m Spiegel link |
Space Cadet (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 490: | Line 490: | ||
[[User:Sca|Sca]] 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:Sca|Sca]] 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Autumn== |
|||
The Polish term you're looking for is "Złota Polska Jesień" and stop your ridiculous accusations. I am '''not''' a nationalist (little more "ultra-nationalist"), I despise nationalists, racists, fascists, bigots etc. and I don't want to be in any way suspected of any even remote association with those groups by some biased, one track minded, pseudohistorian who has nothing better to do, but to judge people he barely knows. [[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:44, 22 October 2006
Hi. I have created a temporary version for Schopenhauer at Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp, trying to include as much info as possible. Comments are welcome. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Related to this conflict, I think that you are about as neutral as someone can be, you're neither german nor polish, you know a lot about history, and the only thing which could be interpreted as bias is that you lived in poland for a long time - and that would count as a pro-polish bias. I really hope the Schopenhauer problem can be solved, maybe even the danzig/gdansk problem. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 17:19, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Szczecin
Please do not start a revert war about Szczecin. The language you are using is quite POV and really against the very neutral tone of the whole article. "Repatriated" is a much better word to describe what has happened after the war to the German people living in Stettin and sure "conquered" to describe Red Army's liberation of the city is too strong a word. I will not revert the article to its former version yet, if you don’t agree with my wording please suggest what you would consider to be appropriate but please note I do not agree with the current version.--Roo72 01:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Editing someone's user page instead of Talk page is VERY rude.--Roo72 20:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My response:
First, I am very sorry that I apparently screwed up your user page, and I do aplogize most sincerely. Whatever I did, it was a mistake, inadvertent and unintended.
Now, as to your comment on my user page (above):
Why is "conquered" too strong a word? Germany and the USSR were at war, savagely so on both sides. Germany was defeated and conquered by the Big 3 allies. Eastern Germany was conquered by Soviet forces. You can't really believe this constituted "liberation" for the residents of these areas -- unless you are an unreconstructed Stalinist, which presumably you're not.
Stettin was a German city at the time. (Not even Emax would contest this.) It was the capital of the German province of Pomerania (German: Pommern), the primary port for Berlin, and it was not close to any prewar border with Poland. As a result of Germany losing the war, Stettin's inhabitants -- all of them who survived -- were indeed expelled. I suppose we could say "transferred," which is a neutral word, but the action itself was obviously not a neutral one, so even this is glossing over reality.
In anticipation of something like this exchange, over the weekend I dragged out my old college textbook on 20th C. European history -- from a box in the garage -- and found the following entry about Stettin/Szczecin:
"In 1945 Russia unilaterally handed over the city of Stettin on the left bank of the Oder to the Poles, who soon converted it into the completely Polish city of Szczecin." -- C.E. Black, E.C. Helmreich: Twentieth Century Europe: A History. Knopf, New York: 1950, 1959, 1966, p. 696.
At the time this textbook was written, the information summarized in the above sentence above was general knowledge among historians and others concerned with the ramifications of World War II. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a simple statement of fact.
Since then the West seems to have forgotten about some of these details, to the point where one sees casual references to places that were indisputably German BEFORE the Nazi period, and within the 1919-37 borders of Germany, as having been "in occupied Poland." This should concern anyone interested in historical accuracy.
I don't know whether you're a native English speaker, but the use you are proposing for "repatriated" is inaaccurate. "Repatriate" is defined as: "To send back or return to the country of birth, citizenship or allegiance," and gives as it's most typical example "to repatriate prisoners of war." (From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the most often used dictionary in the U.S.)
Please notice the words BACK TO and RETURN. The residents of Stettin were not sent "back to" someplace they had been before or "returned" to some country that was different from the one which, until then, their city had been -- they were evicted from their homes in their own country. They hadn't taken these homes from Poles or anyone else; Stettin was their city. The Soviets took it from them and gave it to the Poles.
Whether that was justified given Nazi Germany's aggression, or as "compensation" to Poland for Poland's losses to the USSR (Wilna, Lwow, etc.), is another debate. The point here is simply WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the ground. If what actually happened is upsetting to Polish readers, too bad -- that doesn't change history. Sca 20:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't care about any "compensations" and I don't know why you mentioned them, I only care that the history is represented as it actually happened using words that are not biased and the previous version of that part of the article was IMO biased. We seem to have reached an agreement about "conquered", now let's talk about "expelled":
- The verb repatriate has 2 meanings:
- Meaning #1: send someone back to his homeland against his will, as of refugees
- Meaning #2: admit back into the country
- and,
- Military
- repatriate
- (DOD) A person who returns to his or her country or citizenship, having left said native country either against his or her will, or as one of a group who left for reason of politics, religion, or other pertinent reasons.
- Care to explain why this word is not appropriate?--Roo72 20:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but as a 1) native English speaker, 2) writer, 3) sometime historian and 4) editor, I cannot agree to your use of "repatriate" in this context.
As outlined above, the primary and original meaning of repatriate is to return to one's country of origin. People who are evicted from their place of origin or residence, which until their eviction was part of their country of origin, cannot be described as "returning" to their country of origin. This applies whether those involved are Germans, Poles, Russians, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Chinese, etc. ad infinitum.
I've mentioned the Webster's definition of repatriate. Here are some others, including one that is irreverent but on the mark:
1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000: repatriate TRANSITIVE VERB: To restore or return to the country of birth, citizenship, or origin: repatriate war refugees. ETYMOLOGY: Late Latin repatrire, repatrit-, to return to one's country : Latin re-, re- + Latin patria, native country.
2. wordreference.com: repatriation the act of returning to the country of origin
3. freesearch.co.uk: repatriate verb {T}
to send or bring someone, or sometimes money or other property, back to their own country:
-- The government repatriated him because he had no visa.
4. The Urban Dictionary: repatriate "Politically-correct bullshit for DEPORT. The foreigner was repatriated to his home country because he tried to find a job so he could pay his medical bills.
One common use of "repatriate" in historical writing involves diplomats and other foreign nationals present in one country when their own country declares war on the host country. In WWII, Germans in Britain, Brits in Germany, Japanese in the U.S., etc., were "repatriated," usually by being transhipped via neutral countries to their countries of origin. (Some Americans in Japanese hands had other experiences -- as did some Japanese in the U.S.)
I will grant you that "repatriate" is sometimes used in the manner you are employing it, but usually to serve political or nationalistic propaganda. Using "repatriate" to refer to uprooting human beings of whatever nationality from their established homes is political doublespeak and cannot equated with historical accuracy; it is a corruption of the basic meaning from RE and PATRIA.
So, that's you
Nice to see you - at last. I don't know why (should ask my mom, she's a psychologist-to-be), but it's always easier to talk to someone who has a face :) ...
