Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Neo-Nazi content ???

This page contains a Neo-Nazi, content which is offensive and insulting, starting the World War II again, and should be removed. Mestwin of Gdansk 18:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

If this page should be more than a redirect to East Germany then it needs to talk about the area now - ie a discussion of east/west differences etc. Secretlondon 18:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Niko, what's that war you're waging? You cannot just cut out approaches that question the right wing view! And how many Germans Stalin killed is NOT pertaining to Eastern Germany, cruel as it might have been.*

Max

• Sorry, I mixed up the versions here. But the first sentence holds true!

Max

Pardon? I'm not sure what you mean. The deaths of 3 million East Germans are indeed highly relevant. Nico 20:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And "It is now considered politically extremely incorrect" is nothing but your point of view, and I will remove it again. Nico 20:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try saying that publicly in Germany and see what happens! The the importance of the death toll is of course conceded, I just forgot to copy it.

Cheers, Max

It's still a point of view, and there are many Germans, for instance the approximately 2 million members of BdV or a Landsmannschaft, who are willing to say it publicly. That makes it a controversial issue. Thus, we have to avoid a sort of POV on it. Nico 21:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And the Landsmannschaften aren't politically incorrect with the term in the sense of "hurt nobody, scare nobody?" If I had wanted to spread my POV it would have been much different. In the article about Hitler there could be no moral judgment (which I didn't make), because it might disturb its objectivity regarding some people who are actually fond of killing Jews? Just a thought.

Max

You may dislike the Landsmannschaften or the CDU/CSU or the Labour political party in Britain or whatever, but an encyclopedia still should be neutral. And conserning Hitler, as long as there are little accept for moral judgements in the articles dealing with Stalin and other war criminals, the Hitler article should be more NPOV as well in my opinion. Nico 22:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which does not disprove my point that referring to the two wings of ex-German territory as being situated in Eastern Germany would be considered politically incorrect. Actually, that is an understatement. If a politician said it, people would consider him dangerously revanchist. But jedem das Seine. Who would benefit from a colder Hitler article? P.S.: Oh, yeah, seen your history. Won't correct your stuff any longer lest I run into more POV accusations. Much too exhausting. I know others have given up. I'll leave it up to the Americans who know the stories from Landser-mags. This way, it's not going to be balanced, but one is at a certain ease with being a German, cos, like, the others were always meaner.

Somewhat irritable, Max

I really don't think this article is the place for this. There are already articles on these groups - if only they believe this then it should stay there. Secretlondon 22:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Methinks it can very well stay as it is now. Max

I'm very sorry about the statement about "Americans" above. I know there are Americans writing for wiki with an amount of knowledge that I can never hope to attain, and with great political integrity. I just noticed that right-wing positions are swallowed much more naturally by many, which I sometimes doubt is healthy. For Germans, 50 years perpetrators, love victimizing themselves since 2000 for all kinds of things. DOn't believe all you hear

Sorry, Max

The rest of my statement remains unchanged.

Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive

I must admit that it breaks my hart to, basically, restore a User:Wik version, and I am suspicious of Wik's expertise when it comes to matters of contemporary Germany, BRD and DDR, but comparing the last version by Wik with the last version by Nico, the former is quite simply so much more correct and the latter so much more propagandist: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Eastern_Germany&diff=2663272&oldid=2654218

This is not to say that the version I restore, in my humble opinion, be perfect - only much less flawed than the current.

However, I strongly oppose the idea that the term "Middle Germany" should have been anyhow "invented" after 1945. I wasn't born then, but what happened, I guess, is that an already used term became politically charged.
--Ruhrjung 08:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

taken from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Eastern Germany should be together with East Germany. Nico is removing an interesting staff from Erika Steinbach without any reason. Cautious 22:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Eastern Germany is a completely different article, and it not dealing with the German Democratic Republic. And the Gabrielle Lesser article is not about Erika Steinbach, and there is no need to copy the whole Erika Steinbach article. Besides, you are inserting strong POVs. Nico 22:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • Eastern Germany cannot be about something else then East Germany, because both terms are too close to each other. Cautious 23:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • • I have proposed to move East Germany to German Democratic Republic, which was rejected. As long as East Germany is dealing with the former state of DDR this article will stay here. Nico 23:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • • • It should be crearly stated that this is only about irredentsim, Anyway misleadingCautious 23:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peace treaty after WW2

Dealing with sentence: However, the final article of the memorandum said that the final regulations concerning Germany were subject to a separate peace treaty. This treaty wasn't signed until 1990.

The treaty was never signed. Why 1950 and 1970 treaties are missing. Cautious 23:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because the 1970 treason by the DDR spy Herbert Frahm only recognized the borders temporarely as factual, although the areas were still considered rightfully German. Nico 23:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"treason by the DDR spy Herbert Frahm"? And some people here were thinking Nico was a serious contributor! --Wik 00:17, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Just the comment we would expect from a supporter of DDR, claiming that this police state was not totalitarian. Nico 00:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nico, pro personam arguments are not what wkipedia wants. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to find some serious arguments, you don't have to use namecalling.Halibutt 18:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But it were recognized in 1970. Cautious 23:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. It wasn't. Anyway, the DDR paid CDU members of the parliament to vote for Frahm, so it was treason and it was illegal. Nico 00:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are kidding. Treaty is a treaty Cautious 00:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nico, apparently you forgot that the treaty was ratified by the Bundestag. All of the MPs were bribed as well? And the Germans who voted for them?Halibutt 18:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cut from Wikipedia:Protected page and pasted here

