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

Overmans

If there is some kind of discrepancy between Overmans' research and how it has been reported please discuss it here first. We have a Polish language source and a German language source. I've taken the trouble to translate the Polish language, so if there is some kind of objections it's only appropriate that a full translation - and how it contradicts Zurek - is provided before any major revisions are made.radek (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is something that Woogie10w could help us out with.radek (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek, in a nutshell, Overmans wrote that the official demographic statistic of 2 million has no concrete foundation and has been brought into doubt in recent years. He points out that hardly 500,000 are confirmed deaths, the balance being undetermined. He noted that his research on military casualties found an additional 344,000 military deaths in the region of the expulsions, he believes that this should reduce civilian deaths.

Radek, I am here if you need additional info. By the way, de:Theodor Schieder was a Nazi party member during the Hitler period. His report never mentions the crimes or victims of the Nazi era. Please note well that the demographic methodology of Schieder's report includes civilian deaths in the former German territories due to Nazi genocide and repression with “natural” deaths. But the Schieder report lists the civilian deaths due to allied bombing in the war on a separate line. Nazi genocide and oppression in the war included German Jews and German citizens of Polish ancestry. Dr. Schieder considered these “natural” deaths not worth mentioning. Another point about Schieder's report, he lists 1,381,000 ethnic Germans living in Poland prior to the war. The Polish census data from 1931 listed 740,000 ethnic Germans. Schieder's report lists 185,000 civilian expellee dead among his estimated 1,381,000 ethnic Germans in 1939 Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

German Wikipedia has this to say about Schieder: During the war Schieder encouraged the expulsion of Jews in occupied Poland. He was active in the program to Germanize the East and to prevent the intermingling of ethnic Germans with the peoples in Eastern Europe. His recommendations were included in the Nazi Plan Ost. He was praised by the Nazi gauleiter Eric Koch for the confiscation of documents from Jewish Synagoues--Woogie10w (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. The 2-million-more-figure is for all German deaths, not for the expulsion area. I thought (and still think) it would make more sense to have only the latter included, as it is not related to this article how Wehrmacht deaths statistics for let's say Cologne have changed, only what has changed in the expulsion areas. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)/23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not according to Overmans, who says 600,000. He is specifically disputing the 2 million + figure. Unless that by "all German deaths, not for the expulsion area" you mean expellees+German soldiers and others during the last two years of the war, in which case, there's no reason for it to be included. Obviously the numbers are related. Can you provide the direct German text of the Overmans source you're relying on and an adequate translation (since I've done the same)?radek (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can give a full translation, but I ask for your patience until tomorrow. I have given the url in the source, but it is in German. I will translate tomorrow. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2-million-more is the additional overall Wehrmacht death toll (regardless of soldiers' origin) Overmans has computed. In the url to the Overman source you find a table on top of the page, that in its first columns names the different expulsion territories, in the second column the people who lived there and got KIA per Overmans, and in the third column you find the data Schieder had used. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, do it tomorrow. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you also articulate what you mean by "The 2-million-more-figure is for all German deaths, not for the expulsion area"? The 2 million + figure is presented as the number for the expellees, which is what this article is about - not for "all German deaths".radek (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, with "2-million-more-figure" I referred to the surplus of overall German military deaths Overmans revealed, not to the expellee figure. Of this overall military deaths surplus, 344,000 are from the expulsion areas, so this number has to be substracted from the original figure issued by Schieder et al. (which is somewhat above 2 million). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Translation of Overmans (2004). Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. pp.298-300:

4. Results

4.3. Relevance of the results

page 298

4.3.2. Expulsion losses

This is an aspect which in its content and method is closely tied to the research at hand. While the now concluded project focusses on the military losses, this does not mean that soldiers were the only victims of the war. Let aside the losses of [Nazi] Germany's enemies, there had to be abstracted the German civilian victims of aerial warfare, deportation to the Soviet Union and flight and expulsion resp. from the former eastern territories, to whom the present data compilations provide no information. Yet, there are relations which now will be investigated.

[*]The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight [pagebreak]

page 299

Table 71: Comparison: Military losses from the expulsion areas
Origin	Research at hand [Overmans data]	"Bilanz der Vertreibung" [Schieder data]
Former eastern territories [of Germany as of 1937]	910,000	690,000
Greater Germany's eastern territories [wartime annexed territories]	206,000	180,000
Eastern and Southern Europe [Southeast European Volksdeutsche]	328,000	230,000
Total	1,444,000	1,100,000

and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.

[*]These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In recent years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified.

At this point exactly the results from the research at hand show an effect. As has been shown in Table 71, the number of males from the expulsion areas who died in the course of the Second World War according to the conducted research amounts to 1.44 million deaths, i.e. it is about 330,000 higher than the authors of "Bilanz der Vertreibung" have calculated. The question how this discrepancy had come about is easy to answer. Lacking precise documents, the authors of "Bilanz der Vertreibung" had to make assumptions about the death quota of the soldiers which today turn out to be false. The consequence of the construction of the [statistical] investigation as a balance is now that the number of civilian deaths lowers at the same rate the number of military deaths rises - because the number of the unexplained fates decreases. There- [pagebreak]

page 300

fore the previously issued data can not be maintained anymore.

In addition, there is a second issue. The research of the fate of the civilian deportees - of only marginal interest here - which is closely tied to the fate of the prisoners of war, shows that to this day the quantitative denotation of this process is not yet sufficiently explored. Also from this issue, there are clues which might be an impetus to critically revise the assertions about the losses of flight and expulsion.[end of chapter]

[Note: The two paragraphs marked with an asteriks ([*]) are translations transcluded from the Demographic estimates subarticle. I tried to maintain the original structure of the chapter and to translate as literal as grammar rules permit for easy verification.] Skäpperöd (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)/09:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)/09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Yes but this just confirms what I was saying earlier. Overmans states that the number of deaths is no higher ("can hardly have been higher than") than 500,000. The adjustment of 330,000 is to one particular number out of all the numbers. It is the correction of one of many problems in the 1950s study. This is how these studies are done - if you have a study that's weak methodologically usually it has a number of problems and different parts of a criticism are going to focus on different problems. But that doesn't mean there is only one problem, as the suggestion is being made here. Hence it is inappropriate to write the text as if the entire revision that Overmans is making is just the 330,000 rather than a revision from 2-3 million to 500,000 (or 600,000).

Also, it's pretty clear from all the sources provided that Overmans and other newer research supports a number of deaths that's either 500,000 or 600,000. The exact criticism of the older numbers are at a level of detail that properly belongs in Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans (and that article needs to be revised accordingly as well).radek (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Overmans' correction of the military deaths figure in the population balance and his research/support for "studies about the sum of reported deaths" (>500,000) are two different issues. I hope that comes out more clear with the improved structure of the section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All Overmans has done is to point out the estimated losses and their sources.

• The 1958 demographic study which lists losses of 2.2 million

• The 1965 Church Search Service accounting which lists 467,000 confirmed dead plus 1,906,000 missing

• The 1974 German Archives study which gave a figure of 600,000 dead

• Overmans DOES NOT take a position on which source is correct he points out their flaws and contradictions, he believes new research is needed to determine the fate of the missing persons.

