Talk:Organised persecution of ethnic Germans

Contents

1 This article stays 2 Dispute 3 Stop the edit war now 4 RFC 5 Minor question

This article stays

I don't know what anyone is thinking, but this article title is a vast improvement on the POV Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 23:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not. Please read the Talk:Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. This article title is pushing the POV

1. prosecution of Germans was based on ethnicity
2. it was unjust (persecution)

Title Pursuit of Nazi collaborators is biased the oposite way, because of negative connotations of the word collaborator, but nothing better was found in discussion.

--Wikimol 08:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No matter of the title, contents of this article is duplicit to Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. And clearly inferior both in NPOV and facts. If anybody reverts, I won't revert again, but insted add merger and total dispute.

If you only object the title, lets resurect discussion of title of Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. Please note this is a well-known controvarsial topic and there was sort of consesus. --Wikimol 08:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This title is overly broad where the other one specifies a context. AndyL 11:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is absurd. We have two almost identical articles with different titles. AndyL 03:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possible solution: A different "organised persecution of ethnic Germans" took place in the US in 1917-1918 (and in fact there had been friction between German-American and Anglophone populations in many areas long before then). I would imagine similar things have happened in other countries with large ethnic German populations. What would people say to expanding or redefining this article to encompass all cases of organized anti-ethnic-German activity? Then this article might contain only a stubby summary of the post-Nazi campaigns, which could be uniquely dealt with in-depth in Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. ... Given the current state of tension here, I hesitate to implement this, but it seems like a workable solution. Visviva 16:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, if you have info you can contribute it to the article. Perhaps there's info on the treatment of Germans in Alsace-Lorraine once it was ceded to France (perhaps even a reference to Alfred Dreyfuss would be appropriate?) AndyL 17:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've added sections on Italy and the US, and rewritten the header paragraph a bit. Hope nobody bites my head off for it. My style isn't great (it could use a little rewrite), but at least I think it's fairly NPOV. The US and Italian situations are areas where I've done some reading before, so I could be fairly sure that the limited stuff I could find online was accurate. There's definitely a lot more content that could be added for these and other countries (France, obviously; probably Australia, UK, various South American countries). 220.64.213.126 10:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's me, by the way. Visviva 10:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute

This article title is pushing the POV

1. prosecution of Germans was based on ethnicity
2. it was unjust (persecution)

First paragraph is complete nonsense.

Rest of article is duplicit to Pursuit of Nazi collaborators.

I hope those reverting the redirect will fix this. --Wikimol 08:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

persecution of Germans after WII was based on ethnicity, and was very unjust. This is not an article about nurenburg, or some war crimes/war criminals, its about ethnic cleansing/violence against ethnic germans based on their ethnicity after WWII. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 14:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam left me a message at my talk page about a documentary he saw that showed "a lot of horrible abuses (raping, people nailed to barns by their ears, random shootings and murders, etc...) after the war, and often against german speakers who had lived in e europe or russia prior to the war (as well as others of course)". I have heard about such things from a reliable friend but cannot present sources for it. Does anyone know more? Get-back-world-respect 23:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The section about Czechoslovakia refers to the article "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators". As people were expelled for their ethnicity and not based on any evidence that they had personally collaborated with the Nazis, this is not neutral. Get-back-world-respect 23:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop the edit war now

These are two different topic areas as a) not all Nazi collaborators were German and b) not all persecuted Germans were actual or alleged Nazi collaborators. Let's try to reduce the redundancy between the two articles and please stop the redirection - if anyone thinks this article shouldn't be here then list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and make your case there. Continued edit warring *will* result in an RFC being drawn up so please stop. AndyL 20:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, these are separate topics, the redundancy needs to be delt w, but a redirect is not the answer. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 21:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between Wikipedia and the Last Judgement!

I understand you want one article about "(unjust) persecution of ethnic Germans" and the other about "(just) prosecution of criminals". The problem is this distinction is impossible to do NPOV way. First reason - majority of war criminals, collaborators, traitors etc. were German ethnicity or self-declared German ethnicity. And for some groups even the reversed implication is true. Second reason - what was just depend on POV. Third reason - even if we wont have NPOV policy, judging what prosecution was just / unjust is problematic, you usualy have to impose some todays ethic on some historical events.

Example, why these articles have to be merged - and why its impossible to draw the border you would like. Or please answer to which article following persecution belong (and how you decided): 'Nuremberg Trials

• POV A Nuremberg Trials are typical example of victor's justice. Only German war crimes were prosecuted, and tribunal was not fair. It was unjust and against Germans.
• POV B Nuremberg Trials were clearly act of law and justice.

Czechoslovakian law, stating supporting Nazi rule and occupation by any means, including verbal support, was a criminal offecne

• POV A It is clearly anti-German, because Germans living in Czechoslovakia were never happy with the post WWI settlement of borders and so called "occupation" percieved as liberation.
• POV B Czechoslovakia was democratic state and breaking its law and constitution. Support for Nazi tyrany cannot be excused by the German resentment originating in loss of supreme position in state. In time of war even verbal crimes are crimes.

Czechoslovakian law, stating people of German ethnicity loose their citizenship, however if they can proove they were anti-nazi, their citizenship will be restored

• POV A It is openly unjust punishment of all ethnic Germans.
• POV B It is problematic, but it had practical reasons. Majority of Czechoslovakian Germans were pro-nazi, so it was more manageable to restore citizenship to those who were not. It was harsh, but it was law.

Resistance group come to village and shoot all Germans. Proclaimed reason was they believed the Germans were informants.