• Eastern Germany - edit war between Cautious and Nico. Cautious wants it redirected to East Germany, and Nico is reverting. →Raul654 22:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Simple vandalism. User:Cautious is blanking an article he doesn't like. That is a blockable offense. Nico 22:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • (As a disinterested observer) - He's not blanking the page, he's redirecting it. They are not the same thing. →Raul654 22:43, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Is there a practical difference between replacing this page with a redirect to Wikipedia:Village Pump or just blanking it? Nico 22:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Is there any reason for having East Germany and Eastern Geramany other then East is already protected because of your edits and you want at every price have your own Eastern Germany? Put your acceptable version to East Germany. Cautious 22:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • East Germany is dealing with the German Democratic Republic. They are different articles dealing with completely different issues. Nico 23:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

As a fairly neutral observer, couldn't this be solved by putting a header at the top of the article saying something like:

This article is about the former region of eastern Germany, not to be confused with East Germany the former communist state.

Such a header is used at Irish Republic the historic state, which is easily confused with the Republic of Ireland. G-Man 19:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Sounds like a good idea. Nico 05:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For everyone not so familiar with rightwingish delusions: Herbert Frahm = Willy Brandt

Though they murdered six millions, in the ovens they fried, the Germans now too have God on their side (Bob Dylan). PUH-LEASE! Brandt was merely stating the obvious, the existence of another state, which had a government and citizens. The only one that would totally ignore that was your hero Walter Hallstein. Of course it was also treason by Brandt not to shoot Russians 41-45, right? And it's POV to state that the Germans disguised as Poles attacked Gliwice in 1939, right? Call me a traitor. I've been living here long enough to know my facts. Max

Yes, his citizenship was revoked. He didn't serve his country. He was a traitor. Even now, republican Americans consider people who didn't serve in the Vietnam war, where they killed million of Vietnamese civilians, unpatriotic or traitors. SO why shouldn't German traitors be considered traitors? You are living in Berlin, where my mother was born, and where she studied as well in the 70'ies. You do not have much freedom of speech in Germany, so thing isn't changed much since the 30'ies. You only have new lords in your house. Allied war-time propaganda does not interest me. Outside Germany, the history is not so black and white as you think.

You do not have much freedom of speech in Germany, so thing isn't changed much since the 30'ies. I'd be interested to know where the hell you got that idea from... --Palapala 09:35, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

As for the DDR, it was not a state. And it had no citizens. The inhabitants were citizens of Germany and occupied by Soviet. There is a difference. Frahm was a socialist whose ideal was Soviet. Of course he recognized their puppet state(s). Would you expect such a person, and such a Trunkenbold, to do otherwise? His staff was even paid by Stasi. However, I would like to cite Herbert Hupka, who expressed the opinion of loyal Germans: "Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort. [...] Ostdeutschland umfaßt nicht nur Ostdeutschland jenseits von Oder und Neiße, also den heute unter polnischer und sowjetischer Herrschaft stehenden Teil des Deutschen Reiches, sondern auch das Sudetenland und die deutschen Siedlungsgebiete zwischen Ostsee und Schwarzem Meer." (Dr. Herbert Hupka, MdB, 1984) -- Nico 06:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I thought we long ago abandoned the idea of "SBZ" and "DDR" (as opposed to DDR). And of course there were citizens. You could visit them and talk to them, if you wanted. (One of the nicer outcomes of the Ostverträge which the cited Trunkenbold helped get under way.) --Palapala 09:35, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

I would like to cite Herbert Hupka, who expressed the opinion of loyal Germans

Loyal to what? I'm loyal to my conscience, not to some abstract patriotic duty. I don't hate Germany. I just would hate a Germany that wants to expand after failing miserably twice. It doesn't and that's just fine.

In fact, people here are allowed to talk a lot of nonsense publicly (though clearly not as much as elsewhere) if they like (and boy, some people do!) if only they don't deny the Holocaust which I take you don't do. Fact is just that most people don't use their freedom of speech to talk nonsense. The Günter Guillaume affair could have happened to anyone and did not influence Brandt's Ostpolitik, you know that as well as I do. He just wanted Germans to get real and deal with facts. Stop your slander. The GDR was very real indeed. As for Hupka - he was a typical case of unbelehrbar. And it's not a bad thing not to take part in an aggressive war you don't believe in. Actually, in this case, it's not even right if you do. I don't care if German history is considered greyer elsewhere. Modest behaviour is a moral duty. Know what's criminal? To keep the man in charge of the Rassengesetze in office. I might cite the expellee Dieter Hildebrandt at this point, but won't, lest you call him a traitor too. It's not political correctness, it's moral decency.

Max

"Aggressive war you don't believe in"? Which aggressive war? Even Stauffenberg and most of his friends were in favour of liberating the areas occupied by Poland since the first world war. As Great Britain dominated most of the world, and they had stolen the very few colonies of Germany, it was not exceptional that Germany wanted some land as well. So was the spirit of that time. To the West, Germany offered peace, in fact they did not even declare war. Great Britain did. And the Soviets were not much better, they attacked Poland themselves. And how about the US, Great Britain or Poland? These states attacked Iraq last year, according to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs because they wanted oil (see BBC's article). Germany just did what other states also did and STILL ARE DOING! Btw, USA, with their long history of slavery and genocide of Africans as well as native Americans, had Rassengesetze until the 60'ies or 70'ies. So there are a lot of criminal Americans as well. Nico 08:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

>I just would hate a Germany that wants to expand after failing miserably twice. It doesn't and that's just fine.

