text:
Talk:Federation of Expellees

Human rights and compensation claims
Following should be moved to talk: "They insist that Poland and the Czech Republic must respect the human rights and compensate the victims of the war crimes of the Red Army to be allowed to become part of Europe."

I have 2 problems:
 * 1) Poland and Czech Republic obviously respect human rights, no doubts.
 * 2) Why Poland and Czech Republic should compensate victims of Red Army. Doesn't make any sense.
 * Compensations for human-rights violations in the 1940's lay on the Nazis and Soviets. Compensations for some (not all) territory annexed should still be perhaps considered (Poles lost territory in too 1939 in their east (Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania were part of Poland), so they likewise could have the same recourse).  Nonprof. Frinkus 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody claims, what is written in the sentence. Seaman 09:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nico, the source of those claims? Cautious 10:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The head of the federation of expellees has sharply distanced herself from compensation claims.

If you can, clean up these stubs and figure out where they should go...right now they're eiter out of place or confusingly written

 * See Silent Ethnic Cleansing for a description of the modern political...

 * The Volksdeutschen had lived in lands, that were once part of the Holy Roman Empire of Germany. They came from lands, which at times were ruled by German or Holy Roman Empire connected rulers, were given German Rights as German settlers. In the case of Bohemia-Germans, they lived in a land for 1200 years part of the Holy Roman Empire and in earlier years German lands.

 * The Bohemia-Germans (later known as Sudeten-Germans) and the people of parts of Silesia, Posen-West Prussia, formerly German citizens had since 1919 lived in a newly created "Polish Corridor" and millions were already chased out by brutal suppression from Polish and Czech Slavs between 1919 and 1939.

This really needs a reference; the passive voice is sketchy:

 * The figure of lost lives is estimated at a minimum 2 1/2 million Germans. Several calculations show millions more.)

 * Please, can give you to me any example of brutal suppression of Germans by Czechs post 1919 ? Righs of German minority was far superior to Czechs/Slovaks under AH empire, and not talking about common Germans after 1933 in Germany.
 * And number 2,5 miloins lost Germans lives come from ? Its the same soucre who says over 200 000 SG lost his lives after 1945 ? And is proof these causalties include lost lives in Ostfront ? Historicans claims "only" cca 20 000 SG lost lives during explusion to all cases (murder, suicide, age, diesase etc.)

Why the should this be in talk? Isnt this history?

 * Because it shouldn't be in this entry. --TheCunctator

Didn't want to edit Heimatvertriebene while you were, but it's exactly the same as her Expellees article, which I redirected to Diaspora Studies and gave it its own section called The Plight of the... JHK

Why am I redirecting this (or trying to)?

 * 1) This article (in different forms) appears in several other places under different titles.

 * 1) In an attempt to place this information in this article in the appropriate historical context, I included a version (edited only for grammatical errors and rearranged into chronological order) into the article on Diaspora Studies and redirected the original Expellees and Heimatvertriebene article to that page.

 * 1) Heimatvertriebene (the -en ending reflects a non-nominative case ending and is incorrect) should be the German article of the title -- if we must use it at all. The term is one loaded with political meaning in German, and is ONLY used in the case of this particular group of people.  Otherwise, every other group of people driven from their homes, whether as part of an act of genocide/ethnic cleansing or not, are referred to as simply "refugees," i.e., these people may have been fleeing something, but they weren't driven from their HOMELAND...

 * 1) Granting this subject its own article validates the very dubious theory that the lands where these so-called ethnic Germans lived in some way belonged (and, to follow recent postings, morally still belong) to Germany because they have always been inhabited by Germans. The evidence posted thereto has no foundation in accepted historical method and is often downright incorrect.

That's why I think it should be redirected -- although recent edits should probably be incorporated into the Diaspora studies article.

I tried to explain this yesterday (see above) and also to post on the Heimatvertriebenen/Talk page, but the system said that page didn't exist, so I'm posting here...JHK

Sorry to annoy you. Perhaps you should take a look at the background, especially the Wilhelm Gustloff/Talk page, before you judge too harshly. Had you noticed it at the time, you would have seen in my posting comment that the Diaspora article was thrown together quickly and that I threw it open to the world for editing. It was a genuine attempt to take what appeared to be valid historical information and put it in a place more appropriate, rather than just editing out what were a series of "all these places were taken from the Germans" entries. Also, I did try to contact you about the redirects and what I think is pretty much pointless editing by posting on your page when I saw you were working on this stuff. If you disagree after reading my comments on the talk pages concerned, then please tell me where you disagree. There's really no getting away from the fact that the subject as introduced to the wikipedia is very loaded and has been reduced to irrelevency. I really liked some of your edits, but think they might do better in other places. JHK

Please note that Rolf-Josef Eibicht can be found on the Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus website. This is a web site devoted to profiling right-wing extremists in (mostly) Germany and Austria. As far as I can tell, Eibicht balances on the edge of legality (in Germany -- American free speech laws are more liberal). His works are published by a publisher that specializes in far-right extremist political tracts. I think that it is really not a good idea to base articles on such sources... oh -- heres's the link  http://www.idgr.de/lexikon/bio/e/eibicht-rj/eibicht.html  JHK

JHK -- It's not based on Eibicht; I merely included his quotation and noted that he is an extremist. He was not the source of the information in the article. It's some user:H.J. assertions but mostly stuff I could confirm elsewhere; thus the large Charta section, which is a nice happily historical document. --TheCunctator
 * I saw that -- you just put nationalist, and I thought it was a continuation of the earlier stuff. I still think that it needs more pointing out, i.e., that this is a view that has been coopted by the right wing...JHK

Definitely. Fuller entries on Eibicht and modern right-wing German nationalism would help provide more context. I think Heimatvertriebene is why I spent so much time trying to contruct accurate nationalism articles, so it's clear what one is getting into. --TheCunctator

I would very much like to see a reference for this (that is, which candidate?):

The current Bundesregierung declared, that they are not aware of the speech by then US Presidential Candidate to the German/American? Institute, where he strongly condemned the ethnic cleansings and especially pointed to the 15 to 16 million Germans, mostly women and children, expelled from Eastern Europe.

Also, this is another typically unconnected statement. I'd also like more clarification on people taking things into their own hands -- in what way? Who? since it is right above the stuff on the right wing, are we talking about them?

In general, the new additions aren't very well-thought out. There is a definite implication here that the CDU are the good guys and the SPD the bad guys -- not very NPOV. Also, we need a better translation for Heimatvertriebene if we are to let this article remain -- the translation is literally "the driven from their homeland ones" -- the political meaning is one of Germans driven from their homes -- and nowhere does the article deal with the intricacies of the situation -- like the fact that many of the Heimatvertriebene lost their homes/homeland because previous German governments had placed their ancestors there as colonists in newly acquired lands...JHK -- To JHK 1.)Pres. candidate, see : http://www.csu.de/DieThemen/Positionen_A-Z/Innenpolitik/subpage466958.htm Hartmut Koschyk :Bundesregierung weiss, dass sie nichts weis. In other parts it shows ,that the SPD current government cut funds almost in half for upkeep of Cultural treasures/studies of Vertriebene, which is in the laws called : "Bundesvertriebenengesetz".

 * Please don't ask people to go dig information out of web sites -- the correct answer is George W Bush, and where he gave the speech and in what context. By the way, the web site actually edits out part of the quote, so it's hard to tell exactly what he said, but clear he was talking about the Heimatvertriebene.

2.)people "taking matters into their own hands", is a phrase , that whenever someone does not do their job (a boss-the emploees, leader- general public)start doing, writing, handling whatever , individually.

 * Thank you for explaining English -- but that is not exactly what it means. The way you have used it, it can imply vigilantism or other extremist illegal action -- is this what you are saying?  if you are, it might be wise to re-characterize it, because one can easily infer that you think this kind of action is ok

3.) Heimatvertriebene - that word says everything. Translation: homeland expellees ? Vertriebene is more that just expelled, more like hounded out by brutal military and civilian forces.

4.) "They did not lose homes or homeland/ because previous German governments had placed their ancestors there as colonists in newly aquired lands. " They had lived in land that was either native homeland of Germany/Germania, or in South- Eastern Europe they were brought in by the rulers of those lands, which where part of or connected to the Holy Roman Empire(by contract or marriage). Others were forcibly sent to Siberia where they had to build cities, rockets and mines for the Soviet Union . They lost homes or lives ,because of 'Panslavism' , ethnic and communist movements. They lost homes and lives,because they fought against communist take-over of Europe and lost.