• POV A It is ethnic cleansing.
• POV B It war revenge to alleged German collaborators.

Again, I repeat, the distinction is impossbile to make NPOV way. It would be much better to have one article dealing with whole continuum of what happened rather than two highly redundant articles, each one-sided, presentenig and emphasizing one POV.

I'll take the case to vote for deletion or other appropriate institution on monday (now I'm leaving for several days outdoors). In the meantime, something to read. If you are eager to dive into horrible abuses [1] (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/whitebook/desg00.html) and something more balanced [2] (http://www.mkcr.cz/article.php?id=1008). Unfortunately, I dont know about good online resources for other POVs, but there are credible reports of atrocities commited by normal civilian population portrayed in [1] as victims.

Personal note - the more I know about it the less I judge.

Btw, reverting one way isnt much better that the other. --Wikimol 22:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My personal opinion is along the lines of those who criticise James Bacques, ie those who dwell on post war anti-German sentiments and actions tend to do so as a means of minimising German atrocities during the war possibly with the intent of equating what happened to the Germans with what the Nazis did to others, particularly the Jews. (That being said there are some very real abuses such as the treatment of the Volga Germans). Nevertheless, I don't think the way you've been dealing with this article in past days has been terribly useful or productive. If you think the article is unbalanced then balance it out. If you think it shouldn't be listed then list it for deletion. AndyL 01:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the extreme right tries to abuse the abuses of Germans and to downplay the holocaust. I however do not think that an encyclopedia should censor facts because some may abuse them. Censure is the easiest thing to abuse. One reason why some feel so bitterly about the abuses is that because of the unthinkable preceding events their misery went unnoticed. Get-back-world-respect 01:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RFC

I´m merely restating previous post.

Some contributors of this article want one article about "(unjust) persecution of ethnic Germans" and other about "(just) prosecution of criminals", the unjust persecutin described in this article and the just in Pursuit of Nazi collaborators.

The problem is, IMO this distinction is impossible to do NPOV way. First reason - majority of war criminals, collaborators, traitors etc. were German ethnicity or self-declared German ethnicity. And for some groups even the reversed implication is true. Second reason - what was just depend on POV. Third reason - even if we wont have NPOV policy, judging what prosecution was just / unjust is problematic, you usualy have to impose some todays ethic on some historical events.

Examples, why we should have one article - under whatever title - and why its impossible to draw the border between "Organised persecution of ethnic Germans" and "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators". For example, try to decide where following persecutions belong: 'Nuremberg Trials

• POV A Nuremberg Trials are typical example of victor's justice. Only German war crimes were prosecuted, and tribunal was not fair. It was unjust and against Germans.
• POV B Nuremberg Trials were clearly act of law and justice.

Czechoslovakian law, stating supporting Nazi rule and occupation by any means, including verbal support, was a criminal offecne

• POV A It is clearly anti-German, because Germans living in Czechoslovakia were never happy with the post WWI settlement of borders and so called "occupation" percieved as liberation.
• POV B Czechoslovakia was democratic state and breaking its law and constitution. Support for Nazi tyrany cannot be excused by the German resentment originating in loss of supreme position in state. In time of war even verbal crimes are crimes.

Czechoslovakian law, stating people of German ethnicity loose their citizenship, however if they can proove they were anti-nazi, their citizenship will be restored

• POV A It is openly unjust punishment of all ethnic Germans.
• POV B It is problematic, but it had practical reasons. Majority of Czechoslovakian Germans were pro-nazi, so it was more manageable to restore citizenship to those who were not. It was harsh, but it was law.

Resistance group come to village and shoot all Germans. Proclaimed reason was they believed the Germans were informants.

• POV A It is ethnic cleansing.
• POV B It war revenge to alleged German collaborators.

IMO its clear the distinction is impossbile to make NPOV way. It would be much better to have one article dealing with whole continuum of what happened rather than two highly redundant articles, each one-sided, presentenig and emphasizing one POV. I do not advocate current state of Pursuit of Nazi collaborators or its title. (I contributed Czechoslovaki section).

The question is whether Wikipedia should have one article trying to decsribe both aspects or two articles each emphasizing one side. If one article, how to achieve that, when redir was subject of revert war, merger notice was reverted and vote for deletion is not suitable (by Deletion policy this is NOT the case for VfD). If two articles, how to divide content of existing article between them.

--Wikimol 15:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you please stop doubling whole paragraphs at discussion pages? Thank you.

wikipedia articles are not meant to judge. As you may agree, many people of an ethnicity may not identify with or even know of everything a government does that has the same ethnicity. "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" and Amish people in the US or expulsion of ethnic Germans regardless of their political views simply do not match. Get-back-world-respect 18:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not everything needs a plethora of articles, and this is one that doesn't. It can do its job and reflect an encyclopedaic overview of all the above, quite happily in one article. FT2 23:34, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Minor question

I do not understand the sentence "In the General Government there were ~120,000 Volksdeutsche." What does "government" mean here? Get-back-world-respect 18:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it refers to the satrapy created by the Nazis from the piece of Poland that was not incorporated into Germany itself after the invasion of 1939. In terms of "government" in this context it was the autocratic administration imposed by the Nazis on the Poles for fivish years. The whole section on Poland is vague and misleading and needs some serious work. Hope that helps Lisiate 23:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even for an administration rather than a government 120,000 seems a lot to me. Get-back-world-respect 23:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The entire area was called the General Government so the figure referes to all the Germans living in that part of Poland at the time rather than those directly involved in the administration. Lisiate 23:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)