Wikipedia

Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 9

< Talk:Gdańsk
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Current German name of Gdansk/Danzig

user:Maberk I'm a strong beleiver of using Gdansk instead of Danzig, if we call it Danzig, Aachen could be referred to as "Aix-la-Chapelle" wich is the French name or "Aquisgran", the Sapnish name. Gzornenplatz insists on calling Danzig a former German language name. What is the current name of Gdansk in German then? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

This should be repeated at the Naming Issues discussion, but I'm in a hurry... I'm of the opinion that the phrase "former xxxx name" does not *have* to be intrepreted so tightly to judge that it says anything about a current name. In other words, if I state that "One is a number", it doesn't mean that "two" isn't also a number. (I realize this isn't the best comparison, but my point is that those who balk at using "former" wouldn't have to loosen up too much to agree that it's use doesn't have to be interpreted so tightly.) As for the "the current name", I think that is not really answerable, there are two "current German names", depending on the context, the preference of the speaker, and the audience. So those who think there is only one correct "current German name" have agendas, and are closed minded, as far as I'm concerned. Some groups of Americans would insist that using "Cologne" in English is wrong, that it's rude to not use the native name. Bwood 22:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not the case. On Talk:Pila page he made it clear that he understands the expression as "a name in German that was used some time ago, but is used not nowadays". Also, there is only one German name of Berlin, London, Paris, Cologne, Bern... do you think that Gdansk is a different case? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:12, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

What prompted the provocative change from "Free City of Danzig" to "Free City of Gdansk" and all the related changes in the history section? Gdansk Research Society is equally bad as an English title. --Henrygb 01:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the German name of Gdanks is Danzig. the German Wikipedia uses this as lemma due to its Naming conventions (de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen#Anderssprachige Gebiete). The Name is more used in German press than Gdansk. You might check this (when you speak German) here. When you type in Danzig you geht "Häufigkeitsklasse" 13, for Gdansk it is 16. ...Sicherlich 08:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. The German system of "Häufigkeitsklasse" is based on a simple word search, equivalent to a Google search simply for the terms "Danzig" and "Gdansk", which finds the music group Danzig and people whose surname is Danzig etc., not to mention all the historical references to the city. A proper search restricted to references to the current city easily proves that Gdansk is more common: "Danzig Polen" 5,670; "Gdansk Polen" 9,040. Gzornenplatz 15:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Less common" doesn't mean "former". More than one third entries show DANZIG! That's not former. Space Cadet 18:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it sure doesn't mean it's "the" German name. If you think "former German name" implies it is never used, then saying simply "German" implies it is always used. So the question is, is 38% closer to 0% or to 100%? If you have an idea for a better formula, I'm all ears. But if we have to choose between the two, "former" is obviously more correct. Gzornenplatz 19:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
If one searches for pages that mention the bizarre Name+Country combo, the results are badly flawed. To ensure that there are no links to, for instance, "Danzig (Gdansk), Polen" and that the results are only (as Gzornenplatz wants it) referals to the current city, I prepared a search on

Which shows that there are only some 12% of webmasters who use the name Gdansk or Gdańsk independently, while the rest uses either both names or Danzig exclusively. A simple search ([1] and [2]) shows that it's still either Danzig or at best both names are current German names and none of them is "former". [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

If you want to exclude "Danzig (Gdansk), Polen" and vice versa, then do so: 

"danzig polen" -"gdansk danzig polen" site:de 4,800
"gdansk polen" -"danzig gdansk polen" site:de 5,970

