Talk:Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia

What is missing

Prewar Czechoslovakia was not only inhabited by Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians but also by another important minority, the Jews (not mentioned here). Not much of them survived the World War II. Czech Jews were an integral part of the Czech history, for most of them there was no return and there was no chance to restore the prewar demographic structure. Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be discussed in the German occupation of Poland article. --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the German occupation of Poland is a different story. What I wanted to say was, that there was no chance for return to the situation that there was before the war, for example Prague was a city of three cultures (Czech, German and Jewish) and one of them was totally lost. Cepek 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one was totally lost? Presumably you mean the Jewish culture. Was the German culture retained?

In any event, this is out of the scope of this article. I agree that the story of Jews in Czechoslovakia starts much earlier and continues until just a little bit past the end of World War II (i.e. to the point where it became obvious that Jews would not or could not return to Czechoslovakia).

Consider creating an article like Jews in Czechoslovakia. I don't begin to know enough to write such an article. Perhaps you could propose an outline. However, creating such an article is getting off topic so feel free to continue this part of the discussion on my talk page. --Richard 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will start it, but you have to give me more time. Hmmm... the outline: few sentences about Jewry in Czech lands, more (at least one section) about Jews in 19.cent. (between Germans and Czechs, begin of Zionism, Hilsner affair) Jewish-Czech relations during WWI, early years of 1st Czechoslovak rep., culture-science etc., Jewish immigration into Czechoslovakia, crisis 1938, 2nd Czech-Slovak rep. + Sudetenland, Holocaust (Protectorate + Slovak rep., Terezín), Jews in outland resistance, Jews in post-war Czechoslovakia, communist regime (Slánský-trial), culture-science, Jews after Velvet revolution... - no more idea for this moment

--Honzula 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Coo coo 2001:2020:341:E025:8CE9:175F:C803:6262 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I am missing at least some information on Nazi's plans for most of the Czech population. Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be discussed in the German occupation of Poland article. Presumably there was a plan similar to Generalplan Ost for Czechoslovakia. --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The historical background ("renewed constitution" ...) is a bit simplified from my point of view. Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean the first paragraphs of the article which I have now made into a "Background" section. Well, a "Background" section should be simplified but what are the significant points that you see as lacking? --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What I had on mind was that since 17th century not only "the German language was established as a second official language in the Czech lands" but it was the start time of recatholization of Czech lands and suppressing of Czech culture and language. Czech lands lost much of the nobility, many protestants left the country (like Comenius). The long term result was that Czechs became second class citizens in their own lands. Cepek

I'm OK with adding a sentence that makes this point but I think that this is better covered in History of Czechoslovakia or maybe in an article with a more narrow scope (i.e. we may have to create a new article to discuss this topic). Please think about what such an article might be called. However, once again, creating such an article is getting off topic so feel free to continue this part of the discussion on my talk page. --Richard 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What possibly might be stressed is the personal role of Edvard Beneš.Cepek 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What specifically would you like to see included that is not there now? --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people believe that the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia was heavily supported by Edvard Beneš because it was his personal revenge for Munich agreement (memoirs by Václav Černý). Cepek 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So be bold and add this information to the article. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, then write the proposed text here and we can review it prior to adding it to the article.

I think it's clear that Beneš was planning the expulsion of Germans while he was in exile in London. What would be interesting would be any insisghts that Černý can provide on the development of this mentality. Was it monomaniacal? (i.e. did it become an obsession) Or was it more a matter-of-fact conclusion that this was simply the best solution for Czechoslovakia? What was Černý's assessment of Beneš' position on the expulsions? Did Černý agree with Beneš or did he think that Beneš' stance on the expulsions was detrimental to Beneš or to Czechoslovakia?

--Richard 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We would welcome your assistance in expanding on any and all of these topics although some of them are arguably more suited for the German occupation of Poland article. --Richard 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Germans in Slovakia should be mentioned

This article only speaks about the Germans in in Bohemia and Moravia ("Czech lands"). The post-war expulsion of Carpathian Germans from Slovakia is not mentioned at all. --AtonX (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Asi proto, že tam nežili milióny jako v Česku, ale jen cca 128 tisíc. Honza1978 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

The following text was copied from my Talk Page...

Several notes to the Expulsion from Czechoslovakia: Benes proclaimed the program of the newly appointed Czechoslovak government Beneš was not the head of the government, only prime-minister or government as the team is competent to do this.

It is not equal to describe the "Sbor poverenikov" (Board of Slovak Commissioners) as the "an appendage of the Czechoslovak government in Bratislava" The process was complex, but in 1945, till 20 October), "Sbor poverenikov Slovenskej narodnej rady" was an executive part of the Slovak national committee (SNC), and thus fully independent on the Czechoslovak government. Since 28 oct. 1945 to February 1948 the decreasing influnce of SNC meant that the "Sbor" slowly changed into the the detachment of central government. After February 1948 the independence of all Slovak administration was only nominal (though in theory survived till 1960).

