Essay on Account for the Expulsion of Ethnic Germans From East-Central Europe at the End of the Second World War
Number of words: 7460
The expulsion of ethnic Germans from East-Central Europe 1944-1950 caused the German people to be the single largest group of displaced individuals, during and immediately following the Second World War.[1] The expulsion can be divided into three stages; beginning in October 1944 within areas reached by Soviet troops. The second stage, commonly referred to as ‘wild’ expulsions began at the time of the unconditional surrender of Germany. The third stage began following the signing of the Potsdam agreement in August 1945.[2]
West German scholars estimate that 12 million Germans were expelled from East-Central Europe during the expulsion; 7 million from Poland and 3 million from Czechoslovakia.[3] Although I acknowledge expulsions occurred within other nations such as Yugoslavia, Hungary and Romania, as the greatest majority were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland these countries will be the focus of this study. Of those expellees approximately 2 million perished.[4] This essay will be subdivided into two segments, the first will account for why the expulsions occurred, the second will consider if the expulsions can be labelled genocide. For the purpose of this essay I will be using the United Nations definition of genocide adopted during the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th December 1948.[5]
There is surprisingly little literature about the expulsion of ethnic Germans. Some publications documenting accounts of refugees of forced migrations completely omit the German experience.[6] Recently the issue has become a subject of interest within historiography.[7] Most scholars are in agreement as to why the expulsion occurred however there is some debate concerning which factor was most significant. For example, Frank regards revenge as an ‘overplayed’ factor, suggesting strategic considerations were particularly important.[8] Conversely, historians such as Marrus maintain that a desire to avenge atrocities suffered during Nazi occupation was the most significant factor,[9] a view which Glassheim supports.[10] Naimark optimistically suggests that the expulsion was implemented primarily in order to create a long lasting peace.[11] Although I argue that retribution was the primary aim, there were various factors effecting the decision to expel ethnic Germans, as I will demonstrate within this essay.
Controversy arises when historians debate whether the expulsion of Germans can be considered genocide. Rummel supports the view, as he believes that the expulsion broke the norms of international law and civilized humanity.[12] Hillgruber compares the fate of the Sudeten Germans to that experienced by the Jews during the holocaust, in order to emphasise the argument that genocide is an accurate description of the expulsion.[13] However, I concur with Schmitz, who believes these are drawing ‘dangerous parallels’ between German suffering and the holocaust.[14] I conform to ideas suggested by Langenbacher and Ther; rather than genocide a more accurate description would be ‘ethnic cleansing’.[15][16] The main difference being that ethnic cleansing does not involve intent to destroy, a prerequisite of genocide. I do differ from the views expressed by Lagenbacher in some respects. For example I do not agree that the expulsions contained a one sided mass killing, as I argue the majority of deaths were not intentional.[17] Frank often uses the phrase ‘population transfer’; totally dismissing the notion that the criterion of genocide applies to this incident.[18] Population transfer was also the phrase used to describe the expulsion at the time, for example by Churchill on 3rd April 1943 and Benes within his 10 point plan, (1944).[19] In my opinion population transfer and ethnic cleansing are more appropriate ways to describe the events surrounding the expulsion, rather than than genocide.[20]
Why did the expulsion occur?
The desire for revenge
Evidence suggests that the expulsion of ethnic Germans was the result of a desire for revenge. Hoffmeister maintains that although troubles between the Slavs and Germans had existed since the middle ages, abhorrence was primarily the result of the German occupation.[21] Arguably Poland suffered genocide when Hitler attempted an extermination of the Slavic people for both racial and geopolitical motives.[22] 2.8 million Poles were sent to concentration camps within the Reich as German territory expanded westward.[23] Of the 2000 concentration camps built in Poland, 90% of inmates were Poles. During occupation approximately 531 settlements were destroyed.[24]Approximately 300 Poles were also amongst the first to be gassed at Auschwitz.[25] Around 6 million Poles from territories seized by Nazis had their property confiscated.[26] Although Czechoslovakia suffered less than Poland, they also experienced a violent occupation, for example the massacres in Lidice or Lezaky.[27] Evidence suggests that prominent Czech politicians, intellectuals, priests, communists and social democrats were sent to concentration camps.[28] Citizens were often violently subjugated.[29] In total an estimated 213,000 Czechs were killed during occupation.[30] It seems logical to suggest that there was a desire to take revenge upon the German people. The weakened German army afforded ample opportunity for this desire to become a reality through expulsion.