 * I'm sorry, user:H.J., but you have just done the very thing that tends to make people question your writing. You have (deliberately?) taken something I said above and re-stated it out of context to argue against something I DIDN'T say, rather than addressing something I DID say.  What I SAID  was that the article did not take into account the intricacies of the situation.  My example is the fact that MANY (not all, please note) of the Germans who became Heimatvertriebene came from colonization movements by previous MODERN (after around 1750) German governments -- particularly the 2nd and 3rd Reichs.  This is provable fact.  It doesn't negate the fact that these people were themselves perfectly innocent.  It just shows that the wars and treaties of the past can still affect people today.

5.) I found the website with R. Eibicht text : http://www.dingolfing.org/members/mies-pilsen/sudeten.htm another website: http://www.csu.de/DieThemen/Positionen_A-Z/Innenpolitik/1Heimatvertriebene.htm
 * Doesn't it make you just a little ill to know that you are using the words of a right-wing extremist who is known to have a following among neo-Nazis to support your position?

-- To JHK To 2. and 5.) I do not condone any vigilantism or illegal activity. I merely explained, that that could happen, when a people such as Vertriebene have been disregarded ignored or worse in English speaking countries , became a none-event (The "Vertreibung" has not been acknowledged , "it never happened ") I have never met, talked to or even heard of Ralf Eibicht until someone posted this on wiki- Heimatvertriebene. I think , that it should not even be on this page. But since someone posted it, I did find the complete text on altavista and I posted this .It seems obvious , that he is from Sudetenland, which was 'given' to Tchechoslowakia after 1918 . On your socalled "modern Colonization movements of German governments after 1750' , you may want to read the 'Russian" governments invitations to come and build up their lands. Apparently after they buit it up , they were no longer needed. There are 5 mill "Germans from Russia" in the USA alone, whose ancestors left Russia after 1830/60, when Russians took over and wanted to force people to speak Russian only and take away the rights, that were promised to those Germans in Russia earlier.

They were not colonization movements of German governments. But since you said that, does that mean, that you believe that colonists, have no rights and can any time be forcibly expelled ?

user:H.J.

 * If you don't support vigilantism, perhaps you could add more information about people who actually have taken the law into their own hands (fact), or re-write to something less incendiary, like "The resulting frustration on the part of survivors and their families had led to many grass-roots efforts for recognition"

 * They are not so-called. Both the German Empire and the Third Reich settled colonists in territories they acquired through warfare.  In fact, Hitler replaced many of the Poles he sent to labor camps with loyal Germans, specifically in order to help keep a firm grasp on Poland.  I agree that there were many instances where Germans went elsewhere at the invitation of foreign governments; however, whenever you have spoken about the Heimatvertriebene, you have placed emphasis on the events immediately after the second world war -- I hardly see how ethnic Germans leaving Russia in the 1860s has anything to do with events 100 years later.

"After 1750 - those are people brought in by Catherine the Great and later; Wolga-Germans, etc." "They were not colonization movements of German governments. But since you said that, does that mean, that you believe that colonists, have no rights and can any time be forcibly expelled ?"

To that question, your answer:
 * For the last part, I challenge anyone on this site to show where I have ever implied that I support any kind of genocide or other atrocity. I am simply asking that this article be more than a furtherance of one political agenda.  At present, it does not present a complete picture, and is therefore not a very good article.  JHK

--- The whole subject is irrational. Anyone connected to this event cannot be totally rational.

Now you, unconnected you, YOU even posting irrational challenges.

I do think, your statement is really good, lets put that in: (For me I see too much red, to come up with such a simple explanation) "The resulting frustration on the part of survivors and their families had led to many grass-roots efforts for recognition"'' user:H.J.

 * Thanks. I think that perhaps that's a lot of the problem here.  We all know that this subject is personally close to you, and its inherent injustice doesn't always allow you to look at the longer-term picture.  Those of us not personally affected are more likely to be objective.  You are right in that the Volga-Germans are modern -- but my impression from everything you've written is that most of the Heimatvertriebene were people settled in areas other than Russia -- specifically in parts of the Baltic and/or present day Poland that have been in dispute between "Polish" and "German" governments over several centuries.  Moreover, you've always made it sound like something that happened after WWII and directly linked to Communist takeover -- so the emigration (or exile) of ethnic Germans from Russia in the 1860s doesn't seem connected.  It's only recently that you've mentioned Pan-Slavism as a driving force.

 * <As for the rest, I only offered the challenge in response to your final question -- of course I don't believe that! As a historian, though, I do believe that we have an obligation to point out even the things that don't fit in with our theories.  Even if the reaction was totally unjust and qualifies as an atrocity, it makes sense to mention German governmental colonization and also the fact that (perhaps -- I don't KNOW this, but think it likely from what I do know of the end of WWII) some of the Heimatvertriebene situation occorred and was possibly even tolerated by the winners of the war as a gut reaction to the Holocaust.  It doesn't make it right, but we have seen all too many cases where innocent people are punished for sometimes centuries of their governments actions.  To understand why things happen, we have to present all the facts.''  JHK

-

Ethnic German Mennonites, a particularly innocent pacifist sect, living in the Ukraine and Russia, mostly in the Volga and Dneipr basins, were scattered by Stalin to the far North and other areas where they mostly just died. They were also targetted to some degree during Lenin's and Stalin's purges in the Ukraine, as they were often somewhat better off 'kulaks' (middle class peasants with education, cows, etc.). Hitler used them as part of his excuse to invade the Ukraine, but ethnic Ukranians were the ones who welcome him. Those of German descent had actually fled Germany to escape conscription by Frederick the Great.

Very few survived, so there are few stories told of these people today. What I want to know is, are they considered part of this same movement, or another? I think they must be mentioned somewhere.

It seems appropriate to do that here since they were incorporated into the German Empire (Third Reich) at its greatest extent (only) into South Russia and Ukraine.

I added a sentence about the new friendships between old and new inhabitants of these regions, because these articles make the reader overestimate influence of Heimatvertriebenen-organizations and their way of thinking. Today relations between Germany and Poland (even between the former inhabitants and people who live there nowadays) are very relaxed. There always is a small extremist group with a loud voice but they are not to be taken seriously.

Where does
 * "due to being bombarded, refugee boats and ships being torpedoed"

come from? --Ann O'nyme 04:38, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * bombarded probably refers to strategic bombing campaigns such as the firebombing of Dresden and the idea that the British attacked columns of refugees to interfer with German troop movement to the Russian front (which I don't know if it actually happened), possibly to Russian attacks, I don't know

refugee boats refers to several attacks on ships that contained mostly refugees but also German soldiers, making them valid military targets, such as the Wilhelm Gustloff Rmhermen 15:57, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Bombing of Dresden (and other cities) is out-topic.
 * Refugees moved at the very end of the war or after. War actions during that time didn't sound like a explanation for ~2 millions deads.
 * --Ann O'nyme 07:58, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Shoudn't this article be merge w/ German expulsion after World War II? --Ann O'nyme 04:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * It could be merged but their is no real need to. We often have separate articles on peoples and the places they live so separate articles on a group of people and a historical event is not so strange. It would be a little strange to discuss the current political dealings of this group in a historical article on World War II. These pages were set up during a conflict with a now departed user and represent compromises from that time. Do you have a strong reason to merge them? Rmhermen 15:41, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Mostly a matter of consistency. --Ann O'nyme 07:17, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it should be merged, FWIW. Martin 21:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

162.70.233.18
 * There are 3 kinds of lies, that usually are reapeated about the problem.
 * 1.Insisting that all number 15 000 000 of people left after the war in the period of 1945-1950. It is a lie, since most of Germans left before Red Army captured the territories, in hope to avoid rapes and massacres, Red Army used to commit. In case of Poland, most Germans left during the war, in evacuation organised by Nazis. 2 200 000 were expelled after the war by Polish authorities, and a large number left volountarily after 1950, when they only had a chance to get out of comunism.
 * 2.The second lie is that there were 3 000 000 Germans, that died after the war. Most of the victims were actually killed during the war. Except the private revange of few Polish Jews, like Salomon Morel, commander of the camp for Volksdeutche in Swietochlowice, Polish government did not want to kill Germans. Of course, there were criminal bands, and the life was very cheap in Poland after the WW2. Put number more realistically and based on sources and I would agree with you.
 * 3. Minor question of citizenship. All Germans, that were expelled after the war, became German cititens during the war. If zou try to reason otherwise, please provide facts.

Maximus Rex v. AM (was GH)
1. The user Maximus had deleted my comments about his behaviour.

2. Is a person that reverts changes without critical discussion. For example, why the clarification in the German expulsion after World War II

"Some groups claim that over 15 million Germans were forced to relocate and an estimated 1.8 to 3 million died during the trek. These numbers are not well established as little research has been done on this subject. At least some of these persons fled voluntarily, rather than being expelled by any government." My clarification: However, those numbers include the evacuation during the WWII and are not related to expulsions that happenned after WWII.

is biased? Most of Germans, that died during the evacuation, did died during WWII, and there is plenty of historical evidence.