I'm not sure what "expand" is referring to. Truly, a Great Power like Germany is not dependent on large amounts of land anymore, and there are other ways. The British have lost their colonies as well. But if you are referring to Eastern Germany, it is a matter of recognition of human rights, and I reserve the right to be in favour of liberation of these areas, because they belongs to Germany and to the people of Prussia. You might also be interested to know that, in Scandinavia, German claims on Eastern Germany, especially the Königsberg region, are not considered "right-wing" in the same degree as in Germany. Most Scandinavians will understand such a claim, although it is not a very actual topic here. Btw, this is a highly interesting site: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com -- Nico 09:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did I say I was a fan of Stauffenberg's? There is no such thing as "Prussia" any more. As I said, I don't care what people in other countries think. You lose a war, you have to carry the consequences. You know that Munich 38 was bogus, Neville Chamberlain was butter in the hands of Hitler. And whether you declare war or not is not crucial here. Crucial is whether you wage war. And the British didn't even help Poland! And - just because other countries treated their minorities badly that doesnt mean that the Nazi crimes were any less harmful. By the way, I'm against the US meddling with Arabia. Max

The thing is, that the history is written by the victors. Certainly they forced the Germans to "carry the consequences", with ethnic cleansing of half of my country, and most of the part which means something to me. But I do not understand your position. What the mostly Bavarian and Austrian Nazis did in a different century is not the responsibility of the Prussian people, which tried to get rid of them. And the crimes of the stalinists, or the US, were even worse, they killed (and deported) a lot more people. However, the genocide of between 10 and 50 million people committed by the Russians are of course not the responsibility of young people in Russia today, and the genocide of million of African people who were killed in slave transports are not the responsibility of today's young people in the US. And they do not take and carry that responsibility either. See? Not many Americans feel responsible for the crimes committed as late as during the Vietnam war, or Israelis for the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. There is of course a difference between all these countries and Germany: They were not defeated. But that is a question of military force, nothing else. If the Arabs occupied Israel, the Israeli people would learn in school that their country was bad and that the Arabs liberated them. Some Israelis would believe that as well.

>There is no such thing as "Prussia" any more.

Indeed, there is. I'm a Prussian myself. Although a nation in exile, Prussia still exists. It was also prososed to rename Berlin-Brandenburg Prussia if the states were merged (which they wasn't, unfortunately). But Prussia - as a politicial entity - will rise again. Preußen soll leben!!
Nico 16:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nein, Preußen ist tot.

And that has more with Prussia's glory to do than with the Nazis' exploitation of traditional Prussian virtues (efficiency, Protestant Work Ethics...) and non-virtues (as unquestioning obedience, for instance). Prussia had become a symbol of industriousness, expansionism and militarism, which had raised and united Germany after the disastrous Napoleonic Wars, but also been a chief contributor to two world wars.

Prussia is dismembered. The sooner Germany could get over the loss of East-Prussia, West-Prussia, Pommerania and Silesia, the better for the German people.

...and for the neighbouring people.
I'm convinced that the very worst things Polish nationalists can do today, is to provoke a nationalist response from within Germany.

Things have gone good for Germany. Feeding thoughts on a revenge leads to nothing but the ultimate disaster.
--Ruhrjung 17:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
P.S.
And don't forget that large and important parts of what became Prussia in the 18th and 19th centuries still remain in Germany.

Generalization has become all too rampant now. Sample:

What the mostly Bavarian and Austrian Nazis did in a different century is not the responsibility of the Prussian people

You're right, after the hyper-Prussian Hindenburgian parties brought Hitler to power there wasn't much of a chance to get rid of him any more. The notion that the Nazis were a Southern phenomenon is ridiculous. You won't tend away the Polish people that settled in the region after 1945, no matter how hard you try. That phenomenon had nothing whatsoever in common with the Jewish settlers in Palestine prior to 1948. Germany's main objective is to live in peace with its neighbours, and that's what we're doing, and that's what our history calls us to do.

And my personal favourite:

It was also prososed to rename Berlin-Brandenburg Prussia if the states were merged

Those were the days :-) I've rarely ever laughed as hard as back then. Although I must admit that the proposed castle should look somewhat more pleasant than the Palast der Republik. It was utterly, utterly incoherent.

>"The notion that the Nazis were a Southern phenomenon is ridiculous. "

Ridiculous? München was even officially named the Hauptstadt der Bewegung. Why was Prussia destroyed, and not Bavaria?

>"Germany's main objective is to live in peace with its neighbours, and that's what we're doing, and that's what our history calls us to do."