Many prominent politicians cited revenge as a factor as to why Germans should be expelled. Benes argued that all Germans should be held accountable for the bloodshed at Lidice; it was the Sudeten Germans who were the victims of the strongest retribution.[31] Benes argued that ethnic Germans were the ‘fifth column’, responsible for the occupation, and should not be allowed to remain within Czechoslovakia.[32] Klement Gottwald said, when in conversation with Stalin about the German people, ‘now they will learn what it means to ruled over by someone else’.[33] Roosevelt wrote in a letter to his Secretary of War, that the German people should take responsibility for their ‘lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilization’.[34] Truman was perplexed as to why German civilians did not appear to show guilt for the atrocities that occurred during the war.[35] The expulsion of ethnic Germans was a clear demonstration of the desire for revenge.
The director of a camp in Lambinowic admitted in 1959 that he had only taken the job to ‘exact revenge’.[36] Soviet propaganda also indoctrinated soldiers to believe that German civilians needed to be crushed for what Germany had done, as there was no differentiation between a German and a fascist. [37] This led to the brutal treatment of Germans within East Prussian territory which was occupied by Soviets prior to the end of the war. An explosion within Usti nad Labem in July 1945 was attributed to German saboteurs by the Czech authorities despite scant evidence; this led to Czech civilians massacring Sudeten Germans in further retribution.[38] Jews also aided Red Army soldiers in expulsions; such as those in Breslau, as a direct reprisal for the holocaust.[39] It was accurately claimed that the atrocious ways in which vengeance was wreaked upon the Germans led to large numbers of Germans fleeing their homes. However numbers were exaggerated in order to aid the claim that expulsions should be internationally legitimized as there were few ethnic Germans left, in reality more than half of the ethnic Germans remained.[40]
Retribution was a major motivational factor for tactics used by the Polish during the Second World War. In 1943 the Polish National Council requested to the allies that leaflets be dropped during bomb raids, the leaflets would state that the bombings were taking place as a result of the atrocities that were occurring in Poland.[41] The periods of military weakness and subsequent surrender enabled the Poles to expel their ethnic German population in revenge. This shows revenge was a primary factor in why expulsion took place.
Tactical Considerations
Strategic concerns also played an important part in explaining why ethnic Germans were expelled. Following the Yalta and Potsdam conferences Poland acquired 103,000 km2 of former German territory.[42] It is estimated that more than 3 million ethnic Germans dwelled within these territories.[43] Expulsion of Germans from this region would help legitimize this area as Polish territory. If no German lived within the area, Germany would be less able to stake a future claim of ownership. Ensuring that the Baltic coastline was free from any German influence would also deprive Germans of a major expansionist route.[44] Areas obtained by Poland were also important to the former Prussian state. In theory a weakened Prussia, once an area of reactionary militarism, would prevent future German aggression. Molotov also claimed a united Poland, without German minorities would be a bastion of peace in Europe, preventing future German imperialism,[45] helping to secure a long lasting peace.
The Soviets were particularly supportive of Polish territorial claims and of the expulsion of ethnic Germans within them. During the Potsdam Conference, Stalin argued that Germans had already left the Eastern regions, and therefore there could be no issue in granting the area to Poland.[46] Soviets hoped this would appease the Polish government, as the Soviet Union had a desire to obtain territory from Poland.[47] They were also able to ingratiate themselves with the Polish state and gain an ally within East-Central Europe, which could be particularly useful in the immediate future as Stalin planned to spread his sphere of influence. The removal of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia would also assist ideological harmony, essential for future Soviet domination. This proves tactical concerns of the Soviet Union were a primary motivation as to why ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia.
To a lesser extent political parties also encouraged expulsions to consolidate their own power or gain support. In 1945 a Czechoslovak Communist Party proclamation advocated expelling ethnic Germans, despite Comintern’s policy of protecting minorities.[48] From as early as 1941 a programme for the People’s Poland supported the removal of ethnic Germans.[49] Parties were aware that this was an issue which would have the support of the civilian populace; associating themselves with such a policy could aid electoral success. It would also help appease the populace who would expect their political officials to address their grievances, ensuring stability.