Exclusion of one term from the entire page serves no purpose. Gzornenplatz 01:17, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Instead of arguing around in circles like this, why not try to come up with something acceptable to all. I changed to "formerly known by the German name Danzig". Is that acceptable to everyone? john k 03:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've also changed the history section to refer to the city as Danzig between 1308 and 1945, which seems the clearest and simplest way to handle this. If someone changes this, I will not revert back without further discussion. john k 03:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Umm... I thought the compromise was to add Polish name in 1454-1790s period? Szopen 12:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
? the name is Danzig today as well .. as you see on the webpage of Gdansk (see halibutt) ... so why is it formerly known? it is still the german name of the city ... like Munich is the english name for München (or do you want to change this ;o)) ) .. no sense really ...and i checked the polish wikipedia: they say the german name is Danzig; and if someone could complain it would be the polish?!? Sicherlich 14:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
huch ... halibutt didnt put this page; http://www.gdansk.pl/de/ ... as you see .. even Gdansk itself uses Danzig as german name ...Sicherlich 14:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So? Most Germans still use Gdansk. And you can do the same Google test for Munich and it will have a different result: "Munich Germany" 1,210,000; "München|Munchen Germany" 203,000, so Munich is indeed the English name. For a better parallel try Braunschweig: "Braunschweig Germany" 164,000, "Brunswick Germany" 3,180 - so Brunswick is not "the English name". And yet, if you go to http://www.braunschweig.de/english/, sure enough the city uses Brunswick on its English pages, just like Gdansk uses Danzig in its German pages. This is simple pandering to potential foreign tourists, probably written by locals who may not realize that the foreigners don't typically use their separate name anymore. Gzornenplatz 15:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I don't get those numbers. I get about 1,150,000 English pages for Brunswick Germany[3] and about 286,000 English pages for Braunschweig Germany[4]. --Henrygb 15:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The quotes are part of the search term, otherwise you get references to the historical state of Brunswick, and to New Brunswick, Canada, and to U.S. cities named Brunswick, etc., where the word "Germany" just appears on some other part of the page. Using quotes reduces the search to references to the present German city. Gzornenplatz 15:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Szopen, my feeling is that in other articles, we should use "Danzig (Gdansk)" for discussions in the 1454-1793 period - but there's no point in using parentheses in this article, since it's obvious that we have both names. At any rate, I would suggest that "Danzig" is probably the most frequently used name in the 1454-1793 period although it's hard to say. But this certainly seems more plausible than switching to "Danzig" in 1793, which implies a stark change when there wasn't really one. But, as I said, I won't object to someone switching it until we can discuss it further. BTW, I've reverted back to my version, because the user who changed it a) did not note any rationale in his edit summary; b) just blanket reverted my changes, even though many of them were copy edits, &c. john k 15:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

@ Gzorenplatz: so the Name is not used in German anymore and the locals just dont know it ... lol ... funny! really ;O) ... specially as the website http://www.gdansk.pl/de/ is written in excellent German and even more in the case of Danzig the german press is using the name Danig more then Gdansk [5] .. and there is a reason why the cities have a german name; how many germans speak polish? (as far as i know you dont) ... most cities of Poland no German could speak the name at all .. how would you say Warszawa ... or even better what about Szczecin instead of Stettin? ... but so far i have the impression that you just know that everybody with a differnt oppinion is wrong .. because you are right ... think about this ... and stop thinking that someone uses the german name wants to have this cities "back" for Germany --> that´s bullshit ...Sicherlich 10:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