Maybe your history calls you to do something like that, but, please, only speak for yourself. Nico 20:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nico, did I get you wrong or did you just state that a new war in Europe is what Germany needs? I hope it's my English, and not your beliefs.Halibutt 22:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3 millions killed

Could anyone provide any data to prove this right?Halibutt 19:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to ask for the same. Davies cites a document of Berlin's Allied Administration Commitee stating that there were 3.5 millions Germans for transfer. You speak of 15 millions. Cite your sources please. -- Forseti 09:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any sources, Nico? I'd like to hear them. Especially that if I correct the numbers you'll probably start an edit war...Halibutt 09:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So far I placed a {{msg:disputed}} tag over the whole article. In case anyone tried to erase it - please Cite your sources first.Halibutt 09:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of how to use the msg:disputed trailer. First raise the issue at the talk page, if no concensus is reached there, one can either remove the contested claim, or if that meets opposition flag the article as disputed. --Ruhrjung 11:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm pretty sure Nico would erase the {{msg:diputed}} and remove any other version. But apparently there's no choice...Halibutt 10:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, you keep ignoring this question and adding the 3 millions number. Wikipedia:Quote your sources. Please, quote your sources or else this childish edit war will never end. Halibutt 00:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, are you there?Halibutt 09:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm basically not reverting the number, but rather the POVs. I posted some casualities here and have also admitted that "over 2 million" maybe is more precise than "until 3 million". Nico 04:40, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i like the present wording - now it's finally clear that these numbers are disputable and the figure given is bdv's version, not a G*d-given truth. Good job!Halibutt

1970 treaty

Nico, why are you constantly deleting any mention of the border treaty? Halibutt 05:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

more wordage

"Some revisionist allegedly claim, that in" Among other things, that's obviously POV. ugen64 02:34, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Historical" Eastern Germany

Historical Eastern Germany? Who invented that term? Surely Eastern Germany or Eastern Germany (historical) are preferable.

That's a good question. 'Historical' suggests that it was German as long as Germany goes. Incidentally the majority of the area got German (then Prussian) in 18th century and remained so for 123-144 years. Also using the term would lead to paradox of calling the same terrain both historically German and historically Polish. I primarily mean Greater Poland, the cradle of Polish nationality. So perhaps the title should be changed to 'Former Eastern Germany' or similar, less charged term.

Agree. The title of the article is misleading and should be changed. Lysy 16:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also there is existing article on Regained Territories that deals with the same territory, just crediting them with Polish name. So perhaps both articles should be merged into one, with existing Historical Eastern Germany and Regained Territories made redirects. -- Forseti 17:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I second that. With the only difference that there should be a brief (three to five sentences at most) description of the term Regained Territories in that article, especially that it is really used in Poland. The rest, however, could be merged. Perhaps the Oder-Neisse Line could be merged as well..? Halibutt 17:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Merging will be a challenge to NPOV. Currently the "Historical Eastern Germany" obviously reflects some German POV that is not necessarily fully shared by the rest of the world. Lysy 18:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Until the articles are merged, I'm going to move this article to a less misguiding title of Eastern Germany (historical) if no one opposes this. Lysy 21:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I oppose!

This is a far too sensitive area, and particularly Poles ought to remember the problems we have had with regard to articles on towns and provinces in present-day Poland.

Regards!

--Ruhrjung 21:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

All right, could you support your opposition with some firm arguments please. Thanks. Lysy 21:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. My position is pragmatic. I want to avoid unnecessary blod shed. :-)

I am not sure I favor a merge either, but it is not that I took a position against here. Only the proposed temporary move.

Anyone with the slightest understanding of contemporary Germany must realize that Eastern Germany (historical) by some (trolls and others) would be understood as the new Bunesländer, and thereby you invite to yet a new article on the lost territories.

I'm sure a temporary move have potential to turn out as counter-productive.

I appreciate, however, that you asked before you moved!

--Ruhrjung 22:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I see. (I thought the new Bundesländer would be "former East Germany" in English). I take your pragmatic point, though. Even if still I claim this article title is misguiding and presenting quite biased POV (as the current contents of the article is, as well). Lysy 05:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Facts and figures

I think this needs to be sourced:

According to the Federation of Expellees...15 million Germans were displaced from their homes and over 2 million people were killed or died during the process. These numbers, however, are disputed.

The source for the numbers mentioned should be given, ideally with some sort of analysis to go with them, and the alternative numbers alluded too with the names of those who propose them should be mentioned. Philip Baird Shearer 20:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Extremely POVish article

This article as it is now has extremely biased POV. Any mention of the Polish inhabitants of the areas in question is promptly omitted as well as it's slient about how the territories had fallen into German hands in the first place. Instead it concentrates on German settlers, and how they were expelled without compensation (as if Poles or anyone else was getting any compensation when expelled). An unaware reader might conclude that these were historically German grounds that were then taken from Germany and occupied by other nations. Other than that the term "Historical Eastern Germany" is maybe common in German usage but this is English language wikipedia and it should not be here, in this form at least. It could equally be called "Western Poland" instead. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference seems to me to be that you wish to talk about the different nations who have inhabited the area. I think the article will become unfocused if we do that. I think it better if the terms of reference are kept to the time and the specific areas which were incorporated into the State of Germany. The wording "large settled German communities" was introduced by me on 23 October last year as a formula of words which seemed reasonably neutral and not area specific. The wording does not claim that the areas in which they were settled that they were the major communities. To say that there was a large settled Jewish community in Frankfurt am Main pre war, or that there is a large settled Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets does not imply that those populations were or are a majority in either town.