The Lausanne Treaty of 1923 had also shown the allies that population transfers could be successful and lead to peace. Churchill, the Polish government and Czech government all cited the population transfer of Greeks and Turks as influencing their decision to expel ethnic Germans. The main stipulation, stated by those involved in the Potsdam conference was that expulsions would occur in an ‘orderly and humane manner’.[50] It was thought that expulsions would help solve issues which had been left unresolved after the Paris Peace Conference. Peace could be secured within nations, as civilians would not have to enact revenge upon ethnic Germans. Similarly it was hoped the expulsion could lead to better international relations. Churchill highlighted that areas such as Alsace Lorraine had been problematic due to their mixed population and the un-mixing of nations would help prevent ‘endless troubles’.[51] The British and the US appeared supportive of expulsion as long as it conformed to the dictates set within the Potsdam agreement. The hope that the expulsion would lead to a peaceful domestic and international situation is particularly relevant when accounting for the reasons the expulsion of ethnic Germans occurred.
Economic and ideological concerns
The Czech and Polish government advocated the expulsion as it would help boost their economy. Material property confiscated from the Germans was kept by the state, Benes considered this to be reparation payment from the German Reich ‘which during seven years of occupation perpetrated so much devastation and pillage’.[52] The acquisition of monetary reparations was a particular concern for both the Polish and Czech state. Benes stated within his 10 point plan that confiscated property should be used to secure reparation payments.[53] Also in 1945 an order was implemented forcing ethnic Germans to contribute 25% of their earnings to the ‘victims of Hitler’s terrorism’.[54] The economy would also be aided by the taxes and commodities from new territories, and expulsion would ensure these financial gains were legitimately Polish. This economic prosperity would be particularly useful during the reconstruction of their war-torn nations.
Figures suggest that ethnic Germans formed a great proportion of the bourgeoisie class;[55] their disappearance aided the formation of a communist state. There were also attempts by the Peoples Democracy in Czechoslovakia to suppress the Church, an act estimated to have been completed by 1950.[56] German sections of the church could be easily eliminated through their expulsion; proving ideological as well as economic concerns were a factor when considering why ethnic Germans were expelled.
Benes argued that ideally the expulsion of ethnic Germans would assist the implementation of new economic measures that would allow the formation of a Communist State.[57] Socialist state companies could be put into operation in agricultural and industrial areas where ethnic German businesses had once existed. The Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries also saw the formulation of the nationalist ideology. This led to the view that minorities within the state were problematic; citing the role they had played in the recent decline of the Ottoman Empire. The expulsion of Germans was an attempt to cement the nationalist ideology within the region by creating ethnically homogenous nations. As Hobsbawn argues homogenous ethnic states combined with a unified education system and language are prerequisites for the functioning modern nation state. [58] This was a particularly prevalent view at the time in Czechoslovakia and Poland as well as other nations such as Switzerland, Belgium and Holland. Theoretically a dominant nationality could make the nation easier to govern, as there would be less conflicts and a harmony of ideas about how the state should run. The expulsion of ethnic Germans was particularly necessary in newly acquired territory and areas such as Wroclaw which contained an ethnic German majority.[59] The Polish government in exile had argued the need for an ethnically homogenous state as early as 1939.[60] In 1944 Benes stated that he wished to eradicate any community which was not at least 67% Czech, Slovak or Carpathorussian nationality.[61] Despite the potential contradictions in ideology, Communists used nationalist rhetoric, arguing that the expulsion of ethnic Germans was necessary for ‘reversing the White Mountain’.[62] Arguably Communists saw the benefits of having a state devoid of minorities, as it would be potentially easier to control.
Polish and Czech administrations sought to eradicate all vestiges of the German language and culture in order to aid the creation of a nation state. German monuments were destroyed and place names were changed, for example a casino which was formerly the hub of the German community in Prague was renamed ‘Slavonic House’.[63] Both Socialists and Communists ensured that local parties helped remove German literature. Within Silesia from 1946 individuals were also forbidden to speak German in public or in the home.[64] The attempt to eliminate German culture and language would aid the formulation of a nation state; the expulsion of ethnic Germans was an imperative measure to enact this ideal. This shows that nationalist ideals contributed to the decision to expel ethnic Germans.
Can the expulsion be considered genocide?
Were Germans targeted because of their ethnicity?
For an incident to be considered genocide there must be intent to destroy ‘a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. I do not conform to the theory that Germans were expelled based on these criteria; instead Germans were expelled for their part in Nazi occupation. There was no racialist ideology against the Germans as there had been within Germany, particularly within the Volkisch movement.
