Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Poles and Soviets ethnically cleansed this new Polish territory by expelling all Germans from it (about 15 million people) and resettling millions of Poles who did not want to become Soviet citizens who lived in the territory now to a permanent part of the USSR.
Could you elaborate on the ethnic cleansing part ? I know millions of Germans were removed from the new western Poland territories, but were they ethnically cleansed ? Or were they simply relocated after the war ended to free up the space for all the Poles that were coming back to the country from the east ?
There are two sides to every story - I know that this is still a hot issue between Germany and Poland, fueled not long ago by one Erika Steinbach and The Federation of Expellees.
Knowing a bit about Polish history from the Polish side, realizing that the way it is portrayed nowadays is biased, I'd like you to elaborate so I can compare what I know with other points of view, maybe then I'll be able to judge just how much truth and how much bias there is.
Could you elaborate on the ethnic cleansing part ? I know millions of Germans were removed from the new western Poland territories, but were they ethnically cleansed ? Or were they simply relocated after the war ended to free up the space for all the Poles that were coming back to the country from the east ?
There are two sides to every story - I know that this is still a hot issue between Germany and Poland, fueled not long ago by one Erika Steinbach and The Federation of Expellees.
Knowing a bit about Polish history from the Polish side, realizing that the way it is portrayed nowadays is biased, I'd like you to elaborate so I can compare what I know with other points of view, maybe then I'll be able to judge just how much truth and how much bias there is.
Yac, I don't believe the term 'ethnically cleansed' was used in a way that should either imply, or inference should be drawn that those who were cleansed were killed. As you have supposed, those who were cleansed were relocated. And just to be clear, in modern terminology, ethnic cleansing does not necessarily mean that anyone in particular is killed in the process. There are many types of ethnic cleansing. The post WWII ethnic cleansing of the Germans from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, and probably even some Volga Germans from the USSR was not some sort of broad massacre. However, this should neither imply that Germans expelled from lands they had lived in for centuries weren't severely hurt by the process.
Oh I agree there, people suffered regardless of their nationality at one point or another, I'm not denying that. When it comes to what we could call justice, everyone lost.
I asked for some more info as I know there are many extremely biased stories out there about this, and as far as I know, both nations never agreed on a single version of what happened.
Also I'm a fan of using words according to their meaning (yeah, I realize how that sounds :P), and I'm unsure if the term ethnic cleansing can be used here. A 1993 United Nations Commission defined it specifically as, "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogeneous". I only looked up the above after I posted my previous post. Since the definition doesn't say anything about motivation behind this, my main argument (that this was a result of politics and post war deals, not an action aiming at the removal of Germans) isn't as valid as I thought Still, I'd really like to hear about this from another point of view.
Yac.
That explains the how they decided about the western part. So, you are basically saying the eastern part was allocated this way because it was occupied by the Russians? But why give that land to Poland? Like parts of Slesia etc. I don't think they cared who it belonged to. And there would have been Poland between Russia and Germany anyway. So the Germans wouldn't have been neighbors with the Russians.
Yes, the current map of eastern Europe was largely drawn by the Russians. Russian thinking plays a big role. The Russians view Eastern Europe as being part of their sphere of influence. After suffering many invasions by European powers like Germany, France, Sweden, Poland and even Lithuania, the Russians wanted to create a Cordon Sanitaire or Soviet controlled military buffer zone in Eastern Europe. This is why they imposed "Socialist" governments controlled by Moscow in virtually all the areas they occupied after the War. Poland is a special case since most of Poland ended up in the Russian Empire after the partition of Poland in the 18th century (the time of Czarina Catherine the Great). So the Rissians view Poland like we might view the Mexican Session (Part of the nation gained by military force). Russians and Poles don't have a fraternal view of each other. For example Poland provided aid to the White Forces during the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution. However, the Russians needed a a docial passive loyal Polish state so providing compensation to Poland made sense. After WWII the Russians wanted the German state to remain destroyed and in the grave they put it and feared the rise of a strong German state that could challenge them in the future. This explains why Russia kept such a large army in the DDR up to 1990 when it all came apart. We in the West misread this as indicating the Soviets wished to extend their power to the rest of Europe. The shock of losing its position in Central and Eastern Europe was a reason why Mikhail Gorbachev was ousted as Soviet leader in 1991.
After WWII the Russians wanted the German state to remain destroyed and in the grave they put it and feared the rise of a strong German state that could challenge them in the future.
Can't say I blame them. Perhaps some day we'll rue that we let the Germans reunify.
Can't say I blame them. Perhaps some day we'll rue that we let the Germans reunify.
A great what if of history would have been if the Allies had come to an agreement to have reorganized Germany along the lines of its pre 1871 state.
In otherwords the 4 Allied zones would be independent states. The American zone a state called Bavaria, the British zone a state called Hanover (especially relevant given that the British Royal Family decends from the House of Hanover), the French zone (Rhine-Westphalia) and the Soviet zone called either Brandenburg or Saxony.
Can't say I blame them. Perhaps some day we'll rue that we let the Germans reunify.
Tom Lehrer in his song "The MLF Lullaby" kind of said this. MLF (Multilateral Force) was a US 1963 proposal to create a joint US-European nuclear deterent force in Europe and Lehrer observed that the "one of the fingers on the button will be German". Lehrer added "MLF will scare Brezhnev, I hope he's half as scared as I".
A great what if of history would have been if the Allies had come to an agreement to have reorganized Germany along the lines of its pre 1871 state.
In otherwords the 4 Allied zones would be independent states. The American zone a state called Bavaria, the British zone a state called Hanover (especially relevant given that the British Royal Family decends from the House of Hanover), the French zone (Rhine-Westphalia) and the Soviet zone called either Brandenburg or Saxony.
That is interesting. Given that a unified German state is a fairly recent development it might've worked.
Thanks! To MrMarbles - What I meant was that I thought it wasn't fair that Germany had to give up land that wasn't gained by either World War. Of course they had to give back whatever they occupied during both wars. I jsut think Russia should have given it back, not Germany. However, I realize that Russia was one of the winners of WW2 and thus they could decide. Obviously, no country wants to give up any land, and I guess this was the same with Russia, but they had clearly the upper hand in this dispute. To NJGOAT. Yes, I didn't go this far back. But I thought it wasn't a good idea anyway. You also had the Holy Roman Empire, which occupied many parts of Europe, then you had France under Napoleon etc. It's was just too long ago. You couldn't have settled those disputes after WW1 or WW2, obviously. I just think Germany should have kept it, since it was nothing they occupied during WW1 or WW2. BUt that's what you get when you start 2 World Wars, I guess!
Why isn't it fair that they had to give up land after World War II? They started the war, initiated unspeakable atrocities against people who had done nothing to them, and then lost the war. They're lucky they survived as a nation at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still, I'd really like to hear about this from another point of view.