As to the other pics you've sent me - I really love these guys who spend half a day at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (have you read the article?). One of my friends from Kiev once told me that he was disappointed with the way the soldiers in Poland look and that the guys at the Red Square in Moscow could march much, much better, but still.~.. Those pals stay there, at the holiest of all places in Poland, and they do it voluntarily. That's really something...
And about the way the Polish soldiers look - I really miss the days when the Polish soldiers used the pre-war uniforms. Nowadays there are some plans to restore the Polish uniforms of 1936, but (as always) the army is lacking money... Fortunately, the founder of the Polish GROM special unit was not only a soldier, but also a guy with some taste, and decided to introduce the 1936 uniforms in his newly-established unit. Hopefully some day the rest of the Polish Army will follow.
BTW, from my words you could draw the conclusion that I'm Kierkegaards' "aesthetic man". That's right... Halibutt 03:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote
Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Sca, I really seriously contend that the city at the head of the Vistula was predominantly Polish in the period from 1466 to 1793. Or rather it was a part of a predominantly Polish state, where the Polish language was one of the two official languages of the state (German was not the other one). As I told you already, I don't give a darn about the languages and cultures of the local inhabitants, since I don't like applying 19th century standards to 15th century people. The only serious criterion for me is the name used by the monarch when referring to the place. If so, the name should be either in Polish or in Latin. Halibutt 22:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Sca, apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. In my comment the adjective "Polish" refers to the Polish State (Poland-Lithuania, the Crown of Poland, Kingdom of Poland - whatever), not to the 19th century concept of the Polish ethnicity. In this context Gdansk was as Polish as Cracow, Posna, Kiev or Smolensk. It does not mean that most of the inhabitants of the city were ethnic Poles with Polish ancestry and/or speaking Polish as their primary language. It does, however, mean that the city in question was a part of Poland which used the Polish language as one of two or three state languages (the other being Ruthenian and Latin).
- As to the American example: perhaps whole New York City is not the best choice here, but there are zillions of other places in the US of A that are inhabitated mostly by immigrants: Cubans, Poles, Russians, Africans... As long as Wikipedia refers to those places with their official, English names (not used by the local inhabitants who speak Spanish, Polish or whatever other language) rather than by the names used by local inhabitants, I believe we should use this scheme for all other places in the world. Official languages and official names should be followed at all times, not only when someone finds it plausible. Otherwise we'd have double standards here. Of course, one day the name of the Green Point area of the NYC might be officially changed to Jackowo - and then we could change the WP naming of that place as well. But as for now, the name used by the locals is completely irrelevant and could be mentioned in the article, but not as the principal name.
- BTW, thanks for the postcard, it arrived the day after my birthday, so I took it as a gift :) Could you send me your address as well so that I could reply?
--Regards, Halibutt 02:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Wrzeszcz
Vgeshch. "g" pronounced as in "massage", "protege" and "beige". Easy! Good luck!Space Cadet 21:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You couldn't have picked an easier name, could you. :) In IPA it's ['vʒεʃʧ]. In "English approximation" it would be something like "Vzhehshch" (V zh eh sh ch - sounds separated). I prepared an .ogg key for you - check the Wrzeszcz article. Halibutt 22:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt there is an exact translation of "yikes". It all depends on the context:
- yikes (like oh wow!) - świetne (lit. it's great)
- yikes (like gosh) - rany (lit. wounds, as in for the wounds of Christ), rety (slightly old-stylish, like whoopsie daisies)
- and many, many more... :)
- Cheers, Halibutt 22:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt there is an exact translation of "yikes". It all depends on the context:
Thanks for the compliments. It worked out rather well. Of course, in retrospect i would have done some things differently (e.g. not mention vandalism on the enforcement vote), but otherwise it looks good. Many thanks also to User:John Kenney and you for keeping up the discussion on the vote page! Also, the Biographies section was a great idea of yours. That's why i have named you and John also as organizers on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig. I am currently preparing the text for the vote results, see User:Chris 73/Work#In preparation for the ending of the vote if you are interested. Comments are welcome.
About editing user pages - it has happened to me, too, especially if there is only a blank user page. Guess we have to live with that. Best regards -- Chris 73 Talk 04:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Poles in Vilnius
Regarding your question in Talk:Vilnius about 18% of Vilnius population being Poles (with over 70% being Lithuanian or Russian). Compare today's ethnic composition of the city with any of the pre-war censae. Vast majority of the people living in Vilnius today were migrating into the town in this or the previous generation. I'm not claiming that this is good or bad, it's just the fact implied by these figures. Now, what happened to Jewish and Polish population, that constituted over 90% before WW2 ? Wojsyl 06:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- More on that: together with some Lithuanian contributors we've came to a conclusion that the majority of the present 18%-strong Polish minority must've migrated to the city from the surrounding areas and other parts of the Soviet Union, along with members of other nationalities (there are even Ukrainians there nowadays). This is most probably tied to the general trend of depopulating villages and urbanisation of cities. More on that you can find in the Talk:Vilnius archives.
- Also note that not all Poles were forced to leave the area and some of them effectively opposed it (the same happened with Germans in post-war Poland). After all many people believed that a war between East and West would start soon and that the city will once again be returned to Poland, so they ignored the NKVD and all the Soviet terror and simply decided to stay. Others were forced to adopt Soviet citizenship because they were speciallists and were needed by the Soviet industry or were inhabitants of pre-war Lithuania and as such were not subject to the "population exchange" (according to Polish estimates there were ca. 200.000 Poles in pre-war Lithuania, Lithuanian censae place that number at 20.000). Finally, the push to expell the Poles was much weaker in the countryside than in the city itself. That's why the Poles still constitute the majority in several communes to the south and east of the city itself. Many of them might've simply migrated to the city somne time in the 1950's or 1960's. Halibutt 10:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
schopenhauer
should the "poland" in the infobox at schopenhauer be changed? --goethean ॐ 18:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't let your own fascination with Danzig's German culture fool you. I have yet to meet a Pole to believe that the Germans of Danzig or Stettin were not Germans in terms of ethnicity. Yet, you accused me of such stupidity just because I took part in a discussion of political ownership of the city at the time Schopenhauer was born. Watch out for your own phobias before you accuse others of spreading them... Halibutt 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
A statement about Danzig
(This is a comment I left on User Molobo's page in response to his attempt to suggest that Danzig was "occupied" by Germany in 1939 and "liberated" by the Soviet Union in 1945.)
This is an absurd argument. The city was separated from Germany, of which it had been part, in a political act by the Western victors in World War I. It remained the same city, ethnically German. When Nazi Germany "occupied" Danzig in 1939, the justification given by the Nazi regime was of course that it was being returned to Germany -- which was true.
A vast majority of the ethnic-German residents of Danzig would have welcomed being returned to Germany whoever was in power in Germany. That it was Hitler and his criminal regime ultimately was to prove tragic for the Danzigers, who after this world war were to lose not only their political status but also their hometown itself. And of course, a fourth of them lost their lives.
