (is the German rate still valid - one hundred Slavic hostages against one killed German?). BTW - What about the reliability of Daniel Goldhagen as Harvard Associate Professor? Xx236 ( talk) 14:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The 1939 German census data includes German Jews in the total German population. The Schieder report also includes German speaking Jews in the population used compute losses in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia. Ingo Haar points this out in his recent articles. This should be no surprise since rehabilitated Nazis like Fritz Valjaec [6] and Wilfred Krallert [7] were authors of the reports!-- Woogie10w ( talk) 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't inform about the period since 2007. "The Polish reaction was severely criticized in Germany" - it's not a correct summary of Klaudia Kraft's article. Xx236 ( talk) 11:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a bit in the article about the resettlement of the lands vacated and the debate on the number of deaths, but I don't see anything on where the expelled Germans settled after they were expelled. It might be worth a line or two if it is known.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 18:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In 1950 almost all were in Germany, east or west, after 1950 some emmigrated overseas. I knew Germans from Poland in Bavaria, they ate Polish style food and could also speak Polish. A copy of Mein Kampf was on the bookshelf.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Initially many refugees lived in Schleswig-Holstein (857,000; 33 percent of the populace in 1950, a result of Operation Hannibal), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (981,000; 45 percent) and Bavaria (1,937,000; 21 percent) while only 5 percent of the populace of Rhineland Palatinate where expellees (because the French authorities refused to admit them). Later on, the expellees settled all over Germany and there are no special "refugee areas" in Germany (except maybe some small towns like de:Neugablonz. HerkusMonte ( talk) 07:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I might have to consult our administration about this. The problem is more serious than it seems. I traced down an external link to hidden source (i.e. presumably referenced off-line) and I immediately realized that a lot of what we have here is a literal (I mean, word for word) translation from copyrighted German original. Here's just an example.

Michael G. Esch, Holm Sundhaussen, Definitionsmacht, Utopie, Vergeltung: "Ethnische Säuberungen" im östlichen Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts.

• Copyrighted original:

Bis zum 1. Juni Überquerten etwa 400 000 Menschen die Oder und Neiße in Östlicher Richtung, bis polnische Truppen die Übergange sperrten... Weiteren 800 000 Ostdeutschen gelang es, aus der Tschechoslowakei die Grenze nach Polen zu Überschreiten. Die Bevölkerung Schlesiens wuchs wieder auf 50 Prozent ihres ursprunglinchen Bestandes.

• Wikipedia:

Before June 1, 1945, some 400,000 Germans managed to cross the Oder and Neisse rivers eastward before Polish authorities blocked the river crossings, another 800,000 entered Silesia from Czechoslovakia, bringing up Silesia's population to 50% of the pre-war level.

• And so on... You can use Google translate if you need to. I don't know how much of this article is a machine WP:COPY from presumably unavailable books in German, but it doesn't look good (considering their number). Please help locate links on the web if you can. Poeticbent talk 07:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Milęcin and Mielęcin but this camp was probably a former German camp in Włocławek. Glatz is Kłodzko now. Sikawa was a former German camp, now in Łódź. Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There exists a historian Zygmunt Woźniczka, not Woznicka. His article is precisely about Zgoda labour camp but Zgoda labour camp doesn't quote Woźniczka (at least directly) and this general article quotes Woźniczka, who is a regional historian. The majority of Zgoda labour camp victims died as the result of typhus epidemic. The commander of the camp was one of several officers described by John Sack in his An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945, not quoted in this article. Xx236 ( talk) 12:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my Polish spelling, Wiki really needs a BOT to fix Polish-- Woogie10w ( talk) 12:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed for WPPOLAND. There is at least one oustanding citation tag, and article is tagged with NPOV review needed. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Should this article be moved to Genocide of Germans in Poland after World War II? Regardless of whatever the Nazi/German leadership may have done, we cannot dismiss or minimize the suffering of many millions of ordinary Germans. Genocide does not imply mass murder; it can refer to any efforts at wiping out a certain ethnic group from a certain area. Genocide refers to a collection of ethnic cleansing operations organized from the top down. Certainly Soviet and Polish government after WWII went to great efforts to wipe out the large German population in regions taken from Germany? 71.169.183.40 ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Suggesting that mass-murdering is equal to expelling under the term "genocide" is unacceptable. How can you compare a planned extermination with a forcible relocation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.221.121 ( talk) 19:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=5502 http://library.fes.de/library/netzquelle/zwangsmigration/en-46pl.html and other sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither Kacowicz [8] nor Lutomski (nothing) are experts.

The expulsion is German Die Vertreibung, a cold-war name, now rather in flight and expulsion. The parallel expulsion of Poles from the Soviet Union is frequently described with other words. Xx236 ( talk) 08:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Lutomski published “'The Law Alleviates Concerns:’ Legal Dimensions of Polish-German Reconciliation.” in 2012. Xx236 ( talk) 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Milicja Obywatelska was the Communist/Socialist police. What do you mean by militia? Xx236 ( talk) 07:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)