Talk:Volksdeutsche

"Volksdeutsche"

The term Volksdeutsche was used before the Nazis and denominates people of German culture living outside the borders of one of the German speaking countries (which are Germany, Austria and Switzerland). The term does not mean "of German origin" as migration from Germany to the Balkans started as early as the 12 century! ("Siebenbürger Sachsen"). The term does refer to people who considered themselves to be German by language and culture, predominantly because their ancestors migrated to the areas they lived in. (Past tense because there are practically none of them left).

The reason why "Volksdeutsche" is often mixed up with nationalism and even racism is first of all due to Nazi legacy, but there is also another factor. Germany was not a nation state until 1870 and thus the cultural elites forged the term of Germany being a "culture nation", rather than a nation state and this culture nation comprised all the people speaking German. So in the understanding of a lot of people, Germany was much "bigger" than the boundaries of the tiny duchesses and kingdoms that formed the only formally existing German nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.26.229 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Deutschstämmige doesn't mean "ethnic Germans", it means "of German origin"

Ethnic Germans are people whose first language is German, even if they have no German citizenship. They call themselves "Deutsche" (Germans) as members of a German minority ("deutsche Minderheit"), historically also "Volksdeutsche" (although this term was abused by Nazis who excluded Jewish Germans from the definition "volksdeutsch", which is nonsense. Of course, Jewish Germans are "Volksdeutsche", "ethnic Germans", too). To avoid the correct translation for "ethnic Germans" which is "Volksdeutsche", we could also use the word "ethnische Deutsche", but the word "Deutschstämmige" is not an accurate translation for the term "ethnic Germans", because "Deutschstämmige" just means "of German origin". Not everyone who is "deutschstämmig" (of German origin) is an ethnic German, because normally, someone who is just "of German origin" doesn't have German as his first language or he doesn't speak German at all, like millions of U. S. citizens who have German family names. Just use "ethnische Deutsche" to translate "ethnic Germans", if you don't want to call them "Volksdeutsche". But remember, the Nazi abuse was just to exclude Jewish Germans from the definition, although they were and are Germans, too. 11:45, 11-12-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.92.196 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Racist Word

Because of the racist baggage of the Nazis, this word should not be used in the article itself. All uses of the word beyond the first definition should be replaced with "ethnic Germans", "German minority", or explicit regional modifiers such as "Hungarian Germans" etc. The word itself breaks the Wiki rules of NPOV against racist terms, is pejorative and so an explicit value judgment, and should not be used throughout Wiki. It is, in this sense on a par with other slang name calling and racist words for minorities.Imersion (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As an example of how it should be treated, please look at the wiki use of the word nigger. Imersion (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this assertion, I have tagged the sentence in the article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not racist, and still in use today: de:Verband der Volksdeutschen Landsmannschaften Österreichs. [2], [3] --77.181.86.43 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, which word is supposed to be racist?

Despite its use in Nazi classifications, 'Volksdeutsche' is not of itself a racist word, and certainly not a term of abuse like 'nigger'. My mother was a Volksdeutsche in Kiev during WWII, because she had an ethnic German grandfather, himself born in St Petersburg. He had been arrested and shot during the "Yezhovshchina" purge of 1937-38. When the Germans occupied Kiev, incidentally taking over the NKVD HQ and ALL its records, they "invited" anyone of German or partly German origin to register as "Volksdeutsche", and apply for German citizenship: with a surname like Weinberg, NOT to have done so would have been very dangerous, even though at least recent generations had been Lutheran, not Jewish. Hence when the Germans withdrew, the family went with them too rather than face the inevitable Soviet reprisals. This tale is fairly typical of many registered Volksdeutsche in the central Uraine. Contrary to the assertions of the article, they did not, in general, participate in the Holocaust, nor did they benefit from it. Life was brutal and uncertain in those days, and survival was the primary goal. My mother was fortunate as my grandmother was a doctor and got a job and lodgings in Halle an der Saale. After the war, given false assurances by the Soviet authorities, many Volksdeutsche were compulsorily repatriated by the Allied authorities and executed, until questions in Parliament led to a change of policy. My mother ended up as a refugee in the UK, sponsored by an UNRRA doctor's family, and my grandmother went to live in a Rudolph Steiner community in Switzerland. Sasha (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

PS Although she was an ethnic Russian, my great-grandmother was granted Volksdeutsche status too, as the widow of an ethnic German. She died in Halle in 1944. Sasha (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Volksdeutsche

"Prior to World War II well above ten million ethnic Germans lived in Central and Eastern Europe (outside Germany, Austria and Switzerland)."

This seems to suggest that there are also Volksdeutsche living in Austria and Switzerland. Why do you exclude them from the count? Perhaps I am missing the difference between Volksdeutsche and Deutsche.--branko

The difference is apparently between Volksduetsche and Reichsdeutsche. I will check if the article mentions it.

---

The opening paragarph perplexes me utterly. To break it down:

Volksdeutsche is a term for ethnic Germans, living outside and east of Germany. This is in contrast to Reichsdeutsche (literally "Germans of the realm").

Okay, so Volksdeutsche are ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe outside of Germany proper.

Volksdeutsche only referrs to ethnic Germans from eastern European countries, which have been expelled and deported.

But they don't live in eastern European countries, because they've been expelled and deported. (One can parse it as the countries having been expelled, which makes even less sense.)

Austria or Switzerland or other western countries were not a part of the German Reich in the 20th century and are not included. While they have German language speakers, they did not expell or deport ethnic Germans as the Soviet lead countries did.

So where are the Volksdeutsche? They're not in Germany by definition. They're not in the west, because they haven't been expelled and thus don't meet the definition. And they can't be in the east, because they've by definition been expelled!

I can only make sense out of this by assuming that the explusions from Eastern European countries occurred after a period of time in which the term Volksdeutsche was used for people who did live in Eastern Europe. Of course, this means that having been expelled can't be part of the definition... at least of that time. Are we supposed to refer to as Volksdeutsche only those who would be expelled? Kind of time-travelley. Or, is this opening paragraph just completely wrong? --Brion 10:52 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

---

To Brion, Appr. 9 million Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) plus 9 million Reichsdeutsche (German citizens were expelled/deported etc. see Heimatvertriebene of those at least 2 1/2 million did not survive. The others have been taken in as refuges in the remaining part of Germany and in many other countries. The expulsion occurred over several years 1944/45 to 1950, while the Soviet installed governments took control of eastern Europe including several German provinces. The ethnic Germans, who received refugee status in Germany, are now German citizens. There are Bundeslaender who are made up 1/4 of refugees and decendends. Millions of other expelled Germans and ethnic Germans are scattered in different countries. user:H.J.