Nazi Germany occupied Poland and many other places in Europe during the war, but it's ridiculous to say Germany "occupied" Danzig -- it reclaimed Danzig (for five and a half years).
To argue that ethnically German Danzig was "liberated" by the Soviets, who kicked the Danzigers out and gave the city to Poland, is just total BS – unless it's your view that Danzig had been "occupied" since the 14th century by Germans, which would be a confession of hysterical Polish ultra-nationalism.
Tell me, Pan Molobo, do you also consider L'wow and Wilna to have been "liberated" by the Red Army in 1939?
In American English we have a humorous usage of "liberated." When someone steals something, he may jokingly say he has "liberated" it. This is exactly the sense in which Danzig was "liberated" in 1945, though in a violent and bloody manner.
Now just don't accuse me of being pro-Nazi. This is just basic logic. The Soviets in 1945 stole Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia from Germany and gave most of it to Poland to "compensate" Poland for their having stolen eastern Poland in 1939 in the deal with Hitler. The fact the it was Nazi Germany that started the war in the first place doesn't change the nature of what happened to the territories affected and the people living in them.
Sca 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding "returned" territories
For anyone who's interested, I posted this statement on User Space Cadet's page regarding the Polish tendancy to refer to the Oder-Neisse territories as "returned territories."
It would be one thing if some province or provinces of Country A were occupied for a relatively short time by Country B, then returned to Country A, as was the case with Nazi Germany's occupation and (attempted) annexation of the so-called "Wartheland" in 1939. This area was indeed returned to Poland, only 5 years after it's detachment. Although the Nazis persecuted the Poles living there and expelled quite a number of them to what remained of Poland at the time (the so-called "Gouvernement General"), the area didn't lose its Polish character, and this act of geopolitical theft was not accepted internationally, as it was an act of aggression.
It's different when an area goes from one country or national group to another gradually over a long period of time in which the area develops in accordance with the later country or national group's culture and economy, and becomes thoroughly populated by the later nation. This was the case with the parts of Germany annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union at Stalin's insistence in 1945. They had been gradually Germanized over a period of centuries beginning in about 1250.
In the modern era, Germans from these areas contributed much to German culture and commerce. Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia were distinct regions of the German realm, and their loss was for Germany like an amputation of limbs from the body. I realize that this cataclysm was set in motion by German aggression and atrocities, but that does not change the fact that what happened to the Germans of this region was in every sense an act of ethnic cleansing, and the second-largest example of it in recorded history. This should not be ignored.
My analogy with the former Mexican states of the U.S. is not a perfect one – all analogies break down somewhere – but it does offer one notable parallel: When part of Mexico, this area was thinly populated; after it became part of the U.S., it developed quickly and within half a century was home to growing cities that became important to the U.S. economically and culturally. Today California is the most populous state in the U.S., with a population over 30 million. When it was Mexican, it had perhaps a few hundred thousand inhabitants.
In broad terms, development of a similar magnitude occurred in Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia during the centuries they were within the German "reach." Major German cities developed – Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, Königsberg – and before WWII the territories were home to about 10 million Germans. In relation to Germany's population, this was roughly comparable to the proportion of Americans who live in the ex-Mexican states today.
Space Cadet, please understand I am not suggesting the territories should be given back to Germany now or ever, nor do any Germans outside the lunatic fringe suggest that. I'm just saying that this whole episode was a very major geopolitical and ethnographic upheaval in recent times, and should be known along with all the other horrors of the WWII era.
Sca 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello!
I don't think we have met before on Wikipedia, but I thought I might introduce you to the reference desk - you might find helping out there quite rewarding. See you around! --HappyCamper 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you a Pole? :)
I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo. Just search for your username. If you would like a 'honorable Pole' badge or something, I think you have just qualified ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Ghirlandajo seems convinced you are a Pole :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Kensington runestone
Dear Sca. The Kensington runestone is really fascinating. Just like some other possible hoaxes, it is extremely difficult to know whether it is one or not. All I can say is that it can very well be an authentic runestone, but I don't think we can ever be sure.--Wiglaf 09:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
'Poetic license'
- Hi, your "poetic license" is very nice. Of course every real Pole (and I am one) would argue that Danzig was German for a few centuries only and then it returned back to Poland. But let's leave this aside. What surprised me is that you think that Germans should refer to modern Danzig as "Gdańsk". While it's still Danzig in German. Should English use München for Munich then ? (feel free to ignore my question if you do not appreciate the little chat here). --Wojsyl (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The situations of Gdansk and München are not the same, because in the case of Gdansk, the city before 1945 was known officially as Danzig and was called Danzig by its inhabitants (except for a small Polish minority, about 3.5% of its population). München has never officially been Munich and has never been known as such by its inhabitants. Hypothetically speaking: If in 1945 the Germans had been expelled from Bavaria by the conquering U.S. Army, and had been replaced over the next few years by American settlers who transformed München into an English-speaking city and changed the its name to Munich, then the two situations would be the same, and the Germans would be obliged to refer to the city as Munich.
All analogies break down somewhere, however. In this case, München has indeed long been known to the English- (and French-) speaking world as Munich. Presumably, this anglicization came about because the German Ü and CH sounds are too difficult for linguistically unskilled English speakers to pronounce (as, by the way, is much more the case with Szczecin, which is a virtual impossibility for non-Slavs). Consequently, it's not reasonable to demand that English speakers refer to München by its real name. But it is possible for English- (and German-) speakers to pronounce Gdansk, however imperfectly.
Again, the city that today is Gdansk was known everywhere outside the Slavic world, before the postwar changes, as Danzig. If you search for "Danzig" on the New York Times archival page, you will get hundreds if not thousands of hits on articles about the city's status in the interwar period and its history during the war and immediately thereafter. Hits on "Gdansk" start much later, of course, and are related mainly to Solidarnosc and Lech Walesa.
Now a question for you: Why would a "real Pole" have to claim the city as Polish even during centuries in which it was inhabited mainly by Germans (with a few Flemmings thrown in)? (Of course, all this has been argued at length before on Wiki.)
Sca 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the time taken in explaining this. I'm afraid I still do not share your view that Germans should be using "Gdansk" name instead of "Danzig" (similarly as they don't use "Roma" instead of "Rom", "Praha" for "Prag" or "Moskwa" for "Moskau"). In Polish we do say "Londyn", "Mediolan", "Akwizgran", "Rzym", "Gandawa" and not "London", "Milano", "Aachen", "Roma" or "Gent" and this is not because they are difficult to pronounce or because London was once conquered by Poles, but simply they are the same names in another language. Check out Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages.