So called "reslovakization" reffers only to Slovak territory.

"various forms of persecution, including: expulsions, deportations, internments, peoples court procedures, citizenship revocations, property confiscation, condemnation to forced labour camps, involuntary changes of nationality" I'm not sure if the criminal proceedings and trial shall be involved among "forms of persecution"

"citizenship revocations" again - the decree No. 33/1945 in absolute most of causes only had confirmed the German and Hungarian citizenship the people obtained after 1938. Only several hundreds or thousands cases the citizenship was removed. The "involuntary changes of nationality" were rare and I don't know any case like this. The official policy was Germans must go! - including the Czech members of families.

military command "Alex" was only one organisation of resistance and uprising amd has no broad influence. Honzula 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Postoloprty

Twice the same.Xx236 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed--Richard 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Estimates of casualties range between 15,000 and 270,000 people, depending on source

Total idiocy. There is a German-Czech agreement. Who knows better than Czech and Germans? Xx236 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This verbiage should be cleaned up to reflect that the Joint Commission of Czech and German historians is more recent and arguably more reliable. It may take me a while to get to it. Remind me if I forget. --Richard 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Hungarians should be mentioned

The same the arrival of Czechs from Silesia. Xx236 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I had given this some thought and deliberately decided to omit the mention of other ethnic groups because the title of the article is "Expulsion of Germans...". Can you make a case that we should expand the scope to discuss other movements of people within Czechoslovakia? I think it would change the title of the article. Perhaps a better solution would be to start another article to cover the history of Czechoslovakia during this time period. --Richard 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really a difficult subject. I think that the article has been started well. Should we also talk here about the expulsion of Czechs from Slovakia? Cepek 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The background behind the creation of this article is that it is a subsidiary article of Expulsion of Germans after World War II. In fact, the text of the first revision of this article was lifted from Expulsion of Germans after World War II. There are "sister" articles Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II. The point is that the focus of these articles is on expulsion of Germans as opposed to any other ethnic group. I think the rationale here is that these expulsions are controversial because of public attention focused on them by the Federation of Expellees and historians such as de Zayas, Overmans and Nitschke.

For this reason, I would oppose a widening of scope to cover all migrations of peoples in Czechoslovakia at the end of World War II. However, I can imagine creating an article titled Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II. The new article would reference this one and also cover the expulsion of Hungarians and the expulsion of Czechs from Slovakia. Does this approach make sense to you? --Richard 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Cepek 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unprecize. I believe that the expulsion of Hungarians should be mentioned/linked, eg. in "See also", not described here. The arrival of Czechs from Silesia should be described here, because they partially replaced expelled Germans.Xx236 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic homogenization is a little klunky, and although after has been used on other articles, wouldn't that include any ethnic homogenization since 1945? How about Forced emigrations from Czechoslovakia following World War II or Forced emigrations from post-war Czechoslovakia? TheMightyQuill 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a step in the right direction. I like "forced migrations" but not "forced emigration" because the the transfer of the Silesian Czechs was a forced internal migration within Czechoslovakia. I'm now thinking that the new article should be titled Forced migrations in Czechoslovakia after World War II. --Richard 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean the transfer of Czechs from Lower Silesia, formerly German, later Polish. Eg. from Kłodzko region.Xx236 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Forced migration" is a statndard term. See also "population transfer". `'mikka 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Compensation

The first sentence of this section reads...

Since the Czechoslovak government-in-exile decided that population transfer was the only solution of the "German question", the problem of reparation (war indemnity) was closely associated.

This matches pretty closely what User:Honzula wrote. I didn't understand the point he was making when I put it in and I still don't understand it. Honzula, can you clarify what this is trying to say?

--Richard 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited sentence says: Already the first plan of transfer (which Čs. gov. in London consulted with Allies in 1943) includes the plan for settlement of reparation from the propertyof transfered Germans (among others). --Honzula 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence in this issue which was totally incorrect and not based on a reliable source. Even orthographically it was incorrect. (cf. Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II). Money which Germany paid according to the de:Lastenausgleichsgesetz was given not only to Sudetengermans but to all Germans which had any property/economic losses during the war. If you consider how much Germany was destroyed by allied bombers (e. g. Bombing of Dresden in World War II) there wasn't much left for the individual. It was just ment as "initial aid", not more. Germany has never pretended to have compensated German expellees for their losses. - Wikiferdi 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't told that the compensation paid by Germany was given only to Sudetengermans!! And can you provide better info and more "reliable source" about the total or average amount of compensations paid to expelees and Sudetengermans especially? Honzula 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• The total amount of money given to Sudetengermans by German state is uncertain.

