Ironrat
I agree with with most of your post but feel you should have certainly added Hitler to the other three.
Also your precision is way off -
Note the Date on the below "Sonderbefehl" when mentioning "deaths during the winter 1945 (wery cold winter)"
Poles with the help of the USSR, US and Britain, seized one quarter of Germany which included some of the best farmland and expelled about 16 million civilians. This was the largest and most brutal ethnic cleansing in human history. Millions of people, nearly all women and children, died during the trek which for some was over 150 Km.
You can read about it in well documented books by J. Bacque. Available right on the NET, just type his name on any search engine. I am sure some will disagree with Bacques numbers but that is to be expected because the usual policy is to minimize if unable to deny.
Here is a actual order:
Sonderbefehl
Special instruction for the German population of the city Salzbrunn including local part Sandberg.
1. On 14 July 1945 from 6 to 9 o'clock will take place the resettlement of the German population.
2. The German population is resettled into the area west of the river Neisse.
3. Each German may carry 20 kg luggage.
4. No means of transport (car, cart, ox, horses, cows etc..) permitted.
5. The whole live and dead inventory to remain in intact as property of the Polish government.
6. The resettlement period runs off on 14 July 10 o'clock.
7. Nonexecution of the instruction is pursued with sharpest punishments.
8. Also deadly force will be used to prevent sabotage.
9. Collecting station at the road Bhf. Bath Salzbrunn Adelsbacher way in a column of 20 meters before the locality of Adelsbach
10. Those Germans, which are in possession of documents ordering to stay behind, may not leave the dwelling during the time of 5 to 14 o'clock.
11 All dwellings in the city must remain open, the dwelling and house key must be put outward .
Bath Salzbrunn, 14 July 1945, 6 o'clock commander of section (-) Zinkowski, Oberleutnannt
These special instruction did not only concern the place Bath Salzbrunn; it was issued everywhere in Poland and those areas taken over by Poland, with tacit tolerance and full knowledge of the Western Allies.
Like I said in a previous post to Orzel - You had your revenge.
Gerhard
Scandal-How Allies Treated German POW's
Moderator: John W. Howard
-
Dackel Staffel
- Associate
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm
How was it in the eastern Poland taken by the russians. Same as the germans but with the Siberian trek too. These two zones were under russian occupation. The russians wanted the Curzon line as border and they had it. Germans and Poles were not the first victims. It began with Ukrainians, Caucasus peoples, and many more...
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
"Let us not be blind, but understand that the Allies were just at atrocious as much as they say the Germans were. I will never believe that the Allies were angles! "
Noel... you need to get a grip. If you actually believe this statement, where are the Allies KZs? Mass graves etc...... I don't believe the allies hung people on meathooks.
Noel... you need to get a grip. If you actually believe this statement, where are the Allies KZs? Mass graves etc...... I don't believe the allies hung people on meathooks.
Banzai!
Gerhard
unable to find the book you are making reference to.
Like I said the relocation of millions of peoples of differents nationalities was the direct result of application of Yalta. The nationalities in question newer had a chance to say anything about it or the borders of their cuntries. They were not invited to Yalta.
"This was the largest and most brutal ethnic cleansing in human history"
It is a very good joke.
Comparing 3 milions relocated to the end of 1946 + 3,4 millions which emigrated in the 1946-89 period claiming they were germans (sometimes yes, sometimes just for money), to over 6 millions of deaths (90% of it were civilians) is rather a misunderstanding. The number above cnocerns from todays Poland teritory. Russians lost during the war around 20 millions peoples, Belarus lost about 33% of its population, Jewish, Yougoslavia massacres,....
I hope Gerhard you are able to make the difference between a person relocated and a killed person.
Also you should look for some information about "Generalplan Ost".
"when mentioning "deaths during the winter 1945 (wery cold winter)" "
I mentioned it because of the order given by Erich Koch in the winter 1945. He was Oberpraesident and Gauleiter of Ostpreussen (East Prussia). SS-Grupenführer. Reich Commissioner of Ukraine. He was called the butcher of Ukraine. Responsible of 400.000 poles deaths, much much more in Ukraine and around 100.000 germans.
The name of the commander sounds russian to me. The date of the order is after 8th May 1945 so it is a direct application of Yalta.
