The Forgotten Genocide: Germans in the east

[FastFreddy]

Go to annsfilms.com. Everyone should know about this!!!!

[LWD]

I am in general very reluctant to go to a site when the post suggesting it contains no information as to what's on the site, even more so if it is not even clear what the focus of it is.

[FastFreddy]

I am in general very reluctant to go to a site when the post suggesting it contains no information as to what's on the site, even more so if it is not even clear what the focus of it is.

The site is about the expulsion and genocide of German from Eastern Europe after WW2. This is a hidden chapter of history that is only recently coming to light.

[LWD]

??? The forced migrations after both world wars are well known. I've yet to see anything that raises them to the level of genocide though.

[Marcus]

As LWD pointed out the fate of ethnic Germans in the east is well known and we already have a large number of threads dealing with various aspects of that topic.

/Marcus

[Lieutenant S. Chuikov]

??? The forced migrations after both world wars are well known. I've yet to see anything that raises them to the level of genocide though.

I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to claim that the Germans were victims of genocide. It's a common backdoor tactic of Holocaust deniers who don't want people to know that they're denying the Holocaust, or people who have a repressed love for the Third Reich who don't want to admit to themselves that they're raging Nazi defenders.

I'm not accusing the director here of that. There's plenty of people who fall victim to believing deniers because they don't know that the source is raging apologist.

I have no intent to deny German suffering or try to minimize it, but it is profoundly ahistorical to suggest that the Germans were on the whole victims of "genocide" by the people who they had subjected to tens of millions of murders and other unimaginable suffering.

I agree that the expulsions were bad and that they did lead to many crimes against Germans, but those crimes fall severely short of any sort of state organized genocide. They were committed by individuals. The expulsions themselves were also undesirable, and when separated from their historical context, would constitute a serious war crime. However, the reason why they happened was to prevent the Holocaust from happening again. And who knows if it would have if the Germans had not been removed from the east? It's certainly a regrettable decision and the suffering should not be overlooked, but calling it genocide is ahistorical.

The whole site seems to have a lot of stuff about defending Germans yet fails to mention anything about the Holocaust. Richard Bessel did a good job describing these sorts of events, which included not portraying Germans as the sole victims of the war.

[Hawkwind]

??? The forced migrations after both world wars are well known. I've yet to see anything that raises them to the level of genocide though.

I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to claim that the Germans were victims of genocide. It's a common backdoor tactic of Holocaust deniers who don't want people to know that they're denying the Holocaust, or people who have a repressed love for the Third Reich who don't want to admit to themselves that they're raging Nazi defenders.

I'm not accusing the director here of that. There's plenty of people who fall victim to believing deniers because they don't know that the source is raging apologist.

I have no intent to deny German suffering or try to minimize it, but it is profoundly ahistorical to suggest that the Germans were on the whole victims of "genocide" by the people who they had subjected to tens of millions of murders and other unimaginable suffering.

I agree that the expulsions were bad and that they did lead to many crimes against Germans, but those crimes fall severely short of any sort of state organized genocide. They were committed by individuals. The expulsions themselves were also undesirable, and when separated from their historical context, would constitute a serious war crime. However, the reason why they happened was to prevent the Holocaust from happening again. And who knows if it would have if the Germans had not been removed from the east? It's certainly a regrettable decision and the suffering should not be overlooked, but calling it genocide is ahistorical.

The whole site seems to have a lot of stuff about defending Germans yet fails to mention anything about the Holocaust. Richard Bessel did a good job describing these sorts of events, which included not portraying Germans as the sole victims of the war.

The ethnic cleansing of the Germans after the war wasn't "committed by individuals." It was the official policy of the Allied governments per the agreement at Potsdam. The victims were civilians, many of them elderly, infirm, or disabled men and women and children, who hadn't been fighting for Nazi Germany. The policy made no distinction between German citizens who supported Hitler and those who didn't. It made no distinction between Germans who had been living in Germany during Hitler's rise to power and those who weren't living in Germany, were not German citizens, and couldn't have supported Hitler if they wanted to. It was a state-sponsored genocide by any definition of the word. Failure to recognize it such, or to justify or minimize it in any form is a guarantee that it will be repeated.

[LWD]

...It was a state-sponsored genocide by any definition of the word.

Actually that is more accuratly refered to as "thnic cleansing".

Failure to recognize it such, or to justify or minimize it in any form is a guarantee that it will be repeated.

In recent times there have been some who have pushed for a broader defintion of the term "genocide" but IMO that dillutes it. Then there's the fact that in recent times some of the ethnic cleasing has incorporated an element of genocide or visa versa. That said I the ethnic cleasing in the East didn't rise to the level of genocide from what I've read. You seem to have a different opinion but you have yet to back it with fact or logic and seem to be attacking those who don't agree with you rather than producing a stronger argument.

[Lieutenant S. Chuikov]

??? The forced migrations after both world wars are well known. I've yet to see anything that raises them to the level of genocide though.

I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to claim that the Germans were victims of genocide. It's a common backdoor tactic of Holocaust deniers who don't want people to know that they're denying the Holocaust, or people who have a repressed love for the Third Reich who don't want to admit to themselves that they're raging Nazi defenders.

I'm not accusing the director here of that. There's plenty of people who fall victim to believing deniers because they don't know that the source is raging apologist.

I have no intent to deny German suffering or try to minimize it, but it is profoundly ahistorical to suggest that the Germans were on the whole victims of "genocide" by the people who they had subjected to tens of millions of murders and other unimaginable suffering.