I am sorry, I don't know how much money each Sudetengerman expellee received either but I am sure that it wasn't much. To put the whole amount of "burden sharing" in relation to the number of the benificiaries you should first know how many they were/are. - Wikiferdi 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean "it wasn't much" ? Less than the surviving slaves in concentration camps working for German companies for several years? You can start with the number 10 millions and then go lower and lower... However, I agree that the section concerning the compensation to Sudetengermans needs some changes and completion. --Honzula 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

what is the relevance of concentration camp workers to those expelled? Their is no connection between the two. --Jadger 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

even the amount of compensation paid by Germany... Honzula 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So? and why should Germany pay them both the same? they didn't both go through the same experiences. The money given to Germans that were expelled, stays in Germany and gets invested; the money given to foreigners goes *poof* and is never seen again, it doesn't get invested back into the German economy.

There is no link between the two, except that they both received a hand-out from the German gov't. but if that's the case, why don't we compare it to the unemployment cheques German citizens receive when they aren't working?

--Jadger 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

perfect argument Honzula 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispelling the myths about Sudeten Germans

(cf. [1])

“ Germanic tribes actually lived on modern-day Czech territory well before Slavic tribes arrived around 500 AD. However, neither the Germanic nor the Slavic populations of the fifth century would have qualified as German or Czech in the modern sense. While from the second to the fifth century the population was probably mainly Germanic and Celtic tribes, it is generally acknowledged that Slavic settlers became the majority by the seventh century. Most of the remaining populations assimilated with the newly arrived Slavs, although west and northwest Bohemia remained mostly Germanic due to strong Frankish influence. German and Latin remained the prevalent language of the Royal House and the aristocracy, even among the Přemyslid dynasty. ”

- Wikiferdi 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can tell me once more about the myths :-)) The Sudetengermans weren't descendants of Germanic tribes lived in current Czech territory (though they desired to be). The regions where they lived were mostly unsettled till Middle Age. --Honzula 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are right that the Sudetengerman settlers in Bohemia weren't descendants of those Germanic and Celtic tribes living there before but actually this doesn't change the fact that Germanic tribes lived in these territories before Slavic tribes. - Wikiferdi 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Germanic tribes lived in these territories before Slavic tribes"

Somebody claims something different? --Honzula 13:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Germanic tribes has nothing to do with Teutons which are called German today. 178.232.49.22 (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

“ Sudeten Germans supposedly all voted for the Nazi puppet Sudeten German Party (SdP) of Konrad Henlein with the sole purpose of destroying Czechoslovakia, Central Europe's last island of freedom and democracy at the time.

These accusations are based on the theory of collective guilt, or, as the Constitutional Court argued in defense of the Beneš Decrees, the principle of collective responsibility. The current state uses historic events like the 1935 election to defend and justify the forced expulsion of one-third of the country's historic population and the resulting disappearance of one of the country's historic languages.

Although much literature contains detailed analyses of these elections, few facts have become public. A close look reveals that a substantial part of the Sudeten Germans did not vote for the SdP, despite the enormous anti-Czech propaganda coming from Nazi Germany. Henlein received around two-thirds of the votes of the four main German parties but a strong communist vote also marked the highly industrialized north Bohemia.

Also, some Sudeten Germans did not vote, while others supported Czech or Hungarian parties. The SdP is likely to have received 50 percent to 55 percent of the Sudeten German vote. Among all the German-speaking population, Henlein received only 35 percent. And those who voted SdP voted for an official party program calling for Sudeten German autonomy within a democratic Czechoslovakia. (cf. [2])

”

- Wikiferdi 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, please, stop directing the discussion this way, before you blame yourself completely. You want to fight against "myths about Sudeten Germans" but you are presenting only the sudetengerman mythology instead. There is no mention about "1935 election" in the judgement of Constitutional Court.[3] And almost nobody critizes Germans for their option in the normal democratic election.

The criticism is concerning the communal election in 1938 - after the Anschluss thousands of refugees fled to Czechoslovakia, almost everybody saw the results of Nazi agression, but though at least 89.57% of German electors voted for SdP in communal elections (they concerned only 60% of municipalities). Elections were in several waves, not everything was included to statistic (this is, why estimates oscillate between 89.57% and 91.43%). The final results in some big cities were as follows: Liberec 90.8% for SdP, Ústí nad Labem 82% for SdP, Litoměřice 93.8% for SdP etc. And second frequently critized is the result of elections to the Reichstag on 4.12.1938 (one month after Kristallnacht): From 2,535,924 of adult (and non-Jewish) inhabitants in Sudetenland 2,500,961 came to elections (98.62%) and 2,467,936 (97.32%) voted for NSDAP - against voted almost exclusively Czechs. (see the often mentioned book of V.Zimmermann)

Back to the arguments of Constitutional Court:

"The division consists in this, who was on which side; because of this is not considered as the enemy the man of German ethnicity actively defending democracy or persecuted by totalitarian regime; on the other hand is -regardless the ethnicity- considered as the enemy the man who actively fought against democracy."

"The fact that the decree No.108/1945Sb. presumes the responsibility of the persons of German ethnicity has, with the redard to mentioned facts, discriminating character, it is not any national revenge, but it is only adequate reaction to the agression of Nazi Germany, reaction, which should to reduce the political and economical consequences of the occupation."