In order to maintain the focus, we need to know whether it is supposed to be an article about certain territories (historically disputed between Poland and various German countries) ? Or is it just about the German way of calling these territories ? I believe that you assume the latter ? Certainly it's not the current English usage, as the proper name for the area in English would be "Western Poland" (unless you're a revisionist). If I read your intentions right and you think that the article is about the German POV naming only, then mosts of its contents now is irrelevant and should be removed. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What relevence is it to this article if Poles or anyone else did or did not receive any compensation?

None, I agree. No expulsion whether of Poles or Germans assumed any compensation. This is obvious and needs not to be mentioned, feel free to remove it (I already did, but it was you who restored it, I think). --Lysy ^(talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The major reason for mentioning compensation is because it was still politically relevant during the discussions for some East European countries entering the EU. If the Germans who were expelled had been compensated (or the issue had been settled by treaty) then much of the political/legal problems of the eastern nations and the EU would not have arisen. For example San Francisco Treaty settled the question of POW compensation by Japan for their mistreatment, even though many British POWs think that the compensation they received from Japan in the early fifties was (literaly) small beer. The question of compensation could not have been addressed until the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany and as the groups have continued to press for it, presumably it was not addressed in that treaty. The other reason for mentioning it is that it gave/(gives) the Federation of Expellees a tool to use in their propaganda campaign.

I agree, but this is not an article about Federation of Expellees or Polish-German political relations. If you think that ethnic and population issues belong to this article, then they should be addressed in their entirety, including Jews and Poles, and not limited to German settlers only. It should also mention that Germanisation and particularly German colonisation of these territories was a purposeful German policy in 19th and beginning of 20th century. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

As to the title I am quite open to it being changed, but as others have pointed out it is difficult to find a suitable name. I don't think that "Western Poland" is not a sensible name because not all the territory being discussed is in Poland and Western Poland as a title describes different regions at diffrent times. Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

First we need to know what is the intended subject of the article, as I stated above. Is it about the territories, or about the German way of calling them ? I'm open to either suggestion. If it's about the territories, I don't see why should we limit ourselves to 19th century history only. And then I also would insist on changing the name to something less POV, not implying that these disputed grounds were historically German or not. On the other hand, if the article is about naming only, I think it should explain why this name was used and need not contain all the other speculations about compensations and so on. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand the article to be about three things:

• It is not just about the formal and informal German description of the region before Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany it is also an article about how English speaking people referred to the area after 1871 and before 1945. Before 1945 the English usage was the same as most German usage between those dates. Since 1945 it has been about the dichotomy between some Germans usage and general English usage of the phrase "East Germany".
• The the second is to explain the oddity that for more than 40 years this issue over the boarders was not put to bed.
• The third but not least very important use of the article is to nail some of the lies and exaggerations which sites sympathitic to extream right wing views tell about the region.

As a Pole (I am making that assumption by your name and POV) that you might not be aware of is that for most native English speaker this is an example of the old phrase "This is a far and distant country and about which we know little'". Most English speaking people have no idea that Poland today is not where Poland was at the start of World War II. Most assume that the countries of eastern Europe are roughly where they were before World War II, give or take some small boundary changes. Even less know anything about the Postam agreement's provisions for Eastern Europe, or the "Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany". Now while there should be an article about what happened to Polish boarders and Polish people immediately after World war II, this article is not the place to do it. I personally think that the article title Western betrayal is a very bad one, but I understand why it carries that name and I understand why you wrote on the talk page "I second on that. Also the main purpose of the article is to explain the meaning of this particular phrase and not an other one." I think that likewise you should respect the title of this article and concentrate on explaining it.

By explaining that millions of Germans moved west during the middle to late 1940s and territories which had been under German jurisdiction passed to other jurisdiction, is informative for most English speaking people who can read up on the other consequences of the immediate post war dislocations and boundary changes of other people on other pages. They can also read about the details of the various territorial claims, some of which are still relevant and important for the people of the region today, in other articles which specialise in these things. For example I would encourage you to link into the "see also" any other articles which are relevant to issue of Polish people who moved west at the end of World War II, but I think the focus of this article should stay broadly on the area called Eastern Germany between 1871 and 1945 and the Germans who inhabited that area. Philip Baird Shearer 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Good. Firstly yes, my POV is obviously Polish biased. If the purpose of the article is to present German POV only, this should be made clear in the text. Or we should explain that the article is not about the territories (as it is today) but about the notion itself and the usage, similarly as it is done with "western betrayal" that you refer to (Western betrayal is a popular term ...). Because this is English wiki, it should be also made clear, that: "it is ... about how English speaking people referred to the area after 1871 and before 1945". I understand your grandfather could use this term to address the area, but you would not.

I don't think this is really about why the borders issue was not formally settled, as it deserves an article of its own. Especially that it concerns the times after 1945, so it is not relevant here. Or maybe move this part to Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany article indeed ? Few words of explanation here: As you know under communist rule, there was no Germany but GDR that bordered with Poland. Both Poland and GDR were completely dependend on Russia (not to the extent of the other countries that were included within Soviet Union, but still had not their independent foreign policies in reality). All the countries in the eastern bloc had officially friendly relations to each other and the Soviet Union was warranting the status of their borders. Therefore for Russia it was quite convenient to maintain this issue opened, as it kept both GDR and Poland even more dependent on Soviet Union. Of course they could not sign any bilateral treaty without Soviet consent. Anyway, why would they ? Their mutual relationship was "so friendly", no settlement was ever needed. This is also why Poland never got any reparations for the damage done by Nazis during WW2. Poland was just too friendly with GDR to ever demand this. Needless to say Poles never received any compensation neither when they were expelled by the Nazis during WW2 nor when they were expelled by the Soviets immediately after the war. But as you said, this article presents German POV only, so this does not belong here.