Former Nazi labour camps were commandeered by Czechoslovakia and Poland, the new inmates being Nazis and perceived traitors.[65] Former SS members were put into camps outside Upper Silesia where treatment was much worse than other camps which contained Germans whose crimes were considered less significant. Mortality rates within labour camps fell after proper identification of innocent Germans and rehabilitation programmes had begun.[66] A sign which rested atop one labour camp read ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’,[67] it is clear Germans were persecuted, not for their ethnicity, but for the atrocities they had committed. Evidence suggests Czech political authorities planned to allow good Germans to stay.[68] Benes 10 point plan demanded only Germans who had conspired against the Czech state should be expelled.[69] However, in practice differentiation between innocent and guilty Germans was complex and mistakes were made. I concur with Munz; it was too difficult to distinguish between those who collaborated with the Nazis and innocent German civilians.[70] Hitler’s proclamation that he would never say of any German that he was an anti-fascist also heightened the view that the majority of Germans were guilty for what had occurred.[71] The policy of collective guilt blurred the line between what was just an ethnic German and an enemy.
During expulsions the Poles reversed the Volksite list in order to further punish those they considered enemies. For example the further down the list an individual was, the more likely he was to be given his Polish passport back.[72] It could be argued that this shows individuals were targeted because of their ethnicity, conforming to the genocide rubric. However what seems more conceivable is that this was used as an ironic punishment for those they believed were their enemies. The Poles and Czechs were not conforming to the same racialist ideology the list was fashioned in.
Expulsions were not applied to all Germans, for example in preparation of the 1946 harvest many local officials successfully petitioned to allow exemptions to be made to those who were expelled so they could aid the harvest.[73] What constituted a German was liberally defined to ensure that industry, transportation, manufacturing and the economy in general would not suffer.[74] Around 200,000 Germans remained within Czechoslovakia after expulsions had ended,[75] if the criteria for expulsion was strictly based on ethnicity, these individuals would not have been able to remain.
Particularly in Czechoslovak Courts, ‘customary’ not ‘racial’ perspectives were focused upon when deciding whether to expel an individual.[76] This was a deliberate attempt not to follow the racialist policies used by the Nazis. There were ways in which a German could remain. For example; 100,000 Germans within mixed marriages were allowed to stay.[77] Individuals could also escape retribution if they proved themselves to be an anti fascist.[78] There were also schemes which would allow Germans to submit for ‘verification or rehabilitation’ preventing themselves from being expelled.[79] Ethnicity is not an interchangeable feature, as ethnic Germans could escape expulsion based upon their actions; I deem that Germans were not expelled solely because of their ethnicity. There was often an acknowledgement that what constituted a German was too difficult to interpret, particularly as some Sudeten Germans were Germanized Slavs due to previous German imperial policy.[80] This is demonstrated through an ethnic category labelled ‘German nationality but of Czech origin’.[81] Even Germans within this category were expelled if they were deemed to be enemies, despite their Czechoslovakian descent. This proves it was not genocide, as Germans were not targeted because of their ethnicity, nationality or religion.
Was there intent to destroy?
Although casualties occurred this does not necessarily mean that there was intent to destroy the Germans. The majority of fatalaties can be attributed to factors over which the Poles, Czechs or any member of the anti Hitler convention had little control. A number of expellees experienced potentially fatal diseases. For example within the Soviet Zone there were 30,000 cases of typhus between August and September 1945.[82] Typhus was a particular problem throughout occupied German, causing a number of fatalities to expellees.[83] In 1947, 3,450 people feel ill in Zwidwin after the failing sewage system combined with the melting snow to form an unhygienic environment.[84] None of this was the fault of any nation.
Expellees were often malnourished; eyewitness statements suggest starvation was another primary cause of fatalities.[85] Figures from Robert Murphy (US political adviser for Germany) suggest that 10 refugees died daily at Berlin Railway Station from starvation.[86] As Churchill noted, refugees ‘bring their mouths with them’, the promise of delivering the promised 1,500 daily calorie allowance was not feasible in practice.[87] Particularly in the Soviet Zone, any available food was often pillaged.[88] For a particular journey lasting 18 days, each passenger was rationed 20 potatoes and 2 slices of bread, barely enough to sustain an adult male.[89] This suggests that there was no intent behind the deaths; supplies were limited and unable to furnish the demand brought on by the number of refugees. Germans were often given ration cards with the same specification as the Germans had given the Jews.[90] This could be used as evidence to suggest that Germans experienced their own holocaust-like scenario. However, in the context of the immediate post-war era it seems conceivable that this form of rationing was necessary.