"Without strong support of decisive majority of the German people would be Hitler and his Nazi party only marginal phenomenon. His dangerous character endangering the fate of all mankind on the Earth is the reason, why the effort to destroy all sources of totalitarianism needs also extraordinary legislative measures." Honzula 13:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I confer to free elections and not to elections influenced by Nazi force and Nazi propaganda. Such results of polls which you mention (that obviously took place after the Anschluss of the Sudetenland) are common to dictatorships.

Concerning the time before 1938 the situation in the Sudetenland is described by Prof. de Zayas:

“ It has been frequently suggested that Henlein was a sinister schemer and his SdP nothing more than a subversive Nazi organization bent on the destruction of Czechoslvak independence. It is easy to understand how these notions arose, yet neither Henlein at the outset of his political career nor the SdP for many years of its development had anything to do with the National Socialist movement in Germany. Both were originally dedicated to a democratic settlement of the Sudeten German question, which was to be achieved by peaceful negotiations in the Czech parliament. All attemps to reach an acceptable settlement, however, failed, and the gradual escalation of the Czech-Sudten confrontation resulted in forcing Henlein into the arms of Adolf Hitler, who promised to provide an international sounding board for the Sudeten case. […] Hitler of course, more than welcomed the opportunity of making the Sudeten case his own and did not hesitate to misuse the principle of self-determination as a weapon to further his own Lebensraum policy. (cf. Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN 0710084684, pp. 28f) ”

- Wikiferdi 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You (and evidently also Mr. Zayas) need to remind the circumstances of SdP establishment. There was few democratic in this party since beginning under the name SHF (1933 - accidental coincidence?). And its direct predecessors, DNSAP and DNP, always refused the cooperation with (in) Czechoslovak government. This is why they both were called "negativist". It seems that your favourite source Zayas know not too much the historical facts. --Honzula 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An here you have the "peaceful negotiations in the Czech parliament" - an explanation between the Polish deputy (Śliwka), Slovak deputy (Široký) and SdP deputies (Neuwirth, Eichholz) in parliament of ČSR:

“ Posl. Śliwka: Autonomja jest pierwsze dopiero hasło, które wyjął pan poseł Wolf z programu wyraźnie henleinowskiego i zagranicznego. To jest pretekst do faszyzacji, pretekst do nowej Malhommiady. (Posl. dr Eichholz: Sie haben ja noch das Selbstbestimmungsrecht vor ein paar Jahren verlangt!) Schauen Sie, mein lieber Herr, wenn Sie über die polnische Minderheit, über die Polen sprechen . . . (Posl. dr Neuwirth: Sie Asiate!)

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Wenn Sie über die polnischen Minderheiten sprechen wollen . . . (Posl. dr Neuwirth: Abtreten, Asien abtreten! Abtreten!)

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Sie haben kein Recht hier über Polen zu sprechen! (Výkřiky posl. Širokého.)

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Široký, das hat doch keinen Sinn.

Posl. Śliwka (pokračuje): Lieber Herr, schauen Sie, die Sache ist klar. Wenn Sie unsere polnischen Minderheiten verteidigen wollen, geben Sie in Deutschland den Polen wenigstens das, was wir hier in der Republik haben. (Potlesk komunistických poslanců.) Wir haben hier in der Čechoslovakischen Republik auf hundertdreißigtausend Polen 84 Volksschulen und in Deutschland kommen auf 1,500.000 Polen nur 24 Schulen. (Posl. Dr. Neuwirth: Das überlassen Sie dem Beck.) Das ist Ihre Arbeit. Wenn Sie Ordnung und Rechte für Deutsche wollen, dann schauen Sie, daß Ordnung und Rechte für Polen auch in Deutschland werden.

”

If somebody calls his opponent "You Asiatic!" isn't this a display of racism? --Honzula 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand your comment but I think we don't dispute here some idiotic remarks of racists but the evolution of a party towards nationalism and the influence of Czech politic on this phenomenon. (You have forgotten to mention the predecessors of the SdP which had been forbidden by the Czech parliament...) Do you really stick to the allegation that Czech politic did nothing to bar the Sudetengermans from following their right on self-determination? - Wikiferdi 00:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Principals of this massacre were arrested and imprisoned.