It might be worth mentioning though, that most of the Germans in these East German territories, including Erika Steinbach's parents were settled there during WW2 only. Since this article is not about the expellees, though, I believe this part of content should be moved to Federation of Expellees etc.

As for the expulsions and lack of compensation, it also does not belong here, as it refers to events that happened after 1945 and do not concern the usage of the term in the years 1871-1945.

I will try to modify the article along these lines so that it remains focused on what it is intended to be. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

---

" Historic Eastern Germany or Ex-German Eastern Territories is an anachronic term used since 1871 until 1945 to denote..." is not correct. To put words in my grandfather's mouth as you suggested above:, In 1935 my grandfather would not have said "Historic Eastern Germany", he would have said "East Germany". Today if I wanted to describe those areas internationally recognised as part of Germany east of the Oder in 1935 I could use the term or "Ex-German Territories east of the Oder–Neisse line" (which would not be a bad title).

And this is exactly what puzzles me. Why wouldn't you use the current names of the areas in question like "Western Poland" or "Kaliningrad region" ? Do you know many other English speakers using the term "Historical East Germany" to call Western Poland, or is it just yourself ? Imagine you are going to visit Wrocław. Would you indeed say "I'm going to Historical East Germany", or "going to Poland" instead ? It is an anachronism. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If I were visiting Wroclaw, then I would be visitng a place in Poland. But if I wished to talk about German forward deployement in east Germany at the start of World War I, I might wish to qualify the phrase "east Germany" by linking it to this article so that the reader was not under the illusion that east Germany meant the common modern English usage what is now described as "East Germany", but east Germany as it was between 1871 and 1945. In English this is no more contriversial than using the lable Spanish Netherlands in articles about the Eighty Years' War and visitng Brussels in Belgium to day. It would not be an be "anachronism" to say that the Battle of Waterloo took place in the Spanish Netherlands it would be wrong. Philip Baird Shearer

So are you saying that the name is in common usage in English today ? I've checked google and it seems it only exists in wikpedia clones or mirrors and on some German originated sites. It seems like the term is in use in Germany but not commonly in English. I've checked "Spanish Netherlands" as well and got well over 20 thousand hits, so this seems completely different. Previously you said it was in use in English between 1871 and 1945 but not any more. Therefore I assume it is an anachronism. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No it is not but we need a lable/title which describes the area and as yet no one has come up with a better lable for the article. There is another section on this talk page where you can suggest other names. I do not think that this is the section to discuss this. However whatever name which is used is not an anachronism because it is describing ,what was, now. Philip Baird Shearer

I am surprised that you find this sentence "Before unification they would not normally have been referred to collectively but instead by the names of the principalities or Hanseatic port names." objectionable. Perhaps you can explain why, as it seems to me to set the context. I find this particularly strange that you remove this but not the mention of Napoleon et al.

Well, it was actually you who said: Don't need the history lesson of before 1871 because Germany did not exist as a unified state therefore not part of Germany. I'm fine to leave this in as long as you don't delete the other parts claiming that you don't need the history lesson. Maybe someone does ? --Lysy ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad we have agreement on this, but I would have prefered it if you had been consistent with the removal of all pre-1871 history. Philip Baird Shearer

"Occupation: Don't you think Warsaw was occupied by Germany during WW2 ? Is Warsaw East of Oder or not ? What do you find POV here " Of course Warsaw was occupied along with the rest of Poland as was most of the rest of Eastern Europe. But this article is about those areas internationally recognised as part of Germany from 1871 to 1945, not about the occupations or areas annexed by the Germans post 1938. This does leave the complication of those areas recognised between 1871 and 1919(?) but not recognised as such after 1919 and annexed by the Germans post 1938. I suggest that those desputed provinces are moved from the article to the talk page until a form of wording can be worked out which is succinct and has a NPOV. The thing to remember with this is that "the past is a different country. They do things differently there". This is very true of annexation and international acceptance of it pre-UN and the "Fourth Geneva Convention" Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the areas internationally recognised as part of Germany from 1871 to 1945 (what is "internationally recognised" anyway). But the sentence in its current form is not. Either the sentence needs to be replaced, or "occupied" is in place there. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

internationally recognised: see the article and subsection on State#International point of view. Philip Baird Shearer

BTW for simplicity and clarity I am assuming above that there is a one to one mapping between German internationally recognised territory and "large settled German communities" but you will know better than me if there were "settled German communities" of several generations who lived outside the formal internationally recognised territory of Germany as I believe was the case post 1919 in Danzig. Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Danzig had basically German population and only small Polish minority. On the other hand there were areas under German administration that had no significant German population at all. BTW: there are still areas in Poland where there're still significant German minorities, like Slask, so apparently not all the Germans were expelled. And there are territories in Germany today with Slavic population like Lusatia. German administration is not equal to German population and vice-versa. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhapse you would like to work these facts into the article Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would but as I tried to explain before, in my opinion all the discussion about ethnic composition, German settlers etc does not belong to this article. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Would you mind if I remove all the irrelevant information from the article, as discussed above ? (those concerning ethnic composition, what happended before 1871 and after 1945 etc.) --Lysy ^(talk) 19:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course all irrelevent information should be removed, but we have not yet agreed what is irrelevent. You think "German settlers etc does not belong to this article" I think that should be in this article, so plese do not remove that information before we agree on what is irrelevent. I will do some editing in the next 24 hours and then lets see were we are. Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait to see your edits, then. --Lysy ^(talk) 04:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Partitions of Poland

as well as returning territories taken by Prussia in Partitions of Poland to the recreated Polish state.