Ans it is obvious that expulsions where related to the citizenship. Ethnic Germans were forced to take German citizenship during the war. Those who opposed, were sent to concentration camp.

However, those who opposed and survived, were not expelled. Plaese give an example of somebody, that was not Volksdeutch and was expelled?

162.70.233.18 aka AM

145.254.xxx aka 162.70.233.18 aka AM

Is a Polish nationalist adding some biased information and general historic revisionism on articles concerning Germany and Poland. Has used anonymous IPs (that changes) such as 145.254.119.100, 145.254.116.175, 145.254.116.60, 145.254.117.39, 145.254.115.28, 145.254.118.168, 145.254.118.103, 162.70.233.18, 145.254.117.190, 145.254.119.156. His additions include stuff like insisting the Germans expelled from the east 'left voluntarily' and were all 'German citizens'. He also wrote biased entries Regained Territories and Drang nach Osten. Their additions should be watched. M123 21:50, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Note: After adding him or her to this page, they added me as a problem user in retaliation. I removed myself (I hope doing so is ok). (BTW I now have a new user name) Maximus Rex 04:01, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * They've re-added me to this list. This time I'll wait for someone else to remove me, or if you want just keep listing me here -- I have no inclination to get into an edit war with 'GH' and will leave their changes alone. The user also made biased contributions to Oder-Neisse line, which need to be checked. Maximus Rex 19:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * User:Maximus Rex is biased. I am trying to clarify disputed staff about the Germans expelled after WW2. Maybe will help if I reveal, that one of my ancestors was actually German citizen during the WW2 and I am personally very interested in subject. There are 3 kinds of lies, that usually are reapeated about the problem.
 * 1.Insisting that all number 15 000 000 of people left after the war in the period of 1945-1950. It is a lie, since most of Germans left before Red Army captured the territories, in hope to avoid rapes and massacres, Red Army used to commit. In case of Poland, most Germans left during the war, in evacuation organised by Nazis. 2 200 000 were expelled after the war by Polish authorities, and a large number left volountarily after 1950, when they only had a chance to get out of comunism.
 * 2.The second lie is that there were 3 000 000 Germans, that died after the war. Most of the victims were actually killed during the war. Except the private revange of few Polish Jews, like Salomon Morel, commander of the camp for Volksdeutche in Swietochlowice, Polish government did not want to kill Germans. Of course, there were criminal bands, and the life was very cheap in Poland after the WW2. Put number more realistically and based on sources and I would agree with you.
 * 3. Minor question of citizenship. All Germans, that were expelled after the war, became German cititens during the war. If zou try to reason otherwise, please provide facts. AM

 * I moved this from the problem users page. If there are problems with specific details in an article, it needs to be discussed on that article's talk page rather than listing the debate on problem users. Angela 04:26, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
 * User AM seems questionable at best. Most scholars would disagree with his assessment of casualties after the war. Furthermore he speaks as if the Polish government were in control of the post-war situation when they were in fact not at all - Poles were also being forcibly expelled by the Soviet Union and moved to different areas.
 * Also general statements such as "All germans... became citizens during the war" are simply false. At the least a large number of Germans only gained citizenship after comming to Germany after 1945. Why else would the German parliament pass a law granting them citizenship, seems a bit redundant.

I just read the article und stumbled across a few strange sentences:

1. "Some who would like to draw a picture of German population as victims of post-war politics describe it with a term the German expulsion after World War II"

What's the purpose of using phrases like "would like" and "draw a picture"? It creates the impression in the reader that Germans beeing victims of post-war politics might not resemble reality but is merely an attempt by "some" to portray it as such. Therefore I would shorten the sentence simply to:

"Some decribe it with the term the German expulsion after World War II"

2. "Generally sympathy for the plight of the expelled Germans was and remains low among families of victims of Nazi policy in many countries of Eastern Europe."

So the non-victim families are generally in favour of the German plight? I 'm just asking because I'm curious. Why are the Nazi victims singled out here? From my personal observation I can see no difference in the "general" attitude of Eastern European non-victim and victim families. The sentence should therefore read:

"Generally sympathy for the plight of the expelled Germans was and remains low among many countries of Eastern Europe that where victims of the Nazis."

3. "Some countries justified expulsion by high treason committed by their ethnic Germans during the war, in the form of acceptation of German citizenship (see Volksdeutsche). However, the process was forced by Nazis and in many cases Germans had no other choice"

This sentence creates the impression in the reader that accepting the German citizenship was some sort of a damnable act. I don't understand why that should be the case since most of those Germans had a German citizenship before WW1, where living on territory that had been German before WW1.

What you have here instead is a struggle of different nations over multiethnic territories. Willingly accepting or seeking this or that nationality and politically supporting an integration with this or that country is not a damnable act at all. I do include all sides in that statement. The means you use to reach your goals are of course what makes the difference (again all sides included). Whether some Germans were forced to accept the German citizenship is totally unimportant for the question of how the Eastern European countries tried to justify their actions after WW2. The sentence should therefore be changed to:

"Some countries tried to legally justify the expulsion by accusing the ethnic Germans of high treason committed during the war in the form of acceptation of German citizenship (see Volksdeutsche)."

4. "Holocaust deniers have attached themselves to the issue of the Heimatvertriebenen, and have attempted to use the sympathy for the plight of those Germans who suffered and died in the expulsions to put forward their right-wing agenda. These revisionists attempt to retroactively minimise the suffering of the Holocaust, or to blame the Jews for the suffering of the Heimatvertriebenen."

Inaccurate. "Holocaust deniers" minimising the holocaust is an antagonism. Those people are "Revisionists". Also, the sentence is much too detailed it should be shortened and hotlinked with a seperate article about revisionism:

"Revisionists have attached themselves to the issue of the Heimatvertriebenen, and have attempted to use the sympathy for the plight of those Germans who suffered and died in the expulsions to put forward their right-wing agenda. See Revisionism"

5. "German right-wing revisionist author and ethnic nationalist Rolf Josef Eibicht has described what has happened to the Heimatvertriebe as "an unparalled genocide, an eviction-Holocaust of the German people, an undescribable thousand-year crime."

What kind of usefull information does this sentence give the reader? Nothing. It should be moved to a seperate article about Revisionism or Rolf Josef Eibicht.
 * Well I agree mostly I would leave the Eibicht quote in though. And not use "see Revisionism" just link Revisionists Rmhermen 18:32, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

added after move The following text was copied over from Heimatvertriebene. Please merge with main article.

fled or were evicted from "countries occupied by the Soviet Union"
Regarding the following wording:
 * ...fled or were evicted from countries occupied by the Soviet army

It is neither true nor NPOV. Germans were transferred and expelled also from territories liberated by American army (e.g. western part of Bohemia, inluding Pllsen, was liberated by US Army). Quite strange is also use of word "occupied". Red army soldiers were seen as liberators and welcome in 1945 Czechoslovakia. Word "occupied" is appropriate from German perspective -which is typical for whole aticle. Long way to NPOV. 81.27.192.16 23:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where did the English translation, "Federation of Expellees", come from?
Where did the English translation, "Federation of Expellees", come from? IMO this article belongs under the actual name of the organization; the way it is now is like moving Volkswagen AG to Peoples' Car Corporation...LOL. Mkweise 04:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I clearly see your point, but on the other hand there has been a tendency to add more articles than I like to en.wikipedia with titles in pure German. Volkswagen is a well known brand name, BdV is not. --Ruhrjung 12:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, that for purpose of better understanding and clarity most German Term ought to be translated. However i find the term "Federation of Expellees" inappropriate. I think "Federation of the Displaced" would be more accurate, since i believe people driven from their homes in war are usually called "Displaced" and not "Expelled". --Neil Jonsson 15:11, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Expellees is the term used in the English version of the ZENTRUM GEGEN VERTREIBUNGEN website. I hope I have addressed your other concerns in my most recent edits. Rmhermen 20:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * That website can hardly be held up as an example of English usage. Its quality ranges from reasonably good translation (adhering too closely to German word order) to non-native (misuse of English verb tenses). Personally I hate "Federation of Expellees". Something like "Association of Expelled Germans" would be a reasonable translation, an accurate label, and something a native English-speaker might have come up with. (In fact, one did;) — Wegesrand (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording
Why inserting "alleged damages" ? Is anyone in doubt that German government made a lot of damage to Poland (including, for example, Polish capitol deliberately razed to the ground as effect of Hitler's order?) Szopen`

September 18 edits
Are these edits unbiased and correct? Because they come from an editor whose neutrality and honesty in these issues I highly doubt.NightBeAsT 11:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If you are searching for example of person who wasn't an ethnic German in Poland, didn't posses any property in Poland, and found herself in Poland as result of military occupation by German Reich-see no further then Erica Steinbach.