- As to your question: "Why would a "real Pole" have to claim the city as Polish ..." firstly, I've been a bit sarcastic saying this (using the "real Pole" term should signify this already). But there is some truth to it indeed. Gdansk has been Polish before all its inhabitants were murdered by Teutonic Knights, who then literally replaced its population. And then again it was a part of Poland, since 15th century. Should the Poles slaughter or expell all the German inhabitants then to make it more Polish ? The fact that it was inhabitated by Germans does not mean it was a German city. For similar reason Lithuanians say that Vilnius was a Lithuanian city, not Polish even if it had no Lithuanian population until recently. I know I'm oversimplifying it here and the analogy is not 100% true. I'm sure you know that Danzig attempted to resist the Prussian occupation during the partitions of Poland. --Wojsyl (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your response on my page: I suspect that you, like many Poles, may be overstating the conduct of the Teutonic Knights. I do think that Poles generally are heavily influenced by a nationalistic, romanticized version of their country's early history – just as the Germans were similary influenced in the 19th and early 20th centuries by such people as Treitschke. You no doubt will disagree. But at least you probably can agree that pre-1308, Gdansk was a small settlement, and it was developed as a key city and port mainly during the following centuries and mainly (until 1945) by Germans.
Beyond that, I've already discussed the issue of old Danzig having been politically part of the Polish state in the late Middle Ages extensively with Halibutt. The fact that it was enfoeffed to the Polish Crown doesn't change the history of its ethnicity, which from an English-speaking point of view is the main issue historically.
If you read English books, I recommend Geoffrey Barraclough's "The Origins of Modern Germany." Or if you read German, Hermann Schreiber's "Die Deutschen und der Osten." Sca 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's interesting that you say that Poles usually overstate the role of the Teutonic Knights. It might be very true indeed as the Knights were always depicted as the Evil Enemy in Poland, whether in 19th or 20th century. On the other hand, they were equally important in Lithuanian history, so maybe it is the West, who under-states their role ? After all it's Poles, not e.g. the Spaniards who dealt with them, so who would know better ? But all I said here was that they have slaughtered all the citizens of the city and replaced them with Germans. I think these are historic facts, regardless of the point of view. I also do not doubt that the city was primarily developed by the German people. So what ? Vilnius was developed primarily by Poles, does it make it a Polish city ? I think that kind of thinking is influenced by German idea of an ethnic nation-state. Poland has always been quite diverse ethnically, with Poles, Jews, Ruthenians, Germans, Lithuanians, Ukrainians etc. being its citizens. It is hard to understand why a city is considered to be German only because people spoke German there. From your other comment I understand that you believe that Poles are overly nationalistic in general. You may be very right in that over last 200 years or so Poles had to defend their national identity for most of the time. Given the history of these 200 years, you might be surprised that the level of nationalism in Poland is that low, compared to countries like Russia or Lithuania. What do you think ? Thanks for suggesting the books. --Wojsyl (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's been a few years since I last read it, but I also recommend Barraclough's work (available on Amazon). His writing style is pretty dry, but he does a good job of explaining how German feudal society developed, especially during the years before the Golden Bull. I agree with Sca that, in English, saying a city is "Polish" or "German" usually indicates the primary ethnicity of it, not that it is affiliated with a Polish or German state; I suppose it is because of the influence of German philosophers on the Anglo-American way of thinking. Regarding the Knights, it has been difficult for me to find adequate sources in English on them. Some authors take a more sympathetic approach to them, while others are very critical. It certainly is true that Poles and Lithuanians had greater interaction with the Knights than Spaniards who might understate their role. However, it should also be considered that some Poles and Lithuanians, as their ethnicities had been primary targets of the Knights and often victimized by them, might overstate the actions of the Knights. I often take a very suspect look at any text written from a nationalistic context, be the author German, Pole, Lithuanian, or Spaniard. Olessi 10:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure it has to be taken with caution, especially that, as I said, the Knights had almost been used as a symbol of a national enemy throughout 19th/20th century, probably in order to better consolidate the nation against the powers that partitioned it. So I expect you may be right on this. On the other hand any remote nation would not really care for Teutonic Knights that much, so they would probably unterstate their role in anihilating other remote nations (as you said, it's even difficult to find comprehensive sources in English on them). The truth may be somewhere in the middle. From Polish perspective the Knights were the origin of the later Prussian state and therefore also all the Polish miseries associated with this later, including WW2. --Wojsyl (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- For illustrating this better: the Polish history as it's been taught in Polish schools, has three canonic dates that every pupil knows: 966 - the Baptism of Poland, 1410 - defeating Teutonic Knights at Tannenberg, 1939 - German invasion. --Wojsyl (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's been a few years since I last read it, but I also recommend Barraclough's work (available on Amazon). His writing style is pretty dry, but he does a good job of explaining how German feudal society developed, especially during the years before the Golden Bull. I agree with Sca that, in English, saying a city is "Polish" or "German" usually indicates the primary ethnicity of it, not that it is affiliated with a Polish or German state; I suppose it is because of the influence of German philosophers on the Anglo-American way of thinking. Regarding the Knights, it has been difficult for me to find adequate sources in English on them. Some authors take a more sympathetic approach to them, while others are very critical. It certainly is true that Poles and Lithuanians had greater interaction with the Knights than Spaniards who might understate their role. However, it should also be considered that some Poles and Lithuanians, as their ethnicities had been primary targets of the Knights and often victimized by them, might overstate the actions of the Knights. I often take a very suspect look at any text written from a nationalistic context, be the author German, Pole, Lithuanian, or Spaniard. Olessi 10:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
A statement about Frombork, formerly Frauenburg
"Frombork" did not "return to Poland" in 1945 like some long-lost dog coming home. Its population was evicted, and the town was assigned – along with a lot of other German territory – to Poland to make up for or "compensate" for Soviet annexation of eastern Poland.
This was the price Germany paid for having started the war, inflicted all the atrocities, and then lost the war. Whether it was justified or not can be debated. I'm sure Molobo would say it was justified, and many people, especially Poles, would agree with him. Obviously, many if not most Germans would not, and some other people would agree with the Germans, arguing that the German people affected were not primarily those who inflicted all the misery. But this debate is not the issue here or in any of the other debates we've had about formerly German places transferred to Poland in 1945, the prime example being Gdansk/Danzig.
The issue is: What actually happened in 1945 and thereafter? In this case, it was NOT that poor little Polish Frombork "returned" to Poland after 173 years of Prusso-German "rule," a term that implies illegitimacy. It was that Frauenburg – which had been ethnically German for centuries – was emptied out and turned over to Poland by the U.S.S.R. – along with 44,000 square miles of prewar German territory that until then was inhabited by Germans.
Dear Polish freinds, truth is the only way to reconcilation. No one in his right mind expects Poland to give the territories back. Just be honest about how Poland acquired them 61 years ago.