oh and one more .... i checked www.duden.de ... this is the dictionary for the German language ... check it there you can find Danzig as well ...Sicherlich 11:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What's funny? There's no sizable German minority there. The locals all use the Polish name. Why would they know about what the practice in Germany is? And then you repeat the nonsense link to the word search Danzig vs Gdansk, which, as I explained a hundred times already, says nothing as to what the current city is called, since it includes not only references to the historical Danzig, but people named Danzig and the band Danzig etc. The specific Google search, however, proves that Gdansk is more commonly used. Clearly, you have a preconceived opinion and can't even take note of any argument that goes against it. Gzornenplatz 15:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Sicherlich, we're all German revisionists, didn't you know that..? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ja, natürlich. Space Cadet 13:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Gzornenplatz, to paraphrase your words: I've proven to you that you're wrong yet you continue the revert war - against all the rest apparently. What is the point of that? For what purpose? Also, you still haven't replied to my question: if the German names of those cities are the same as Polish names - how come the Germans cannot pronounce them? Let alone diacritics, can you pronounce Świętochłowice or Wyrzysk at all? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:13, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
"I've proven to you that you're wrong" - thanks for the laugh. Where? Gzornenplatz 18:03, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Gzorenplatz; there had been so many facts why the german name is the german name ... you dont accept one of them and "prove" this with some google searches ... and do you notice ... if even people from Poland have no problem with it so why should a german try to say Gdanks, Szczecin or Świętochłowice when there are german names? ... why are english not using München? this is the offical name.... and as far as I know Munich was never the offical name? ... so what´s the Problem to have a german name for a polish town? ... I'm not a exspellee or Revisionist or whatsoever .. i love poland, i was there several times, i have a lot of friend there, i started studdying the language, i wrote already a lot of stuff to the german wikipedia about poland ... stopp believing using the german name is bad .. it is not (as Munich is not a bad name for München .. just to repeat it...Sicherlich 18:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I proved it with an exact Google search. You proved nothing. I responded to all of your "arguments", e.g. the same Google test works for Munich too, proving that Munich is the regular name used in English for München, but Danzig is not the regular name used in German for Gdansk. Repeating already rebutted arguments just shows that you don't have a leg to stand on. Gzornenplatz 19:04, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
yeah i proved it with the Duden, the homepage of the city, halibutt with an other google-.search ... come on ...as i can see at Talk:Pila you dont even accept the German goverment as a prove ...Sicherlich 20:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've rebutted Halibutt's methods over and over, and homepages of the city or of the German government carry no particular authority. The question is what is the general usage in German, and you can't get around the Google numbers there. Gzornenplatz 20:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

`:Like a merry-go-round... You say you proved that the Germans call those cities with their Polish names. So far you haven't convince anyone but yourself, but you still state that you've proved that right and deny to accept the arguments of others. I'm afraid no compromise with you is possible (I proposed it several times, on Talk:Pila, for instance, even when I was sure that your version is wrong and a compromise would only blur the reality. Yet - I tried to reach some terms with you - to no effect. I'm also afraid that we are left with only two options. Either block all the articles and wait until the Naming issues thingie is polished out or revert your changes 'til the end of time. The latter is not an option for me, but if you insist... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:18, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well that would be nice if I'd just "accept" your arguments, no matter how wrong they are, eh? Excuse me for proving all your arguments false. Obviously I'm not going to "convince" you or Space Cadet or Sicherlich. That doesn't change the facts obvious to any neutral observer. As to compromises, I'd be fine with John Kenney's suggestion of "formerly". It's you who doesn't like that. Gzornenplatz 21:29, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Dear Gzornenplatz, indeed it would be nice, but I'd also accept if you managed to actually convince anyone. Anyway, perhaps you hadn't noticed but I accepted John's proposal as a temporary solution. I don't like it, but it's still better than your vision of the world. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, until now I didn't know that revisionists have their own city maps, tour guides and whole tourist business... [6], [7]... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

Coming into this mess again, I'm not really sure that anybody has proved anything. What seems to be the case is that German-speakers will in different contexts use either "Gdansk" or "Danzig". Danzig is, obviously, a German form of the name, and it seems to still be used to some extent. At the same time, Gzornenplatz has at least demonstrated that Gdansk is also used fairly frequently in German. I think the real problem here is that it's simply not all that important what the present-day German name of the city is. The reason "Danzig" is an important name is because Germans used to inhabit the city, and it was called "Danzig" at that time. My compromise was meant to elide the question of what the German name is now, by pointing out the important fact that this used to be the principal name of the city. john k 15:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • so i also made a "prove" with google; search for Danzig: [8] result 141,000 pages, search for Gdansk [9] 66.400 ... i searched for German pages only...even i dont believe in google to much; you can prove everything ...Sicherlich 20:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh come on, Sicherlich, you know perfectly well that most of the pages that refer to the city as "Danzig" were written in 18th century and as such have nothing to do with todays usage... You should check for pages newer than 5 days only. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Halibutt; you are right; i forgot about this: unfortunately you cant search 5 days in google (at least i dont know how; so i took the last 3 month; Gdansk: [10] = 54.800 and Danzig [11] 105.000 ... ;o) ...Sicherlich 21:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Which only proves Gzornenplatz's point: these names were used three months ago, which means that they are former names, not current ones :o [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