I'm well aware that a large number of ethnic Germans were expelled from eastern Europe. And maybe it's all Eisenhower's fault; I've never been a big Eisenhower fan anyway. My question, however, is: how do you define the word 'Volksdeutsche'? --Brion 11:20 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

---

The definition or translation of Volksdeutsche = folks German, German folks, German people as compared to German citizens or Reichsdeutsche. user:H.J. ---

Thank you. Is the article then wrong when it says, "Volksdeutsche only referrs to ethnic Germans from eastern European countries, which have been expelled and deported. Austria or Switzerland or other western countries were not a part of the German Reich in the 20th century and are not included."? --Brion 12:06 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

---

Brion, I added a little more info. Please check , if that clarifies it for you. user:H.J.

---

Removed:

Volksdeutsche only refered to ethnic Germans from eastern European countries, which have been expelled and deported. All Germans or Ethnic Germans, which were expelled and received refugee status in western countries, became then known as Vertriebene or Heimatvertriebene. Austria or Switzerland or other western countries were not a part of the German Reich in the 20th century and are not included. While they have German language speakers, they did not expell or deport ethnic Germans as the Soviet lead countries did.

If the term preexisted the Nazis who then popularized it, it cannot be defined by something that happened after the Nazis lost power. Also removed line about Danzig - unless Danzigers were exempt from the Volks list or were not considered, it is irrelevant and the article doesn't say they were. --rmhermen

I like to add Switzerland was neutral during WWII and not every Swiss citizen was ethnic German, you have French and Italian speakers, and the Romansh minority in Grissons canton facing Austria. I wonder if the Swiss banking influence on Nazi Germany to pay their war industry costs had persuaded Hitler and the Nazis not to invade or occupy Switzerland, despite its' historic ties with the German people and the Swiss Germans are "Alemmanics" or High Germans alike most Austrians and Bavarians of the once independent state of Bavaria. +71.102.32.144 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't cite a reference, but most likely they did not invade Switzerland because it was not worth the effort. The Swiss allowed the Germans to use their railway systems for support of the Italian front and the Swiss industry was producing for Germany. Plus, Switzerland was a neutral country and an important gate to free markets, e.g. for metals like Chrome or industry diamonds, desperately needed for war production. So why invading the country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.26.229 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Again a possible ambiguity: "treated by the German occupation as a person of Slavic lower class". This means that there are several Slavic classes, and that the occupator saw non-signers as a member of one of those classes. Could it be instead that the author meant that the Germans saw Slavs as people of a lower class than themselves? In that case the sentence should run something like "treated by the German occupation as a Slavic person (which the Germans considered to be of a lower class)".--branko

Sounds good.

Signing volkslist

The result of refusing of signing volkslist very often was much worse than simply "being treating as Slavic person". People IIRC were forced to sign the lists. szopen

If the Germans felt sure that you were Germanic (in their definition) and you refused to sign the list you could be shot as a traitor. Instead of simply being deported to central Poland as a Slav. Signing the Volklist also made you eligible to be drafted into the German army but at least your family wouldn't be deported. Rmhermen 15:28, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

Why duplicated articles?

Okay, I'll bite. Why are Ethnic German and Volksdeutsche two seperate articles? It seems to me that the 'pedia is better served by merging the two articles, and mentioning the Reichsdeutsche/Volksdeutsche split of ethnic Germans in a header inside that article, rather than this duplication (triplication) of content. — Jor (Talk) 11:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My gut-feeling is that the very word is too loaded with Third Reich deadweight, like the word Führer. I think it's wise to keep separate articles (i.e. that's my opinion today, who knows about tomorrow?). --Ruhrjung 22:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tried to sort it all out; I hope it all works. Clossius 16:09, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As both here and on the Germans page it is specified that the two terms mean the same, I have linked Ethnic Germans to Volksdeutsche. The term indeed has strong nazi conotations in German, and there is no equivalent non-nazi term. --68.228.33.111 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No proofs? No serious links, sources?

To this edit - what are the proofs, all of that people or the most of them did it?

"Often the choice was either to sign and be regarded as a traitor by the Polish, or not to sign and be treated by the Nazi occupation as a traitor of the Germanic race." - it seems to be a very difficult choice - to sign or to must left his town. There were some 3 million PZPR-members in Poland till 1990 - were the most of them active communists or SB agents? Of course not! AN(Ger) 20:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nazi Fifth Column Activities: A List of References", Library of Congress, 1943

"The German fifth column in the Second World War", by L. de Jong

"The German Fifth Column in Poland", Hutchinson & Co Ltd, London

--Emax 09:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It does not mean, it were activities of the most of these poople. An example: A brother of my grandmother, born at the early 1900s in the German Empire (before 1918), member of the Armia Krajowa in Poznan, arrested and executed. There were more such cases in the into the IIIrd German Empire incorporated areas. In may seemed in the eastern Poland other. AN(Ger) 11:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is discussed on User_talk:AN(Ger) (in Polish) too. As i wrote in Polish - if 10 words explain something not good enough, it may be necessary to write 100 or 200 words - it is much better as to write something what is false. It could be better to write a exactly %-number of the Volksdeutsche, where were involved in the espionage for the nazis etc. - 50%? 10%? 5%? It could be better to explain the differences between the people born (in the mixed polish-german or german-polish families) in the Wilhelmians German Empire before 1918 as german citizens (where signed something only to not to be removed into the Generalna Gubernia) and some people in eastern Poland or Yugoslavia, which had never been german citizens before.