Sca 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
German Wikipedians' noticeboard
Hello Steven! I would like to inform you of the recently created noticeboard for German speakers and German topics. Feel free to participate! Olessi 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sca
Thanks for your edifying comments as to my edits to several pages on Gdansk and other now Polish, former German cities and villages. I basically agree with you, though I must say, that as a Roman Catholic (some would brand me even a traditionalist) I do share my religious views with the Polish. But then again, I am Dutch and therefore have easy access to German sources. Don't forget, that the Polish Communists after 1945, supported by "Catholic" Polish nationalists, also expelled all German-speaking religious orders from Silesia and all clergymen from there and from the very Roman Catholic ánd very ethnic German-Prussian area around present Braniewo and Biskupiec (Braunsberg and Bischofsburg, East Prussia/Ermeland). I am still puzzled how intensely anti-German the Polish can be. But as a Dutchman, I do understand them, for more than 3,000,000 Polish were killed during the occupation, among them very many Roman Catholic clergymen. Then again, many Polish Jesuits were in the Silesian Uprisings the first (despite being formally suspended and forbidden to do so by Adolf Cardinal Bertram) to revolt against Imperial Germany and to incite Polish nationalist attacks. It all reminds me of the image many Southern Americans have of their clergy due to Camillo Torres Restrepo the Leftist Priest. To conclude: I also think the Polish should grow up and face objective history and acknowledge that almost 1/3 of their country was formerly in the German cultural and linguistical and political sphere.Smith2006 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's true. Copernicus is par excellence the product of Prussian influence, German Catholic institutions and Polish ancestry. But they don't want to admit that. One can honestly say, that more than half of Poland's major cities are totally German in culture and architecture. Not even Kraków can be exempted, as Austrian (German) baroque influence is visibly there as a remnant of its history as part of Austria-Hungary. Danzig, Torún, Bromberg-Bydgoczsz, Poznan, Katowice even Czestochowa all profited from German influence. The Warsaw and Lithuanian styles were really a bit different. But anyway, it's sad that these objective facts cannot be inserted in Wikipedia, because Polish nationalists will immediately come in.Smith2006 13:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- As to Poland's homogeneity: that's an invention by the Polish Communists and Nationalists. The very distinct Kashubian language was forcefully integrated as "Polish", while in fact it was Farwest-Slavic. And the 500,000 ethnic Germans in Upper Silesia, who were polonized by pressure but not totally, are also all too easily forgotten or classified as "Polish" along with the Slavic (mixed German-Slavic) Upper Silesians who remained after 1945, mostly as forced labourers. And they also say the Ukrainians at the MODERN Polish southeast border and those deported to Pomerania, like the Belarus east of Bialystok (where many Orthodox live), are all "Poles". Germany had a similar method of declaring homogeneity before that. They also said all of Masuria was German, while linguistically it was not at all [it was Polish] (while religiously and culturally being German-Lutheran).Smith2006 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's true. Copernicus is par excellence the product of Prussian influence, German Catholic institutions and Polish ancestry. But they don't want to admit that. One can honestly say, that more than half of Poland's major cities are totally German in culture and architecture. Not even Kraków can be exempted, as Austrian (German) baroque influence is visibly there as a remnant of its history as part of Austria-Hungary. Danzig, Torún, Bromberg-Bydgoczsz, Poznan, Katowice even Czestochowa all profited from German influence. The Warsaw and Lithuanian styles were really a bit different. But anyway, it's sad that these objective facts cannot be inserted in Wikipedia, because Polish nationalists will immediately come in.Smith2006 13:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Only, I think that the Russians are not really "proud" on Königsberg, I just think they consider the past, the past and the consequences just to be accepted. The Russians use German names again for some products, they invite expellees for tourist visits (though visa make it difficult, not VISA Goldcard®). I think the Russians know that what Stalin and the communists did was not alright, but they just accept it now. They are still considering renaming Kaliningrad Königsberg (or Russian: Kyonigsberg) back again. And why not? Does not Kronstadt sound German to you? Yet that is Russian, of history, too. PLease note, that the 97 % Polish have sometimes Kashubian blood in them, as well as sometimes a bit German.Smith2006 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the three groups could gather together under the sign of the lowly tuber — for which my state, sadly, is famous. Hey, hey, I happen to like potatoes. In fact, in our Dutch Lower Saxon dialect, we also use a word derived from Kartoffel, tuffel. Mashed potatoes are a speciality of "high cuisine" of us Dutch!Smith2006 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- See? This whole discussion started out as an explanation of why the squabble over German place-names still is going on here on Wiki, yet you focus not on the ones to push the German names nor on the ones not to give a darn like yours truly. It takes two to tango, yet in this case there are guys who start and guys who continue. Why not think of the earlier group for a second?
- Now then, as to RC church in Poland. There are official stats that say that 95% of Poles are members of it. However, these are based on church records, which in turn are based on the number of people baptised. And that number is quite misleading as until relatively lately pretty everyone baptised their children to give them freedom of choice, as my parents put it. This was true to both Roman Catholics and to members of the commie party, who usually did this in secrecy. I was baptised too and I know only a handful of people who were not, regardless of their actual beliefs - or even beliefs of their parents.
- Finally, I'm Jewish too, there's no contradiction in being both Polish and Jewish. Modern books of the Holocaust for dummies type often make people subconsciously adopt Nazi racial theories: if you have some Jewish roots then you're a Jew, full stop. That's not how it is in the real life, as people here - much like in the US or anywhere else - have mixed backgrounds. Finally, being Jewish is not a matter of lifestyle or what you do on Friday afternoon. Or rather not only. Just like it takes a tad more to be a Roman Catholic than to go to church every Sunday. I know ardent Catholics who have not been to church in ages at all (my grandma for instance). //Halibutt 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course there are Poles who are moderate in their views. Not to approve Polish nationalism, but the Polish Roman Catholic Church is not extremist in its views, well they might be in some propagandistic or the liberal view of many Americans (drawing from the anti-Catholic sentiment of 17th century Protestantism), but then I would be an überExtremist, as I am more conservative than most Polish cardinals in matters of liturgy (Traditional Latin Mass) and doctrine. While in the past and until 1960 the Roman Catholic Church, and still the Radio Maryja clergy (whom I otherwise appreciate to some extent as in which they do not invoke popular sentiment), may have supported Polish nationalism and even claims to the former German territories annexed, these days some Roman Catholic bishops are very much busy on the path of reconciliation with German expellees. It's mainly nationalists and communists opposed to this these days. Please note, that until 1972 the Holy See refused to recognize the communist annexation policy of Stalin and communist Poland and refused to erect new polish dioceses, rename the German ones [e.g. of Breslau and Cardinal Bertram, rip]. Therefore until 1972 there would remain an Apostolic Vicar of Schneidemühl and a diocese of Braunsberg and Breslau. All whose bishops would live in West Germany. I rather would point out the Polish subjugation trauma, along with Slavic nationalism and historical misrepresentation of facts, caused the bloody expulsion and the "recovered" theory.As to being Jewish: rabbinically speaking I would qualify as a full Jew too, but racially speaking the Nazis would enlist me as the most Nordic-Phalian Aryan there is. Like Werner Goldberg. In fact, my greatgrandmother's by maternal line name was Goldberg. In Poland, with more millions of Jews than in the Netherlands (they were all driven out from here in the late Middle Ages to the more tolerant and more trade-like Polish Catholic Kingdom), most of the population has some Jewish blood, especially as always, like in Spain, a small number of them converted to Christendom, out of persuasion or out of economical goals.Smith2006 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- When speaking of recent