“The city is also often known, especially in historical contexts, by the name Danzig.”

Still wrong!

This is a very awkward and convoluted way of indicating, but not quite saying, that prior to the defeat of Germany in 1945 and the transfer of territories to Poland, the city was CALLED Danzig. To say that it was “known as” Danzig “in historical contexts” sounds very much like unctuous Soviet-era propaganda, and an attempt to disguise the basic reality that the city used to be inhabited by Germans. The city WAS Danzig prior to ’45. Had you asked people who lived there at the time (like Günter Grass), they would have said they lived in DANZIG. Yes, they would have known the Polish name for the city, but they wouldn’t have said they lived in Gdansk – unless they were among the small (4 percent) Polish minority.

All this subterfuge and linguistic gymnastics could be avoided very simply by saying “(formerly Danzig)” and then recounting what happened in the history section.

Also, there is no editorial reason to put “Danzig” in italics. We’re not introducing a foreign word into an English account; it’s simply what the city’s name was.

“Due to the city's German heritage the name Danzig is still used but in the international community this name was more commonly used before WWII.”

Also wrong!

The name Danzig is not used in the international community anymore to refer to the presently existing city of Gdansk. Any British or American traveler who was going to Poland would say he was including Gdansk on his itinerary, if that were the case. Also, Western media do not use Danzig when talking about current events. Stories from the city, which occur occasionally, are datelined: GDANSK, Poland — …. (I speak as a newspaper editor.)

The only common use of the name Danzig is when writing about or discussing history. Yes, the Germans still use it, but even that practice is eroding, as it should.

To say that Danzig was “more commonly” used before WWII is another smokescreen. It was universally used – except in Poland and other Slavic countries. At Versailles, the talk was about Danzig, and it was still about Danzig at Yalta and Potsdam. The process by which Danzig, emptied of Germans, was transformed into Gdansk, inhabited by Poles, took a few years, so it took the international community a while to adopt the new name. (Ditto Wroclaw, Szczecin, etc., etc.) But that isn’t the point. The point is that THE NAME OF THE CITY WAS CHANGED FROM DANZIG TO GDANSK IN 1945! (On March 31, to be exact.)

User:sca 19nov04

Well said. Maybe we can yet agree on the wording "formerly Danzig" and just ignore this unholy alliance of German- and Polish-nationalist POV pushers who insist on "German Danzig" for opposite reasons (i.e. the Germans want to keep the name Danzig alive and hide the fact that even in German it has gradually eroded so that it is only used half the time today and in all likelihood will further erode; and the Poles want to give the impression that Danzig has just always been the German name only, hiding the fact that it was the universal name before 1945). Gzornenplatz 21:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • the unholy alliance of nationalist is even joined by the polish embassy; check http://www.botschaft-polen.de/ ... and they are not talking about history .... as well the german goverment is not talking about german history on theire pages using Danzig ... and the traffic signs on German streets ... I wonder if they are that old? ...Sicherlich 23:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • @ annonymous: one thing more: we are not talking about the offical name! we are talking about the german name ... like München is the offical and Munich the english name .... and please the offical name is not Gdansk (this is actually the english version of the name) ... it is Gdańsk ...Sicherlich 23:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oh and now i see ... dear journalist; check http://wortschatz.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/ .. there you see specially for press the usage of Danzig is even more often then for Gdansk in the german press ...Sicherlich 23:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Gdansk/Danzig situation is obviously not analagous to Munich/München because München did not change its ethnicity in 1945, like the city in question changed from German Danzig to Polish Gdansk. If you lived in München in 1939 you called your city München, and today if you live there you still call it München. If you lived in the city in question in 1939 you called it Danzig, but if you live there now you call it Gdansk. (We must apologize to our Polish friends for not having the accent marks for the proper Polish representation of Gdansk. Please excuse us Anglos for our ill treatment of the Polish language.)