• Source: Dr. Rűdiger Overmans- Personelle Verluste der deutschen Bevölkerung durch Flucht und Vertreibung. (A parallel Polish summary was also included, this paper was a presentation at an academic conference in Warsaw Poland in 1994), Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI-1994

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

?

What are "Wehrmacht-related deaths"? The "Thus Overmans says..." seems like OR since this is just one aspect of his research and only one way that the figures have been inflated. What he says is that the figures are at most "600,000" overall. 2-3 million minus 600,000 is way more than 334,000 so this appears to be admitting one aspect of his criticism just to ignore the others. Yes I know, this is ORing on top of somebody else's OR. But without a specific translation there is no way to make sense of this.radek (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With "Wehrmacht-related death" I wanted to summarize deaths in German military service, maybe that could be put better.

Overmans says that from the Schieder figure, 330,000 have to be substracted. Of course, the figure will then still exceed <600,000, because the <600,000 figures are based on counting the positives, while the higher figures are based on excluding the negatives. Both methods have their obvious merits and flaws. What is left as the discrepancy between both methods' results is the number of fates yet unaccounted for. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Thus Overmans says..." seems to be a pretty clear indication that this is an extrapolation, or in other words OR, since this is reffed to Overmans himself. An author would never refer to himself in the third person. This emphasizes a need for a direct translation. Woogie?radek (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Overman actually says so, see translation above. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Overmans does not thus say "the Schieder figures have to be lowered by 334,000". What he is doing is illustrating a particular methodological problem - one of many - with the original numbers. Saying that he thus says that the Schieder figure of 2+ million has to be lowered by ONLY 334,000 is original research, and in fact, badly done original research as what he actually says is in fact that the actual number is 500,000 not 2+ million (2mill-500,000>334,000).radek (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Overmans is saying that hardly 500,000 deaths are confirmed and the fate of the other 1.5 million still need to be clarified. He also points out that he found 344,000 additional military dead that would reduce civilian losses.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is how see the numbers 1958 Report 2,225,000 less 515,000 equals 1995 Report 1,710,000 less 344,000 found by Overmans 1,366,000 less 600,000 confirmed dead from 1974 report gives us 766,000 still missing. These numbers do not include 310,000 Soviet Germans in the 1995 Report

Note well the 1958 Report claimed 1,381,000 ethnic Germans living in Poland in 1939, that is his basis to compute the figure of 185,000 expelee dead. The Polish census of 1931 lists 741,000. The math gets real fuzzy when Dr. Schieder is in charge!!--Woogie10w (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the numbers:

• The the German government figure of 1958 using demographic methodology was 2,225,000, not including ethnic Germans in the USSR. They also estimated 1.1 million military deaths prior to the expulsions. Note well the 1950 figure for expellees living in the GDR was an estimate, since the GDR census figures did not include perons born after 1939 in the former eastern German territories with expellees.

• The German Church Search Service report in 1965 for losses in the area of the expulsions found 473,000 confirmed civilian dead and an additional 1,906,000 unsolved cases of persons missing persons after the war. They also found 972,000 other deaths prior to the expulsions, which includes military dead.

• The German Federal Archives in 1974 was able to confirm the deaths of 615,000 civilians.( 260,000 killed by Soviet military & their allies; 205,000 dead in USSR as forced laborers; 160,000 in the Expulsions) (400,000 in Poland; 130,000 in Czechoslovikia and 85,000in Yugoslavia)

• A revised demographic estimate from 1995 by Gerhardt Reichling was 2,020,000, including 310,000 of Soviet ethnic Germans not covered in the 1958 report. He also estimated 1.250 million deaths prior to the expulsions(including military). The introduction to the report was written by an official of the German government Statistical Office who gave the report his endorsement.

• Overmans found 1,444,000 military deaths in the area of the expulsions, 344,000 higher than the 1958 report

• Overmans believes new research is needed on the fate of the missing, he does not support any of the above sources to be the final word on the topic.

This is what the sources are saying, We should not give undue weight to one source. We should present each one of them them for readers to review--Woogie10w (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by ANNRC

Use of figures in such matters contribute to both further clarification in some areas and to further confusion in other areas. The approach obviously has to employ quasi-legalistic terminology because of all the ambiguity. Since there were no Wehrmacht (& SS) veterans around during the expulsions, it is a matter of perspective that the "civilian" expellees were women, children, and old men. Mixing expellee originating "areas" obviously leads to further confusion - as an example, the partial or complete mixing of figures from such civilian expellee populations originating in (1) Southern East Prussia; (2) the 1937 borders of Poland (which obviously included German resettlements during the WW2 timeframe); (3) Danzig and the German 1919-39 areas between the Oder-Neisse Line and the Western Border of 1937 Poland; and (4) Northern East Prussia.ANNRC (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Of course, German expulsions from northern East Prussia were a wholly USSR undertaking with not a lot of patience for some future Final WW2 Peace Treaty (Note: Nowhere in the Potsdam Agreement is reference made to German population transfers from northern East Prussia -- only three country names are associated with German population transfers in the Potsdam Agreement: Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary). Northern East Prussia was the only one of the above posted itemized areas unaffected by Polish Communist Militias as expulsion "authorities".ANNRC (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Here is the Potsdam Agreement reference to northern East Prussia: "V. CITY 0F KOENIGSBERG AND THE ADJACENT AREA.

"The Conference examined a proposal by the Soviet Government to the effect that pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement, the section of the western frontier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is adjacent to the Baltic Sea should pass from a point on the eastern shore of the Bay of Danzig to the east, north of Braunsberg-Goldap, to the meeting point of the frontiers of Lithuania, the Polish Republic and East Prussia.

"The Conference has agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet Government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the City of Koenigsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above subject to expert examination of the actual frontier.

"The President of the United States and the British Prime Minister have declared that they will support the proposal of the Conference at the forthcoming peace settlement."

ANNRC (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Caveat: "East Prussia" is referenced in the Agreement above rather than stipulating "the area of East Prussia under temporary Polish Administration pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement."ANNRC (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ANNRC could you stop writting these long, boring off-topic rants? wikipedia is not a discussion forum. thanks. Loosmark (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, you must be an expert in German expulsion statistics in order to find background material boring. How many German civilians were killed by the expelling Polish Communist Militia "authorities"? Somewhere between 50,000 to 100,000? Or maybe more? You once said that if the Germans in general had acted nicer towards the Poles during WW2 that not as many Germans would have been expelled. Since the Polish Communist Militia "authorities" were so-called "acting in the name of the Polish People and Nation" as the expellers, does this mean that Polish Communist Militias contained many hundreds of altruists?ANNRC (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Loosmark (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, maybe a compromise is in order. What about a figure of 75,000 German civilian expellees killed by Polish Communist Militias?ANNRC (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure of the casualties subsection

To avoid unnecessary conflicts and further misunderstandings, I restructured and expanded the casualties section as follows:

• Subsection "Research employing population balances": Here, all data (without interpretation etc, just the actual research) involving population balances is listed, in chronological order.
• Subsection "Research tracing individual fates": Here, all data (again without interpretation) resulting from mutual addition of the tracing/confirmation/verification of individual fates is listed, in chronological order.
• Subsection "Current citation and criticism of estimates": Here, it is listed how the data derived from either methods are cited in literature, interpreted and criticized.