Disease and malnutrition also exacerbated issues caused by harsh winter conditions. In the winter of 1946 temperatures dropped to minus 30 degrees Celsius. Expellees were ill-equipped for the harsh conditions, proven by a survey in Kreis Segeberg which identified that 70% had no coat and 65% did not have shoes.[91]Those who managed to survive the journey to Germany during the winter were seldom able to find shelter. A quarter of housing had been destroyed during the war and the third remaining was uninhabitable.[92]
Rather than destroy the expellees there was a clear attempt to aid their survival. In Berlin refugees were inoculated against typhoid at British expense.[93] There was also an attempt (post-Potsdam) to discontinue the movements of expellees during the harshest winter conditions.[94] Admittedly the order to end the expulsions were often ignored by the Czechs and Poles, this was due to concern that the allies may cancel deportations completely rather than a malicious attempt to destroy the Germans. There was also legislation enacted which attempted to improve the lives of the refugees, for example the Refugee Resettlement Act 1949, as well as legislation enacted in North-Rhine-Westphalia which allowed expellees entitlement to temporary healthcare.[95] If it was their intention to destroy the Germans then there would not have been such an effort to preserve their health.
This is not to suggest that those involved in organising the expulsion were unaware of the potential risks. One British officer stated ‘they will die by the thousands this winter’ in mid-1946;[96] similar concerns were expressed by Members of Parliament.[97] It must also be noted that a number of deaths were not accidental. Dr Heinreich Amberger witnessed the murder and rape of many suspected Germans upon arrival of the Soviets.[98] Polish civilians were also responsible for the murder of German civilians, evidenced by police reports from Iburger-Straße.[99] However, this was not an attempt to destroy the Germans, but again fuelled by a desire for revenge. This was not official government policy, but the actions of rogue groups and individuals. Although Russian archives show 265 Germans were shot on order of the 1st Czechoslovak Army Corps,[100] this does not mean they wished to destroy the German ethnicity in whole or part. One must consider that these actions, although harsh in modern context, could have been for a specific and reasonable motive.
Some fatalities can be attributed to the poor conditions within Polish and Czech labour camps. Between August 1945 and autumn 1946, 6,480 Germans perished in the former Nazi camp of Lamsdorf.[101] However there was not the elaborate system of organised murder or gas chambers which were used by the Nazis. Most deaths within camps can be attributed to the problems such as disease, malnutrition, cold and exhaustion which also affected the general population. There are examples of vengeful soldiers working within the camps.[102] However these camps were not the same as Nazi concentration camps and their primary aim was utilisation of the Germans to aid the reconstruction of their nations, not murder.[103] Parallels can be drawn between the experiences of Jews and Germans, for example from May 1945 Czechs forced Germans to where an ‘N’ (for Nemac) on their backs,[104] similar to the stars Jews were forced to wear, but again I consider this ironic punishment rather than imitation. Murders within these camps were the actions of individuals seeking revenge, not the attempt to destroy an entire race, in whole, or in part.
Conclusion
Several motives can be attributed as to why ethnic Germans were expelled. The desire for revenge was a major contributory factor. Poland and Czechoslovakia suffered loss, indignity and devastation during occupation and were exacting revenge upon the Germans for the atrocities. Prominent politicians argued the German population in their entirety should take responsibility for Germany’s actions during war, and therefore should be indiscriminately expelled. A number of citizens working within concentration camps admitted they only took the position in order to enact their own personal revenge. Germans were also expelled for tactical reasons. By expelling ethnic Germans, Poland hoped to legitimize territories obtained during the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. The Soviets supported this principle in order to appease and form an alliance with Poland; as they had also acquired territories from Poland. Germans were also expelled because of economic and ideological motives. Expelling the Germans would benefit the Polish and Czech economy, as confiscated property could be used to help fund post war reconstruction. It would also aid the implementation of Socialist administrations in place of former German businesses. Similarly, a number of Germans had made up the bourgeoisie; their expulsion would aid the consolidation of the communist ideology. It was also believed the expulsion would help secure an ethnically homogenous state; this would hopefully lead to a long lasting peace.