This is mentioned about the Usti massacre. Is it true? Does the referenced source (Z. Beneš, Rozumět dějinám) really confirm it or is it only referencing to the massacre in general? Irwing 10:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the reference to this fact in on-line sources, so I removed the statement. Please, if anyone wants to return it, cite the exact part of referred book. Irwing (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I've removed a paragraph of text from this article as it appears to be a copyright violation, copied from [4]. I also removed the speedy deletion tag added to highlight the copyvio as this was inappropiate as there appears to be only one infringing paragraph. Dpmuk (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Though I responded on your talk page, it was my mistake to place that tag. Sorry for the inconvenience! BWH76 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Move article to Expulsion of Germans and Hungarians from Czechoslovakia

It appears there is no separate article for the expulsion of Hungarians. I think it would be a sensible solution to have one common article for the expulsion of both Germans and Hungarians from Czechoslovakia, since it was the same event, with the same "legal" basis. I suggest we move the article to Expulsion of Germans and Hungarians from Czechoslovakia. We should also expand on the fate of Hungarians. Nagykanizsa (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I have a very specific issue with the "concentration camps" part - the only source attached to it comes from "Society Against Expulsion" website, which is a group founded with a very specific view of the real history in mind. Until that part can be supported by some substantial information, this article is severely compromised. --213.129.141.95 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nor does this article, for that matter, present the view of Czech historians, and it gives an undue platform to just one view of the issue. --147.228.209.170 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are Czech sources, of course. Could they be included here? Irwing (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, if some sources are missing, there should be another template, not NPOV. Or could you point to specific points that are biased? Irwing (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for example the entire "concentration camps" section. As I wrote, The only source for that comes from "society against expulsion" which is definitely not a neutral source. Nor does that source cite where does it's informations come from.

Additionally the article as a whole does not present Czech point of view, and instead relies on all sorts of weasel words and explanation of history revisionists. --213.129.142.10 (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2010 (UT

Why not just add Czech points of view to the text? Everybody is free to do that. The word "Revisionsm" has got a Communist connotation and is actually not used in a democratic world.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I assume the fact about "concentration camps" for Germans is known, I'm not sure how to find English sources for specific assertions. As wrote abobe, there are Czech sources, the article on Czech wiki mentions e.g. letters from Přemysl_Pitter ([5], [6]) or books by historian Tomáš_Staněk ([7]). Again, I think that your problem is in lack of sources, not with particular POV. Irwing (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, who exactly is 'history revisionist'? Isn't this weasel title as well? ;-) Irwing (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

> the only source attached to it comes from "Society Against Expulsion" website

I came here to say the exact same thing regarding many of the sources in this article. It might not be so bad if those societies used citations in their own publications, but they don't, it's just pages of text accusations and claims with no substantiation.

> "there are Czech sources, the article on Czech wiki mentions"

Hmmm. It's frustrating to think that we can't mention or have something in the English wiki just because we can't find good English sources, when lots of sources in other languages exist. But a great many of us can't judge the veracity of such sources, because we don't speak those other languages. What's the wikipedia policy on how to proceed in such circumstances? Search harder for English citations (in scholarly journals and books) that might summarize what we need? Wait for a history prof who is a subject matter expert to happen by? Or can we trust the czech wiipedia article and it's references and use them as is, without finding a czech english speaker to vouch for them?

CraigWyllie (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

English sources, for example de Zayas, are slated toward the German nationalist POV of the cold war. On Wikipedia we really need to incorporate the more recent research in Germany, Poland and the Cz Rep. If there is any doubt about a foreign language source, Google translate will help.

Again, I beg the Polish and Czech editors to please go to the local library and add material to these articles, my Polish is only basic--Woogie10w (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

External link

This external link (Execution of German Civilians in Prague (May 1945)) was removed by User:Yopie. It shows a part of a Czech TV documentary recently broadcasted by the Czech TV. The German Der Spiegel magazine also wrote about the amateur film which was made by a Czech eyewitness (Spiegel article). Yopie, could you please explain your reasons. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is established that these were not killed by Czechs but by Red Army soldiers. Now the historians are trying to find out what was the reason behind it - eyewitnesses claim that these were people who were shooting on the Red soldiers from nearby houses. Maybe we should give it a little bit more time to see what evidence about this particular act will be found and then decide, how to implement it.

Most importantly under international law when you reach for arms you are not considered a civilian any more. So writing in Wikipedia "civilians" would be most probably incorrect. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here claims a Czech responsibility, it's just a link to a Czech TV documentary. The Czech caption is Masakr německých civilistů, which I would translate (without any further knowledge of Czech) as "Massacre of German Civilians". I preferred to call it execution to maintain a neutral encyclopedic language. The background or the current discussion in the Czech society would be of interest, of course, maybe it even deserves its own article, however, I don't see a reason not to use this rare contemporary document as an external link here. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this newspaper published it first and they made a big sensation out of it. At least it brought focus to the video (the family had it for all years stored and nobody has seen this particular video since the war) and the historians can now try to find out details. However all points to the fact that in this particular video the executed men were most probably armed when the Reds overpowered them - however no final rulling in this case has been made so far, so the possibility that they were civilians still exists. What I personally take as important is that it brought a whole number of witness statements from other murders of German-speaking civilians onto the front pages of newspapers at the time; i.e. how a mob would drag a red-cross employee (Swiss national) and hung him in the street as they thought he is connected with the Nazi regime. And other witness statements, which all point to one direction - behind most of the murders were Czech nazi collaborators who were trying to wipe all evidence, including the Germans who could identify them...