To write, all or the most Volksdeutsche have done the espionage etc. is POV without historical proofs. BTW: It is not allowed to write POV and to remove {NPOV} as someone has the POV realised. AN(Ger) 05:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

During Nazi Times

Isn't "Before and during WW2, some Volksdeutsche in some countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia, actively supported the Nazis by espionage, sabotage and other services against their countries of origin" POV? It implies that the Volksdeutsche did or should have identified with Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia, rather than Germany. If they were actively helping Germany they might have said that their country of origin was Germany, they had just been born in Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia. Avalon 00:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Slight expansion

Slight expansion and corrections in regards to history and nature of Selbstschutz. Needs more on methods to ensure signing of the volksliste and cooperation with Nazis.--Molobo (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Figures

The article points to Expulsion of Germans after World War II as the main article on the subject of casualties around the time of the expulsions. While that article is now the subject of controversy - due, apparently, to an alleged German nationalist bias - it does discuss at length current scholarship, which contradicts the higher figures used by some advocacy organisations and the West German government in the immediate postwar period.

The text previously at this page stated: "At least two million people perished due to flight and expulsion, 400,000 to 600,000 of whom by physical force." As [[4]] makes clear, this is an interpretation given by a handful of non-historians to the newer historical research - an interpretation that is explicitly disavowed by all historians cited. To go by what [[5]] states, it seems to be an attempt on the part of a far-right politician and a writer for a Holocaust denial website to grasp at straws. It seems clear that the figure of 400,000 to 600,000 represents all eastern German citizens or Volksdeutsche civilians who died during the very last stages of the war and the following years, however loose the connection of their deaths to the expulsion to the west.

At any rate - isn't it the case, as the lead paragraph states, that "this article is about the origins and historical use of the term Volksdeutsche. For the article about the people this term describes, see Ethnic German."? If so, this entire topic may be out of place here. Feketekave (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to engage in discussion on whether Earth is flat with a user that seems solely devoted to push disruptive anti-German POV on numerous articles. Your edits are no different from Holocaust denial and will be reverted as such. There are established figures supported by established and official sources and we use these figures. If you think official German sources is propaganda, then get yourself a blog and tell the world about it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Urban XII (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming a case of wiki-hounding. Please avoid name-calling. You have failed to follow the links I have provided to consensus texts in Wikipedia; to use your words, you are failing to engage in discussion. Feketekave (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can push your extremist POV by wikilawyering, you'll have to think again. Your edits are clearly disruptive and you are here clearly not to improve the encyclopedia. Urban XII (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban XII your accusation that Feketekave's edits "are no different from Holocaust denial" is unbelievably incivil and I suggest you withdraw it at once. Loosmark (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us keep to the subject matter and discuss this among interested editors. As I have said: the table and adjoining comments represent outdated information that is no longer tenable. See Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Discourse. Feketekave (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban XII seems to have stopped editing after being blocked for a long list of reasons. It seems like a good idea to go back to this matter. It seems to be one of the few points of clear consensus in the talk page of Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II. The list of figures given currently on the page dates from the immediate postwar period (and was crafted by a Nazi, as it happens); it is no longer sustainable. Feketekave (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Update

The two million dead figure is no longer tenable, as discussed in the main article on the topic (Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Demography). Feketekave (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

According to the text at the top of the article, this article should simply discuss the origin of the term; the main article should be Ethnic Germans. However the case may be, the present article has evolved into a longer text, sometimes duplicating what apparently should be the main article.

I have now linked the two articles together as the terms apparently mean the same thing.--Johanneswilm (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It would stand to sense that, if this page is to be more than a very brief description of how the Nazis invented the term, it should be a study of how the idea that there was such a thing as Volksdeutsche was constructed. National consciousness is not, so to speak, found in nature; it is constructed by nationalism. Instead, this page speaks uncritically of pre-existent "ethnic Germans".

"Ethnicity" is something of an anachronism here: it was apparently an uncommon technical word before the War, and became popular only during and after it, in opposition to the German Nazi discourse of race, and, in general, in opposition to the German conception of the nation as being founded on ties of blood. If we speak of "ethnic Germans" as existing in any objective sense, we are in effect adopting German nationalist ideas disguised by words from the opposing discourse.

What was there in reality? Citizens of different countries - Poland, Hungary, the Czech republic, and so on - who were or stated they were descended from German colonists to different extents, and who did or did not actually speak German or one of the Germanic dialects classified as "German" by political convention. Some of them were, say, from Saxon agricultural enclaves; many were not, and had lived out their lives in the general societies of their countries of birth.

The question then becomes: how and when did they start to think of themselves as "Volksdeutsche", or of "the German nation", in the modern sense of the word, as opposed to being members of the nations they were born in? To what extent did this kind of discourse fit in well with Nazism? To what extent was it actually created and shaped by Nazism, or the German nationalist ideas that prefigured it?

This is really what the article should be about. Feketekave (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some cleanup

This article as well as Germans seem to state that Ethnic Germans in the English translation of Volksdeutsche. Neither one is equivalent to modern-day usage of Germans, so I explained that. I have therefore relinked the article to reflect this. Also, I have tried to exchange the term "ethnic Germans" in the definition of Nazi-usage of "Volksdeutsche" so that the definition wouldn't be circular. This definition is however unreferenced and someone with more intimate knowledge of Nazi literature and ideology should probably try to improve this definition. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is not quite clear whether Volksdeutsche == Ethnic Germans or whether Volksdeutsche only were Ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe. If that was the case, then what was the German translation of "Ethnic Germans" and is there an English translation of "Volksdeutsche"? And how were "Ethnic Germans" defined by Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany? In any case, this needs more cleaning. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC) That was one of the most absurd edits I encountered:the term "ethnic German is an insult in Poland"-really... --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to Ethnic Germans

The article should be located at Ethnic Germans as that is the direct English language translation of Volksdeutsche. [6] --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "volksdeutsche" means the same as the intended meaning of ethnic german. Volksdeutsche has specific historic connotations. I think ethnic germans should simply redirect to German people - and that then in the German people article there should be a discussion of German as ethnicity and german as nationality, and the historical relation of the notion of voplksdeutsche to both of those.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ethnic Germans" certainly has very little to do with Germans. The article is linked from that page once, quite high at the top, and that should be sufficient. Trying to define "Ethnic Germans" is always quite a creative, very unscientific, and generally racist project. There is good reason why the current German government doesn't engage in that. Specific instances in which this was tried was the employment of the term "Volksdeutsche" by Nazi Germany & co. I do agree that the the two are not exactly the same, because Volksdeutsche is only "Ethnic Germans" (whatever that may mean) residing outside of Germany. However, please check the article before I started editing it. It said something like "Volksdeutsche (Ethnic Germans) are ..." . Writing it like that certainly gives the impression that the two are the same. I then also propose to move Imperial Germans to Reichsdeutsche. --Johanneswilm (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Ethnic germans has little to do with Germans - the idea of Germany as a nation is itself linked to the idea of a german ethnic identity. Certainly it is possible to describe the concept of german ethnicity neutrally, including how it has been linked to imperialist projects without having to equate the specific nazi usage to all the other previous and latter usages.