Likewise the term expelled refers to ALL Germans that moved to Germany after the war.Regardles of the reasons they found themself abroad-thus it also includes German colonists settled after 1939. --Molobo 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nightbeast personally I am puzzled why this so to.I don't think people like Steinbach should be classified as "Expelled" unlike those moved from their homes in territories given to Poland after WW2, I would like to know what made German government decide to make such a decision.

--Molobo 17:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, IMHO these edits are correct and unbiased (mayby not spelled political correctly), but is need to say, parts of post-WWII expelles was neo-colonist which moved to ocupied parts of europe, after German victories (booth military or peacefull (anexation of sudetenland and later creating Protectorate of Bohmen and Mahren)), and have no rights for compensation, but are most active in cry for this.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatvertriebene ''"§ 2 des BVFG sagt dazu aus:
 * ''Ein Heimatvertriebener ist, wer am 31. Dezember 1937 oder bereits einmal vorher seinen Wohnsitz in dem Gebiet desjenigen Staates hatte, aus dem er vertrieben worden ist (Vertreibungsgebiet) und dieses Gebiet vor dem 1. Januar 1993 verlassen hat; die Gesamtheit der ehemals unter fremder Verwaltung stehenden deutschen Ostgebiete und die Gebiete außerhalb der Grenzen des Deutschen Reiches nach dem Gebietsstande vom 31. Dezember 1937), die am 1. Januar 1914 zum Deutschen Reich oder zur Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie oder zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zu Polen, zu Estland, zu Lettland oder zu Litauen gehört haben, gilt als einheitliches Vertreibungsgebiet.
 * ''Als Heimatvertriebener gilt auch ein vertriebener Ehegatte oder Abkömmling, der die Vertreibungsgebiete vor dem 1. Januar 1993 verlassen hat, wenn der andere Ehegatte oder bei Abkömmlingen ein Elternteil am 31. Dezember 1937 oder bereits einmal vorher seinen Wohnsitz im Vertreibungsgebiet (Absatz 1) gehabt hat.

''Die begriffliche Unschärfe versinnbildlicht sich in der Person der Vorsitzenden des Bundes der Heimatvertriebenen Erika Steinbach, die als Tochter eines Luftwaffenoffiziers aus Hanau und einer Mutter aus Bremen ihre ersten 18 Lebensmonate in dem Ort Rahmel verbrachte, wo ihr Vater stationiert war."

As you can see the law is controversial since it stretches out to 1993, and I can assure you that many people probably left Poland in later years for economic reasons and weren't "expelled". Furthermore the law denies the existance of Poland after 1918 treating it as German territory.And add to that it is worded in such a way that it makes German colonists removed from Poland qualifiy for status of "expelled"--Molobo 17:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore colonists from WW1 are also qualified as expelled: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_lebensraum_02.shtml ''Ratzel's ideas very much accorded with intellectual fashions in late 19th- and early 20th-century Germany, where various forms of 'Social Darwinism' were prevalent, and where there was a growing concern about the allegedly negative effects of industrialisation and urbanisation. There was also a belief in the virtues of agrarian society and, specifically, of the peasantry. Ratzel's ideas also fitted into the general debate about German imperialism.

''The idea of increasing Germany's strength by encouraging migration to Germany's colonies had developed during the 1880s and 1890s. It was thought that sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials. Whereas economic imperialism was particularly popular with industry, migrationist colonialism became associated with agrarianism.

''... sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials ...

''Moreover, during the years immediately preceding World War One, the focus of this colonialism shifted from the settlement of overseas colonies to the idea of conquering territory in eastern Europe, and of settling it with German peasants. The leading advocate of this notion was the influential chauvinist pressure group, the Pan-German League, and its associated propagandists.

''Of these perhaps the most notable was the retired general and radical-conservative publicist, Friedrich von Bernhardi. In his notorious book Germany and the Next War, published in 1912, Bernhardi used many of Ratzel's ideas to advocate using a victorious war to gain space in eastern Europe for the settlement of peasant farmers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_lebensraum_03.shtml ''he notion of acquiring Lebensraum in eastern Europe thus became quite a familiar one before the war, and it gained even more impetus as Germany went through the experience of World War One.

''Following the outbreak of the war, the Pan-Germans seized the opportunity to present a programme of war aims advocating the seizure of large areas of western Russia. The idea was that after most of the indigenous population had been cleared, German farmers would settle the land. The settlers were to consist mainly of war veterans and urban workers, who were meant to be the key to ensuring the 'physical and ethical health' of the German nation.

''The crucial turning-point in the development of the Lebensraum programme occurred when German armies conquered Poland and western Russia after 1914. A German military regime (Oberost) was established in the Baltic provinces and in part of White Russia, under the command of General Erich Ludendorff. The situation became formalised with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed by the new Soviet regime in March 1918.

''Operating under the slogan of 'German Work', Oberost aimed to introduce a modern form of bureaucratic, technocratic, rationalised government in an area which the German occupiers regarded as semi-barbaric. In the process this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups located in specific territories, each with its own distinct history and culture, but simply as 'space' (Raum).

''... this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups ... but simply as 'space' (Raum).

''Many of the large numbers of people involved in this massive programme came to acquire a sense of fulfilling a German mission in the east and, through propaganda, this perception was transferred to the German homeland, where it achieved some resonance. Popular journalists wrote articles with titles such as 'To the East! New Land', and 'German Deed and German Seed in the Russian Badlands'.

''Even after the end of the war, German irregular troops, the so-called Free Corps, continued to operate in the Baltic states in a guerrilla war against the Bolsheviks, fought with exceptional brutality on both sides. The post-war German government, hoping to dominate the new Baltic republics, encouraged this process and promised land to the troops.

''Eventually, however, at the end of 1919, the Allies forced their disbandment and the Free Corps returned to Germany, embittered and frustrated. Some of their members found a home in Hitler's Nazi party.

As you see those who are qualified as expelled include also people hardly being victims.--Molobo 17:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Molobo, if I wanted to hear your opinion, dear student of International relations and Social communication, I would have asked you. However (for reasons stated above) I have not asked you but yearned for a third opinion on this all from sb who knows a lot about it and at the same time is detached.NightBeAsT 17:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I quote others not me :) --Molobo 18:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hans Krüger
While I find it very interesting that he was a rather big Nazi and could rise so high in the BdV, the information about him and his war crimes really shouldn't be in the lead section (that would like putting info about Hans Filbinger's past into the lead section of Baden-Württemberg). Since there is no information on how he or his Nazi past might have influenced the BdV, I don't see why it is so relevant here. Kusma (討論) 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It's quite the norm to name the first president of any organisation. The fact that he was both former Nazi and BdV president caused a scandal so it is important.
 * --Molobo 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (please learn to use talk pages properly by indenting so others see easily who made which comment) -- Why don't you write about this scandal in a history section, then? In the lead section, it is definitely out of place. Otherwise it reads as if you say that Hans Krüger's Nazi past is among the most important things to note about the Federation of Expellees. Please find a more appropriate place to put that information if you believe it should be included. Kusma (討論) 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should the FIRST president and his political affiliation be ignored ? It is quite normal to name the first president of organisation. And the fact that the FIRST president of BdV(an aggresive organisation putting territorial demands against Poland for a long time) was a Nazi is notable.
 * --Molobo 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are completely right that he should not be ignored and that an investigation of the influence of his (past? I don't know if his views changed) Nazi views and allegiance on the BdV and also on the outside perception of the BdV are topics that are worthy of investigation and possibly inclusion into this article. I am only saying they do not belong in the lead section in this short and uncommented form. And please indent your posts. Kusma (討論) 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You are right, he should not be ignored, and he is not, that is why he is included in the relevant section of the article. as for its "aggressive" claims on supposedly Polish lands that should be discussed on that region's serticle, not here.  Although it must be noted that in most of these "recovered territories" until the forced expellations after WWII were inhabited predominantly by Germans. And I would like for you to provide references that state that he was not one of the many late comers who joined the Nazi party for the power and influence it could give them (eg Oskar Schindler).

--Jadger 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Krüger participated in the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich". What kind of references do you mean more? Xx236 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the Federation
The Federation has more than 50 years of history. Why so little about it? Xx236 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes perhaps we should mention the demands that Polish government should give German soldiers the status of combatants or the sale of Waffen-SS marches on their meetings --Molobo 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Landesverbände
It's the list of German "lands", available probably under Germany. Will ever someone write articles about Landesverbände? I would remove the list. Xx236 09:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Landsmannschaften
One of them was made by SS-officer who took part in murder of Lwow professors. --Molobo 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He was Gesamtdeutscher Block/Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten activist. Xx236 11:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Erika Steinbach
The Erika Steinbach article has been protected to encourage editors to resolve an edit war over the wording of her place of birth (in essence Rahmel vs. Rumia and text describing its location in German-occupied Poland). There is a vote going on at Talk:Erika Steinbach regarding how to word the place of birth. Please express your opinion on this issue if you have one. --Richard 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

just a question
why is it that the centre against expulsions is controversial because it pays more attention to the expulsion of Germans, but the Holocaust Museum in Washington is not controversial when it only focuses on one genocide?

