1945 — the expulsion of the Germans as an act of justice
Speech by Tomasz Szczepański, chairman of the "Niklot" Association, delivered during the demonstration on September 6, 2003.
Dear Sir or Madam!
As we gather here, in the most powerful state of Europe - Germany - a congress of the Union of Expellees is taking place, an organization that does not recognize the current borders of Poland and the Czech Republic. Article 116 of the German constitution recognizes their legal existence within the borders of 1937. The next generation of so-called "expellees" constitutes a powerful lobby in a very influential country. His boss, Erika Steinbach, is not only a member of parliament but also a member of the leadership of the CDU - one of the main parties in Germany, a party that may soon be in power. In this situation, the discussion about the Center for Expellees is not and cannot be a historical discussion. After all, a conversation about history is never just about history, because, as Norwid reminds us, "the past is just the present, but a little further on."
Displacement as punishment.
The supporters of the "displaced" emphasize the undeniable fact that innocent civilians suffered. No one disputes this, but before we get to the question of innocence, let's establish what we are talking about. Are we talking about civilians who were murdered by the Red Army? Of course not, because the Polish side had no influence on the actions of the Soviets and therefore bears no responsibility for them.
Are you referring to those who froze to death because they were evacuated suddenly and without preparation in the middle of winter? At least indirect responsibility lies with their own government and its orders, which often prohibited Germans from fleeing until the very last moment.
Are those who drowned because they were evacuated on warships - armed and manned by the military, whose sinking is a common law of war? And who allowed German civilians to flee on their decks, after all, not the Poles?
The Polish side should not deal with these losses at all, and any inclusion of them in "victims of expulsions" - implicitly Polish victims - should be treated as an unworthy manipulation.
I understand, however, that it is about those civilians who were displaced and did not commit any war crimes or support the Nazi system. However, if we are talking about their innocence, it is only in a legal sense, that no specific act can be attributed to them. But no one is a solitary island, we are members of a specific national community and bear political responsibility for its actions. The community itself is not just the sum of separate individuals, but a distinct entity represented by its state. Such an entity also bears responsibility for what it does and what it does not do. And Germany rightly bore such responsibility - through the partial loss of one of the attributes of a state, which is territory.
And our country - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - is no exception; it too suffered punishment for the mistakes of its elites, namely the partitions and loss of statehood, even though a small minority was to blame. However, this minority contributed to the weakness and thus indirectly caused the downfall, and the entire community paid the price for its actions.
In the case of the Germans, one can even more confidently speak of responsibility - because after all, they supported the NSDAP not only in 1933 when they democratically elected Hitler. They remained loyal to him until the end of the war, forming a multi-million Wehrmacht without which Hitler's successes and crimes would not have been possible. They were in an undemocratic country, but they carried weapons - and a man carrying a weapon can always direct it at unacceptable superiors. Almost none of them did so - and the existence of anti-Hitler opposition in Germany only shows how great the support for the NSDAP was - by contrast with the weakness that the opposition was. Let us add - the opposition was almost nothing even at the moment when it became clear that the government was leading their entire nation to disaster.
The German nation started an unprovoked war and lost it - and suffered the consequences. Displacement was one of those consequences.
Displacement as a condition for peace.
Nations live according to their own rules - and therefore, when these rules are different, they cannot live on the same land. The success of multi-national states does not contradict this statement, because it is either the success of cultural assimilation (like the USA) or a federal state (like Switzerland). Finally - it is also possible for carriers of different, conflicting values to live side by side on the same land - but they must be clearly separated from each other. If none of these options are available, resettlement and establishing a border is the lesser evil than conflict. In 1945, it was the only option - and therefore politically correct.
After the experiences of World War II, no one probably doubted that Poles and Germans (but also Czechs and Germans) could not live as collective entities on the same land. Leaving them in the territories within the borders of Poland or Czechia would mean leaving war in this part of Europe long after the actual war had ended. If, therefore, we consider peace to be a value, we must also take this value into account in our assessment of the means leading to peace. Let us add that the German nation also benefits from the peace after 1945 - and therefore the "expellees" question the conditions of something from which they themselves benefit. They drink water while condemning the sources.
The displacement of Germans vs. the displacement of Poles.
It is a fact that many nations in the 20th century experienced forced displacements, but such a thing is not always the same. Each nation has the right to honor its own victims - including a nation that started a war. However, equating the harm done to the perpetrator with the harm done to the victim is outright offensive to the latter - and such an offense would be the "European" Center where next to a Pole deported to Siberia or an Armenian forced to flee, there would be a soldier of the occupying army - the father of Mrs. Steinbach, who owes her status as a displaced person to the occupation - she was born in the part of Pomerania that belonged to Poland in 1939.
Germany started the war, Poland resisted the aggression of two empires. Poles who lost their homelands in the East did not give them to the nations that had a majority there, but to an empire that was also foreign to them. We lost the Kresy because we were weaker and betrayed by allies - not because we wanted to take over the world and failed. Polish displaced persons and German displaced persons have nothing in common - except for the fact of displacement itself. Building a community solely on this fact is, at best, an example of ideological delusion.
Resettlement as reparation.
Poland emerged from the war formally as a victorious country, but in fact as a defeated one. Apart from population and material losses, we lost over 70,000 km2 territory, and on them two of the four main centers of Polish culture - Lviv and Vilnius. In addition, we lost our independence with all its consequences. What did we receive in return?
In fact, two elements of reality after 1945 can be considered unquestionably beneficial - the Recovered Territories and the practically uniform national composition of the Polish society. Perhaps these were the only benefits to be achieved at that time, but regardless of that - why should we not demand them? This ethnic uniformity protected us from a large-scale fifth column more effectively than any agreements with the German minority, if such a minority had remained. Every agreement can be broken, views changed, and indoctrination rejected - it is only the physical absence of the enemy that truly secures safety. The expulsion of Germans created conditions for the safe existence of Poles - and this is the minimum to which every nation has a right.
This is a right completely independent of any decisions made by the great powers - and citing it in the context of resettlements, even if it is justified given political circumstances, is an affront to national dignity. It implies that we accept these decisions, even if they are unfavorable to us - whereas no decisions about Poles made without Poles are binding on Poles. The expulsion of Germans was right in itself, not because the great powers made such a decision.
Centre for the Displaced - a smokescreen?
Finally, it must be emphasized once again that the essence is not in whether this Center will be created - after all, Germany is a sovereign state and has the right to build whatever museums it wants within its borders. Nor is the nature of the Center important, because a so-called "European" one would be more harmful from a Polish perspective than a purely German one - because in the latter, bias would be obvious and in a way self-evident.
It is important to note that the entire matter is a manifestation of a change in mentality in Germany - an attempt at spiritual revision of history, without which material revision will not be possible. In this sense, our presence here is also an expression of vigilance.
Warsaw 6 IX 2003
Extensive excerpts from the speech were reprinted in „Nowa Myśl Polska” No. 38 of September 21, 2003.