It would seem ridiculous to me to try to discuss what "german" means without at least discussing the differences and overlaps between the notion of citizenship and ethnicity in the German historic context. As for imperial germans and reichsdeutsche I have no opinion - but I do oppose a merger of ethnic germans to volksdeutsche, for me that its the wrong direction to move the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an elegant treatment of how ethnicity and nationalism has codeveloped in the german case: (excerpt from Calhoun 1993. Annu. Rev. Soc. ""Nationalism and ethnicity): "Nationalisms vary, thus, between claims to have superseded traditional identities such as ethnicity by the founding of a true and modem nation, and claims to national identity and sovereignty rooted precisely in ancient ethnicity. The paradigmatic contrast of these two forms in the literature on nationalism is that between France and Germany. In both cases, historical narratives are mobilized to underpin the nationalist myths. The French narrativet races the nationt o a modem act of foundingb y its members, people who were not constituted properly as French (rather than Provencal or Bearnaise, Protestant or Catholic) until that radically novel founding. It emphasizes the nation-making political form of the republic and the idea of citizenship( Best 1988). In Germany,n ationalisth istory-writingp ushes further back in pursuit of a "naturalizing"a ccount of German ethnicity; Germany must be rooted in an "always already existing" ethnic identity. German nationalists from Herder and Fichte forward have emphasized ethnic rather than "political" or "civic" criteria for inclusion in the nation (see Alter 1989, Hayes 1926, 1931, Kedourie 1960, Kohn 1962 on this classic French/German contrast in styles of nationalism). When Renan (1990, orig. 1882) described the nation as a "daily plebiscite," thus, he was not making a universalizing statement or offering a definition. He was distinguishing those nations (such as France) that are the result of the free choices of their members from those (such as Germany) whose identity and cohesion are given to their members independently of any voluntary will. Such differences in nationalist narratives have practical consequences. Since voluntary will is so crucial to the narrative of French nationalism, for example, France makes it easier than Germany does for immigrants to attain citizenship (even though immigration itself, and right of legal residency, is no easier, Brubaker 1992, Noiriel 1988, 1991a)." ..."Particularly in Germany, language was given a central status from Herder and Fichte on. In stressing the "originality"o f the Germanl anguage and the "truly primal" nature of the German character, Fichte, for example, claimed a supra-historical status for German nationality (Fichte 1968, orig. 1806- 1807, Meinecke 1970: 92). Historically formed national characters were inferior, he argued, to the true metaphysical national spirits that were based on something more primal than common historical experience."·Maunus·ƛ· 14:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best article would be on on German ethnicity - discussing how the German ethnicity hs been historically constructed. The article on Germans should of course link to that article and give a summary of its contents.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be a good solution. The link to that could then replace the link in the beginning of Germans. But I wonder -- people who today still claim that there is a group of "Ethnic Germans" -- do they believe that this group is a different group of people than what the Nazis would have called Volksdeutsche? And/or do they have another name for this group in German? Because if the treaties with Russia just refer to "former Volksdeutsche" or some such thing, or it isn't more than the same people who previously had the status of Volksdeutsche, then I don't see why this should be included on any other page than here. Then you can split it into pages about different periods of Volksdeutsche or so. --Johanneswilm (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another treatment is given in Brubaker's "Migrations of Ethnic un-mixing in eastern Europe" from "International migration review" 32:4 (1998): "GERMANS: About two and a half million ethnic Germans have resettled from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to Germany since 1987. This migration was induced, and has been regulated, by special provisions in Germany's post? war constitution for refugees or expellees of German Volkszugehorigkeit. {Volkszugehorigkeit literally means membership of the Volk, perhaps best trans? lated as ethnic nationality; it is contrasted with Staatsangehorigkeit, literally membership of the state, or formal legal citizenship). In principle, these special provisions ? granting such persons all the rights and duties of German citizen? ship as soon as they arrived on German territory - applied only to ethnic German "refugees and expellees," not to all ethnic Germans in the region, still less (as is sometimes assmed) to all persons of German descent anywhere in the world. The 1949 Constitution afforded a privileged status to ethnic German "refugees and expellees" as a means of regularizing the legal status of the more than 10 million ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union who either fled before advancing Soviet armies at the end of World War II or were driven out of these countries immediately after the war. (This and the next paragraph draw on Brubaker, 1992:170-171.) Strictly interpreted, this special constitutional provision would have applied only to these ethnic German refugees and expellees of the immediate postwar period. It certainly would not have included the influx of ethnic Germans that began in the late 1980s. These resettlers were not refugees or expellees. By all accounts, the deliberate Vertreibung or "driving out" of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union ended in 1947. Nevertheless, a law of 1953 defined Vertriebeney or expellees, broadly to include not only persons who were actually driven out but also persons leaving Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union "as" ethnic Germans "after the end of the general expulsion mea? sures." Administrative guidelines interpreted this law in a remarkably inclusive manner. Reasoning from the premise that "the repression of Germans in these territories continues" since Germans "are not recognized as a national group and can not protect their cultural identity," the guidelines specified that "it is gener? ally to be assumed ? without special examination ? that it [the repression of Germans] is the essential cause for departure." So while one had to prove that one was an ethnic German, one did not ordinarily need to prove that one left because of the repression of ethnic Germans in these countries; this was gener? ally assumed. Thus, what began as a transitional legal provision intended to grant a secure legal status to millions of ethnic Germans who were quite literal? ly driven out of their homes and homelands, ended up as something quite dif? ferent: an open door to immigration and automatic citizenship for ethnic German immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The last sev? eral years have witnessed several changes in the law and a considerable tighten? ing of administrative practice, but a substantial flow continues, at approximate? ly 200,000 per year.? Official ethnic nationality was central in generating and regulating this mas? sive migration. Without the formal legal granting of special immigration and citizenship rights to certain persons officially defined and categorized as persons of deutscher Volkszugehbrigkeit, or German ethnic nationality, this migration would not have occurred."·Maunus·ƛ· 14:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read most of the classical literature on that. However, Germany also has a "German by birth" law nowadays and to be German does officially not have anything to do with Ethnic Germans -- which is a term that has to be defined every time for it to make any sense at all.