Anyway as far as I know it hasn't been yet established if these people were in fact shooting on Reds or not, though so far the evidence points into this direction. There is even possibility that many of these men were in fact Nazi defectors - as the Reds took the streets the Nazis would just take off the uniforms and wear civilian clothes and try to run(or shoot through) into American zone, just to avoid falling into the hands of Reds. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Though it's an interesting topic, this is not the place to discuss the truth about this ČT2 documentary. Is there any reason not to use this external link? If so, why? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason it shouldn't be there, provided that a commentary regarding the pending history investigation will be included to avoid the same mistakes the authors of the article itself have done (I mean in publishing a sensational news which however turned to be a it different than their narrative). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly 'established fact', that those were killed by RA soldiers, there's a discussion about it. Or could you point to some definite source of such claim? Irwing (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing was that the initial video was shown by the newspaperman in order to make a sensational news. They haven't spoken to any eye-witnesses nor to historians. Few days after this other nespapers brought statements of eyewitnesses (i.e. aktualně.cz) and of historians. The eyewitnesses claim that there were only RA soldiers armed at the place while the video also shows people in Soviet uniforms. Moreover, the Czech insurgents didn't have any heavy equipment other than what they seized from Germans - and the truck in the video bares Red Army marking. There seems to be general consensus now, that the perpetrators were RA soldiers (at least I haven't found any source disputing that). Now the issue is, whether it is true that these were Germans seized from a barrickaded house, from which the RA soldiers were shot at (that is also established fact; however it is not sure if these are the men in the video, or if that was a separete incident). As you might know, if that was the case, they would loose the statute of civilians by taking arms in their hands. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Irwing (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Germans or Austrians

The article uses the term “German” when the correct thing would be “Austrian” then Bohemia and Moravia was territory of the Habsburg from the end of the Middle Age. Sudetes therefore was of the Austrian Empire and the Austrohungarian, in addition they comprised of the insolvent state of Germanic Austria and of to have drawn up to ethnic borders after 1ª World war they would not have been of Germany, but yes of Austria. --84.120.13.9 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"German" does seem to be the appropriate terminology here. My family is from Bohemia and we are Germans. All of my grandparents' and parents' birth certificates state "German." (TE)

"Austria" is a political entity - a country - and Austria is not a nation-state in the way we think that Poland or the Czech Republic are. Austrians are majority ethnic Germans, with Italians and Swiss making up about a third or so of the population. Therefore, German is the correct term. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think ethnic German is the most clear term. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Herrenvolk und Lebensraum are definitely German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.214.100.14 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no Austrian ethnicity only a German ethnicity, that's why these people are Germans. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Deportation exemptions - Hlučín

Only minimum of people were deported from Hlučín area despite the fact that they were mostly German. This needs to be adderessed in the article.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Another exemption listed are those married to Czech citizens. My grandmother on my mother's side was Czech, yet my German grandfather was deported nevertheless. This should not be listed as such a generalized statement here. (TE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.212.17 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Germans in Chmeľnica in Slovakia supposedly were not expelled according to one tourist guide that I have. But it gives no reason, but mentiones that it was a subject of some German and Austrian. Can anyone provide more clues? D_T_G (PL) 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight of Germans

Some Germans run away before the arrival of the Red Army (300 000 ?). Some run away later like Peter Glotz.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The decrees using the principle of responsibility, not guilt or collective guilt

But the incorporation of the Sudetenlands into the Czechoslovakian state and discrimination of Germans in Czechoslovakia was a Czech action for sure... ;) --

Jonny84 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The first Czechoslovakia had a democratic parliamentary system and her legal system which guaranteed minority rights was pretty standard. If we compare it with other states in Eastern-Central Europe, we can safely say that the first Czechoslovakia was definitely the most democratic state in the region and guaranteed the most political and civil freedoms for its citizens, including Germans. Of course, the Czechoslovak policy was not flawless, but the Germans who participated also in the government ((Bund der Landwirte, Deutsche Christlichsoziale Volkspartei and later also Deutsche sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei in der Tschechoslowakischen Republik) were far to be somehow seriously discriminated. Particularly, if you compare it with minority policy of Nazi Germany and Nazi plans with the Czechs. Ditinili (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear posp68, first: Learn the difference between the words Bohemian and Czech. Second: Czechoslovakia was founded in 1918, some centuries after the settling of Germans in Bohemia, if you mind logical comparisons... So the Czechoslovakian army knew very well what they incorporated into their state.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Why telling us all this triviality and nonsense..? Bored? The "country" Czech Republic was founded in 1993, Czechoslovakia in 1918. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's called the "Bohemian Crown" in the link (sorry dont see any "czech"...), and the German "Bohemians" there part of it and subjects of the Bohemian Crown. I don't see any mention about a czech nation... You should read your own link, sorry for destroying your illusions dear posp68..:) Any other disillusions for you? --Jonny84 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And dear posp68, did you already know that the Bohemian Crown was owned by the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and the Austrian House of Habsburg? Then you should know that the Czech people were the minority in the Holy Roman Empire and in Austria-Hungary ;) How does that happen? --Jonny84 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

---

THE CZECH KINGDOM

The Czech state was formed in the 9th century under the Great Moravian Empire and is one of the oldest states in Central Europe. The Czech Kingdom of Bohemia and Magraviate of Moravia were historical lands (Crown of Saint Václav - in Latin Wenceslas), they existed with strong kings of House of Přemyslid. Official name was Čechy (Cžechy) - in Latin Bohemia (Old Czech was known as Bohemian language in Latin). Until the end of 14th century, all laws were in Latin, and Latin was of course used in foreign relations.