--Jadger 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I say we focus on all genocides equally. That will solve most of the political debates pretty fairly in a method that is possibly scientifically justifiable.  Nonprof. Frinkus 09:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

they had inhabited for centuries
German soldiers occupying Poland, policemen killing Polish people, Arbeitsamt officials running slavery system didn't inhabit Poland for centuries. They came between 1939-1944 but are regarded as expelled.Xx236 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Charter
“Charter of the Ethnic German Expellees” - is this translation a joke? Jonny84 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
This section shouldn't be removed; instead it should be expanded. I have read many articles critical of the FoE, the article focuses only one one or a two. The organization is very controversial in Poland; but what about Germany itself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of members
de:Bund der Vertriebenen quotes several sources in German criticizing claims of the Federation that it has 2 000 000 members. Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats why it is butressed by the phrase "The Federation claims", rather than being stated as fact. - Schrandit (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The organizations who create the Federation pay fees for 100 000 members. According to Erika Steinbach the number http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/idw_dlf/711793/ is a little underestimated to pay less (ein bisschen herunter gerechnet). "ein bisschen" doesn't make 2 000 000.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

History section is missing
The history section is missing. It only covers the events that led to formation of BDV,but what is lacking is half the century of its existance and events that took place within the organisation. For example the attempts to keep Munich Agreement from being retroactively annulled in late 1966.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting information-they actually count people from before the war and those moving out of East Germany.
The Upper Silesian Landmanschaft actually counts members from Geramns of territories ceded to Poland in 1921, other landmanschaften contain people who moved out of Eastern Germany. After the expulsion: West Germany and Eastern Europe, 1945-1990 Pertti Ahonen page 32 --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Charter of the German Expellees
Is it available online with signatures? Are following names signed underneath it:Rudolf Wagner,Waldemar Kraft,Alfred GilleGottlieb Leibbrandt,Walter von Keudell,Franz Hamm,Karl Mocker,Josef Walter,Erik von Witzleben,Rudolf Lodgman von Auen? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Signed byXx236 (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Another BDV scandal
Another BdV scandal, this time BdV member claims Second World War was a chance for which Poles and Czechs waited according to the newsource. Another one according to the news tried to shift blame about WW2 from Germany to other countries.  --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Charter of the German Expellees - POV
The section doesn't inform about critics of the Charter.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC) It seems an anon IP deleted it because a weblink was not up to date. I have corrected this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided German sources for this claim. Zezen (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Title "Federation" vs "Association"
Unless this is their official english name, I would recommend the translation of the German word "Bund" to be "association" and not "federation" here. 212.60.196.82 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Federation of Expellees


text:
Talk:Heimatvertriebenen

It is estimated that 2 1/2 million ethnic German refugees died, most from starvation.

Whose estimate is this?

If you can, clean up these stubs and figure out where they should go...right now they're either out of place or confusingly written

 * See Silent Ethnic Cleansing for a description of the modern political...

 * The Volksdeutschen had lived in lands, that were once part of the Holy Roman Empire of Germany. They came from lands, which at times were ruled by German or Holy Roman Empire connected rulers, were given German Rights as German settlers. In the case of Bohemia-Germans, they lived in a land for 1200 years part of the Holy Roman Empire and in earlier years German lands.

 * The Bohemia-Germans (later known as Sudeten-Germans) and the people of parts of Silesia, Posen-West Prussia, formerly German citizens had since 1919 lived in a newly created "Polish Corridor" and millions were already chased out by brutal suppression from Polish and Czech Slavs between 1919 and 1939.

Anyone who wants to redirect this to Diaspora studies shouldn't unless they can present a convincing argument for doing so. Anyone who simply wants to delete stuff they find confusing should instead point out what they find confusing first.

Please. Work cooperatively and respectfully. --TheCunctator

Which of my reasons (posted on your page because of the edit problems I was having) do you find unconvincing? Could you please be specific? Wait, I'm posting them here, too, now that the site is letting me save...

And if you want people to play nice, you should respond.... :-)

Why am I redirecting this (or trying to)?

This article (in different forms) appears in several other places under different titles.

In an attempt to place this information in this article in the appropriate historical context, I included a version (edited only for grammatical errors and rearranged into chronological order) into the article on Diaspora Studies and redirected the original Expellees and Heimatvertriebene article to that page.

Heimatvertriebene (the -en ending reflects a non-nominative case ending and is incorrect -- I'm not sure where you get the formal thing -- that's a verb characteristic) should be the German article of the title -- if we must use it at all. The term is one loaded with political meaning in German, and is ONLY used in the case of this particular group of people. Otherwise, every other group of people driven from their homes, whether as part of an act of genocide/ethnic cleansing or not, are referred to as simply "refugees," i.e., these people may have been fleeing something, but they weren't driven from their HOMELAND... (just checked your addition, and it appears the CDU is now using a broadened version of the term to promote themselves as the true party of brothrhood and European unification, so I guess only is a bit strong. Definitely politically loaded, though...)

Granting this subject its own article validates the very dubious theory that the lands where these so-called ethnic Germans lived in some way belonged (and, to follow recent postings, morally still belong) to Germany because they have always been inhabited by Germans. The evidence posted thereto has no foundation in accepted historical method and is often downright incorrect.

That's why I think it should be redirected -- although recent edits should probably be incorporated into the Diaspora studies (or the Diaspora?) article. JHK

title: Talk:Heimatvertriebenen


text:
Handfasting

Handfasting is a traditional practice that, depending on the term's usage, may define an unofficiated wedding (in which a couple marries without an officiant, usually with the intent of later undergoing a second wedding with an officiant), a betrothal (an engagement in which a couple has formally promised to wed, and which can be broken only through divorce), or a temporary wedding (in which a couple makes an intentionally temporary marriage commitment). The phrase refers to the making fast of a pledge by the shaking or joining of hands.

The terminology and practice are especially associated with Germanic peoples, including the English and Norse, as well as the Scots. As a form of betrothal or unofficiated wedding, handfasting was common up through Tudor England; as a form of temporary marriage, it was practiced in 17th-century Scotland and has been revived in Neopaganism, though misattributed as Celtic rather than Danish and Old English.

Sometimes the term is also used synonymously with "wedding" or "marriage" among Neopagans to avoid perceived non-Pagan religious connotations associated with those terms. It is also used, apparently ahistorically, to refer to an alleged pre-Christian practice of symbolically fastening or wrapping the hands of a couple together during the wedding ceremony.

Etymology
The verb to handfast in the sense of "to formally promise, to make a contract" is recorded for Late Old English, especially in the context of a contract of marriage. The derived handfasting as for a ceremony of engagement or betrothal, is recorded in Early Modern English. The term was presumably loaned into English from Old Norse  handfesta "to strike a bargain by joining hands"; there are also comparanda from the Ingvaeonic languages: Old Frisian hondfestinge and Middle Low German hantvestinge. The term is derived from the verb to handfast, used in Middle to Early Modern English for the making of a contract. In modern Dutch, "handvest" is the term for "pact" or "charter" (e.g., "Atlantisch handvest", "Handvest der Verenigde Naties"); cf. also the Italian loan word manifesto in English.

Medieval and Tudor England
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) forbade clandestine marriage, and required marriages to be publicly announced in churches by priests. In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent legislated more specific requirements, such as the presence of a priest and two witnesses, as well as promulgation of the marriage announcement thirty days prior to the ceremony. These laws did not extend to the regions affected by the Protestant Reformation. In England, clergy performed many clandestine marriages, such as so-called Fleet Marriage, which were held legally valid; and in Scotland, unsolemnised common-law marriage was still valid.

From about the 12th to the 17th century, "handfasting" in England was simply a term for "engagement to be married", or a ceremony held on the occasion of such a contract, usually about a month prior to a church wedding, at which the marrying couple formally declared that each accepted the other as spouse. Handfasting was legally binding: as soon as the couple made their vows to each other they were validly married. It was not a temporary arrangement. Just as with church weddings of the period, the union which handfasting created could only be dissolved by death. English legal authorities held that even if not followed by intercourse, handfasting was as binding as any vow taken in church before a priest.