Although fatalities occurred the expulsion should not be considered genocide. Germans were not penalized solely because of their ethnicity. There were plans for ‘innocent’ Germans to be allowed to remain, many German workers also stayed to aid reconstruction. Neither nation wished to emulate the Nazis and judge individuals using hateful racialist dogma. The criterion for genocide states that a group must be targeted for their ‘national, ethnical, racial or religious group, something which did not occur during the expulsion. Germans were instead targeted for their actions during the war. There was also no intent to destroy the German populace. Deaths occurred primarily due to disease, starvation and hostile weather conditions. There were attempts to aid the German refugee’s survival despite the limited supplies. Comparisons can be drawn between the experiences of the Jews and the Germans within labour camps; however the poor treatment of the German inmates can be attributed to individuals seeking revenge, not a complex murderous infrastructure which existed within German concentration camps. To conclude, the expulsion can not be considered genocide as it does not fit the definition constructed by the UN.
Bibliography
Ager, Alastair, Refugees, perspective on the experience of forced migration (New York, 1999)
Benes, Valclav L and Pounds, Norman G. J, Nations of the modern world, Poland (London, 1970)
Cordell, Karl and Wolff, Stefan, Germany’s foreign policy towards Poland and the Czech Republic: Geopolitik Revisited (Routledge Advances in European Politics)(New York, 2005)
Frank, Matthew, Expelling the Germans, British opinion and post-1945 population transfer in context (Oxford, 2008)
Hoffmeister, Gerhart & Tubach, Frederic C, Germany: 2000 years, from the Nazi era to unification, volume 3 (New York, 1992)
Kacowicz, Arie M., and Lutomiski Pawel, Population resettlement in international conflicts: a comparative study (Plymouth, 2007)
Kaiser, David E., Politics and war: Euorpean conflict from Phillip II to Hitler (Washington 2000)
Kushner, Tony and Knox, Katherine, Refugees in an age of genocide, global, national and local perspectives during the twentieth century (London 1999)
Lukas, Richard C, The forgotten holocaust, the Poles under German occupation, 1939-1944 (Kentucky, 1986)
Mastny, The Czechs under Nazi rule: the failure of national resistance, 1939-1942 (Columbia, US, 1971)
Marrus, Michael R, The unwanted, European refugees from First World War, through the cold war (Philadelphia, 2002)
Mazower, Mark, Reinisch, Jessica and Feldman, David, Post-war reconstruction in Europe, international perspectives, 1945-1949 (Oxford 2011)
Moeller, Robert G., War stories, the search for a useable past in the Federal Republic of Germany (London, 2003)
Moore, Bob and Hately-Broad, Barbara, Prisoners of war, prisoners of peace (Oxford, 2005)
Munz, Rainer and Ohliger, Rainer, Diasporas and ethnic migrants, Germany, Israel and post-Soviet successor states in comparative perspective (Portland, Oregon, 2003)
Myant, M.R., Socialism and democracy in Czechoslovakia, 1945-1948 (Cambridge, 1981)
Naimark, Norman M, Fires of hated, ethnic cleansing in the twentieth-century Europe (Harvard, 2002)
Prazmowskia, Anita J, Civil war in Poland, 1942-1948 (London, 2004)
Proudfoot, Malcolm J, European refugees: 1939-52, a study in forced population movement (Illinois, 1956)
Rieber, Alfred J, Forced migration in central and Eastern Europe, 1939-1950, (London, 2000)
Reinisch, Jessica and White, Elizabeth, The disentanglement of populations, migration, explusion, and displacement in post-war Europe, 1944-9 (Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2011)
Robins, Nicholas A and Jones, Adam, Genocides by the oppressed, subaltern genocide, in theory and practice (Bloomington, Indiana, 2009)
Rozek, Edward J, Allied wartime diplomacy, a pattern in Poland (London, 1958)
Rummel, R.J., Death by government, (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2009)
Schmitz, Helmut, A Nation of Victims? Representations of German Wartime Suffering from 1945 to the Present (New York, 2007)
Schieder, Theodor, The Expulsion of the German Population from Czechoslovakia: A Selection and Translation from Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen Aus Ost-Mitteleuropa, Band IV, 1 and IV, 2 (Bonn, 1960)
Taborsky, Edward, President Edvard Benes, between East and West 1938-1948 (Stanford, 1981)