All of the classic literature on the difference between Germanic and French citizenship models are about very specific historic instances, and German laws are not the same as they were when they wrote them. Defining Volksdeutsche is one of the most nutty things that happened in that sense -- of people trying to define "ethnic Germans". If someone would like to write an article about what the term ethnic Germans meant in various discourses after 1945, then please go ahead. It has to be very clear though that Germans are not and have very little to do with Ethnic Germans. Then you could write an article in which you reference "Volksdeutsche" as one historic example of trying to define "Ethnic Germans".

I find it disturbing that most here seem to think that there is a group that clearly can be labeled "Ethnic Germans" when no-one can come forth with a definition that spans through over all historic periods. There is no such thing as a Ethnic German independently of a specific definition, given in a historic context, suchas "Volksdeutsche" by Nazi Germany. --Johanneswilm (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WHo is arguing that there is a group that can be clearly defined as "ethnic germans" Whether or not the group can be clearly defined that does not mean that the concept is not meaningful or relevant to the definition of a German national identity. Clearly there are ideas of a german ethnic identity iwthin Germany wherther or not this is sanctioned by law (otherwise there wouldn't be ethnic violence in Germany or ethno-nationalist political parties)- wikipedia should of course describe this aspect of the concept of German identity. It doesn't go away because we ignore it.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this article defines Volksdeutsche as "Ethnic Germans"of a certain type, without specifying what "Ethnic Germans" are. The text above mentions "Ethnic Germans" several times without this being better defined. As far as what Germans think -- pleas find references on that. I've lived in Germany 20 years and I have not encountered this ethnic definition. We cannot have a tiny group of neo-nazis redefine what it means to be German, the way a great majority in parliament, representing the great majority of German voters, have decided that it should be defined. --Johanneswilm (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that the German parliament has made any laws about how German ethnicity is defined - they are defining how citizenship is defined. Ethnicity is not something that is embedded in legislation it is embedded in public discourses about the meaning of belonging and identity. I am not saying anything about what Germans think I am asking you to recognize that in the German public sphere there are different discourses about ethnicity and about citizenship and that the idea of ethnicity as distinct from citizenship is supported by several sources - how could there be minorities identifying as "ethnic germans" outside of Germany if that was not the case?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We could then also ask Dansk Folkeparti and Dansk National Front to define what it means to be Dane for us. We should not just let the most far-right wing people define the term, when parlament, representing the majority, has decided upon other criteria. --Johanneswilm (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You are choosing an example that contradicts your idea - to be given Danish citizenship is in fact contingent upon showing the will to assimilate to the Danish ethnic identity (unfortunately). In Denmark there clearly is a distinct ethno-nationalist discourse that is defining both the cultural and legal criteria of what it means to be a Dane. Citizen of non-Danish ethnicity are always referred to as having a "different ethnic-background" in the Danish media and public discourse. This is not just because of the DF nationalism but because of a concept of Danish ethnicity that began to be built from the early 19th century and forward and which is still strong in all spheres and political arenas of the Danish public discourse. There isn't a single political party in Denmark that would disagree that there is a Danish identity that is independent of nationality. I suspect that in Germany the ethnic discourse is quite a bit less pronounced. But I know that in Norway and Sweden it is similar.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I had my Danish citizenship made permanent by writing a letter to a Danish minister of something or other and handing it in in the embassy in Flensburg. No checks were made as to whether I was actually feeling Danish or any such thing. Also, I have looked at some of the Danish test questions presented to migrants and I very much doubt that they in any shape or form represent the main interests and areas of knowledge of Danes. also, all the times I've been in the Norwegian media, no-one calls me as having a "different ethnic background" nor are my citizenships mentioned. When a brown person is mentioned, that is much more likely the case although the wording isn't as wacko as the Danish media may be at times. Nevertheless, I cannot really see how classifying about "ethnic X" in practical rather than legal terms, in almost all cases is making a distinction based on skincolor.

As for the concept of what it means to be X -- it is very much defined by what is written on Wikipedia. People go here and look it up. If it says here that Austrians are basically Germans, then the majority of the world population will see them as such.

One way to solve this though is to write separate articles on Danish ethnicity and German ethnicity and then to clearly state at the top of those that the governments of both countries don't recognize such a group, and well-referenced with opinion poll data on how many percent of those residing in Denmark define Danish as such, and how many as such. Until we have that, it's just your interpretation against mine and we're really going no-where. I can then also interview a crazy lady on the street who claims that Danes are really shape-shifting elephants in human form and include that as a just as valid definition of Danes. --Johanneswilm (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the best solution is to have different articles on "ethnicity" and on "people" while of cross crossreferencing them. The fact that you could get your danish citizenship made permanent that easy is in itself a sign that there is a notion of danish ethnicity that can be separate from citizenship (I assume you were counted as part of the danish minority south of the border (otherwise it must have been in a time before the current government took over the citizenship process)). I agree that the questions do not represent the danish people's general knowledge or feeling of danishness, but they represent a certain construction of danish ethnicity - in this case influenced by national romantic ideas from the 19th centiury and certain recent political trends. It is definitely an ideology of ethnicity, as being the basis of citizenship, not the other way round. Whether the ideology corresponds to relaity is less important. You also talk to me as if I don't have sources that there is a distinct tradition of discourse about german ethnicity - I presented two above, about whoich you claimed to be familiar. They clealry support the idea of a historically situated discourse of german ethnicity as distinct and foundational for the german nation and therefor of the idea of citizenship. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I was from the Danish minority, the main factor in this case in why I could keep Danish citizenship (as someone born with it, you lose it if you don't live in Denmark before the age of 21 for a year or so) is very basic ethnic profiling. The ambassador saw me, I look white, and so that was good enough. While most know it, nobody dares say it aloud: being an ethnic Dane is reality being a white person who speaks Danish with no noticeable accent. Whether he grew up in Sweden and whether all his family is from there does in reality not matter. As for your sources: they are secondary and interpreting events. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the accent is probably more important than looks, but that is, admittedly, speculation. Also religion has become a factor lately - even a snowwhite muslim born in Skagen would have a hard time convincing some people of his Danishness. About sources: Wikipedia is based on secondary and tertiary sources - not primary.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the references on this? Surely, if I made a blog-post about Danish ethnicity what that is, then that wouldn't be a valid reference. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No blog posts of course aren't valid sources, and my thoughts on danish ethnicity here weren't meant to argue for inclusion of anything particular in the article on danish or german ethnicity - as I signaled by including that this is indeed speculation on my behalf based on anecdotal evidence (just like your speculation that blackness is a factor in getting danish citizenship). But the two sources about german ethnicity that I gave above were published in peer reviewed journals.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche is not direct translation nor does it mean :ethnic Germans-it's even in the text if somebody would bother to read it before editing