As a kingdom Čechy, or in Latin Bohemia, antedates the Germans kingdoms, not excepting Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia. German immigrants have known very well where they settled from the very beginning. They were a minority in the Czech Kingdom, not a nation, and most countries in Europe have minorities.

Holy Roman Empire was not a State and consequently had no capital city.
It was a series of independent Kingdoms and princedoms that existed as a loose religious confederation, and the title of Emperor itself was an elected position, rather unusal for an Empire, a title given by the Pope that the Pope never had the right to give . Czech Kings were also elected Emperors.

In 1526, the Austrian Duke Ferdinand was elected and crowned the Czech King when the Turks was at the gates of Vienna. (At that time, 10 percent of the population in the Czech kingdom were German immigrants.) The following year, he was elected Hungarian King.
With the same right, the Czechs left the Habsburgs in 1918.
During the Habsburg misrule of the Czech Lands, the Czech language was removed from public administration and higher education. The correct term is Czech Crown Jewels - in Latin Bohemian Crown Jewels - because Bohemia was never the name of the country in Czech language (the language of the nation).--Posp68 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversial edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia&diff=397145253&oldid=393654977

Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

6 dead links of 44

Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Still 5 dead links of 41.Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of Staněk here

cs:Tomáš Staněk, author of several books.Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No reasons mentioned?

Throughout the whole article I can't see any section that would describe WHY Czechs wanted Germans to leave their country. A serious flaw in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several questions:

What did Czech people want? There existed certainly several views.

Why were they allowed to expell the Germans (and German Jews)?

Did Czech people act spontaneously or were they rather manipulated (e.g. by Soviet officers)?Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Massacres

The section quotes Piotr Pytel's article in the book, shouldn't Pytel be mentioned?

The Pytel's article summarises 2004 knowledge, there are probably more detailed smd recent descriptions. Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050220231512/http://www.z-g-v.de:80/doku/archiv/frameset04_1.htm to http://z-g-v.de/doku/archiv/frameset04_1.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928084223/http://launch.praguemonitor.com/en/56/czech_national_news/4131/ to http://launch.praguemonitor.com/en/56/czech_national_news/4131/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071006125034/http://www.kbdesign.sk/cla/projects/project.php?melyik=benes&nyelv=sk&direkturl=benes/cla_analysis/benes_decrees.htm to http://www.kbdesign.sk/cla/projects/project.php?melyik=benes&nyelv=sk&direkturl=benes/cla_analysis/benes_decrees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed two German nationalistic links.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacy - deportation

This page is about Czechoslovakia and Germany, why to mention Poland here?

The word expulsion (Vertreibung) has been misused to describe several steps - flight, expulsion, emigration. There exists an academic book in German which doesn't use the word Vertreibung and explains why. [8] Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Public opinion surveys indicate that the public is opposed to such measures

• The source isn't available for free.
• Which public?
• The article is old. The construction of the Center/Museum has a long history, two generations of Polish historians refused to accept th project, no Polish historian participates now. Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105132609/http://bohumildolezal.lidovky.cz/texty/rs830.html to http://bohumildolezal.lidovky.cz/texty/rs830.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605235008/http://www.psp.cz/cgi-bin/win/eknih/1990cnr/tisky/t0260e00.htm to http://www.psp.cz/cgi-bin/win/eknih/1990cnr/tisky/t0260e00.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kbdesign.sk/cla/projects/project.php?melyik=benes&nyelv=sk&direkturl=benes%2Fcla_analysis%2Fbenes_decrees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015180850/http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56 to http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Train image

According to Iranian and other anti-Jewish websites, the image of open railcars stuffed with people at a train station is from the expulsion of Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia. They claim it was widely used since the 1980s as an image of Jewish expulsion to Auschwitz. Can someone find a link to the source of this picture or help get the picture up? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Sudetoněmecké ženy vítají Hitlera.jpg (discussion)
• Češi vyhnaní z pohraničí hledají nový domov.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Teroristická akce sudetoněmeckého Freikorpsu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this "Cummunity Tech bot" a crypto Nazi Supporter?--Posp68 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Help?