Ther, Phillip and Siljak Ana, Redrawing nations, ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 (Oxford, 2001)
Thum, Gregor, Uprooted: How Breslau became Wroclaw during the century of expulsions (Princeton, 2011)
Totten, Samuel, Bartrop, Robert Paul, Jacobs Steven L., Dictionary of Genocide (Westport, CT, 2008)
Wood, Stephen, Germans and East-Central Europe, political, economic, and socio-cultural relations in the era of EU enlargement (Aldershot, 2004)
de Zayas, Alfred-Maurice, A terrible revenge, the ethnic cleansing of the East European Germans, second edition, fully revised and updated (New York, 2006)
de Zayas, Alfred-Maurice Nemesis at Potsdam, the Anglo-Americans and the expulsion of the Germans, background, execution, consequences (London, 1977)
Internet Resources
Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, Human Rights Web, <http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html> [Accessed 3rd December 2011]
Holocaust (European History), Encyclopaedia Britannia, <http://ww w.britannica.com/EB checked/topic/269548/Holocaust> [Accessed 5th December 2011]
Potsdam Agreement <http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Potsdam_Agreement.html> [Accessed 20th November 2011]
[1] Michael R Marrus, The unwanted, European refugees from First World War, through the cold war (Philadelphia, 2002) p. 325
[2] Jessica Reinisch and Elizabeth White, The disentanglement of populations, migration, expulsion, and displacement in post-war Europe, 1944-9 (Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2011) p. 51
[3] David E Kaiser, Politics and war: European conflict from Phillip II to Hitler (Washington 2000) p. 409
[4] White, The disentanglement, p. 51
[5] For full definition see, Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, Human Rights Web, <http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html> [Accessed 3rd December 2011]
[6] Tony Kushner, and Katherine Knox, Refugees in an age of genocide, global, national and local perspectives during the twentieth century (London 1999) and Alastair Ager, Refugees, perspective on the experience of forced migration (New York, 1999)
[7] Phillip Ther and Ana Siljak, Redrawing nations, ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 (Oxford, 2001) p. 285
[8] Matthew Frank, Expelling the Germans, British opinion and post-1945 population transfer in context (Oxford, 2008) p. 7 and p. 50
[9] Marrus, The unwanted, p. 324
[10] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 214
[11] Norman M Naimark, Fires of hated, ethnic cleansing in the twentieth-century Europe (Harvard, 2002) pp. 108-124
[12] R.J., Rummel, Death by government, (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2009) p. 311
[13] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 210
[14]Helmut Schmitz, A Nation of Victims? Representations of German Wartime Suffering from 1945 to the Present (New York, 2007) p. 14
[15] Nicholas A Robins, and Adam Jones, Genocides by the oppressed, subaltern genocide, in theory and practice (Bloomington, Indiana, 2009) p.58 and Siljak, Redrawing, p. 43
[16] For full definition of ‘ethnic cleansing’ see Alfred J Rieber, Forced migration in central and Eastern Europe, 1939-1950, (London, 2000) p.3
[17] Jones, Genocides, p.58
[18] Frank, Expelling, p. 8
[19] Edward Taborsky, President Edvard Benes, between East and West 1938-1948 (Stanford, 1981) p.125 and Theodor Schieder, The Expulsion of the German Population from Czechoslovakia: A Selection and Translation from Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen Aus Ost-Mitteleuropa, Band IV, 1 and IV, 2 (Bonn, 1960) p.175
[20] For definition of ‘population transfer’ see Rieber, Forced migration, p. 3
[21] Gerhart Hoffmeister & Frederic C Tubach, Germany: 2000 years, from the Nazi era to unification, volume 3 (New York, 1992) p.55
[22] Rieber, Forced migration, p. 14
[23] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 51
[24] Richard C Lukas, The forgotten holocaust, the Poles under German occupation, 1939-1944 (Kentucky, 1986) p.3
[25] Lukas, The forgotten, p. 36-38
[26] Rieber, Forced migration, p. 14
[27] M.R.Myant, Socialism and democracy in Czechoslovakia, 1945-1948 (Cambridge, 1981) p. 27
[28] Mastny, The Czechs under Nazi rule: the failure of national resistance, 1939–1942 (Columbia, US, 1971) p.106
[29] For example in 1939 a demonstration for Czech Independence Day was brutally dispersed by Nazis.