It is a very wide term, and also covers people who were forced to enlist to a very specific group. It doesn't even mean ethnic German, it is even explained within the text.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to this_article, which is linked in the text, it is the dictionary definition of it. Additionally, throughout the text of that article, the terms "ethnic Germans" and "Volksdeutsche" are used interchangeably.--Johanneswilm (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No such thing in the linked article-in fact quite otherwise. Stop pushing Original Research here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche vs. Reichsdeutsche

The definitions at the beginning seem a big vague -- if Volksdeutsche are in some way supposed "ethnic Germans" living outside of Germany, and Reichsdeutsche are German citizens, what are people who are "ethnically German", who live in Germany but don't have German citizenship? What are people with German citizenship who reside abroad? Does a Volksdeutscher lose his volksdeutschisness by obtaining German citizenship?

Plagiarism

I just checked out the Bergen article. The sentence For Hitler and other Germans of his time, the term "Volksdeutsche" also carried overtones of blood and race not captured in the common English translation 'ethnic Germans'. appears just about word for word in that article, right at the start. It says:

Hitler himself supposedly coined the definition of 'Volksdeutsche' that appeared in a 1938 memorandom of the German Reich Chancellery. The Volksdeutsche, that document rather blandly explained, were people whose 'language and culture had German origins' but who did not hold German citizenship'. But for Hitler and other Germans of the 1930s and 1940s, the term Volksdeutsche also carried overtones of blood and race not captured in the English translation 'ethnic Germans'.[7]

Although there is a reference to that article, it is not marked that the text is directly copied. Additionally the definition has been twisted in a way that makes it sound as if there are other English translations of "Ethnic Germans". Thirdly, the definition the Nazis apparently employed officially, is apparently the same that also people who now talk about "ethnic Germans" employ. This is however left out, and instead a reference is employed that comes out of the author's own interpretation of events and views and which isn't referenced. The original text also assumes/believes what some (all?) Germans of the 1930-1940s understood by the term, but not what they understand by it now. In other words -- it is not clear that there is any difference between the two now. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The plagiarism goes on. In WP it says According to German estimates in the 1930s, about 30 million Volksdeutsche and Auslandsdeutsche (= German citizens residing abroad, see McKale 1977: The Swastika Outside Germany, p. 4) were living outside the Reich. A significant proportion of them were in eastern Europe: Russia, Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states, and Romania, Hungary and Yugoslavia, where many were located in villages along the Danube. in the original it says According to German experts in the 1930s, about thirty million Volksdeutsche were living outside the Reich, a significant proportion of them in eastern Europe -- Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Romania. Again -- plagiarism, but with the text adjusted for someone's personal opinions. I don't have the time to go through the entire article and find all text passages, but this is a major problem and puts into doubt the validity of the entire article. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic German in German language is ethnisch Deutsch, not Volksdeutsch. If you are unhappy with phrasing, feel free to change, however the claim that Volksdeutsche are the same phrase as "Ethnic Germans" is completely false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that "ethnisch deutscher" is the German translation of "ethnic German". That is a whole different debate, and I haven't considered that and it doesn't apply here. I am saying that "ethnic German" is the English translation of "Volksdeutsche". That is in fact also what that source says that you originally claimed was the proof that ethnic Germans is not the same as Volksdeutsch. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And Kulturkampf means Cultural Combat or Cultural Struggle but is not translated this way. Some German loanwords are not translated if they mean something specific in English that the translation would misinterpret. The same with Volksdeutsche.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a serious problem, everything plagiarized should be removed on sight. Mymoloboaccount, please collaborate in the effoprt to remove the plagiarized content. Otherwise sanctions may be necessary. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Manus-I did not put this into the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry! My bad.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The offender seems to be Pseudo-Richard who contributed that here. He did include a reference as to where the information generally came from, but "forgot" to put quotation marks around the sentences that were directly copied, and he made small but significant changes to them that changed the meaning of them quite significantly. He has also contributed numerous other things to this article. --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now put quotation marks around the two sentences I found and made it clear where they come from. I am not sure whether this is permissible according to WP guidelines, but at least it's not plagiarism any more. I thought that way Mymoloboaccount can work on fixing it properly. Someone would likely spend a few days going through this article and check all the sources that are referenced directly and possible some more articles on the subject to really clean this out. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for that. --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that way Mymoloboaccount can work on fixing it properl-I think you are confusing me with somebody else-I did not enter this information into the article. I can fix it, but don't try to portay me as responsible for this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if this isn't fixed, there is no longer anything that claims that the English translation of Volksdeutsche is not "Ethnic Germans". Right now the entire argument is based on a historian's personal opinion -- which goes contrary to the references she presents -- writing in 1994, 50-60 years after the fact. Additionally, she herself uses the terms interchangeably within that same article and confirms that the official translation fo the term is "Ethnic Germans". If it is determined that there is no difference between the two, then either Imperial Germans should be moved to Reichsdeutsche or this article should be moved to Ethnic Germans outside of Germany or some such thing. --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No.This is a very specific and historic term applied by English scholarship regarding Nazi period in Europe and the valid term is Volksdeutsche-used in countless scholary sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what you claim, but the article that is referenced and that you rely upon for your whole argument so far claims quite the opposite -- that the term indeed is directly translatable to "Ethnic Germans". Other sources (the one I found for example) make it clearer that "Ethnic Germans" are "deutschstaemmige" and Volksdeutsche "Ethnic Germans" without German citizenship (not the same as not residing in Germany). Please find references that explain that Ethnic Germans are something else than Volksdeutsche. --Johanneswilm (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That is what scholarly sources are saying. And Blitzkrieg is directly translated into Lightining War or Kulturkampf to Cultural Combat-you miss the point that this is a German loanword used in countless publications and that has specific meaning and is not directly translated just like Kulturkampf or Blitzkrieg. As to finding sources that debate your theories made up on the spot-that is not how wikipedia works-again read Original Research. Anyway-you simply don't understand what this article is about I am afraid.For instance the term "ethnic German" certainly is not an insult in Poland as you edited in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is used in countless publications then it shouldn't be a problem citing one. Again -- the only one you have so far states that Ethnic Germans = Volksdeutsche and uses it that way throughout the text. I am now convinced that there is a difference, as Volksdeutsche are ethnic Germans without German citizenship (no matter where they live) according to Nazi definitions -- the source that you use does however not say that. Please go and read it. I don't know what theory I make up "on the spot" or how any of this is original research. It says it all quite plainly described in the texts that are cited here and in the article. As far as your next insult -- that I'm looking for sources that say that my claims are true. I don't see anything wrong in that, but reality is that that was actually not what happened. I went out to research Volksdeutsche in Weimar Republic, as your changes removed all references to the Weimar Republic, which had been with the article for quite some time. It was suggested, according to that, that the Weimar Republic employed a kind of "soft" definition of Volksdeutsche. Instead I found sources that talked about how the concept of Volksdeutsche was used in some famous essay in 1930, and that the term was used for various things, quite publicly already in the early 1930s. Secondly, the source talked about how Auslandsdeutsche was a term in active use by the Weimar Republic. All I did with that was to remove the adjective "modern" in front of "Auslandsdeutsche" as the term obviously is not more modern than "Volksdeutsche", and if it meant to say modern Auslandsdeutsche instead of old-school Auslandsdeutsche then it also makes no sense, as the source describes quite clearly how the exchange of Auslandsdeutsche with Volksdeutsche had implications in the understanding of who exactly was German: only those with German passport or also those "ethnically German". In that sense "Auslandsdeutsche" still means the same as it did in the Weimar Republic -- German citizens outside of Germany. Btw, please stop the insults. I'm sure it is against some Wikipedia policy, which I'll take the time to find if you don't stop. --Johanneswilm (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Weimar Republic

