Wikipedia

Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 5

< Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany
Latest comment: 3 years ago by HQGG in topic Polish bias
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Very problematic article

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Much of this article reads as if it was written by closeted Nazi sympathizers who believe Germany had a perfect right to its "Lebensraum" and should get it back someday. I do not possess the expertise nor the inclination to do it, but this article needs serious, SERIOUS help. Unfortunately, the topic seems to be a magnet for revanchist energies, and given Wikipedia's structure, not much is likely to be done about it short of heavy-handed intervention by some administrator. Troglo (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write the article, but from a rough reading, I don't see anything in it with a "Nazi sympathizers" POV. Except maybe that the Nazi annexations of 1938-1945 are not usually called "Former eastern territories of Germany" AFAIK, and so do not quite belong to this article. But it's a historical fact that Germany lost territory that it had legitimately possessed since 1871, due to losing the World Wars. (BTW, the Nazi word "Lebensraum" did not refer specifically to former German territory, they wanted half of Eastern Europe for themselves, and did indeed incorporate territories to Germany that had never been German in recent history. The Nazis' territorial claims are not the subject of this article.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

citation needed

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Currently the article says:

Former eastern territories of Germany (German: ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete) describes collectively those provinces or regions east of the Oder-Neisse line which were internationally recognised as part of Prussia [and the territory of Germany after the formation of the German Empire in 1871.]

A {{fact}} template has been added to it which part of the sentence Molobo is in need of a citation? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That the term applies both to Partitions of Poland territories and territories recovered by Poland after WW2, that Ottoman Empire and Britain reckognised Partitions of Poland, that violation of Congress of Vienna treaties by Prussia was reckognised. Btw, you argued that history of Prussia is unimportant when trying to erase information about those territories being taken in Partitions, I see you know changed your opinion and want to inclued Prussian history. Also, why claim that territories were subject to "diplomatic strugge" when in fact they were place of massive armed uprisings by Polish population. It is a notable fact and needs to be included. Claiming it only involved diplomacy is POV--Molobo (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you have written. But I would willingly remove the phrase "as part of Prussia and" as it is confusing and just have " Former eastern territories of Germany (German: ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete) describes collectively those provinces or regions east of the Oder-Neisse line which were internationally recognised as part of the territory of Germany after the formation of the German Empire in 1871." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am all for Prussia staying here, after we need to inform people, where from those territories came from. You don't understand my questions ? Let me ask which ones:

Source that the term applies both to Partitions of Poland territories and territories recovered by Poland after WW2.
Source that violation of Congress of Vienna treaties by Prussia was reckognised-the abolishing of freedoms for Poles and Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie.
Explanation why massive uprisings of Polish people in Silesia and Poznań are mentioned as 'diplomatic struggle.

--Molobo (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep it to one thing at a time. You put a fact template on a specific sentence, the first one. Please can we restrict the conversation to that specific sentence. I see no reason to include Prussia in the sentence particularly as it has been added to the text since the start of the year. Removing it removes the ambiguity of whether we are talking about Prussia as part of the German Empire or Prussia before the formation of the German empire. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Converting to {{cite}} format for citations

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone tried to convert a single citation in this article to the {{cite}} format and PBS reverted it saying that changing format of citations required "concent" (sic). I agree that citation formats should not be changed arbitrarily without consensus and certainly all the citations should be converted to the new format uniformly rather than creating a mismash of disparate citation formats.

That said, I think the {{cite}} format is superior and I would like to see us implement it in this article if there is no objection.

--Richard (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is an objection from me. The citation templates are complicated, much better to use WYSIWYG. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Germans from the old east

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this section is becoming unwieldy as more and more figures are being added. If no-one objects, I'll restructure it as a proper list. Yekshemesh (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I propose that Territorial changes of Germany after World War II be merged into Former eastern territories of Germany. These two articles have exactly the same scope. This article is much longer and better sourced. There is no theme in the Territorial changes of Germany after World War II article that is not already included in the other one. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Since no one objected in more than 5 months, I am going to perform this merge. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Former eastern territories of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious article

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How come the "history" section only begins with the year 1871? Why is there no word about the fact that most of these so called "former eastern territories of Germany" were in fact originally native Polish lands, stolen specifically in the course of the Partitions of Poland, and more generally, due to Drang nach Osten? Why such hypocrisy?--94.254.251.95 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 
Let's have a look, and find out if this is true.. And I see a lot of blue
  • Maybe you will not find this "fact" in this article, because this is simply not true... You should learn some history before claiming untrue facts and tendentious statements... Besides the fact, that these areas had native German inhabitans... As you can see on this map Silesia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg and East Prussia didn't belong to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.. (!) --Jonny84 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

List of names

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The lists seem excessive for the article. I propose that they be removed. Please let me know if there are any concerns about this proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Former eastern territories of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits by IP-hopping edit warrior

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is possible that the Polish history of the area should have a more prominent place in the article, and it is also possible that it should be mentioned in the lede. However, the suggested addition here of It should be noted that ... (in reality synonymous with "I insist that it is important to mention that ...") is a clear example of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Any addition about this should be suggested in the talk page and discussed before adding.