There's a file on the page that's been deleted from Commons, "Češi vyhnaní z pohraničí hledají nový domov.jpg". Can someone with the necessary privileges remove it? - Sumanuil (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent addition concerning the US position

Posp68 there are two problems with your recent addition (besides some minor grammar points and a citation error):

1. the phrase 'unity of Czech lands' is in the secondary source, not the declaration. It should be paraphrased, not quoted as though the Americans said it.
2. The quote from the declaration you've added violates due - this article is not about the debates about Czechoslovakia's frontiers which would require including far more than just the American delegation's opinion. Furthermore, the quote would indicate that the Sudeten Germans were recent arrivals to the area, which is only true if you consider the Middle Ages to be recent.

As I compromise, I suggest removing the longer quotation, and changing the main text to:

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Harvard professor Archibald Cary Coolidge submitted his report to the American Delegation proposing the separation of the Sudetenland from Bohemia and Moravia (historical lands of the Bohemian Crown), since it appeared unwise to force 3.5 million Germans under Czech rule, in violation of the principle of self-determination.
Instead, the U.S. commission to the Paris Peace Conference issued a declaration which gave unanimous support for maintaining the Sudentenland as part of Czechoslovakia..

--Ermenrich (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree
Neither Austria-Hungary nor anyone else had recognized any Sudetenland. German immigrants to the Czech Lands have known very well where they settled from the very beginning also those who arrived after the Thirty Years' War. What the U.S. Commission to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 came up with is the most important thing, far more important than Archibald Coolidge, and must be stated in the article.--Posp68 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What's Austria-Hungary got to do with this? Wouldn't German-Austria be more relevant? Why is the US delegation's specific opinion important? If we're going to give information about the coming of Germans to Bohemia, shouldn't we cite recent, scholarly sources instead of lending credence to something said in 1919 in a peace conference that was out to punish the other side?

You've also failed to address the question of whether to quote a secondary source saying "unity of Czech lands" as though it were the text of the US declaration.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a link about this at WP:WikiProject Germany for other editors to comment.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Archibald Cary Coolidge used the word Sudetenland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.61.213 (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That's sort of beside the point, isn't it?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Ermenrich.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

I have removed the quote mark. The designation Czech lands is correct.Encyclopedia Britannica Britannica

--Posp68 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:indent your posts. The issue of the unnecessary quotation from the text of the US delegation remains. Without actually scholarship on the matter it gives the impression that this is the truth, when in fact it is not (even if we say after the Thirty-Years War that's several centuries before 1920 and is certainly not true in a lot of places, i.e. Cheb). Why can't we simply say the US delegation rejected the proposal unanimously without including what amounts to misinformation?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I've removed the offending paragraph entirely. The issue of the Paris Peace Conference isn't related to plans to expel Sudeten Germans (it predates them by nearly 20 years) and it's clear that the proposal by some US delegate was added by a someone trying to drum up sympathy for the Sudeten Germans. There's no reason it (or its rejection) should be in this article, such things are better handled in another article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

“Final solution to the German question “

Can anyone verify that Beneš actually used this phrase? It seems like the sort thing a German right winger would make up, given its use of the phrase the Final Solution.-Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I quickly found several sources for the remark that are probably better than what's currently linked (one is a dead link and one isn't online), here are the two best ones: [9], [10]. Beneš appears to have used the phrase in multiple variations, despite its Holocaust-y sound.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:,

It's obiously justified. Btw., not just he used, but Vladimír Clementis in connection with Hungarians as well

([11]) ("worst case we have to execute the final solution by ourselves").(KIENGIR (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC))

The final solution that Beneš had in mind was the Allied expulsion.

The Holocaust was the German state-sponsored mass murder of 6 million European Jews.

The Jewish population of Bohemia and Moravia (117,551 according to the 1930 census) was virtually annihilated.

The Allied expulsion was a consequence of all this terror.--Posp68 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Posp68, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to argue in favor of ethnic cleansing (wp:rs describing the expulsions as ethnic cleaning [12], [13], [14]), please do it elsewhere. The talk page is for discussing improvements to articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Add diacritics to (divoky odsun) -> (divoký odsun). 2001:1AE9:361:2400:31A7:7BC7:BAB9:44AB (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Done.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC))

Who was "German"?

Who was considered "German"? I read in Klement Gottwald_

Gottwald was a firm supporter of the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia, gaining mainstream credibility with many Czechs through the use of nationalist rhetoric, exhorting the population to "prepare for the final retribution for White Mountain, for the return of the Czech lands to the Czech people. We will expel for good all descendants of the alien German nobility.

He had a German surname, but was not meaning people like himself. In Talk:Klement_Gottwald, I read:

More than third of Czechs have german surname and more or less distant german descent (Jungmann, Rieger, Klaus).

So, can you clarify who the expulsion proponents meant as "Germans"? All people with German surnames? People classified as German in the census? German nobles? --Error (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Having a German surname doesn’t make you German. A German was a person who identified as German and was also identified by the Czech government as such - they, unlike Czechs, spoke German.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What was the policy towards German-speaking Jews (supposing there were enough of them remaining)? --Error (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)