Polish-German relations, one should not forget of the 1965 letter of Polish bishops, which more or less started all the process of reconciliation. //Halibutt 13:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- As to being Jewish. I am rabbinnically Jewish, but I am, as a Roman Catholic, also somewhat anti-Judaist. I am not an Evangelical Dispensationalist. This however does not hinder me from having as my best friend a secular German Jew and to have among my acquaintances some Jews. The Jewish doctor stereotype (I don't say your relationship to your doctor is the same) was fed upon by H. Himmler in his Posener speech, which was not directed to concentration camp officers, but rather to SS-Einsatzgruppen who had to shoot all Jewish males in Soviet territory as possible "communists". Given the perspective of Titus Brandsma (fellow countryman of mine) and Maksymilian Kolbe, both Roman Catholic priests, it must remain clear, that I am virulently opposed to Nazism, even if I may have a certain weakness or sympathy towards Germans, German officers and German history in general. I likewise admire the Kashubians very much, especially for remaining both Catholic ánd Slavic under Germanization and non-Polish after 1945. Sca, I have to thank you instead of otherwise.Smith2006 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- When speaking of recent Polish-German relations, one should not forget of the 1965 letter of Polish bishops, which more or less started all the process of reconciliation. //Halibutt 13:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Günter Grass's wartime service
I think you are conflating different things: Grass was a Flakhelfer while a pupil, Reichsarbeitsdienst after that, Waffen-SS after that. Certainly, your "labor service of a Waffen SS panzer unit" sounds totally garbled. By the way, I wrote the sentence about Flakhelfer experience based on what I recall about the characters in Cat and Mouse. If it is inaccurate, please improve. Leibniz 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have indeed caught me reading too quickly. I misunderstood the following sentence from Spiegel: Grass wurde mit 17 einberufen und kam vom Arbeitsdienst zur Panzerdivision "Frundsberg," die zur Waffen-SS gehörte. However, the sentence before this one did give me the impression that Grass had not been an anti-aricraft auxiliary: Der "Blechtrommel"-Autor war nicht wie bislang bekannt lediglich 1944 als Flakhelfer ingezogen worden.
- This information came across on Spiegel's English-language site as: From the middle of 1944 until the end of the war in the spring of 1945, Grass served in the Frundsberg tank division of the elite military outfit. Previously, he had contended that he was a teenage helper of an anti-aircraft unit.
- You may be in position to clear up this (minor) question about his service as a Flakhelfer prior to his induction into the Frundsberg Division.
Sca 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just trying to get the facts straight. The ratio of facts to verbiage on GG in the last few days has not always been favourable. Leibniz 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Danzig
Yup, that's precisely what I proposed at Talk:Gdansk several years ago and that's precisely what was accepted as a wiki consensus (albeit with strange timeframes). And that's precisely what I support in the case of other cities as well, be them Polish, German or any other. //Halibutt 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps your definition of "German times" vis-a-vis Danzig/Gdańsk is different than mine. My view is, it was German ethnically from 1308 to 1945, and ought to be referred to as Danzig during that time. I believe you argued for Gdańsk from the 14XX through 17XX for poltical reasons.
- Imagined ethnicity? It's a matter of language, culture and ancestry, none of which are imagined, at least not in Europe. (In the American melting pot it's more complicated.)
- Would it help any if I explained the nuances of my position, which have to do with reader perception, or would we be beating a dead horse?
Sca 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sca, there's no population censuses dating back to 14th century. We could assume that the people of this or that city used this or that language back then or felt members of this or that culture. However, it is by no means tangible or scientific (in the strict meaning of the word). The political situation is much easier to check as the borders are something easy to check. But I have no intention to discuss that any further, it's been discussed over and over again, and I don't think either of us could say anything that hasn't been said already. //Halibutt 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree to disagree.
- Sca 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Inhabitants Records of Danzig
Sca and Halibutt
I happened to come across this conversation. Please excuse me for butting in. I will just make this onetime comment. Halibutt, you have incorrect assumptions, probably because a particular group of people at wikipedia are working hard for years to keep true and accurate information off wikipedia. But records do exist.
The official records of inhabitants of Danzig go all the way back to the Reformation, when the new evangelical protestant churches started keeping records of every person born; see sample Documents of Danzig Inhabitants Keep clicking on the church records. and click further. This will bring you back to appr 1530's. Inhabitants are documented at: Taufen, Heiraten, Tote (baptism, marriage, death). The Family History Centers of the LDS Latter Day Saints started filming these church records in 1922, when parts of Germany were 'given' to Poland and to other countries. It is true, that before the Reformation no condensed records by the Catholic church were kept, but for that earlier time there are Preußische Regesten scattered in many different places, which have references to individual people and to their plots of land as well. Labbas 8/22/2006
Jadger
LOL, you know what, I get that all the time! strange isn't it? I never thought so many people in Canada knew who Frederick the Great was, but I get stopped on the street all the time.
LOL, people have been changing my userpage according to new rules since I last edited it, and i hadn't bothered to look at it, that's the reason, it used to have more on it.
--Jadger 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for sending it, at my first oppurtunity I will read it.
--Jadger 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
English wikipedia not for Germans, Poles or Russians ?
I'm writing my remark here, since it's not relevant to the article itself. In Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II you wrote: Keep in mind that this article supposedly is being written for English speakers, not for Germans, Poles or Russians. You'd be surprised how many English speakers there are in Europe. It's good to think that English wikipedia is not only intended for native speakers but for all English speakers worldwide. With this perspective, the US are in minority (just wanted to mention it as many US editors tend to think that this is a US or British wikipedia). --Lysytalk 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's a delusion that most of the readers of en.wiki are native English speakers. Also, my experience is that most of the editors I'm meeting on en.wiki are not native English speakers at all. I wonder if your observations are very different. P.S. thanks for the paper. --Lysytalk 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
But what is Wikipedia, really? is a good question but not to be answered without at least a weekly supply of beer. Certainly it is not an encyclopedia as we used to know it. Also the role of English is rapidly changing and a large portion of people while not fluent in English still use that language to communicate and to look for information. Thanks for discussing this with me (I only wanted to make a point that it's not that obvious that English wikipedia is intended for native speakers). --Lysytalk 06:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Nationality of Günter Grass
You said on a different page that "Yes, they use the Kashubian claim to try to make out that Gũnter Grass is not wholly a 'German' writer.". Hasn't it occured to you that Grass may be German and Kashubian at the same time. In my opionion this is not an either-or situation. Yes, both the Nazi German government and the Communist Polish one wanted the Kashubs to be strictly respectively German or Polish. It would seem it's an idea close to your understanding of nationality. Or am I wrong here? My idea of nationality makes it comfortaby easy to be Polish-Kashubian, German-Kashubian or even (a heresy of heresies for most nationalists) German-Polish. Why not? Maybe it's an American understanding of nationality (as in Irish-American,German-American or Polish-American) but I prefer it hands down to the divisive 19th century European idea of clearly divided nations. Please respond here (if you choose to), not on my Talk page. Thank you. ProudPomeranian 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I generally agree that nationality and/or ethnicity sometimes is too narrowly defined, as in either-this-or-that. I've expressed that thought in the Copernicus discussion and elsewhere.