[30] Rummel, Death by government, p.306
[31] Myant, Socialism, p. 64
[32] Mark Mazower, Jessica Reinisch, and David Feldman, Post-war reconstruction in Europe, international perspectives, 1945-1949 (Oxford 2011) p.88
[33] Naimark, Fires, p. 109
[34] Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, the Anglo-Americans and the expulsion of the Germans, background, execution, consequences (London, 1977) p. 14
[35] Ibid., p. 71
[36] Naimark, Fires, p. 130
[37] Mazower, Post-war, p. 325
[38] Naimark, Fires, p. 116
[39] Robert G Moeller, War stories, the search for a useable past in the Federal Republic of Germany (London, 2003) p. 74
[40] Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A terrible revenge, the ethnic cleansing of the East European Germans, second edition, fully revised and updated (New York, 2006) p. 84
[41] Lukas, The forgotten, p. 165
[42] For full details of areas obtained by Poland, see Arie M Kacowicz and Pawel Lutomiski, Population resettlement in international conflicts: a comparative study (Plymouth, 2007) p.101
[43] Naimark, Fires, p. 123
[44] Ibid., p. 132
[45] Edward J Rozek, Allied wartime diplomacy, a pattern in Poland (London, 1958) p. 407
[46] Rieber, Forced migration, p. 104
[47] Poland lost 180,000 square km in territory to the Soviets following the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, as seen in, Arie M Kacowicz, and Pawel Lutomiski, Population resettlement in international conflicts: a comparative study (Plymouth, 2007) p. 101
[48] Naimark, Fires, pp. 113-115
[49] Anita J Prazmowskia, Civil war in Poland, 1942-1948 (London, 2004) p. 169
[50] For more details on the Potsdam agreement see, Potsdam Agreement < http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Potsdam_Agreement.html> (Accessed 20th December, 2011)
[51] Naimark, Fires, p. 110
[52] Mazower, Post-war, p. 87
[53]Schieder, The Expulsion, p. 173
[54] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 127
[55] Mazower, Post-war, p. 22
[56] Rieber, Forced, p. 64
[57] Ibid., p. 101
[58] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 44
[59] Mazower, Post-war, P. 78
[60] Prazmowskia, Civil war, p. 179
[61]Schieder, The Expulsion, p. 173
[62] Myant, Socialism, p. 65
[63] Naimark, Fires, p. 121
[64] Ibid., pp. 133-134
[65] Ibid., p. 129
[66]Bob Moore and Barbera Hately-Broad, Prisoners of war, prisoners of peace (Oxford, 2005) p.41
[67] Naimark, Fires, p. 118
[68] Ibid., p. 114
[69]Schieder, The Expulsion, p. 174
[70] Rainer Munz and Rainer Ohliger, Diasporas and ethnic migrants, Germany, Israel and post-Soviet successor states in comparative perspective (Portland, Oregon, 2003) p.108
[71] Myrant, Socialism, P. 65
[72] Karl Cordell and Stefan Wolff, Germany’s foreign policy towards Poland and the Czech Republic: Geopolitik Revisited (Routledge Advances in European Politics) (New York, 2005) p. 33
[73] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 234
[74] Naimark, Fires, p. 131
[75] Ibid., p. 120
[76] Ibid., p. 121
[77] Myant, Socialism, P. 64
[78] Ibid., P. 63
[79] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 128
[80] Nicholas A Robins, and Adam Jones, Genocides by the oppressed, subaltern genocide, in theory and practice (Bloomington, Indiana, 2009) p.61
[81] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 227
[82] Ibid., p. 56
[83] Naimark, Fires of hatred, p. 129
[84] Siljak, Redrawing, p. 96
[85] de Zayas, A terrible revenge, p. 97
[86] Marrus, The unwanted, p. 328
[87] Ibid., p. 327
[88] Malcolm J Proudfoot, European refugees: 1939-52, a study in forced population movement (Illinois, 1956) p. 372
[89] de Zayas, Nemesis, p. 113
[90] Myant, Socialism, p. 63
[91] Malcolm J. Proudfoot, European refugees: 1939-52, a study in forced population movement (Illinois, 1956) p. 383
[92] Ibid., p. 381
[93] Frank, Expelling, P. 195
[94] Proudfoot, European, p. 375
[95] Ibid., European, pp. 389-391
[96] Frank, Expelling, p. 132
[97] Ibid., p. 209
[98] De Zayas, A terrible, p. 41
[99] White, The disentanglement, p.159
[100] Rieber, Forced migration, p. 108
[101] De Zayas, A terrible, p. 96
[102] Robert G Moeller, War stories, the search for a useable past in the Federal Republic of Germany (London, 2003) p. 78
[103] Wolff, Germanys foreign policy, p.33
[104] Naimark, Fires, p. 117