Ironrat
PS. Correction to my previous post. Erich Koch was captured in Hamburg in May 1949. He died in prison in 1986.
unable to find the book you are making reference to.
Like I said the relocation of millions of peoples of differents nationalities was the direct result of application of Yalta. The nationalities in question newer had a chance to say anything about it or the borders of their cuntries. They were not invited to Yalta.
"This was the largest and most brutal ethnic cleansing in human history"
It is a very good joke.
Comparing 3 milions relocated to the end of 1946 + 3,4 millions which emigrated in the 1946-89 period claiming they were germans (sometimes yes, sometimes just for money), to over 6 millions of deaths (90% of it were civilians) is rather a misunderstanding. The number above cnocerns from todays Poland teritory. Russians lost during the war around 20 millions peoples, Belarus lost about 33% of its population, Jewish, Yougoslavia massacres,....
I hope Gerhard you are able to make the difference between a person relocated and a killed person.
Also you should look for some information about "Generalplan Ost".
"when mentioning "deaths during the winter 1945 (wery cold winter)" "
I mentioned it because of the order given by Erich Koch in the winter 1945. He was Oberpraesident and Gauleiter of Ostpreussen (East Prussia). SS-Grupenführer. Reich Commissioner of Ukraine. He was called the butcher of Ukraine. Responsible of 400.000 poles deaths, much much more in Ukraine and around 100.000 germans.
The name of the commander sounds russian to me. The date of the order is after 8th May 1945 so it is a direct application of Yalta.
Ironrat
PS. Correction to my previous post. Erich Koch was captured in Hamburg in May 1949. He died in prison in 1986.
"Like I said in a previous post to Orzel - You had your revenge. "
Sorry, but I can't find in my posts anything about revenge.
Some british or us commander may have crossed the line. After seeing what happened to US POW in the Ardennes or a few different places, visiting concentration camps...well, they started to get it personal.
A lot of people would probably do the same. I don't accept it, but I understand it.
Ironrat
Sorry, but I can't find in my posts anything about revenge.
Some british or us commander may have crossed the line. After seeing what happened to US POW in the Ardennes or a few different places, visiting concentration camps...well, they started to get it personal.
A lot of people would probably do the same. I don't accept it, but I understand it.
Ironrat
Thank you Annelie for the books titles.
After finding the web page
http://www.jamesbacque.com/
and reading about them, I think j. bacque book quality is on the same level with Walsh book. 50% facts, 50% lies just to make sensation and money. Useles to spend money over it.
Poland in 1938 389 700 km2 34,8 mil. inh., 4% germans (around 1.4 mil)
Poland in 1945 312 700 km2, losses over 6 mil. inh.
III Reich in 1939 (including Austria - about 80000 km2 and Sudetenland - around 27 000 km2 and 3mil. german speaking inhabitants), 586 126 km2, 79,7 mil. inh., losses over 7 mil. inh.
actually 356 958 km2
Ironrat
After finding the web page
http://www.jamesbacque.com/
and reading about them, I think j. bacque book quality is on the same level with Walsh book. 50% facts, 50% lies just to make sensation and money. Useles to spend money over it.
Poland in 1938 389 700 km2 34,8 mil. inh., 4% germans (around 1.4 mil)
Poland in 1945 312 700 km2, losses over 6 mil. inh.
III Reich in 1939 (including Austria - about 80000 km2 and Sudetenland - around 27 000 km2 and 3mil. german speaking inhabitants), 586 126 km2, 79,7 mil. inh., losses over 7 mil. inh.
actually 356 958 km2
Ironrat
Ironrat
"It is a very good joke"
you have a great sense of humor and when I see "the treatment of germany was 1/10000000000000000th of the brutality the germans used" I also notice you don't read a post in it's entirety.
When I say you had your revenge, This is what I mean - in Lambsdorf (a translation from Vae Victis) one of the notorious camps in Poland out of more than 8,000 Germans, the entire population of that area, only 1,500 survived.
The books by James Bacque, why do you think they are lies ? obviously you have not read them otherwise you would have seen the readily available documentation attached. His book "Other Losses" I myself have experienced some of it.
I mentioned before, the usual policy is to minimize if unable to deny.
"Some british or us commander may have crossed the line. After seeing what happened to US POW in the Ardennes or a few different places, visiting concentration camps...well, they started to get it personal. A lot of people would probably do the same. "I don't accept it, but I understand it" and
"getting personal about it". Your words. I guess only the Victor is allowed to get personal about it, especially as the victor is the jailer, accuser, executioner and is in control what is allowed for the defense.