This structure allows data to be sorted both according to how they were compiled and in chronological order (subsections 1-2) and separates uncontroversial stuff (listing of data) from potentially controversial stuff (interpretation of data). I hope that we shall soon come to a stable version that way.

I encourage Woogie10w to compare his above list to the data already included, and add the missing as well as give additional sources to what is already in there. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with your restructuring.

• There already is an article on Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans where this sort of level of detail belongs. This article should present general numbers.

The numbers as well as the criticism is not understandable without the methods used to get these numebrs. The dedicated article has this in much more detail already. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok sure but it should be clear that the 2+ million numbers found by the population balance method represent(ed) unaccounted for cases, not deaths.

• At the end of the day Overmans says no more than 500,000. Explaining in detail his methodology while misrepresenting his conclusion ("Thus, Overmans says, the population balance figures have to be lowered by 334,000") is not going to avoid (necessary) conflicts and it's OR - what he says is that this is ONE of the problems with the original numbers and this is only ONE of the reasons why the population balance figures have to be lowered. Presenting this as the final conclusion of his research is misleading.

Overmans is doing two different things: He says that the military deaths figure in the population balance has to be raised, and he is summarizing the number of verified deaths. One has nothing to do with the other. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Overmans explicitly states that the lower number (400,000-600,000) is the best estimate of deaths available with current data. He does NOT state that "thus the pbf have to be lowered by 334,000" - he thinks it's 400,000-600,000 not 2+million-334,000.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no reason why the "population balance methods" section should be given prominence. Scheider's numbers should probably be mentioned first for chronological reasons but that only suggests that the kind of organization you implemented is not the best way to discuss the issue.

The population balance method's results are the ones most abundantly cited in literature, so it deserves prominence. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says they are the most abundantly cited in literature or is this more OR? They do seem to be cited a lot by some politicians and in some newspapers but I doubt, based on Overmans and Haar, whether they're taken seriously in the academic literature. Please note also that half the refs given for "they're cited in the literature" (which I changed to "discussion") only cite these numbers in order to criticize them. This is sloppy mis-characterization of the situation at best.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise, moving Scheider's Nazi past and views way way down the section, rather than keeping it up front when his commission is first mentioned seems merely like an attempt to bury this fact where no one where read it. First time Scheider is mentioned should be the first time his Nazi past is mentioned. Both the sources I provided and a half dozen others which I can easily provide consider his Nazi past to be relevant to his historical work.

Schieder was the head of the commission, and he had a Nazi past. Yet there were also other people in the commission with not such a past, eg Oberländer had broken with Koch already in 1938, and Lukaschek was in the anti-Nazi resistance. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Schieder was head of the commission. Regardless, reliable sources deem it important enough to mention his Nazi past but not the past of others. We follow reliable sources. There's also apparently quite a discussion in academic literature on Schieder's past and its links to his subsequent work as a historian.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• What exactly was wrong with my version? Did it misrepresent anything? Was it unsourced? Did it have OR in it? No? But all these problems are present in the present version and the new organization and level of detail are unwarranted and unhelpful to this particular article.
• Yes there are other sources which repeat the Scheider figure. But it should be made explicit that that is what they're doing. Also not all these sources given (should I really include every single source out there for the fact that Scheider was a Nazi?) cite these numbers commendably - some are citing the numbers in order to criticize them.

Basically, the restructuring has negative value added. It introduces OR into the article. It makes the issue more difficult to understand (by discussing methodologies rather than conclusions). It introduces an unwarranted level of detail. It misrepresents some of the conclusions. It tries to bury unpleasant facts or relegate them to the tail end of the section. It fails to present the sources in a balanced way.radek (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The intend was to eliminate OR and SYNTHs, and it would be nice if you point out what exactly you think is OR. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I already did. Saying that Overmans' adjustment to Wehrmacht figures is the only necessary adjustment to the 2+ million is OR. Saying that the 2+ million is "the most cited in the literature" is another instance. Saying that the difference between the 2+ million and the "best estimate available" (Overmans) of 400-600 thousand represents deaths due to hunger, disease and allied bombing - where as this is not actually true and appears to be based on a non-academic work of an extreme far right author, described by German historian Martin Broszat as "polemical work written from a far-right nationalistic point of view, which have ridiculously exaggerated the number of deaths" - without attributing where this "misinterpratation" comes from and presenting it without qualification is also OR.radek (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And we even haven't gotten yet to the Haar criticisms which include the fact that the 2million + figure includes German Jews and other individuals killed by the Nazis who were then counted among the dead-by-expulsion.[1] radek (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your stance correctly, you are saying that the population balance is old outdated stuff and that the current state-of-the-art is the counting method.

In an perfect setting, both the population balance and the individual-deaths-counting would turn out exactly the same result. That they do not is because the settings of both are not perfect:

• The population balance is based on exclusion of all other factors until only the civil deaths are left. It is thus prone to turn out false positives if any of the assumptions about the factors that are to be excluded is too low. This is what Overmans' chapter translated above is about - one specific factor (military deaths) was assumed to be 344,000 lower than it actually was, so the result of the balance included 344,000 false positives.
• The counting methods are not very likely to include false positives, as this can only happen by multiple counts of the same person or a mistaken verification. This method however is prone to be too exclusive, because it ignores deaths that have gone unnoticed.

Research is done to close the gap between the results of either method already. It is possible that some or even all the ~1.5 million difference are false positives of the balance. It is also possible that the death count rises if additional data becomes available, and that the number of verified deaths will approach the number of the balance. The in my view most possible scenario is that the actual death count will rise a little, the balance will be further adjusted a little, and that the difference, though smaller than it is now, remains uncertain and unaccounted. The way to go for the article should just be to document that, and not tell the reader what method is right and what method is wrong. We should rather document how the results of both methods changed over time due to respective research. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)/14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)/14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In the 1.5 million missing figure there are "Germans" that exist on paper only. Schieder claimed 1.381 million Germnans in 1939 Poland of whom 185,000 are counted in the 2.2 million figure, yet the 1931 Polish census put the figure of ethnic Germans at 740,000. Overmans touches on this issue in his article in the Polish Journal. Schieder has an interesting resume. In 1943 Schieder was on the Plan Ost team to Germanize the east, ten years later he was head of Expellee investigations.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We should present the methods, but also present the criticisms of the methods made by respectable scholars. The thing is that the population balance figure do not just include deaths that have gone "unnoticed" but rather include: Wehrmacht soldiers, German Jews killed by the Nazis, people who never existed, expellees who arrived in East Germany rather than West, etc. This is all in the sources and it most definetly should not be excluded.radek (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Schieder's Nazi Background

de:Theodor Schieder was a Nazi party member during the Hitler period.