During handfasting, the man and woman, in turn, would take the other by the right hand and declare aloud that they there and then accepted each other as husband and wife. The words might vary but traditionally consisted of a simple formula such as "I (Name) take thee (Name) to my wedded husband/wife, till death us depart, and thereto I plight thee my troth". Because of this, handfasting was also known in England as "troth-plight". Gifts were often exchanged, especially rings: a gold coin broken in half between the couple was also common. Other tokens recorded include gloves, a crimson ribbon tied in a knot, and even a silver toothpick. Handfasting might take place anywhere, indoors or out. It was frequently in the home of the bride, but according to records handfastings also took place in taverns, in an orchard and even on horseback. The presence of a credible witness or witnesses was usual.

For much of the relevant period, church courts dealt with marital matters. Ecclesiastical law recognised two forms of handfasting, sponsalia per verba de praesenti and sponsalia per verba de futuro. In sponsalia de praesenti, the most usual form, the couple declared they there and then accepted each other as man and wife. The sponsalia de futuro form was less binding, as the couple took hands only to declare their intention to marry each other at some future date. The latter was closer to a modern engagement and could, in theory, be ended with the consent of both parties – but only providing intercourse had not occurred. If intercourse did take place, then the sponsalia de futuro "was automatically converted into de iure marriage".

Despite the validity of handfasting, it was expected to be solemnised by a church wedding fairly soon afterwards. Penalties might follow for those who did not comply. Ideally the couple were also supposed to refrain from intercourse until then. Complaints by preachers suggest that they often did not wait, but at least until the early 1600s the common attitude to this kind of anticipatory behaviour seems to have been lenient.

Handfasting remained an acceptable way of marrying in England throughout the Middle Ages but declined in the early modern period. In some circumstances handfasting was open to abuse, with persons who had undergone "troth-plight" occasionally refusing to proceed to a church wedding, creating ambiguity about their former betrothed's marital status. Shakespeare negotiated and witnessed a handfasting in 1604, and was called as a witness in the suit Bellott v Mountjoy about the dowry in 1612. Historians speculate that his own marriage to Anne Hathaway was so conducted when he was a young man in 1582, as the practice still had credence in Warwickshire at the time.

After the beginning of the 17th century, gradual changes in English law meant the presence of an officiating priest or magistrate became necessary for a marriage to be legal. Finally the 1753 Marriage Act, aimed at suppressing clandestine marriages by introducing more stringent conditions for validity, effectively ended the handfasting custom in England.

Early modern Scotland
In February 1539 Marie Pieris, a French lady-in-waiting to Mary of Guise, the consort of James V of Scotland, was married by handfasting to Lord Seton at Falkland Palace. This ceremony was recorded in the royal accounts for the payment to an apothecary for his work on the day of "Lord Seytounis handfasting".

The Scottish Hebrides, particularly in the Isle of Skye, show some records of 'Handfast" or "left-handed" marriage occurring in the late 1600s, when the Gaelic scholar Martin Martin noted, "It was an ancient custom in the Isles that a man take a maid as his wife and keep her for the space of a year without marrying her; and if she pleased him all the while, he married her at the end of the year and legitimatised her children; but if he did not love her, he returned her to her parents."

The most disastrous war fought between the MacLeods and MacDonalds of Skye culminated in the Battle of Coire Na Creiche when Donald Gorm Mor, who handfasted [for a year and a day] with Margaret MacLeod, a sister of Rory Mor of Dunvegan, ignominiously expelled his mistress from Duntulm. It is probable that it was as a result of this war that Lord Ochiltree's Committee, which formed the Statutes of Iona in 1609 and the Regulations for the Chiefs in 1616, was induced to insert a clause in the Statutes of Iona by which "marriages contracted for several [archaic definition 'single'] years" were prohibited; and any who might disregard this regulation were to be "punished as fornicators".

By the 18th century, the Kirk of Scotland no longer recognised marriages formed by mutual consent and subsequent sexual intercourse, even though the Scottish civil authorities did. To minimise any resulting legal actions, the ceremony was to be performed in public. This situation persisted until 1939, when Scottish marriage laws were reformed by the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 and handfasting was no longer recognised.

The existence of handfasting as a distinct form of "trial marriage" was doubted by A. E. Anton, in Handfasting in Scotland (1958). In the article, he asserted that the first reference to such a practice is by Thomas Pennant in his 1790 Tour in Scotland, that this report had been taken at face value throughout the 19th century, and was perpetuated in Walter Scott's 1820 novel The Monastery. However, the Pennant claim in 1790 was not the first time this had been discussed or put to print, as the Martin Martin texts predate Pennant by almost 100 years.

Neopaganism
The term "handfasting" or "hand-fasting" was appropriated into modern Celtic neopaganism and Wicca for wedding ceremonies from at least the late 1960s, apparently first used in print by Hans Holzer.

Handfasting was mentioned in the 1980 Jim Morrison biography No One Here Gets Out Alive and again in the 1991 film The Doors, where a version of the real 1970 handfasting ceremony of Morrison and Patricia Kennealy was depicted (with the actual Kennealy-Morrison portraying the Celtic neopagan priestess).

Handfasting ribbon
The term has entered the English-speaking mainstream, most likely from neopagan wedding ceremonies during the early 2000s, often erroneously being described as "pre-Christian" by wedding planners. Evidence that the term "handfasting" had been re-interpreted as describing this ceremony specifically is found in the later 2000s, e.g. "handfasting—the blessed marriage rite in which the hands of you and your beloved are wrapped in ribbon as you 'tie the knot'."

By the 2010s, "handfasting ceremonies" were on offer by commercial wedding organizers and had mostly lost their neopagan association (apart from occasional claims that attributes the ceremony to the "ancient Celts"). The term "handfasting ribbon" appears from about 2005.

title: Handfasting


text:
History of the Pacific Islands

The history of the Pacific Islands covers the history of the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Cook Islands
In Cook Islands Māori pre-history, Chieftains from present day French Polynesia and their tribes, along with navigators, took their ships in search of unknown or newly found lands, first arriving in the southern island groups around 800 AD or earlier. Many other tribal migrations from French Polynesia, notably Tahiti would continue for centuries forming a unique Māori society. Similarly, the northern islands were also settled from the east, with some of the northern islands possibly having had later interactions with Western Polynesia. The capital Rarotonga, is known, from various oral histories to have been the launching site of seven waka ship voyagers who settled in New Zealand, becoming the major tribes of the New Zealand Māori. Up until relatively recently there was continuous contact between both lands where back and forth migration and trade took place. The Cook Islands Te Reo Māori language is closely related to the Te Reo Maori indigenous language of New Zealand. Spanish ships visited the islands in the 16th century; the first written record of contact with the islands came with the sighting of Pukapuka by Spanish sailor Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira in 1595 who called it San Bernardo (Saint Bernard). A few years later, a Spanish expedition led by Pedro Fernandes de Queirós made the first recorded European landing in the islands when he set foot on Rakahanga in 1606, calling it Gente Hermosa (Beautiful People). The country is named after British captain Captain James Cook who surveyed and landed on some of the islands between 1774 and 1777.

Easter Island
Easter Island is one of the youngest inhabited territories on earth, and for most of the history of Easter Island it was the most isolated inhabited territory on Earth. Its inhabitants, the Rapa Nui, have endured famines, epidemics, civil war, slave raids, and colonialism; have seen their population crash on more than one occasion.

Fiji
The history of Fiji dates back to ancient times. There are many theories as to how the Fijian race came into existence. Around 1500 BC Fiji was settled by Austronesian seafarers. Around 900–600 BC Moturiki Island was settled. By 500 BC, Melanesian seafarers had reached Fiji and intermarried with the Austronesian inhabitants, giving rise to the modern Fijian people. In 1643 AD, Abel Tasman sighted Vanua Levu Island and northern Taveuni. According to native oral legends Fijians were also descendants of a nomadic tribe from Tanganika (Tanzania).

Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands
The history of Guam involves phases including the early arrival of people known today as the ancient Chamorros, the development of "pre-contact" society, Spanish colonization, and the present American rule of the island. Archaeologists using carbon-dating have broken Pre-Contact Guam (i.e. Chamorro) history into three periods: "Pre-Latte" (BC 2000? to AD 1) "Transitional Pre-Latte" (AD 1 to AD 1000), and "Latte" (AD 1000 to AD 1521). Archaeological evidence also suggests that Chamorro society was on the verge of another transition phase by 1521, when Ferdinand Magellan's expedition arrived, as latte stones became bigger. The original inhabitants of Guam are believed to be descendants of Taiwanese indigenous peoples originating from the high mountains of Taiwan as early as 4,000 BC, having linguistic and cultural similarities to Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Guam's history of colonialism is the longest among the Pacific islands and Chamorros are considered one of the oldest mixed race in the Pacific. In 1668 the Spanish formally incorporated the islands to the Spanish East Indies and founded a colony on Guam as a resting place for the west-bound Manila galleons. The territory was ceded by Spain more than two centuries later, when in 1898 the United States took over the islands following the Spanish–American War. The chamorro culture has evolved much since European contact and has been much influenced by Spanish and American colonization. Although the original culture no longer exists, it is now being revived with contemporary alternatives and similarities in styles with all the other pacific islands. Not one unique, but all combined to form a uniqueness in style, to today's modern interpretation of what their culture might have been. It should also be mentioned that the Chamorros on Guam view their culture & language differently than the Chamorros on the Northern Mariana Islands.