- In the case of Günter Grass, however, I'm not aware that he ever spoke Kashubian or made any particular claims himself about being Kashubian – although some Kashube characters appear in the Danzig Trilogy. In the over-all context of world literature, Grass is a German writer and is everywhere identified as such.
- I freely admit I don't know much about the Kashubians, other than having read that they are a west-Slav group distinct from the Poles proper, perhaps somewhat like the Sorbs of Saxony. I gather their expressions of nationality in the past have been somewhat flexible, depending on poltical winds, like the Upper Silesians. Certainly the area known to the Germans as West Prussia was a fascinating and probably volatile mixture of ethnicities.
- Sca 16:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well in his new novel, Beim Häuten der Zwiebel, Günter Grass openly admits that the family of Oskar Matzerath from The tin drum is actually his own family. That means his own uncle Franz was shot in 1939 for taking part in the defence of the Polish Post Office building in Danzig. The widow was resettled back to her native Kashubian hamlet (Rębiechowo) which is now the airport of Gdańsk. The runway actually runs over the former field of the aunt of Grass. The family still lives near by, according to the book. He visited them on his first post-war trip to Poland in 1958. I strongly encourage you to read the novel. ProudPomeranian 16:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I replied on my own Talk page as you chose to discuss there (ignoring my plea above). No problem. ProudPomeranian 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Boxes
Check WP:BOX. //Halibutt 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysytalk 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
My two grosze's worth
My 2 grosze's worth
It seems to me that there are two questions to be asked in determining appropriate names:
- 1. What was the place called by (a majority of) its inhabitants during the time period or historical era in question?
- 2. How was the place known in English during the time in question?
For places east of the eastern borders of present-day Poland and Slovakia, the first may be difficult to determine with clarity, in which case the second principle should be a guide.
For ex-German places in present-day Poland and the Czech Republic, there would seem to be little confusion, with a few exceptions.
In the case of Gdańsk, it seems clear that the city's inhabitants (or a majority thereof) knew it as Danzig (with early spelling vagaries) from the early 14th century until after WWII, when the surviving/remaining German population was expelled. It's particularly obvious in the case of Danzig due to the city's German-language publications, media and currency that have survived — and particularly important to readers in that "Danzig" appeared in countless publications and newspaper headlines during the interwar period.
The same criteria may be applied with little confusion to other ex-German places in Poland and the Czech Republic. Exceptions or confusion may arise in some areas, however: Poznań / Posen became fundamentally Polish sooner, after the border changes of 1919-20, and I leave it to others to determine when the originally Polish Poznań became fundamentally German (after the First Partition?). Some areas of Upper Silesia evidently were bilingual for a very long time, the Masurians were themselves bilingual, and Klaipėda/Memel was mixed. Such areas may present problems. However, the two principles above apply quite clearly to the most important locales in Silesia, Pomerania, the Gdańsk area and ex-East Prussia.
These principles cancel out any attempt to call a place by a particular name merely because it was politically part of a given country or enfeoffed to a particular royal house. This practice is not logical because the use of an other-than-native name ignores the fundamental nature of the place and its inhabitants. As has been said so many times, Danzig was, ethnically and culturally, fundamentally a German place even when it was part of Royal Prussia and linked politically (and economically) with the Kingdom of Poland.
Okay, it was maybe 50 groszy's worth. It's difficult to express these things succinctly.
Sca 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Collateral blocking again
Text of email to User Winhunter:
Hello Winhunter,
Re:
- You were blocked by Winhunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
- Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dayday169@hotmail.com". The reason given for Dayday169@hotmail.com's block is: "email username, please choose another username".
- Your IP address is 207.200.116.201.
This collateral blocking has happened to me half a dozen times in recent weeks. How do I go about resolving the problem? I am not a techie sort of person.
Sca 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have cleared the autoblock, you should be able to edit now. --WinHunter (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
We could use your calming input on talk:Erika Steinbach, thanks
Your Friend --Jadger 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't want to get involved in that hornets' nest. I see user names that are all too familiar from previous marathon diatribes. It only serves to reinforce my view that there are people on both sides whose mission in life is to keep the fires of ethnic hatred burning. These people live in, and on, the past.
- Anyhow, I know almost nothing about Erika Steinbach. My general view of the German expellee organizations is that they represent primarily the descendants of displaced people, and that these descendants have a legitimate human interest in exploring their own heritage and family or regional histories; doing so does not amount to "revisionism." But certainly no one is served by any claims at this point upon property lost in the old Heimat 60 years ago. You can't turn back the clock.
- As far as place names are concerned, this topic has been well aired elsewhere (see "My 2 grosze's worth" above and on WP:NC(GN).
- Sca 14:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it has been discussed elsewhere numerous times, but this is going against those previous rulings. All I am asking for is for you to vote, as discussion doesn't seem to work when dealing with these fringe groups. By voting, you help to end this dispute quicker then we possibly can otherwise.
--Jadger 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "discussion" at talk:Erika Steinbach is so convoluted and garrulous I can't see where to vote. Besides, the overall character of the "discussion" is sophomoric and acrimonious. I can't believe Erika Steinbach's birthplace is all that important to anyone. However: Why not just say the town of Rumia in present-day Poland, which was known then to the Germans as Rahmel — and move on?
- I do agree that the current phraseology about the town and the German occupation of Poland is confusing and decidedly not NPOV. I also agree that the reincorporation of the "Polish Corridor" territory (and other areas) into Germany after 1939 was not internationally recognized, as it was a result of aggression. But there's no point here in explaining the whole history of the area — West Prussia before 1919, the "Corridor," the Nazi "Greater German Reich," the postwar border changes. All that history is not relevant to a sketch of Erika Steinbach, who in my view is a minor political figure who, perhaps unintentionally, serves as a foil for ultra-nationalists. And in my view nationalism, like racism, is a disease. Wir alle sind doch Menschen.
- Sca 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
you can vote [[1]] (may have to scroll down) if you vote oppose, it simply means you do not support the current convoluted and POV version, it does not mean you support any other version. I would totally support the version you set forward above, although the wording "known by Germans..." makes me a wee bit ancy, as that may open it up for Balcer to claim that Gdansk/Danzig was "known by Germans as Danzig" when it was internationally called that. I know that they claim Danizg/Gdansk is different, but who knows how their statements will change after this is over.