About concentration camps, I have only been near one (Dachau) where I traded with a prisoner some cigarettes for a pair of pants. That was the extent of my knowledge about concentration camps.
Having lost several relatives during the ethnic cleansing or resettling, what ever you call it in what is now Poland and my immediate family in Dresden, besides experiencing Allied hospitality for several years my memories of those times are far from pleasant.
I am afraid you are mistaken when saying "It is a very good joke". I don't see any humor in it.
When some imply that I was a Nazi, liar, war criminal and reading -
"Why don't you tell us Gerhard how many undesirables you disposed off?, filling mass graves with civilians you butchered?"
DO YOU WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SENSE OF HUMOR ?
"It is a very good joke"
you have a great sense of humor and when I see "the treatment of germany was 1/10000000000000000th of the brutality the germans used" I also notice you don't read a post in it's entirety.
When I say you had your revenge, This is what I mean - in Lambsdorf (a translation from Vae Victis) one of the notorious camps in Poland out of more than 8,000 Germans, the entire population of that area, only 1,500 survived.
The books by James Bacque, why do you think they are lies ? obviously you have not read them otherwise you would have seen the readily available documentation attached. His book "Other Losses" I myself have experienced some of it.
I mentioned before, the usual policy is to minimize if unable to deny.
"Some british or us commander may have crossed the line. After seeing what happened to US POW in the Ardennes or a few different places, visiting concentration camps...well, they started to get it personal. A lot of people would probably do the same. "I don't accept it, but I understand it" and
"getting personal about it". Your words. I guess only the Victor is allowed to get personal about it, especially as the victor is the jailer, accuser, executioner and is in control what is allowed for the defense.
About concentration camps, I have only been near one (Dachau) where I traded with a prisoner some cigarettes for a pair of pants. That was the extent of my knowledge about concentration camps.
Having lost several relatives during the ethnic cleansing or resettling, what ever you call it in what is now Poland and my immediate family in Dresden, besides experiencing Allied hospitality for several years my memories of those times are far from pleasant.
I am afraid you are mistaken when saying "It is a very good joke". I don't see any humor in it.
When some imply that I was a Nazi, liar, war criminal and reading -
"Why don't you tell us Gerhard how many undesirables you disposed off?, filling mass graves with civilians you butchered?"
DO YOU WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SENSE OF HUMOR ?
Gerhard
"you have a great sense of humor and when I see "the treatment of germany was 1/10000000000000000th of the brutality the germans used"
Don't try to see something I never wrote or thaught. I'm not Orzel. You don't know me. Do not try to imagine what I think, how many stories of peoples saved by german soldiers during WWII I know. Maybe in Novenber I'm visiting sometimes unknown and unmarked graves, hiddden in the woods just to light a candle above forgotten german or russian soldiers.
Nobody judges the victor - this is true. This is the way it was, it is and always will be.
A yes, I forgotten Lambsdorf. How could I. Tell me what do you know about this towns history during the war.
Just shortly: Lambsdorf - POW camp created in 1941 for 200 000 POW. Around 100 000 of them will not survive!!
What did J. Bacque wrote about what happened in Berlin after the take of the town in 1945?
Ironrat
Don't try to see something I never wrote or thaught. I'm not Orzel. You don't know me. Do not try to imagine what I think, how many stories of peoples saved by german soldiers during WWII I know. Maybe in Novenber I'm visiting sometimes unknown and unmarked graves, hiddden in the woods just to light a candle above forgotten german or russian soldiers.
Nobody judges the victor - this is true. This is the way it was, it is and always will be.
A yes, I forgotten Lambsdorf. How could I. Tell me what do you know about this towns history during the war.
Just shortly: Lambsdorf - POW camp created in 1941 for 200 000 POW. Around 100 000 of them will not survive!!
What did J. Bacque wrote about what happened in Berlin after the take of the town in 1945?
Ironrat
Personally, I think that peoples responsible for what happened at Lambsdorf - the camp created 2 months after the war -should pay for it. The exact number of inmates is not known as for today, but most data ranges from around 6000 to 8064. Up to 6480 of them were killed. The camp inmates were Poles and Germans.