If Hitler coined the term "Volksdeutsche" in 1938, and we are not to understand Volksdeutsche as the same as "Ethnic Germans" (which apparently was used as a category before that year), then how can "Volksdeutsche" have been used in the Weimar Republic? I see the sections on the Weimar Republic have now been removed. Was that material all false/made up? --Johanneswilm (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking through what I get access to through the free Google Books preview, it seems the term really was used in the early 1930s as well, and some RV Broeker wrote a text entitled "Der Volksdeutsche fremder Staatsangehörigkeit" in 1930[8]. You can see that there was also a magazine with the title "Der Volksdeutsche" for Germans living abroad. That historian from whom we plagiarized, seems to not have looked at all the sources. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking the same source, the sentence "The term also contrasts with the modern term Auslandsdeutsche (Germans abroad), which generally denotes German citizens residing in other countries." is also at best misleading. Auslandsdeutsche was apparently the term used by the Weimar Republic, so how can it be more "modern" than "Volksdeutsche"? --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC) See WP:OR which is what you are doing, and which is not permitted on wiki.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Someone added the adjective "modern" to "Auslandsdeutsche". That must have been based on some unspecified WP:OR or just the assumption that the term Auslandsdeutsche was invented later. Please justify the usage of the adjective "modern" for "Auslandsdeutsche" if Auslandsdeutsche is the older term. The relationship between the words is stated quite directly in the source given above, that's not based on my research. It's just that the absence of an adjective (in this case "modern") isn't usually referenced on Wikipedia. --Johanneswilm (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this:

1933 weist das Stich- und Schlagwortverzeichnis 1926-1930 des "Deutschen Bücherverzeichnisses" erstmals das Stichwort Voksdeutsche auf. Es bezieht sich eine 1930 erschienene Arbeit von R.V.Boer: "Der Volkdeutsche fremder Staatsangehörigkeit im Reiche". 1934 heißt es in "Knaurs Konversationslexikon A-Z" unter dem Stichwort "Deutschtum im Ausland": 'Allgemein: die deutschsprachige, deutschkulturelle und deutschbewußte Bevölkerung nichtdeutscher Staaten. 1) Reichsdeutsceh mit Wohnsitz im Ausland; 2) Reichsdeutsche und Deutschösterreicher, die durch die Friedenstraktate fremde Staatsangehörige geworden sind; 3) in mehr oder minder geschlossenen deutschen Sprachgebieten lebende Volksdeutsche. [...]" Die Ausgabe von 1932 hatte im sonst gleichlautenden Satz noch den Ausdruck Auslandsdeutsche. W.Linden bemerkt in der "Deutschen Wortgeschichte": "Die Verhältnisse des Deutschtums im Auslande erhalten immer schärfere Begriffsprägung: dem älteren Auslandsdeutschtum, Auslandsdeutscher, stellt sich Grenzdeutschtum, Grenzdeutscher zur Seite. 1936 erfolgt die schärfere Unterscheidung gegenüber volksdeutsch, Volksdeutschtum (für den Deutschblütigen fremder Staatsangehörigkeit, auslandsdeutsch für den Reichsdeutschen im Auslande)."

So with that I will add that there is a conceptual difference between Auslandsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche since 1936. How Hitler can have coined the definition of the term two years later is a mystery to me.