Also, if you take a look at this, it is the version of the vote I propose, which would be more clear, and we could also add the version you offered above there also.
Also, on your last point, I agree she has become overblown by some as a sort of satanic figure by Polish nationalists. Perhaps you can answer this question I have, why is the Centre Against Expulsions so controversial (seems to me only to Poles who don't like the negative publicity) when the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. only concentrates on the genocide against Jews? why has the Holocaust Museum not received a bad rep for only portraying the suffering of Jews rather then everyone who suffered during the holocaust, and all genocides in history for that matter. I am not trying to minimalize the holocaust and I am not a holocaust denier at all, but it seems to me strange that one museum/exhibition can be attacked for doing exactly what others have done in the past.
--Jadger 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is a valid point, but your comment sounds more like a complaint (which to some extent I agree with) than a request for an explanation.
- Those of us who are interested in Germany, and German culture and history, face one incontrovertible fact: The Holocaust was the largest, most pernicious and horrific example of mass murder in recorded history. It was the signature event of the 20th Century, along with the context in which it occurred — i.e., Nazism and WWII. And the central question about the 20th Century always will be: How could it have happened?
- Arguably, Stalin may have been responsible for more human misery and deaths than Hitler, but the Soviet oppression did not target one single group so specifically, and so blatantly without any sense of justice or logic, as did the Nazi genocide against the Jews.
- Secondly, Nazi Germany was the aggressor in Europe. The reaction of peoples who had been conquered and oppressed by the Germans was, in human terms, more understandable than the actions of the Germans who implemented the Holocaust and other less visible atrocities.
- Nevertheless, I do contend that the Germans who died in the war — particularly those who were uprooted from the eastern territories — were just as much victims of war as were the victims of the Nazi atrocities. The question of "collective guilt" for the Germans of that era is a complex one, but I do believe that many, many ordinary Germans were not guilty; one must consider the historical and political context of the times in which they lived.
- Generally, I agree that the victimization of German civilians during and after the war, and particularly those of the former Oder-Neisse territories, has been grossly underreported in Western historiography. It should be integrated in due proportion to the whole history of the tragedy of Europe in the first half of the 20th Century.
- Sca 18:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas published:
- Nemesis at Potsdam in 1977, updated seventh edition in 2003.
- A Terrible Revenge in 1994, new revised edition in 2006.
2. Norman Naimark has published Fires of Hatred. The above books aren't certainly anti-German. From a Polish point of view they are rather too German, because they say relatively little about the historical and political contex.
The victimization of non-Jewish civilians during and after the war, both by Germans and Soviets, has been grossely underreported in English language texts. The German tragedy is in my opinion better known that the fate of expelled Poles. As far as I know the problem of inflating of the numbers of German victims is totally absent in English languge texts. Xx236 10:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you Sca, I could not possibly agree with you more. I understand that Nazi Germany was the aggressor in Europe. There is the problem that misunderstanding people now equate German nationalism with Nazism because the Nazis were the aggressors in Europe (perfect example is das lied der Deutsche. What I think is the biggest question mark of the whole era is what if it had of been another party to have ruled Germany, one that didn't attack Jews or minorities. What if they had of taken German inhabited lands back after their loss at Versailles? would it be considered more acceptable now because it was not a war of conquest like Hitler's war was?
- as for your remarks Xx236, we are talking about what happened to Germans here, not Poles, you have made the stereotypical nationalist remarks as seen on talk:expulsion of Germans after WWII and elsewhere. How many times must you be told? Two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't matter here. To you, it is always about the Poles, you always have to insert them when we are not talking about them. from the sentence From a Polish point of view they are rather too German, because they say relatively little about the historical and political contex. we all know you obviously mean that they don't provide the same excuses as the Polish Government has.
- --Jadger 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Jadger, would you please not attack me on someone's page?
Which the Polish government? There were two of them. In fact the Polish one was in London and the Soviet puppet one in Warsaw. Xx236 07:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Xx236 07:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No more, please!
- This is why I didn't want to get involved in the Erika Steinbach discussion. Please air your differences on on your own pages. Dziékuje bardzo / Danke sehr.
- PS to Xx236: By "other less visible atrocities" above, I meant the Nazi-German crimes against Poles, Russians, other Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally ill, German socialists, and so on. I fully realize Poland suffered horribly under the German occupation. The challenge to Poles three generations later is to find a way to reconciliation with their western neighbor.
- Sca 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is why I didn't want to get involved in the Erika Steinbach discussion. Please air your differences on on your own pages. Dziékuje bardzo / Danke sehr.
The challenge to Germans ...is ...reconcillation with their eastern neighbor. Xx236 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I assuming you refer to this village? I'd not think that the name would change; I can't even think of other names for this place. Possibly there is a German name, if somebody brings it up and it is popular enough it then would be included in the lead, I guess, like Sztum (Stuhm), for example. But again this is what we do anyway, so the proposal wouldn't really change anything, I think. I don't really think the proposal would cause any renamings, and relativly few changes in leads - but it is more of a precautionary strike to end long and pointless debates about pros and cons of having alternative names in leads and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the city (pop. 330,000) on the Oka River 200 mi. south of Moscow. My old Times Atlas spells it Orël, which apparently is a derivative of Орёл in Russian. Generally in English I've seen it as Orel with a normal 'e' — however, on Wiki it's "Oryol," evidently a transliteration into English of the Russian Cyrillic characters.Sca 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'd suggest you raise the issue first on the article 's talk page, it's lead begins 'Oryol or Orel', which is rather uncommon. It would appear Orel is more popular then Oryol, but Orel likely has some hits with other meanings. If you care about this, analyze this in more detail and try to involve other users at that city's talk page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re "if you care about this" — it's not a burning issue for me. I was just curious because I'd looked up Orel on Wiki and was redirected to "Oryol." Personally, I think that for English speakers it would be best to make it Orel, as that's what we're used to, then explain the other forms in the article. Just as Moscow should be Moscow, not Moskva, for English readers. (BTW, there's a Moscow in Idaho; my daughter lives there.) Sca 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mean anything derogatory by that, it's just I don't know much about that city, and I can only offer a little advise based on my experiences elsewhere.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
polymath
Yeah, around these parts we usually call them "Renaissance men".
Cool pic at Konigsberg!! — goethean ॐ 16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
German-Polish reconciliation
German speakers may be interested in this piece at Spiegel online: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,443586,00.html
Sca 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Autumn
The Polish term you're looking for is "Złota Polska Jesień" and stop your ridiculous accusations. I am not a nationalist (little more "ultra-nationalist"), I despise nationalists, racists, fascists, bigots etc. and I don't want to be in any way suspected of any even remote association with those groups by some biased, one track minded, pseudohistorian who has nothing better to do, but to judge people he barely knows. Space Cadet 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)