I agree that the expulsions were bad and that they did lead to many crimes against Germans, but those crimes fall severely short of any sort of state organized genocide. They were committed by individuals. The expulsions themselves were also undesirable, and when separated from their historical context, would constitute a serious war crime. However, the reason why they happened was to prevent the Holocaust from happening again. And who knows if it would have if the Germans had not been removed from the east? It's certainly a regrettable decision and the suffering should not be overlooked, but calling it genocide is ahistorical.

The whole site seems to have a lot of stuff about defending Germans yet fails to mention anything about the Holocaust. Richard Bessel did a good job describing these sorts of events, which included not portraying Germans as the sole victims of the war.

The ethnic cleansing of the Germans after the war wasn't "committed by individuals." It was the official policy of the Allied governments per the agreement at Potsdam. The victims were civilians, many of them elderly, infirm, or disabled men and women and children, who hadn't been fighting for Nazi Germany. The policy made no distinction between German citizens who supported Hitler and those who didn't. It made no distinction between Germans who had been living in Germany during Hitler's rise to power and those who weren't living in Germany, were not German citizens, and couldn't have supported Hitler if they wanted to. It was a state-sponsored genocide by any definition of the word. Failure to recognize it such, or to justify or minimize it in any form is a guarantee that it will be repeated.

Before I reply I'd like to list some information I found when doing a preview of HW's posts. I'll let the mods make a judgement.

• Registered years ago and only has 35 posts. Most active topic at the time of viewing was on Holocaust denial

• Concerning post

• One dimensional analysis of the Soviet treatment of German women. Beevor, who is criticized for being anti Soviet and Nazi apologetic, shows the Soviet response as being far more mixed.

• Comparison between internment camps and concentration camps.

While German suffering at the end of WWII is very real and should not be taken lightly just because of the extreme crimes committed by the Nazi regime, it was not the result of any "genocide." The Allies planned to resettle Germans with the intent of preventing future rising of nationalism and genocide. There was no intent to exterminate Germans. There were subsequent crimes against Germans that were not part of the plan. As such, those crimes are not part of any state sponsored genocide. The status of Germans as guilty or innocent does not change the severity of the crimes committed against them. It is however ahistorical to uniformly portray all Germans as innocent. Furthermore, it is even more ahistorical to separate atrocities from their historical context by portraying Germans as unique victims and the perpetrators solely as criminals. There is no historical basis for considering them participants in genocide. It was bad that crimes were committed against Germans, but that does not make those crimes part of any genocide. There are no reputable historians who assert that Germans were victims of genocide during WWII.

[Lieutenant S. Chuikov]

...It was a state-sponsored genocide by any definition of the word.

Actually that is more accuratly refered to as "[e]thnic cleansing".

Failure to recognize it such, or to justify or minimize it in any form is a guarantee that it will be repeated.

In recent times there have been some who have pushed for a broader defintion of the term "genocide" but IMO that dillutes it. Then there's the fact that in recent times some of the ethnic cleasing has incorporated an element of genocide or visa versa. That said I the ethnic cleasing in the East didn't rise to the level of genocide from what I've read. You seem to have a different opinion but you have yet to back it with fact or logic and seem to be attacking those who don't agree with you rather than producing a stronger argument.

I can see that broader definitions of genocide, or really any crime for that matter, trivialize the crime itself. Even under a broadened definition of genocide, crimes against Germans cannot be considered genocide because there was never any organized retribution against Germans. The frequency of crimes fails to approach anything that would be seen were they part of genocide.

HW will need to produce work by reputable historians as you point out. His statement seems to consist of appeal to emotion over Germans who were victims. There are no rational people who doubt that there were Germans who were victims, and anyone who seriously believes that all Germans got what they deserved needs to undergo therapy. Even if a German victim of a Czech mob had been donating money to a local concentration camp, it does not change the fact that two wrongs do not make a right.

[henryk]

One should remember the context of the transfer/expulsion of the Germans. It was concurrent with the transfer/expulsion of Poles from former eastern Poland which became USSR/Lithuania, USSR/Belarus, and USSR/Ukraine, and the Ukrainians from Poland, and the Belarusians from Poland, and the Lithuanians from Poland.
Poland was theoretically on the Allied side, the winning side, and they were treated like the Germans, the losing side.

[Lieutenant S. Chuikov]

One should remember the context of the transfer/expulsion of the Germans. It was concurrent with the transfer/expulsion of Poles from former eastern Poland which became USSR/Lithuania, USSR/Belarus, and USSR/Ukraine, and the Ukrainians from Poland, and the Belarusians from Poland, and the Lithuanians from Poland.
Poland was theoretically on the Allied side, the winning side, and they were treated like the Germans, the losing side.

Crimes against non Germans undermine a lot of the claims that war crimes were committed in response to Nazi atrocities. It shows that people responsible for those crimes were not just looking for revenge, not that it would have been right.

The deportation of Germans was regrettable, but I don't think we can really say that it wasn't necessary since there has not been another war. It was certainly negligent of the Western Allies to allow the people who had been persecuted to be responsible for resettling the Germans.

[David Thompson]

Lieutenant S. Chuikov -- You wrote:

It was certainly negligent of the Western Allies to allow the people who had been persecuted to be responsible for resettling the Germans.

That turns on how foreseeable the outcome was, don't you think?

[Lieutenant S. Chuikov]

Lieutenant S. Chuikov -- You wrote:

It was certainly negligent of the Western Allies to allow the people who had been persecuted to be responsible for resettling the Germans.

That turns on how foreseeable the outcome was, don't you think?

It's not totally foreseeable, possibly less with the information that was available to them at the time. It still seems like brutality by the victims of occupation should have been a concern. It depends on how much information was available to the Allies at the time.

[Marcus]

A flame bait post from Davey Boy was removed.

/Marcus