Ironrat
Ironrat
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Gerhard,
I and others have repeatedly drawn your attention to the weaknesses in Bacque's "Other Losses", not least of which is the complete denial by the witness he claimed told him that "Other Losses" essentially meant dead. Other Losses essentially meant "transferred".
In view of the fact that Bacque seems never to have acknowledged the fact that, by this basic error, he mistakenly invented about a million dead German POWs at Western Allied hands, it is very difficult to take any other of his writings seriously. If he can continue such an enormous and self evident lie, why should we believe he is any more reliable on anything else?
You also conveniently ignore the fact that it was not necessary for the Poles and Russians to expel the entire German populations of the annexed territories. Millions had been removed on Himmler's orders ahead to the Red Army's advance. In many parts of eastern Germany the area was already depopulated before the Red Army even arrived. In these cases the Poles didn't have to expel anyone. They simply didn't allow them back after the war.
As attributed to the International Refugee Organisation on p.191 of "The Times Atlas of the Second World War", some 5,700,000 German refugees were resettled, evacuated or expelled from Polish- and Soviet-annexed former German territory over 1945-49.
Millions of essentially innocent Germans did indeed suffer displacement and death after the war. What I can never understand is why you and others have to exaggerate a bad situation so much that the true scale is distorted by unsupportable contentions such as "16,000,000" expulsions and "the largest and most brutal ethnic cleansing in human history". The attention then turns from the real tragedy to squabbles over such inflated claims.
Stick to the facts. They are quite serious enough without exaggeration.
Cheers,
Sid.
I and others have repeatedly drawn your attention to the weaknesses in Bacque's "Other Losses", not least of which is the complete denial by the witness he claimed told him that "Other Losses" essentially meant dead. Other Losses essentially meant "transferred".
In view of the fact that Bacque seems never to have acknowledged the fact that, by this basic error, he mistakenly invented about a million dead German POWs at Western Allied hands, it is very difficult to take any other of his writings seriously. If he can continue such an enormous and self evident lie, why should we believe he is any more reliable on anything else?
You also conveniently ignore the fact that it was not necessary for the Poles and Russians to expel the entire German populations of the annexed territories. Millions had been removed on Himmler's orders ahead to the Red Army's advance. In many parts of eastern Germany the area was already depopulated before the Red Army even arrived. In these cases the Poles didn't have to expel anyone. They simply didn't allow them back after the war.
As attributed to the International Refugee Organisation on p.191 of "The Times Atlas of the Second World War", some 5,700,000 German refugees were resettled, evacuated or expelled from Polish- and Soviet-annexed former German territory over 1945-49.
Millions of essentially innocent Germans did indeed suffer displacement and death after the war. What I can never understand is why you and others have to exaggerate a bad situation so much that the true scale is distorted by unsupportable contentions such as "16,000,000" expulsions and "the largest and most brutal ethnic cleansing in human history". The attention then turns from the real tragedy to squabbles over such inflated claims.
Stick to the facts. They are quite serious enough without exaggeration.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Iron Rat,
I think Yalta is usually misrepresented.
If you look at the final post-Yalta Soviet-Polish border, it is actually further east than the original deal made between Hitler and Stalin in 1939. It can be argued that at Yalta Churchill actually won concessions from Stalin for the Poles that pushed the frontier back to an approximation of the original Curzon Line.
Secondly, in the area to the east of the final post-Yalta Soviet-Polish border Poles were in a minority and more of the population, according to the Poles' own inter-war censuses, were Ukrainian and Byelorussian, both of which were not only SSRs of the Soviet Union but even had seats at the UN after the war! If purely ethnic criteria are used then it was the inter-war Polish-Soviet border that was most suspect, not the post-Yalta one.
It is sometimes argued that the Western Allies at Yalta were under some sort of contractual obligation to defend Poland's pre-war borders against the USSR. This is not so. The USA had no defensive treaty obligations to Poland at all and the UK only had defensive treaty obligations to Poland regarding Germany and no other country. The UK declared war in defence of Poland and stayed in the war until the common enemy was defeated.
Cheers,
Sid.
I think Yalta is usually misrepresented.
If you look at the final post-Yalta Soviet-Polish border, it is actually further east than the original deal made between Hitler and Stalin in 1939. It can be argued that at Yalta Churchill actually won concessions from Stalin for the Poles that pushed the frontier back to an approximation of the original Curzon Line.