German Wikipedia has this to say about Schieder: During the war Schieder encouraged the expulsion of Jews in occupied Poland. He was active in the program to Germanize the East and to prevent the intermingling of ethnic Germans with the peoples in Eastern Europe. His recommendations were included in the Nazi Plan Ost. He was praised by the Nazi gauleiter Eric Koch for the confiscation of documents from Jewish Synagoues

The respected German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had this to say about Schieder.

In 1939 Dr. Schieder was a proponent of ethnic cleansing in the Polish regions annexed by Nazi Germany.

"Volksgeschichte" entwarf er Ende Oktober 1939 eine Denkschrift, welche die "brutale Entdeutschungspolitik der Polen" in Westpreußen und Posen dank des deutschen Sieges mit "Bevölkerungsverschiebungen allergrößten Ausmaßes" zu korrigieren forderte. Dazu gehörten für ihn, der in Berlin als ihr "eigentlicher Bearbeiter" galt, die "Enteignung", "Ausweisung aller zugewanderten Polen", die "Wiedereindeutschung" und "Entjudung Restpolens", um den "Aufbau einer gesunden Volksordnung" [2] --Woogie10w (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhode

The sentence "Also in 1953, Gotthold Rhode estimated the casualties to be 3.14 million", sourced to Haar, has been tagged as "clarification needed", yet it remains unclear what needs to be clarified. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the passage (in English) where Haar discusses Rhode? Does he say anything about his estimate?radek (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Haar in Herausforderung... p.271 (as sourced in the footnote): "Gotthold Rhode, who had issued the first balance of expulsion losses with 3.14 million victims [28], ...", where footnote [28] reads "Rhode 1953, 387"

Yes, but can you provide a translation of the whole passage (paragraph or two) for context? In other words, what are the "..." about and what comes before it. This is why it's a clarify not a verify tag.radek (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He was referring to the preliminary estimates of the Church Search Service.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Can you just GIVE say the ten sentences preceding and ten sentences following the sentence that you're reffing? In German is fine, I'll get it translated myself. But I want to see the actual text, not your description of it.radek (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil

Heinz Nawratil was attributed in the article as "the extreme far-right nationalistic author". This is a strong claim that needs to be sourced well or left out. Mind the BLP policy. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's already well sourced to Haar. Specifically, Haar, invokes the renowned German historian Martin Broszat's view of Nawratil's work:

(It is a) ""Polemical discussions, written from a right wing nationalist point of view which through absurd methods tries to exaggerate the extent of crime associated with expulsion of Germans (Broszat's scare quotes)". Broszat has a complete right to judge the quality of these studies and also the political danger associated with them. It was he, together with Hans-Ulrich Wehler, as editor of a Romanian edition of "Documents of Expulsions" who broke with the usual practice (among some German statisticians), instituted by Wilfried Kraller, former statistician of the SS, later working for the West German government, of adding to the casualties of expulsions, a number of Jews killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust."

(Yes, the 2+ million number DOES include many Jewish victims of the German Nazi Holocaust, counted as if they were Germans who died at Polish hands)

Then Haar gives an example of Erika Steinbach approvingly quoting Nawratil - and at the same time mischaracterizing what the actual scientific research on the number of deaths from the expulsions says, "even though the exaggerated numbers of Nawratil have been rejected" (Haar). More explicitly he says in reference to Nawratil:

"Undoubtedly the president of the Federation of Expellees (Erika Steinbach) uses this mistaken interpretation of numbers, compiled by a man (Nawratil) who is not an expert, and who is associated with the extreme far right only because she finds such numbers convenient (for political purposes - here there's an idiom).

So all four of "extreme right", "nationalistic", and "author" are directly in this reliable source.radek (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, we have one translation of one work by Haar where he says Nawratil "is associated with the extreme far right". A google book search with nawratil rechtsextrem OR far-right gives one hit that does not put the words into a context. The Broszat evaluation is from the same source, so it is "the translation says Haar says Broszat says Nawratil is supposed to be".

I think you also missed this one [3] which does hit for Nawratil and rechtsradikale and neofaschistishe". Could Woogie or someone else fluent in German help with translation here - I'm doing it from Babel and it's slow going (especially since you can't cut and paste) - especially the first paragraph on page 35, starting with "Nawratil publizierte auch mit Jorg Haider..." (That does say what I think it says, don't it?)radek (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the association again, and propose raising this issue at the BLP board if there is any, or ask a BLP specialist how to proceed. The claim is strong, and the source is an isolated translation. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Heinz_Nawratil. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I think he also writes stuff for the Institute for Historical Review [4]radek (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Between writing for IHR and the earlier sourcing, this seems like enough sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there another, related, article on...

the expulsion of Poles after World War II? Part of the reason Poles were given German territories by the Allies was the unwillingness of Stalin to give Poland back the territories taken in the east by the USSR in 1939. The Poles that left areas like Grodno, Wilno, Lwow, Tarnopol, etc. went to places like Breslau, Oppeln, Stettin, Allenstein, etc. I'm not trying to open a pandora's box hereBold text. I just want to know if this type of article exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochamanita (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is Polish population transfers (1944–1946) and there has been/is some discussion as to standardizing the terminology ("population transfers" vs. "expulsions" vs. "repatriation") for this, that, and other articles.radek (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also Nazi–Soviet population transfers.radek (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "Part of the reason Poles were given German territories by the Allies was the unwillingness of Stalin to give Poland back the territories taken in the east by the USSR in 1939": Those "territories taken in the east" were the areas in 1937 boundary Poland east of approximately the Curzon Line. In that territory people of Polish ethnicity comprised approximately 40% of the population (the balance was composed of ethnic Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc.). So, the 3-4 million Poles transferred out of that territory into the eastern German territories (which, per the Potsdam Agreement, were under temporary Polish administration pending the final Peace Treaty ending WW2) replaced (pick a number) 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 million Germans, who were expelled from eastern German lands.ANNRC (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Also, the Potsdam Agreement mentions nothing about transfers of ethnic Polish populations. Accordingly, nothing is mentioned about transfers of ethnic Polish populations from ANY areas east of the Curzon Line.ANNRC (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

From Polish population transfers (1944–1946): "The document regarding the resettlement of Poles from Ukrainian and Belorussian SSR to Poland was signed 9 September 1944 in Lublin by Nikita Khrushchev and the head of the Polish Committee of National Liberation Edward Osóbka-Morawski (the corresponding document with Lithuanian SSR was signed on 22 September)." Note: Since, as stated, the document was signed 9 September 1944 the reference of resettlement to "Poland" in the provision referring to "the resettlement of Poles from Ukrainian and Belorussian SSR to Poland" means the 1937 boundary area of Poland west of the approximate location of the Curzon Line. In September, 1944 no one knew when the war would end, nor when even an "interim Victory Conference" (such as Potsdam) would be held, much less a Final WW2 (European Theatre) Peace Treaty Conference.ANNRC (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Jan Hofmann i'd suggest you stop launching sickening personal attacks on radeksz as this one: [5]. thanks. Loosmark (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And please note that it's not Haar who describes Nawratil as "extreme right wing" but Martin Broszat who most definetly DOES have the authority to define him as such. The fact that Nawratil writes for the #1 Holocaust denial organization in the world doesn't help his case either.radek (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil's Right Wing Background