Hawaii
Hawaiian history is inextricably tied into a larger Polynesian phenomenon. Hawaii is the northernmost vertex of the Polynesian Triangle, a region of the Pacific Ocean anchored by three island groups: Hawaii, Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and Aotearoa (New Zealand). The many island cultures within the Polynesian Triangle share similar languages derived from a proto-Malayo-Polynesian language used in Southeast Asia 5,000 years ago. Polynesians also share cultural traditions, such as religion, social organization, myths, and material culture. Anthropologists believe that all Polynesians have descended from a South Pacific proto-culture created by an Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) people that had migrated from Southeast Asia. The seven main Polynesian cultures are Aotearoa, Hawaii, Rapa Nui, Marquesas, Samoa, Tahiti, and Tonga.

The early settlement history of Hawaii is a topic of continuing debate. Estimates for the date of first settlement of the Hawai'ian islands range from the 3rd century C.E. to between 940 and 1130 C.E.

Kiribati
In the history of Kiribati, the islands which now form the Republic of Kiribati have been inhabited for at least seven hundred years, and possibly much longer. The initial Micronesian population, which remains the overwhelming majority today, was visited by Polynesian and Melanesian invaders before the first European sailors "discovered" the islands in the 16th century. For much of the subsequent period, the main island chain, the Gilbert Islands, was ruled as part of the British Empire. The country gained its independence in 1979 and has since been known as Kiribati.

New Caledonia
In the history of New Caledonia, the diverse group of people that settled over the Melanesian archipelagos are known as the Lapita. They arrived in the archipelago now commonly known as New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands around 1500 BC. The Lapita were highly skilled navigators and agriculturists with influence over a large area of the Pacific. From about the 11th century Polynesians also arrived and mixed with the populations of the archipelago. Europeans first sighted New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands in the late 18th century. The British explorer James Cook sighted Grande Terre in 1774 and named it New Caledonia, Caledonia being the Latin name for Scotland. During the same voyage he also named the islands to the north of New Caledonia the New Hebrides (now Vanuatu), after the islands north of Scotland.

New Zealand
The History of New Zealand dates back to at least 700 years to when it was discovered and settled by Polynesians, who developed a distinct Māori culture centred on kinship links and land. The first European explorer, the Dutch Abel Tasman, came to New Zealand in 1642. From the late 18th century, the country was regularly visited by explorers and other sailors, missionaries, traders and adventurers. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the British Crown and various Māori chiefs, bringing New Zealand into the British Empire and giving Māori equal rights with British citizens. There was extensive European and some Asian settlement throughout the rest of the century. War and the imposition of a European economic and legal system led to most of New Zealand's land passing from Māori to European ownership, and most Māori subsequently became impoverished.

From the 1890s the New Zealand parliament enacted a number of progressive initiatives, including women's suffrage and old age pensions. From the 1930s the economy was highly regulated and an extensive welfare state was developed. Meanwhile, Māori culture underwent a renaissance, and from the 1950s Māori began moving to the cities in large numbers. This led to the development of a Māori protest movement which in turn led to greater recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in the late 20th century. In the 1980s the economy was largely deregulated and a number of socially liberal policies, such as decriminalisation of homosexuality, were put in place. Foreign policy, which had previously consisted mostly of following Britain or the United States, became more independent. Subsequent governments have generally maintained these policies, although tempering the free market ethos somewhat.

Niue
The history of Niue can be traced back to a 1,000 years when the Polynesian settles came here. Traces of Pukapulan dialect are still there in the native language which is based on the Samoan and Tongan language. The Polynesian settlers were rather isolated as there was very little inter island trade and the existence of the limestone island was in itself very difficult due to lack of rivers and cultivable soil.

The modern history of Niue can be traced back to 1774 with the arrival of Captain James Cook. Cook described the island as "Savage Island" in his records as the natives were not very welcoming to strangers. This was in complete contrast to the Tongans he described as "The Friendly Islands". Captain Cook tried to set his foot thrice on the island but was repulsed each of the three times. The natives at that time were quite hostile to strangers. Christianity was brought to the island by Peniamina in the year 1846 when he got converted during his stay at Samoa. The islanders were completely converted to Christianity by the end of the 19th century. Colonization took place thereafter and the island was declared as a part of the British Empire.

The island country became independent in 1974 but still have a free association agreement with New Zealand and many of its citizens have become citizens of New Zealand. Now the Island country has a democracy and is governed by a legislative assembly consisting of 20 members. Niue is the smallest democracy in the world.

Papua New Guinea
The History of Papua New Guinea can be traced back to about 60,000 years ago when people first migrated towards the Australian continent. The written history began when European navigators first sighted New Guinea in the early part of the 16th century. Portuguese explorers first arrived from the west and later Spanish navigators from the east, after crossing the Pacific. The island was given its name "New Guinea" by Spanish explorer Yñigo Ortiz de Retez who sailed its coast in 1545. Archaeological evidence indicates that humans arrived on New Guinea at least 60,000 years ago, probably by sea from Southeast Asia during an ice age period when the sea was lower and distances between islands shorter. For an overview of the geological history of the continent of which New Guinea is a part, see Australia – New Guinea. Although the first arrivals were hunter-gatherers, early evidence shows that people managed the forest environment to provide food. The gardens of the New Guinea highlands are ancient, intensive permacultures, adapted to high population densities, very high rainfalls (as high as 10,000mm/yr (400in/yr)), earthquakes, hilly land, and occasional frost. There are indications that gardening was being practised at the same time that agriculture was developing in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Samoa
In the history of Samoa, contact with Europeans began in the early 18th century but did not intensify until the arrival of the English. In 1722, Dutchman Jacob Roggeveen was the first European to sight the islands. Missionaries and traders arrived in the 1830s. Halfway through the 19th century, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States all claimed parts of the kingdom of Samoa, and established trading posts. King Malietoa Leaupepe died in 1898 and was succeeded by Malietoa Tooa Mataafa. The US and British consuls supported Malietoa Tanu, Leaupepe's son. US and British warships, including the USS Philadelphia shelled Apia on 15 March 1899. After World War I, the League of Nations carved up Samoa. Britain and New Zealand took over the western islands which became 'Western Samoa' and USA claimed the eastern half of the country which became American Samoa. In 1962, Western Samoa became the first Pacific Island nation to gain political independence. In 1997, Samoa officially dropped the 'Western' from its name as it was an appendage from its colonial era.

Solomon Islands
The human history of the Solomon Islands begins with the first settlement at least 30,000 years ago from New Guinea. They represented the furthest expansion of humans into the Pacific Ocean until the expansion of Austronesian-language speakers through the area around 4000 BCE, bringing new agricultural and maritime technology. Most of the languages spoken today in the Solomon Islands derive from this era, but some thirty languages of the pre-Austronesian settlers survive (see East Papuan languages). The first European contact was that of Spanish explorer Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira whose expedition first sighted Santa Isabel island on 7 February 1568. Finding signs of alluvial gold on Guadalcanal, Mendaña believed he had found the source of King Solomon's wealth, and consequently named the islands "The Islands of Solomon". Many of the islands were also named by these explorers, including Guadalcanal, the Santa Cruz Islands, San Cristobal, Santa Ana and Santa Isabel. In 1595 and 1605 Spain again sent several expeditions to find the islands and establish a colony, though these were unsuccessful. In 1767 Captain Philip Carteret rediscovered Santa Cruz and Malaita. Later, Dutch, French and British navigators visited the islands; their reception was often hostile.

Tahiti
In the history of Tahiti, Tahiti is estimated to have been settled by Polynesians between CE 300 and 800 coming from Tonga and Samoa, although some estimates place the date earlier. The fertile island soil combined with fishing provided ample food for the population. Although the first European sighting of the islands was by a Spanish ship in 1606, Spain made no effort to trade with or colonize the island. Samuel Wallis, an English sea captain, sighted Tahiti on 18 June 1767, and is considered the first European visitor to the island. The perceived relaxation and contented nature of the local people and the characterization of the island as a paradise much impressed early European visitors, planting the seed for a romanticization by the West that endures to this day.