Secondly, in the area to the east of the final post-Yalta Soviet-Polish border Poles were in a minority and more of the population, according to the Poles' own inter-war censuses, were Ukrainian and Byelorussian, both of which were not only SSRs of the Soviet Union but even had seats at the UN after the war! If purely ethnic criteria are used then it was the inter-war Polish-Soviet border that was most suspect, not the post-Yalta one.
It is sometimes argued that the Western Allies at Yalta were under some sort of contractual obligation to defend Poland's pre-war borders against the USSR. This is not so. The USA had no defensive treaty obligations to Poland at all and the UK only had defensive treaty obligations to Poland regarding Germany and no other country. The UK declared war in defence of Poland and stayed in the war until the common enemy was defeated.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sid,
Yalta conference was not a question of someones obligations to some country, but a means of definition of post wwII world, of wining best starting position for what become known as cold war. It was in my opinion (with Teheran and other meetings) a big win for Stalin. Why? Probably the biggest impact on the results of the conference had the age of the opponents. Churchill was approx. 70, Roosvelt was ill and approaching the grave, Stalin was approx. 65. Just look at the famous 3-leaders picture from the conference, look at their faces.
I don't think Churchil had won anything for Poland. I you read his letters and books you will realize that he was fighting his own war against the reds. He realized before the end of the war, that Soviet Union will be the next ennemy.
Many peoples belive, that Stalin feared the poles. It was the result of the 1920 war in which Stalin was almost made POW. The fact is, a lot of peoples will not admit it, that the russian defeat was the result of Stalin's decisions as red army military commisar.
The 1939 Ribentrop-Molotow pact you are making reference to has nothing to do with Yalta.
The UK/France/Poland treaty was a big mistake from Poland point of wiev. It was signed in the moment, when Hitler's intentions were obvious, but no one knew if the attack would go east or west. The treaty was forcing him to go east. French/UK military help in 1939 was limited to war declarations. The real fighting started later. The III Reich in 1939 was not prepared to make war on 2 fronts and could probably by stopped in 1939-40 if attacked. It was what french called "drole de guerre" - strange war.
"the inter-war Polish-Soviet border that was most suspect, not the post-Yalta one"
Whit this kind of approach US should give back to Mexico Texas and a few other states, UK should give back Scottland to Scotts, what about Ireland. And now seriously, to understand the interwar borders you should look at how Polish Kingdom border were changing through centuries and how the eastern brother was cutting them piece by piece and take into account the soviet 1917 revolution.
Cheers,
Ironrat
Yalta conference was not a question of someones obligations to some country, but a means of definition of post wwII world, of wining best starting position for what become known as cold war. It was in my opinion (with Teheran and other meetings) a big win for Stalin. Why? Probably the biggest impact on the results of the conference had the age of the opponents. Churchill was approx. 70, Roosvelt was ill and approaching the grave, Stalin was approx. 65. Just look at the famous 3-leaders picture from the conference, look at their faces.
I don't think Churchil had won anything for Poland. I you read his letters and books you will realize that he was fighting his own war against the reds. He realized before the end of the war, that Soviet Union will be the next ennemy.
Many peoples belive, that Stalin feared the poles. It was the result of the 1920 war in which Stalin was almost made POW. The fact is, a lot of peoples will not admit it, that the russian defeat was the result of Stalin's decisions as red army military commisar.
The 1939 Ribentrop-Molotow pact you are making reference to has nothing to do with Yalta.
The UK/France/Poland treaty was a big mistake from Poland point of wiev. It was signed in the moment, when Hitler's intentions were obvious, but no one knew if the attack would go east or west. The treaty was forcing him to go east. French/UK military help in 1939 was limited to war declarations. The real fighting started later. The III Reich in 1939 was not prepared to make war on 2 fronts and could probably by stopped in 1939-40 if attacked. It was what french called "drole de guerre" - strange war.
"the inter-war Polish-Soviet border that was most suspect, not the post-Yalta one"
Whit this kind of approach US should give back to Mexico Texas and a few other states, UK should give back Scottland to Scotts, what about Ireland. And now seriously, to understand the interwar borders you should look at how Polish Kingdom border were changing through centuries and how the eastern brother was cutting them piece by piece and take into account the soviet 1917 revolution.
Cheers,
Ironrat