Labels like "Eastern Europe", "Central Europe", "X-ern Europe" are a well-known area of dispute. I am not surprised that the formula The expansion of the European Union to Eastern Europe ... is met with "Poland etc. is Central Europe". That is, however, hardly the point here. Changing "Eastern" to "Central" in this edit creates the absurd claim that the EU expanded to Central Europe in 2004. As if Germany and Austria are not in Central Europe. The point of the sentence is that EU expanded towards east, so the simple solution is to say just that.

These edits were first Boldly added 26 March and Reverted by me shortly after. Per WP:BRD the next step should then be to open a Discussion in the talk page. Instead the IP has reinstated the edit with the edit summary "Take your concerns to the talk page." This "reversal of responsibility" is not a coincidence, but is a well-known trademark of this editor (beside an obsession with "Poland is in Central Europe" among other things). This editor is currently long-time range blocked in two different ranges here and here as well as blocked for the second time here and earlier here in another range (from the same geographical location).

I am removing the WP:EDITORIALIZING and rephrasing the eastern expansion. --T*U (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maps of ancient tribes

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The two maps in the 'Antic, Medieval and early modern era' section should not be there, for several reasons:

  • Trying to link 19th/20th territorial claims with ancient past is ridiculous and borders on propaganda, given that the ancient peoples frequently moved and did not stay permanently in the same place (southern Poland was inhabited by the Celts at one point, eastern and central Poland by Iranian Scythian and later Samaritans, should we also use that as basis form modern territorial claims?
  • During the Migration period Germanic tribes moved west leaving Central Europe, see here [1]. So, there is a clear break with the region, later German settlers would migrate eastward invited to settle by the Polish Piast dukes (during the middle ages), but at this point the tribes ceased to exist, and a new reality was formed, for all practical purposes this issue only goes as far as the middle ages, and goes hand-in-hand with Christian Europe, Feudalism and most importantly simple economics.
  • Finally, not sure if a map of Germanic "dialects" is the proper item here.