What "Partitions of Poland" when?

Either the land was recognised by the international community as German or you are talking about additional territory which was under German control but was not recognised by the international community as German. Which is it? Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You can speak of "internationally recognised state" but there is no such thing as "international recognision of a land". What would you mean by this exactly ? Sincerely, I can't believe that you have not heard of Partitions of Poland. Maybe this map will help you out. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I know Poland has been bigger and smaller than it is at the moment and has been partitioned several times. But is was not clear to me which partitions were being referred to. It might have been annexation of land by Germany formally Polish and before WWI under the control of Russia.

Fair point on land, althought I think you could have understood in by common English language usage. To quote the first sentence in the article on states "A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty."

So either these the territoy east of the Oder were part of the "definite territory of the state of Germany" and internationally recognised as such, or they were occupied/annexed by Germany during WWI and were not recognised as part of the definite territory of the state of Germany by the international community. Which is it?

It would seem to me that the sentence is refering to a period before 1871 and as you and I agreed, does not need to be covered by this article. Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What I'm questioning is calling these territories German. This is POV again. Personally I would call them "occupied by Germany", but I think that "returning territories taken by Prussia in Partitions of Poland to the recreated Polish state" perfectly matches historic truth. Do you question that these ground were taken by Prussia or that they were returned to recreated Polish state ? If this is true, do you have any reason to pretend that these territories were German ? --Lysy ^(talk) 17:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not POV to call the internationally recongnised "definite territory of the state of Germany" as they existed in 1914 German, than it is to call the "internationally recongnised "definite territory of the state of Poland" Polish. If someone was to write in a wikipedia article that Silesia is currently "occupied by Poland" you would object and if you did not I would.

Perhapse we can come to a better solution than you sentence please see the next section.

BTW Please do not just revert everything, but edit your changes as I don't think that everything I added before your last revert contriversial or was under discussion. Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that I did not insist on using the "occupied" wording in the article, just stated the unquestionable facts. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually the territories were taken over two times-in Partitions and later after fall of Duchy of Warsaw which regained Poznan after uprising there against Prussian rule.--Molobo 20:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

I think that if any of the territories mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles ( 1919) paragraph were ceded to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918) then this should be mentioned as those territories were not recognised by the international community as part of the "definite territory of the state of Germany".

It is probably worth putting in a sentence to the effect that Treaty of Versailles with Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for nations, and following so soon after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was a catalist for the international recognition of many states including Poland and Lithuania, and this lead to the the placing of some territory which had been internationally recognised as German since 1871 under the juristiction of other nations, along with Danzig under the League of Nations. Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Such sentence would give a false impression that these territories were of historic German character when in fact they were under German control for less then century(since the Duchy of Poznan was in theory a seperate region under autonomy for a long time after 1815)--Molobo 20:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that it would give the impression you are talking about providing we include the term "territory which had been internationally recognised as German since 1871" because by implication the promotion of "self-determination" for nations implies quite the contary -- that they were not German in character. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Such sentence is two light, there should be an element showing why those territores were taken from German control.Mainly the fact that have been under German control less then century and had no German majority.Saying they were "recognised as German since 1871" says nothing about this nor the reasons while they were taken away.A short sentnce would be enough to explain the reasons.Otherwise it makes an impression as they were taken out of revenge, without reason or it was unfair. --Molobo 23:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing.I don't think Partitions of Poland were reckognised internationally at all.That is possesion of these lands was reckognised by Partitions in themselfs weren't legal under the practice of law in that time.--Molobo 23:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Which laws at the time? See my comment below on GCIV. Philip Baird Shearer

Certainly the partitions were not "internationally recognised". But I'm also not sure that these territories were "internationally recognised as German" ("ethnically" or what ?). It seems more neutral to call then "territories under German administration" or "under German control". As I said I don't insist on the term "occupation", but using "German territories" gives an impression that Germany had some historic or otherwise rights to these areas, which would be at least disputable and highly controversial. As for Brest-Litovsk treaty, I have to admit I fail to get your point here (I thought I'd be brighter on this one today ;-) --Lysy ^(talk) 06:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said above international recognition is recognition of "A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty". It has nothing to do with the nationality of the peoples who make up the state. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. It consists of 3 1/4 nations. In the past, particularly before 1914, many more states consisted of several nations.

Until the introduction of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 the way warfare in Europe (and the rest of the "civilised world") was waged and resolved, was when two or more countries went to war, the victor(s) dictated a peace treaty which rewarded them and punished the vanquished. The wars between the Great Powers tended to be of a limited type, but for the minor powers loss of a war could mean loss of sovereignty and annexation. One of the most influential clauses in GCIV are articles 6 and 47 because it prohibited "annexation by the latter [occupier] of the whole or part of the occupied territory." UN charted prohibited wars of aggression and these clause in GCIV were introduced to reduce the rewards a victor could obtain by waging a war, even if they had initially been the victim of an unprovoked attack.