In the Journal of Historical Review Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth[6]The Journal of Historical Review is a soapbox for Holocaust deniers--Woogie10w (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-posted the matter at the BLP board: [7]radek (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzbuch by Nawratil

• Let's don't discuss Nawratil as a person but rather his texts. Here is an academic opinion about the Schwarzbuch... [8].
• According to the Polish translation of Ingo Haar's article - Broszat described Nawratil's methodology as absurd. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've included both of these in the BLP report [9]. The fact that Nawratil has written for Holocaust denying publications is also noteworthy.radek (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

German state propaganda is anti-Polish. If Nawratil is Nazi or leftist doesn't change anything.Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

lol at taht sentiment. anyway there are good arguments towards nawratil being someone catering towards the right wing. but he himself took an acceptable stance on the german wikipedia. maybe one should include this into his page? Kalifat (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalifat (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"German state propaganda" . . . is that concept similar to "Collective Guilt" or "Collective mentality" or "Collective outcome" or "DNA controlled behaviour"?ANNRC (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"German government propaganda" is O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How can the German government be anti-Polish when they pushed (when others didn't) for Poland's membership in NATO? Please spare me a "conspiracy theory" answer (example of a conspiracy theory: the German capitalists saw a bonanza in selling military equipment to the Poles after Poland was to be accepted in NATO, since the Poles needed to change out much equipment to become fully NATO qualified). Also, I don't think the Germans were too concerned about having Poland as a NATO buffer from an attack by Ukraine.ANNRC (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have I written that "the German government be anti-Polish"? Where exactly? There are different aspects of German politics toward Poland.

Several German governments after WWII supported the "Vertreibung" ideology. In 2006 Christoph Bergner (CDU), Staatssekretär im Bundesinnenministerium, answered Ingo Haar [10] that the German government still knows better than historians.

Poland is allegedly the main guilty. If it isn't anti-Polish propaganda - what is it?

Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1. There was no Final Peace Treaty immediate follow-on to the Potsdam Conference, so years of tentativity ensued. The reference to territorial "administration" is a conditional reference, not intended to be permanent (again, this focused on some assumed impending Final Peace Treaty follow on from the Potsdam Conference).

2. Identification of land areas having a 700 year intervening period as somehow being "Recovered Territories" is both absurd and borderline stupid. Why would such an absurd position deserve respect????? Why not instead call them "Compensatory Territories"?? (at least, that is being realistic)ANNRC (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is different - Germany describes flight, war and expulsion of Germans in the East as "Expulsion" ignoring comparable facts is the West. The main criminal was allegedly "Poland" (what was Poland in 1944 or 1945?), even if the Red Army committed more than 50% of the crimes. This propaganda returned after the 4+2 treaty.

700 years? Silesia was part of Prussia 200 years, Dazig about 100 years. BTW "Recovered" was Communist propaganda, no serious writer uses the word today. Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Are you saying that the Poles constructed the cities of Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, Koenigsberg?

2. Did the Poles or did the Russians expell the 4,5,6, or 7 million Germans from Silesia, Pommerania, Danzig, southern East Prussia? Please spare me the business about how all 7 million of those Germans "ran away" before the war was over. It appears that the resettled Poles in those territories numbered about half of the original German inhabitants.

3. Does any "serious writer" today use the correct term "Compensatory Territories"? (Please, for example, provide a name of a recent Polish respected author using such a term.)ANNRC (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1.Koenigsberg is in Russia. Wratislav was created by Czech prince and local Slavs and Gyddansk by Slavic Pommeranians. I don't know much about Szczecin.

2.I'm not going to "spare you" the German flight, including thousands of dead Breslau people or Gustloff victims.

3. Did UNESCO or EU decided that your "Compensatory Territories" is the only valid name? Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Koenigsberg was never in Russia prior to 1945. Breslau, Stettin, Danzig and Koenigsberg were all completely of German architecture until 1945. Overwhelming majority of Germans had lived in those cities for hundreds of years.

2. The dead civilians of Breslau & the torpedoed Gustloff victims were just a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of German civilians remaining east of the Oder-Neisse line in Spring 1945. Some Silesian Catholic Germans remained, but hundreds of thousands of Germans were "deported" by the Russians and the Poles; mostly by the Poles. How about a figure of 400,000 to 600,000 deaths during the so-called "Wild" expulsions?

3. "Compensatory Territories" were invented by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at the Tehran Conference in November, 1943. See the book "World War II: Behind Closed Doors" by Laurence Rees, London: BBC Books; NY: Pantheon, 2008.ANNRC (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy from BLP Noticeboard:Heinz Nawratil (again), per suggestion made there

There was a suggestion made at BLPN that there was too much information in this discussion for it to disappear in BLPN archives and that it should be placed here as well. Doing so accordingly.radek (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am re-posting this request for comment relating to Heinz Nawratil in the Expulsion of Germans - last time it was here [11] but it didn't manage to attract much attention. Now the page has been protected pending the resolution of the BLP issue.

There are two questions here. 1) Can Nawratil be described as "extreme right wing author" (or "nationalist") and 2) can it be mentioned that he has written articles for the Holocaust denial/revisionist Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review (which has been described as a "an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations").

Sources

Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat

The "extreme right wing" is sourced to an article by Ingo Haar, a respected German historian. Haar in turn is relying on Martin Broszat, one of the most well known and prominent German historians of the post war period. The article is in Polish (though the author is German) and I have provided the relevant translation at the talk page. The source itself is here: [12] (pdf). The claim has been made that this is only an "indirect connection" and not enough for a BLP statement.

Writing for Holocaust denial journal

One of Nawratil's articles for the Journal of Historical Review is here [13]. In the article Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as "the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth" (this should probably be enough to call Nawratil a Holocaust denier)

So far the only outside comment has stated that this is enough to source the claim and not violate BLP.