Tokelau
Archaeological evidence indicates that history of Tokelau's atol—Atafu, Nukunonu, and Fakaofo—were settled about 1,000 years ago, probably by voyages from Samoa, the Cook Islands and Tuvalu. Oral history traces local traditions and genealogies back several hundred years. Inhabitants followed Polynesian mythology with the local god Tui Tokelau; and developed forms of music (see Music of Tokelau) and art. The three atolls functioned largely independently while maintaining social and linguistic cohesion. Tokelauan society was governed by chiefly clans, and there were occasional inter-atoll skirmishes and wars as well as inter-marriage. Fakaofo, the "chiefly island," held some dominance over Atafu and Nukunonu. Life on the atolls was subsistence-based, with reliance on fish and coconut. Commodore John Byron discovered Atafu on 24 June 1765 and named it "Duke of York's Island." Parties onshore reported that there were no signs of current or previous inhabitants.

Tonga
The history of Tonga stretches back to around roughly 1000 AD, when the Polynesians arrived. Tonga became known as the Tongan Empire through extensive trading and its influence and show of strength and domination over parts of the Pacific (e.g. Samoa, Fiji). The Europeans arrived in the 17th century which was followed after a couple hundred years by a single unified Tongan kingdom. Archaeological evidence shows that the first settlers in Tonga sailed from the Santa Cruz Islands, as part of the original Austronesian-speakers' (Lapita) migration which originated out of southeast Asia some 6,000 years before present. Archaeological dating places Tonga as the oldest known site in Polynesia for the distinctive Lapita ceramic ware, at 2800–2750 years before present.

Tuvalu

The history of Tuvalu dates back to at least 1,000 years to when it was discovered and settled by Polynesians. the origins of the people of Tuvalu is addressed in the theories regarding the spread of humans out of Southeast Asia, from Taiwan, via Melanesia and across the Pacific islands to create Polynesia.

During pre-European-contact times there was frequent canoe voyaging between the islands as Polynesian navigation skills are recognised to have allowed deliberate journeys on double-hull sailing canoes or outrigger canoes. Eight of the nine islands of Tuvalu were inhabited; thus the name, Tuvalu, means "eight standing together" in Tuvaluan. The pattern of settlement that is believed to have occurred is that the Polynesians spread out from the Samoan Islands into the Tuvaluan atolls, with Tuvalu providing a stepping stone to migration into the Polynesian Outlier communities in Melanesia and Micronesia.

In 1568, Spanish navigator Álvaro de Mendaña was the first European to sail through the islands and sighted Nui during his expedition in search of Terra Australis. European explorers did not return until two centuries later. In 1819 the island of Funafuti was named Ellice's Island; the name Ellice was applied to all nine islands after the work of English hydrographer Alexander George Findlay (1812–1876). The islands came under Britain's sphere of influence in the late 19th century, when each of the Ellice Islands was declared a British protectorate by Captain Gibson R.N., of HMS Curacoa, between 9 and 16 October 1892. The Ellice Islands were administered as British protectorate by a Resident Commissioner from 1892 to 1916 as part of the British Western Pacific Territories (BWPT), and later as part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony from 1916 to 1974.

A referendum was held in December 1974 to determine whether the Gilbert Islands and Ellice Islands should each have their own administration. As a consequence of the referendum, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony ceased to exist on 1 January 1976 and the separate British colonies of Kiribati and Tuvalu came into existence. Tuvalu became fully independent within the Commonwealth on 1 October 1978. On 17 September 2000 Tuvalu became the 189th member of the United Nations.

Vanuatu
In the history of Vanuatu, the commonly held theory of Vanuatu's prehistory from archaeological evidence supports that peoples speaking Austronesian languages first came to the islands some 4,000 to 6,000 years ago. Pottery fragments have been found dating back to 1300 BC What little is known of the pre-European contact history of Vanuatu has been gleaned from oral histories and legends. One important early king was Roy Mata, who united several tribes, and was buried in a large mound with several retainers. The first European contact with Vanuatu came in 1606, when a Spanish expedition led by the Portuguese explorer Pedro Fernández de Quirós discovered Espiritu Santo, naming it Australia del Espiritu Santo, believing he had arrived in the southern continent. Europeans did not return until 1768, when Louis Antoine de Bougainville rediscovered the islands.

Other islands
The history of American Samoa begins with inhabitation as early as 1000 BC, Samoa was not reached by European explorers until the 18th century.

The history of Baker Island began when the United States of America took possession of the island in 1857, and its guano deposits were mined by U.S. and British companies during the second half of the 19th century. In 1935, a short-lived attempt at colonization was begun on this island – as well as on nearby Howland Island – but was disrupted by World War II and thereafter abandoned. Presently the island is a National Wildlife Refuge run by the U.S. Department of the Interior; a day beacon is situated near the middle of the west coast.

Westerners arrived in Caroline Islands in 1525, by the Portuguese Diogo da Rocha and his pilot Gomes de Sequeira, naming them the Sequeira Islands. At about the same time, in 1526, they were sighted by the Spanish Toribio Alonso de Salazar, he called them "Carolinas" after Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Though early Spanish navigators in the area (from 1543) called them the Nuevas Filipinas ("New Philippines"), Admiral Francisco Lazeano named them the Carolinas after King Charles II of Spain in 1686.

In the history of French Polynesia, the French Polynesian island groups do not share a common history before the establishment of the French protectorate in 1889. The first French Polynesian islands to be settled by Polynesians were the Marquesas Islands in AD 300 and the Society Islands in AD 800. The Polynesians were organized in petty chieftainships.

Historical evidence suggests that Howland Island was the site of prehistoric settlement, which may have extended down to Rawaki, Canton, Manra, and Orona of the Phoenix Islands 500 to 700 km southeast. This settlement might have taken the form of a single community utilising several adjacent islands, but the hard life on these isolated islands, together with the uncertainty of fresh water supplies, led to an extinction of or dereliction by the settled peoples, in such a way that other islands in the area (such as Kiritimati and Pitcairn) were abandoned. Such settlements probably began around 1000 BC, when eastern Melanesians traveled north.

The history of Jarvis Island begins with the island's first known sighting by Europeans was on 21 August 1821 by the British ship Eliza Francis (or Eliza Frances) owned by Edward, Thomas, and William Jarvis and commanded by Captain Brown. In March 1857 the uninhabited island was claimed for the United States under the Guano Islands Act and formally annexed on 27 February 1858.

In the history of Marquesas Islands, the first recorded settlers of the Marquesas were Polynesians, who, from archеological evidence, are believed to have arrived before 100 AD. Ethnological and linguistic evidence suggests that they likely arrived from the region of Tonga and Samoa. The islands were given their name by the Spanish explorer Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira who reached them on 21 July 1595. He named them after his patron, García Hurtado de Mendoza, 5th Marquis of Cañete, who was Viceroy of Peru at the time. Mendaña visited first Fatu Hiva and then Tahuata before continuing on to the Solomon Islands.

In the history of Melanesia, the original inhabitants of the islands now named Melanesia were likely the ancestors of the present day Papuan-speaking people. These people are thought to have occupied New Guinea tens of millennia ago and reached the islands 35,000 years ago (according to radiocarbon dating). They appear to have occupied these islands as far east as the main islands in the Solomon Islands (i.e., including San Cristobal) and perhaps even to the smaller islands farther to the east.

The ancestors of the so-called "Micronesians" in the history of Micronesia settled there over 4,000 years ago. A decentralized chieftain-based system eventually evolved into a more centralized economic and religious empire centred on Yap. European explorers – first the Portuguese in search of the Spice Islands (Indonesia) and then the Spaniards – reached the Carolines in the 16th century, with Spain establishing sovereignty.

Researchers of the history of the Marshall Islands agree on little more than that successive waves of migratory peoples from Southeast Asia spread across the Western Pacific about 3,000 years ago, and that some of them landed on and remained on these islands. The Spanish explorer Alonso de Salazar landed there in 1529. They were named for English explorer John Marshall, who visited them in 1799. The Marshall Islands were claimed by Spain in 1874. Following papal mediation and German compensation of $4.5 million, Spain recognised Germany's claim in 1885, which established a protectorate and set up trading stations on the islands of Jaluit and Ebon to carry out the flourishing copra (dried coconut meat) trade. Marshallese Iroij (high chiefs) continued to rule under indirect colonial German administration.

In the history of the Society Islands, the archipelago is generally believed to have been named by Captain James Cook in honour of the Royal Society, sponsor of the first British scientific survey of the islands; however, Cook states in his journal that he called the islands Society "as they lay contiguous to one another".

In the history of Tuamotu, the Tuamotus were first discovered by a Spanish expedition led by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521. From the Inca Empire, Tupac Inca Yupanqui is also credited with leading a nearly 10-month voyage of exploration into the Pacific around 1480. None of these visits were of political consequence, the islands being in the sphere of influence of the Pomare dynasty of Tahiti. At the beginning 18th century, the first Christian missionaries arrived. The islands' pearls penetrated the European market in the late 19th century, making them a coveted possession. Following the forced abdication of King Pomare V of Tahiti, the islands were annexed as an overseas territory of France.

title: History of the Pacific Islands