References

ethnic Germans

This article should be about ethnic Germans, not about Nazi-history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.35.148 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a separate Ethnic Germans article for that. If anything, this article should focus a little bit more on the history of this term and of its conception. German nationalism, particularly as leading to Nazism, is an integral part of this story. Feketekave (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Germans used to live in Central and Eastern Europe for about 700 years. Hitler`s regime lasted 12 years. Why such a fuss about an expression that is difficult to translate.--Ophelia1712 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again regarding the title

Volksdeutsche is a specific historical term-like Blitzkrieg, Kulturkampf or Ostsiedlung. We do not translate it as it has its own unique meaning. It is very widely used in historical research. If somebody argues that it should be moved he has to make request to move. But such request would be flawed anyway, as it is a existing historic definition.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A re-direct for the word "Ethnic Germans" should be made to forward a reader to this article even though this article covers others, as well; and it describes the events and actions around this particular German term. If there ever is consensus to move and re-name the article, then so be it. But, in reading the "Talk" page, it is clear that has not occurred. BTW-The article does need additional citation work and some clean up as to English language spelling and grammar. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: Now, that a separate article entitled, "Ethnic Germans" is in place, there is no need for the re-direct as mentioned above; and the quest of other editors to rename this article should be moot. Kierzek (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. I also think that a link or expansion in the article to the German concept of Volk might give some clarification. The German concept of Volk also lacks a good translation into English (the current redirect to the Folk article is disputable imo), but it can best be seen as translating to Nation. Volksdeutsche in this sense means a member of the German cultural nation, which in turn is defined mainly by speaking one of the German languages. The term can also be found in the full name of the Medieval HRE: "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (the "First Reich"). It's all not something that was suddenly made up by the Nazi's. Wiki1609 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@Wikil609... is there a wide usage of the word "Volksdeutsche" prior to the Nazi era, either during the time of the HRE or afterwards? The Nazis may not have invented the term but they might have given it a different spin in order to further their agenda. We should look for significant uses of the term and contrast the usage prior to the Nazi era to that during the Nazi era. It is no accident that Hitler referred to the Third Reich as an attempt to restore the glory of the Holy Roman Empire (the First Reich) and that he promoted the irredentist vision of reuniting all German peoples (Volksdeutsche) in the Heimat of the restored Third Reich.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This superfluous dicussion is the attempt to reduce Germans`long history in those areas to the time of the Nazis.--Ophelia1712 (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ophelia1712 - No, it's not. The point is to focus on the use of the term "Volksdeutsche" by the Nazis as I explained in my response to Wikil609 immediately above. The place to provide a detailed history of ethnic Germans outside the boundaries of Germany is in the article Ethnic German. If there is significant use of the term prior to the Nazi era, please be bold and feel free to expand the text of this article accordingly. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does Talk:Ethnic Germans redirect here?

There's a difference, as you know... -- megA (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

deletion

I'm going to propose that this article be considered for deletion. The distinction between this article and the one simply on "Germans" is fuzzy at best, as the latter article has wavered among different definitions of Germanness: First, it was essentially an article about ethnic Germans; then there was one user who tried to make the article solely about citizens of the German state; currently it jumps confusingly among different definitions. I think the article on "Germans" ought to be about ethnic Germans, and the article on "ethnic Germans" ought itself to be deleted, with important content being shifted to the "Germans" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.6.151 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead needs to clearly include non-Germanic "Volksdeutsche"

It takes this article way too much time to finally say - or actually just imply - that many Volksdeutsche were not even Germans by ethnicity NOR origin. Why is that? It should be stated in the beginning.
Volksdeutsche were people presumed German by the nazis - and those presumptions were often based on pseudoscience or just propaganda. Certain non-German ethnic groups were considered "ethnic Germans" by the nazis (and the nazis only), despite being Slavs or Balts (they didn't even need to be germanized, an example would be Gorals who were not Germans, didn't speak German, yet were "presumed German" by the nazis and encouraged to sign up as Volksdeutche). This information, in my opinion, should be included in the beginning of the article: that being considered Volksdeutche by the nazis didn't really mean an actual ethnic German origin (not to mention identity). I feel it is very important to clearly state this in the lead, in order not to erase the experiences of those ethnic groups who were forced into a foreign identity and often drafted to the German army, and whose true origins and identities were sometimes ignored once again when they were treated as Germans by the communists.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AUSTRIA In the articles it says that 79% of Austrians considered themselves a different nation from Germans in 1990, up from just 47% in 1966...Not that "over 90%" as the "Alpine" section says. After the Reunification of Germany in 1990, and taking into account the increasing economic and social German-Austrian relationship (merger in fact) thanks to the Euro and Schengen, now the percentage of Austrians who support Reunification with Germany in a common Deutsche Land is over 60%. The occupation powers which promoted the "Austrian" identity as un-German or anti-German with their politically biased media, are now receding. In fact, Austria is already "de facto" the 17th land of Deutschland, and only rests a political decission to recognise the actual situation.--95.120.205.218 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Able to source these claims? Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Germans also emigrated to South Africa during the 1850's and 1860's, and settled in the Eastern Cape area around Stutterheim, and in Kwazulu-Natal in the Wartburg area, where there is still a large German-speaking community.[citation needed]

Herewith citations: http://www.safrika.org/deusa_en.html; http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=25880; http://www.safrika.org/schiff_en.html 41.220.172.117 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)--41.220.172.117 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummm...

What is this about [9]? Volunteer Marek 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. They are two separate articles... Peacemaker67 (send… over) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a very weird situation occurring, which I misread. Talk:Ethnic Germans redirected here, and I had thought, stupidly, that because of some kind of page move the talk page and the article did not align. Instead, it seems, someone screwed up the talk page for Ethnic Germans, and made it so that article stole redirects from this one. I shall get in the process of fixing that…I apologize for not having found this article. It was hidden. RGloucester (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone also redirected Volksdeutsch to Ethnic Germans…RGloucester (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Outdated historiography

A lot of the sources referenced within this article are outdated. A lot of new information has come to light recently and which is portrayed within recent historiography, especlly regarding Danzig-West Prussia and Wartheland. This means some of the information that has been written in this article is not entirely true, or at least does not depict the whole story.Kerr97 (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kerr97: The article relies mainly on sources written in the 1990s and 2000s so there's plenty of scope to include newer scholarship. Would you be able to suggest some sources, perhaps create a 'further reading' section as a useful next step? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Yes of course, I will do this as soon as possible. Kerr97 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)