I would very much appreciate it if further outside editors could take a look at the provided links and sources and comment on the articles' talk page or here.radek (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP problem. Sourcing being in other languages is not a problem under WP:V. The sourcing is clear and sufficient. The matter is also relevant to the subject at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil is misquoted above, the "quotes" from the Journal of Hist. Rev. are taken from the (italicized) introduction clearly not written by Nawratil, as the intro is referring to him as a third person. Further, I don't either see a problem with the language of the source, my problem is that if Nawratil is a neo_nazi, then many sources should say so, not just one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Still, he is writing for the major Holocaust denial journal/institute and praising a Holocaust denier. And we're not writing that he is a neo-nazi, rather that he is associated with the extreme right, which he obviously is, as the sources show.radek (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to note that we are not putting in the article that Nawratil is a 'neo-nazi' - since the sources don't say that. What is proposed that in the article he is referred to as 'associated with the extreme right' and a 'nationalist' - which the sources DO say, and that he writes for a Holocaust-denying journal - which he clearly does.radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the German "nationalist extreme far-right" is exactly what is colloquially referred to as (neo-)Nazis. I agree that in the far-right there are people believing in all kinds of fringe stuff, not only the verbatim Nazi ideologies. Yet, at least in German media, "far-right"/"extreme-right" etc and "neo-Nazi" are redundant terms. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but we are not proposing to put anything about the colloquial use of the word "neo-Nazi" in the article - we are proposing to put in the article that he is a associated with the extreme right, a nationalist, and a revisionist who writes for Holocaust denial journals which is what the sources say - readers can draw their own conclusion as to whether this makes him a neo-Nazi or not.radek (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

h-net.org/reviews

Here is another source which clearly takes a similar view of his writings [14]: By far the most cited secondary source for the DVD-ROM's "background" passages is Heinz Nawratil's Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, first published in 1982 and re-issued almost annually ever since. It is an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization. An excerpt titled "Prelude to Expulsion," for example, placed in the midst of video clips about the fall of Breslau, provides an account of German-Polish relations from 1918 through 1939 that consists exclusively of Polish mistreatment of Germans. The bibliography provided by the DVD-ROM is taken directly from the (then) most recent addition of Nawratil's Schwarzbuch. It includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime but none published in eastern Europe, either before or after 1989. Read as a text document, in other words, Die Grosse Flucht is jarringly dated and one-sided, a kind of time capsule of the rhetoric of the Bund der Vertriebenen circa 1955radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is a review of a Guido Knopp documentary that used one of Nawratil's books as a source. The reviewer says that this book is an "unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization", not that Nawratil is far-right. That Knopp used Nawratil as a source indicates that Knopp consideres him reliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a review of Knopp's. But it says that Nawratil's book includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime'.11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

gew-huf-kassel.de and Grabert website

My German's next to non existent but thanks to the wonders of technology and babel fish a few relevant German language sources can be added here. For example this [15]. As far as I can make out on page 35 it states that Heinz Nawratil published together with Jorg Haider (who, according to Wiki's own article was known "for comments that were widely condemned as praising Nazi policies or as xenophobic or anti-Semitic") and Gerhard Frey ("politician and chairman of the far-right party Deutsche Volksunion, which he founded in 1971") through a publishing house of Grabert (here's google translation of German wiki on what is "one of the largest and most well-known extreme right-wing publishing houses in the Federal Republic of Germany" [16] and which as it happens, also launched the career of David Hoggan who's the guy who brought Holocaust denial to America) and which is described as a "central organ for revisionists" (i.e. Holocaust deniers) and something of a platform for writers of the "spectrum from radical right to neo-fascist". That last part I could use some help with if we have anyone who's fluent in German, but it's pretty clear what the gist is.

Not a RS: The source is an anti-fashist subgroup of a student organization. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the fact that they are an anti-fascist German watchgroup does not make them unreliable since that's the most likely source to list this kind of organization.radek (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the ASTA is the Allgemeine STudentenAusschuss, the elected representative body of all the students at a University, not just any student organization. Zara1709 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the website of Grabert publishing house (the major publisher of Holocaust denial in US and similar materials in Germany, see above) confirms the fact that Nawratil, Jorg Heider and Gerhard Frey all published from it in the same volume, together with the ALFRED Schickel we keep running into here (the guy who called the Holocaust "the extermination myth"): The Genocide of the Germans with foreward by Jorg Haider, chapters by Nawratil, Alfred Schickel, Gerhard Frey and Rolf-Josef Eibicht (according to German wiki an author from the extreme right wing spectrum. I'm sure other names on that list have some nice pedigrees as well.radek (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

imi-online.de

Since I'm doing this through online translators it's slow going but there's also this [17] (crappy google translation here [18] - but you can copy paste relevant passages into babel fish) - on page 18 it says (translated through Babelfish) apparently that Nawratil used to belong to the Wiking-Jugend ("a German Neo-Nazi organization modelled after the Hitlerjugend") and is listed among "the names of constituted right-wing extremists".

If anyone fluent in German wishes to provide more exact translation, I'd very much welcome it, but I think it's pretty obvious that if anything, the description that is being considered in the article text UNDERSTATES the degree of this guy's involvement with the extreme right.radek (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

the IMI source (an NGO) counts Nawratil as a "known right-wing extremist", and says he was an official in the Wiking-Jugend. Rd232 ^talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. Does the other one say that he wrote articles with Jorg Haider for a Holocaust denying publisher?radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The other source [19] says Nawratil published with Haider and Frey in the "50 years of expulsions" book published by the Grabert Verlag. It adds that Grabert Verlag published "Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart", which the source describes as the "central organ" (sometimes trans "mouthpiece") of revisionism in Germany. The document gives as a source for these claims the Handbuch deutscher Rechtsextremismus, p412. Note that the book "50 years of expulsions" [20] is a collection of work by different authors, so Nawaratil didn't collaborate with Haider and Frey, only publish in the same collection. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS: The source is an organization dedicated to unveal the "creeping militarization of Germany" (self-identification at http://www.imi-online.de/). --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the fact that this is an NGO does not disqualify it from being a RS. Please note that the source does not engage in any hyperbolic claims, merely notes that Nawratil used to be in Wiking-Jugend.radek (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

apabiz.de and Nawratil's publisher

Oh, and here's another one. Apparently Nawratil works for Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt as can be seen on this website: [21]. The ZFI is, according to Wiki, "a historical revisionist association", which of course means Holocaust denial and it "is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany. On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied". And out of the three functionaries of the association the other one is no other than the Dr. Alfred Schickel that we've met above, the same guy who talks about the "extermination myth" and whom Nawratil praises in the pages of the IHR journal. Again, someone fluent in German may wish to provide of the organization's mission statement as found under "Aktivitäten" on their website.radek (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The link you give is not the website of the ZFI, it's of an anti-fascist NGO [22] which lists Nawratil as a board member of the ZFI in its profile of the ZFI. I can't find a website for the ZFI. Rd232 ^talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's not their website - I caught that and corrected my statement above. It looks like a site that keeps track of right wing extremists and groups.radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell the website says that the ZFI is a right wing think tank dedicated to the trivialization of Nazi war crimes. They also research war crimes against the Germans in the expulsions. I am busy now, let me check this out on the German internet later today--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointer, since the Nazis and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany, these folks set up front organizations that use code words to communicate with the extreme right.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This link is informative, the ZFI is apparently mainstream in Bavaria, kein wunder!! A SPD delegate in Bavaria, a stronghold of the CSU, is questioning why the ZFI is not being sanctioned by the government. He questions why government officials sent greetings to the ZFI [23]--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS: The source is a self-identifying anti-fashist information center. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a feeling that any source I provided will be called not RS. Again, there's no extreme claims made here, just that Nawratil works for ZFI.radek (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And again, it turns out that Nawratil's own book was published by ZFI ("one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany"): [24], so he's clearly associated with them.radek (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redrawing nations

This source clearly states Nawratil has produced "nationalist writings": Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948, by Phillip and Siljak.radek (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expelling the Germans

This source clearly states that Nawratil is a "revisionist", which of course means here what it usually does: Expelling the Germans: British opinion and post-1945 population transfer in context, by Matthew James Frank.radek (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Extreme right wing fraternity

According to its own web page Nawratil is listed as an associate of the student organization de:Burschenschaft Danubia Munich which German wikipedia describes [25] as "often associated with the extreme right spectrum": [26].radek (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

He's listed as a speaker, not an "associate". That's an informal form of association, I guess, but not a formal one. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

(There are so many minor headings here that I can't leave a comment without adding a new one.) "Extreme right wing" may well be an accurate description, but I don't think there is anything close to a consensus in German society to call him that. Otherwise it would be reflected somehow in a German Google News search or the German Wikipedia. (He complained about his biography there, but his complaints were very minor compared to calling him an extremist.)