So if one state recognised another state then they accepted the "definite territory" of that state. If state (A) recognised two states (B and C) who had a territorial dispute, then state A had several different policies it could follow, but the overriding rule was to secure their own best interests. If France and Germany had a war then the UK as a neutral state was chiefly interested in what the outcome would mean to them. They might try to put pressure on the victor not to upset the balance of power too much, but, by and large, they would accept the terms of the bilateral peace treaty. Without any international body like the League of Nations or the United Nations, there was little else that states could do, other than break off diplomatic relations or side with one of the powers and join in the war. The breaking of diplomatic relations would only happen if one of the states involved realy thought that the other state threatened their intrests directly. Therefor the partitions of Poland were basically an internal matter for the states involved unless other states were willing to intervin because their intrests were threatened. In the case of the other Great Powers the German/Russian carve up of Poland was accepted, because their interests were not damaged enough for them to go to war over it. Own self interest to this day means that states are very reluctant to get involved in the internal conduct of a government over people within its "definite territory". States are also notoriously reluctant to recognise the territorial break up to a state into constituent parts.

On the Western Front of World War I the western victors peace treaty the Treaty of Versailles was typical of the sort of treaty that victors dictated pre GVIV.

• Transferred territory.
• Limited the enemy's ability to fight
• Reparations.

But in the East it was more complicated. First the German had obtained a victors treaty from the Red Russians. This placed large areas of the former Russian Empire under their control. Second Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for nations, was not the sort of thing that traditional colonial powers like Britain and France would countenance for their spheres of influence, but they were willing to consider it for those former Russian territories subject to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

So in the East we have to make a distinction between those territories internationally recognised in 1914 as belonging to the state of Germany since 1871. Those territories (if any) annexed by Germany under Brest-Litovsk and those territories under the indirect control of Germany under the terms of Brest-Litovsk. This wording is a attempt to cover this:

The Treaty of Versailles with Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for nations, and following so soon after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was a catalyst for the international recognition of many states including Poland and Lithuania, and this lead to the the placing of some territory which had been internationally recognised as part of the German Empire since 1871 under the jurisdiction of other nations, along with Danzig under Polish and the League of Nations' control.

Which in simpler terms says that the some of the territory east of the Oder that was internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1871 was not internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1920.

The details of what went to which state is already in the article so we do not need to mention them again. But as I said above it is not clear to me if all the territory listed under Versailles transfer were part of the German Empire from 1871 and 1914. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

" Therefor the partitions of Poland were basically an internal matter for the states involved unless other states were willing to intervin because their intrests were threatened." You are wrong.The partitions were violation against practice of of law of that time since the rulling monarchy was abolished.

" Therefor the partitions of Poland were basically an internal matter for the states involved unless other states were willing to intervin" Which was was what Grt.Britain and Ottoman Empire did by not reckognising those actions.

"The Treaty of Versailles with Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for nations, and following so soon after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was a catalyst for the international recognition of many states including Poland and Lithuania" That is incorrect.Russian Empire, Germany, and Austro-Hungary reckognised Poland and its creation as a state well before those events.

"Which in simpler terms says that the some of the territory east of the Oder that was internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1871 was not internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1920." Whatever a territory is part of a state doesn't mean it is a historical part of a nation.Saying that these territories were German is incorrect.Saying that these territories were historically and ethnicly Polish is correct.If you want to say about their legal issues then, you will have to count time when they were Polish for circa 800 years, then were part of Prussia after partitions, then part of Polish state of Duchy of Warsaw, then autonomous region in Prussia, then incorporated into Prussia and then into German Empire.Howver that would be too long.Saying they were part historically and ethnicly Polish territories taken over recently by Germany is more correct --Molobo 14:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on other things so sorry for the delay:

You are wrong.The partitions were violation against practice of of law of that time since the rulling monarchy was abolished Please provide a source for this statment and if it were true how do you explain the Congress of Vienna#Polish-Saxon crisis? Or the Partition of Russia in Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or the particion of German in Treaty of Versailles.

Whatever a territory is part of a state doesn't mean it is a historical part of a nation. Of course you are right. England is a nation but, England like Scotland (another nation) are both parts of the state of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It is quite possible for a nation and a nations lands to belong to a State which contains more than one nation, or for a nation to exist in more than one state, eg Ireland. So what is it you are trying to say with that statment?

If you want to say about their legal issues then, you will have to count time when they were Polish for circa 800 years No we do not because this article is about territory east of the Oder which was German between 1871 and 1945. It is not about the history of the region. Philip Baird Shearer 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

History section intro

The History section currently opens with "In 1871 those provinces or regions east of the Oder–Neisse line under control of German administrations sympathetic to the goal of German unity and the formation of the German Empire by Otto von Bismarck, like many regions in what is today Germany, were incorporated into the unified state." This sounds rather verbose. Can't we streamline that a bit? Olessi 00:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You think that is verbose! There are some editors of this page, See talk higher up the page, who would like to put in the history of the region over the last 1000 years. If you can reduce it without destroying the meaning I would not object. Philip Baird Shearer 08:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made a change. If there were any territories east of the Oder–Neisse line which were incorporated into the Germany Empire which were not under Prussian administration in 1871 please add them. Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5