--E-960 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Polish bias

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The article just reproduces the "recovered territories" -- NONSENSE. This article must present the German side of facts and opinions. --Tino Cannst (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected the inconsistent labelling on one of the thumb-insert maps. But otherwise, the article does not (to my mind) misrepresent the 'German side' at all. The classification of part of these lands as 'Recovered Territories' is clearly stated as a specifically Polish perspective. But that does not necessarily conflict with the current 'German' perspective; that as the resident populations of the eastern territories incorporated into the unified Germany of 1871 - including some parts which had been considered 'German lands' before that date - are not any longer national 'Germans'; then consequently the lands they inhabit can no longer be considered to be 'separated' parts of Germany. The Federal Republic has repeatedly maintained this since 1990; has amended its constitution to state this, and has successfully defended this view in cases before the Federal Constitutional Court. TomHennell (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The article appears to me to have been subjected to a large amount of censorship of simple facts - presumably because these are unwelcome to one pro-German-viewpoint editor. I would hope an independent editor with a good grasp of the subject could undo some of this nationalistic damage.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
'simple facts' are not really the currency of Wikipedia articles; rather the article should report current notable scholarly opinions. So if there is a stream of current historical scholarship on the history of how these territories first came to be included in a united Germany, and subsequently came to be excluded from a re-unified Germany, then that scholarship should be in the article. TomHennell (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Slightly strange that User:TomHennell feels that an encyclopaedia should not contain "simple facts"! However, looking further at this and related articles, it seems that the problem is the complicated distribution of information between those inter-related articles. The result is that it is difficult for the reader to find information that they may be looking for. Consider the question "where did the post WW2 population of the Former eastern territories of Germany come from?" Before recent edits[2] this information was in the article. After some research, it is clear that this is in Recovered Territories. However, this is not at all clear from the Former eastern territories of Germany article. Yes, there is a link to Recovered Territories in the lead, but the section "Expulsion of Germans and resettlement" directs the reader to Polish population transfers (1944–1946), which does not contain the information from the post-war census.
The disappointment is that whilst there is clearly a lot of material on these various related subjects on Wikipedia, it seems to require a large amount of determination for the reader to actually find it. I understand how this might arise, as the editors who work on these articles know them in every detail. My remarks are an attempt to provide a reader's eye view of this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair points ThoughtIdRetired. On the issue of 'simple facts' I am reflecting the standard guidance Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Wikipedia is intended as a source of current published scholarly opinions. In general, the current range of scholarship may be expected to assert the 'facts' somewhere amongst them; but it is scholarly notability of the published cited sources that is the key criterion for inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia; even where the opinions cited include material that you are confident is factually 'incorrect' or dubious.
I agree that there could well be better signposting from this article to the counterpart article on Recovered Territories (and vice versa); but the general principle that this article relates more to the history of these various territories before 1945, and the other to their history after 1945, appears sound to me. Once all national Germans had been removed from these territories, the subsequent chronicles of their people's circumstances and events has ceased to be 'German', so is not properly the subject of this article. Whereas the subsequent chronicles of national Germans expelled from these territories likely is. TomHennell (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that some of my edits had been too rash, I apologize. But, I stress, these represented scholarly German views from current publications. It is important to note that on the history of the lands both current notable scholarly opinions from PL and DE have biases. And remember, that the Polish side has the bias of the status quo. There is deliberate and non-deliberate misrepresentation of history going on here. This is not about false or wrong but on which facts to tell and in which order. --Tino Cannst (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@TomHennell: To walk through the Polish bias, let's start here, from the current sub-text on Pomerania:
The Pomeranian parts of the former eastern territories of Germany had been under Polish rule several times from the late 10th century on, when Mieszko I acquired at least significant parts of them. Mieszko's son Bolesław I established a bishopric in the Kołobrzeg area in 1000–1005/07, before the area was lost by Poland again to pagan Slavic tribes. Despite further attempts by Polish dukes to again control the Pomeranian tribes, this was only partly achieved by Bolesław III in several campaigns lasting from 1116 to 1121. Successful Christian missions ensued in 1124 and 1128
So what are these successful Christian missions? German history tells that in 1128 Otto von Bamberg, this time supported by the emperor and German prince, undertook his second missionary trip, which took him to the Lutizian settlement area west of the Oder (taken from DE version of History of Pomerania). Hence: Polish bias here by leaving out, just telling passively "ensued".
Moving on: however, by the time of Bolesław's death in 1138, most of West Pomerania (the Griffin-ruled areas) was no longer controlled by Poland.
Now, no longer controlled by Poland exactly means what? DE: History of Pomerania tells: German dukes tried to gain the land, and in 1180 Bogislaw I joined the feudal association of the Holy Roman Empire. Hence: Polish bias here by leaving out.
Moving on: The easternmost part of later Western/Farther Pomerania[Note 1] in the 13th century was part of Gdańsk Pomerania and was re-integrated with Poland, and later on, in the 14th and 15th centuries formed a duchy, whose rulers were vassals of the Jagiellonian-ruled Kingdom of Poland, before it was integrated with Western/Farther Pomerania. Over the following centuries the area was largely Germanized, although a Polish minority remained.
Now, why suddenly did the Germans pop up, a reader may ask? No previous talk on the previous actions of German dukes in the area who equally tried to gain the land. Germans are made to appear as outsider who suddenly appeared and for unknown reasons became dominating by "Germanization". No talk on dukes calling in the German-speakers. The region "was Germanized" is biased language, presenting Germanization as some kind of external force which it was not, not at the time (!!). "Germanization" was German immigration and assimilation back then. Hence: Polish bias here.
Moving on: An Duchy under the House of Griffin was constituted in the area.
An independent Duchy under the House of Griffin? No, it was fief of the HRR, i.e. the Germans. Hence: Polish bias here by leaving out.
Moving on: By the end of the Middle Ages, by influx of Germanic settlers, the introduction of German town law, the influence of Germanic customs and the trade of the Hanse the area has been heavily Germanized, except Gdansk Pomerania.'
Aha, finally some info on where the Germans came from, muddled up at this place - what are "Germanic settlers"?
The region of Pomerelia or Gdańsk Pomerania became part of the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights in 1308, after conflicts [...]returned to Poland after First World.
Not much objection to the history of Gdansk Pomerania, here, focus on the Polish side is appropriate for Gdansk Pomerania. But why has the focus now moved to Gdansk Pomerania? What happened to Western Pomerania? DE: History of Pomerania tells: Western Pomerania was occupied by Denmark and then permanently part of HRR/Germany from 1227. Fact missing. Hence: Polish bias here.
To sum up: The current text reflects much of what German scholars observe on the Polish historiography of the lands, I have dozens of citations for this: Actions from the Polish side are told, actions from the German side are kept out, and if they are told at all, German actions are told in the passive; political associations with Germany are just left out; then Germans are suddenly presented as outsiders who "Germanized" the land. The other sub-texts on the territories are similar. --Tino Cannst (talk)
Agree with Tino, too much bias on Polish aspect of history ignoring the greater weight of German history.--HQGG (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Former_eastern_territories_of_Germany/Archive_5&oldid=1255369399"