I believe there is a general consensus in German society to be antifascist in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. And there is a similar general consensus to be anti-Vertreibung (i.e. expulsion [of Germans from formerly German areas after WW2]) in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. The media observe this quite carefully, especially the part about not talking too much – presumably because they would lose a part of their audience otherwise. As a result there is a large political spectrum of opinions which somehow form part of this "consensus", in spite of any contradictions. People at either end only begin to be seen as extremists if they start doing something or at least come with specific demands.

Nawratil may well be operating right at the border between respectability and just representing this "consensus", and being a right-wing extremist. If this is the case, then talking about it involves breaking the taboo, i.e. organisations that talk about it are automatically considered left-wing extremists. In this case the sources seem to be things like an AStA (official students representation of a university, traditionally ranging from mildly socialist to sending money to revolutionary groups, now sometimes being taken over by right-wing extremists; this is all related to extremely low voter turnout) and a peace group.

All of this doesn't answer the question what to do here, but perhaps it gives some perspective. Scholarly sources or sources from outside Germany might help to get a more neutral view. Hans Adler 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! For the purposes of this discussion it's of course not necessary that a consensus in German society exist that he is an extremist - just that there are reliable sources that call him that. I want to note that we do have German reliable sources - Martin Broszat - that refer to him specifically in that way, as well as non German ones, we also have evidence based on his own writing for JHR and ZFI and we have the sources cited to the student organizations and NGOs which document further links (some of which have been independently confirmed here). I think for calling him an extremist we have more than enough.radek (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It looks to me like there's clearly enough sourcing to label him a right-wing extremist. I don't know if there is enough sourcing at this point to label him a holocaust denier. It may make more sense for now to just quote him directly. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion should be moved to the article talk page, or at least to an archive of it. There's too much info here, I think, to let vanish into the BLPN archives. Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok if I just copy and paste all but this comment and your suggestion?radek (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really a BLP issue

This is not a BLP issue. What we have is a controversial topic, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where one would have to expect that at least some literature is written from a partisan poin-of-view. We have one author (Heinz Nawratil) who has written about the topic; if this author has a partisan view, this is directly relevant for the article. Disputes over this should be directed to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, however, I think, the case is clear. If h-net describes a work of Heinz Nawratil as "an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization" H-Net Review, and other source say something similar, then the article has to make clear that Nawratil has a partisan view, everything else would violate wp:NPOV.

Just as illustration: A BLP issue would be a case of an article on a person notable for something a-political, say an actor or athlete. If this person had been, in his youth, a member of a far-right group (Viking Youth or whatever), then we would have to discuss whether this belongs into that person's article. But here we have a case of someone who has written a non-fiction work. If every time we have to discuss the reliability of a source and the due weight that it deserves someone would make a BLP issue out of that, this noticeboard would be stuffed. Not that is isn't anyway, but we would have even more cases here. Zara1709 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil doesn't write "opinions", he pretends to write historiographical books, even if he isn't a historian and he uses "absurd" methodology. I haven't found any academic review of his books, it proves that he is a hobby writer. He shouldn't be quoted in this Wikipedia as a serious author, but rather in "Far righ in Germany" or "German nationalistic propaganda after WWII". Such discussions have been continuing here since several years. Either this Wikipedia is serious or a place for anyone to write anything.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingo Haar

Ingo Haar is a revisionist, and his extreme views are rejected by any serious sources[27]. Citing Ingo Haar in this article is equal to cite people who argue that only one million Jews died during the war. UweBayern (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have written - a German official "knows" better than a German historian.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That German source does not support the claim that Haar is a "revisionist", has "extreme" views, or is rejected by "any serious sources". The link documents a radio debate which seriously (though not in any depth) discusses Haar's claim that the numbers have been inflated by poor methodology, including Haar's claim that it rests partly on estimating population numbers before and after, numbers arriving in post-war Germany, and assuming all the rest died. It suggests that Haar focusses on the numbers directly killed (c 400,00 - 600,000), while the conventional number of 2m includes those killed by disease, starvation, etc. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Though Haar questions methods and motives of other scholars, "revisionist" is not the best term to describe him because of its negative connotation. Haar's style is sometimes provocative, but that does not make him an extremist, and he does back up his positions very well. He does not cross the line of what is regarded acceptable. To apply terms like revisionist and extremist to Haar (or anyone), you need good sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He clearly aims to diminish the number of victims of The Expulsion, claiming the conventional number of 2-2,5 million victims is "exaggerated". As such, he is by definition a revisionist (Holocaust deniers employ exactly the same methods, by questioning conventional numbers and claiming the number of victims is "exaggerated"). The point is that Wikipedia should rely on mainstream sources, not on fringe views. The mainstream view in this case happens to be that 2-2,5 million died during The Expulsion. The excessive use of Ingo Haar as a source is inappropriate. Furthermore, the source is in Polish and is not really a source in an English-language encyclopedia because non-Poles are not able to understand its content. UweBayern (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

UweBayern i'd politely ask you stop comparing a respected historian with holocaust deniers. Also please stop attacking Polish sources, if they are reliable as is the case here, they are good for the project. Loosmark (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not a respected historian, he is someone who pursues a political agenda. He is not a reliable source, he represents a fringe view. UweBayern (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"He clearly aims to diminish the number of victims ... As such, he is by definition a revisionist"??? What a weird definition of "revisionist". If the claim made were that he aims to diminish the number for biased, ideological, reasons, that might be a reasonable conclusion, but to define the word "revisionist" as including anyone who thinks the numbers have been exaggerated, irrespective of their grounds for doing so, is bizarre, and quite clearly tends to introduce a bias. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, a person who attempts to revise history is by definition a revisionist. And I think it's agreed that the mainstream view is that there were 2-2,5 million victims. A person who claims something else hence is a revisionist. UweBayern (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the ~2 million number is the "mainstream" one, but I think the other one is an equally valid result calculated with a valid method. Both methods have pros and cons. I think that the way these numbers are presented right now is biased, as it implies that the population balance is not a valid method, and that the verified deaths only counting method is the state of the art. I'd prefer to have both methods presented that way, and not label either one as invalid. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm no, 2-2.5 million is not a "mainstream" number (maybe in some circles in Germany). Just think a bit about it, during the hollocaust the Nazis killed around 3 millions Polish Jews and everybody knows that the Nazis had by far the most perfected killing machine in history. Now are you really trying to claim that the Soviet and Polish authorities managed to kill roughly the same amount of people on roughly the same teritory in just a couple of months? Such a claim is completely out of this world and downright absurd. Loosmark (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody attributes these DEATHS directly to being KILLED by Poles and Soviets. The amount of 2 million losses of lifes includes results of the expulsion, afaik. I think that your statement is mixed up. Kalifat (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if the loss of life includes "the results of expulsions" the number is ridiculously high. The reality of the matter is a great number of those civilians were killed in the war because the Nazis foolishly prevented evacuations almost everywhere (even civilians were considered deserters). An example is here: Siege of Breslau, depending on the source 29.000 or 170.000s civilians killed during war operations just in Breslau. So basically it's clear that many of those included in the 2-2,5 million number were actually already killed in war operations before the mass expulsions even started. Loosmark (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying the possibility of your last statement. But is it our task to find the amount, or should this article explain the different perspectives and findings of historians and other involved parties?Kalifat (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the last months of the war were so completely chaotic that it is almost impossible to estimate the number of German civilians killed because the "war-zone" reached them so to say. IMO the best thing we can do is to make it clear that a large number of those 2-2,5 millions were killed in the war or to state that the 2-2,5 millions killed include those who died in the war. Loosmark (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, these killings were part of the Expulsion in its wider sense. Many people fled because of war-time war crimes committed by the Red Army. People murdered by the Red Army obviously were victims of the Expulsion as well. UweBayern (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this POV, the USAAF participated in the expulsions bombing Germany, see Świnoujście.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For you English as not your Mother Tongue'rs, the USAAF bombed Stettin & Dresden, and both cities were full of refugees. Whether the "originally from further east" component of those refugees had arrived in Stettin & Dresden as a result of any of the three alternatives, (1) flight immediately before the arrival of the Red Army, (2) "in-effect" expulsion by the Red Army, or (3) flight in anticipation of the eventual arrival of the Red Army, is moot.ANNRC (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Caveat: The refugees were likely in Stettin & Dresden as a result of some perentage combination of two or more of #'s 1, 2, 3 above.ANNRC (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter how they were killed? They were killed, that's the end result. UweBayern (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously it matters, if somebody was already death when the expulsions started saying that he was killed in the expulsions is.. well false. Loosmark (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Ingo Hass some numbers of Jewish victims of German Holocaust were added to numbers of victims of the "expulsion".Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess

This article seems to be a mess with dubious sources, many of them Polish nationalist propaganda, in Polish, and hence impossible to check for non-Poles, while other sources are representing revisionist fringe views aiming at diminishing the number of victims of The Expulsion, which is comparable to Holocaust denial. Someone would need to go through this article. Dubious sources should be replaced by quality sources, preferably official German sources. I think all sources should be in major languages like English and German. Sources in languages not widely understood (Polish) should be avoided. UweBayern (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

wow, do you have a clue how condescending and arrogant you sound in some of your statements? it doesnt actually help your cause or generate any sympathy. and one doesnt get the impression, that you really want to improve this article... --Kalifat (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to write the same. I might add that for the average reader here, a German source is as Chinese as a Polish one. Instead of writing posts like "I am frustrated with your fringe propaganda sources, get a language", you can ask someone to verify/translate a source, or you can include sources that say something different. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is, other things being equal, an advantage in using sources which are likely to be understood by a large proportion of users of Wikipedia. However, to suggest that Polish sources should be avoided and German sources should be preferred to all others would in itself suggest a possible bias, whether intentional or not; the suggestion that we should prefer to restrict ourselves to official German sources is difficult to read as anything other than a deliberate attempt to favour a particular point of view. If it is not deliberate then it is remarkably unperceptive. In a case like this, where there are different groups with differing points of view, and where there are certainly some people with biased nationalist approaches, it is essential to be able to consider sources from different backgrounds, and, despite the language difficulties, in order to be able to do this we cannot rule out sources in any particular language. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"German sources should be preferred to all others", who said that? I prefer English sources, but if English sources aren't available, German sources would be OK. German is a major international language, Polish isn't. Sources in Polish are completely useless to anyone except the Poles. We write an English encyclopedia, not a Polish one, and the sources should be in a language other editors, and ideally readers, understand. Also, Polish sources on this topic are generelly known for their strong Polish nationalist bias/intellectual dishonesty (long experience). UweBayern (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with such nationalistic superiority claims. All other things being equal Polish sources are just good as the German ones. Loosmark (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an English encyclopedia, this should be the only preferred language which stands above all others. To impose a hierarchy on all the other languages seems arbitrary. How do you want to define what is a major language and what not? And especially at this topic - a topic that includes two different countries, with two different writings of history, perspectives and conflicts - it should be self-evident to include both perspectives - and thus both languages - into an article, if people are interested in producing a consensus somewhere in the future. Kalifat (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually it includes several countries. Some perspectives, including the pre-1989 official Polish perspective and the East German one are evidently propaganda. Also, the views of eg the post-1989 Polish and German far-right are, moderately put, problematic. Language/country should not be a determining factor here, but reliability of the author regardless of language used. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are not two equally valid "points of view", just like there is only one acceptable view on genocide against other peoples. Ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder and crimes against humanity are never acceptable. Denial or justification of murders and crimes against Germans have no place in this article.

Mainstream German sources, like government publications, generally are quite neutral and scholarly, some might even argue they downplay the expulsion crimes to some extent. Polish sources, especially from before 1990 but to a large extent also many more recent ones (there are exceptions), generally take a strong Polish nationalist POV due to 50 years of strong anti-German propaganda by the communist regime. Scholarly, third-party English-language sources would be best. UweBayern (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream German sources, like government publications" create and support the "Expulsion" (German Vertreibung) ideology. They aren't in any way "neutral".

I agree that pre-1989 Polish texts are frequently unreliable. Exactly like the GDR ones.

It's not true that Polish texts printed after 1989 are generally nationalistic. In reality many Polish writers were at least partially supported by German institutions or worked in German academic institutions (Krasnodębski, Musiał). Many of them has some Communist background or published Communist-influenced texts (also in Germany - Borodziej).

I also want a neutral English language source. However contemporary English langauge texts are generally based on German sources. Western historian don't read Polish and don't know Eastern Europe (see Norman Davies' texts about the ignorance).

Summarizing - you are of course not right.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are of course right, Skäpperöd, but in the end it boils down to a struggle between those two countries. A struggle of who dominates this discourse, this process of finding and generating 'the truth'. I simplified my statement to make clear, that i am in favour of giving at least these three languages of English, Polish and German a status of equality when it comes to accept them as a veritable source and that in this case here neither German nor Polish should be a reason for exclusion per se. Kalifat (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)