The English version of the capital of Bavaria is the way it is because a) there is no U-umlaut sound in English, and b) we apparently got it from the French Muniche. Similar explanations hold for English versions of various cities in Germany, Poland, Czech Rep., Bulgaria, Russia, etc. By contrast, English speakers who referred to the city in question before 1945 as Danzig were not calling it Danzig because that was an anglicisized version of Gdansk, but because Danzig was the name of the city which, like Berlin, was German and was pronouncible in its then-German form by English speakers. Gdansk is more difficult for English speakers to pronounce than Danzig, but that doesn't mean that Danzig is the "English" form of Gdansk;Danzig is not the current name of the city in English.

In all of this it is impossible to avoid the distinct impression that our Polish friends keep holding out for these circumlocutions about pre-1945 Danzig not because of any interest in presenting history truthfully, but because they harbor a reluctance to admit to themselves that the city in question (like various others) was ethnically German before the border changes of 1945. This is -- forgive me -- childish.

User:sca 19nov04

  • haie sca: did you read the whole discussion? if you did so (or as well if you didnt) please think about the points:
  1. the German goverment (www.auswaertiges-amt.de) uses Danzig (not under historical topic!)
  2. the polish goverment represententation (the polish embassy) uses Danzig http://www.botschaft-polen.de/ (not under historical topic!)
  3. the city itself uses Danzig on the german translation of theire webpage http://www.gdansk.pl/de/ (not under historical topic!)
  4. the German press uses Danzig more then Gdansk (http://wortschatz.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/)
  5. you have traffic signs where is written Danzig and in brackets Gdańsk
  6. the Polish wikipedia says that Danzig is the German name

please, there is no question the polish and official name is Gdańsk .. i dont want to deny this at all! (And as i personally speak some polish i as well can pronounce the polish names correct - the most german can´t that´s why we have a German name - and thats why you have it in english as well ;o) ) ...Sicherlich 08:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sca, let's make the things straight then. How about the following opening paragraph: Gdańsk (German name Danzig, in use both in the times when the city was in 88% populated with Ethnic Germans and now)? But seriously, apart from some extremists (who left the English wiki some time ago, AFAIK), there is noone here who wants to deny that the city in question was primarily populated with Germans before WWII. The discussion on the opening paragraph has nothing to do with the ethnicities and that's what we were trying to avoid when we established the good'ol' "Talk:Gdansk" compromise (check the archives for details). I don't know why you believe in some hidden agenda while there is none. The current discussion is only about the current German name of the city in question. Not about current or former inhabitants nor about any part of the city's history.
As to my own opinions on the use of "formerly" - I have nothing against a longer explanation of the situation in the city in question. It's fine with me if someone writes that "the city was primarily referred to in English as Danzig before WWII". One can also add that up to 1945 the population of the city was mostly German. Once can even bold it and make the text red. However, simple "formerly Danzig" is too short not to be misleading. It can be understood the way Gzornenplatz understands it (former German name being the name formerly used in German language), which is not right. It could be also understood as "up to certain point in time the city was known in all languages as Danzig", which is also wrong since Polish, French, Dutch, Swedish, Latin and even German languages used to have other names for that city. It all depends on the period covered by "formerly" which is not specified. It can also be understood as "up to certain point in time the official name of the city was Danzig, and then it was changed to some other name" which is only partially write, again it all depends on the time period that is covered by the word "formerly".
That's why I believe we should stick to some less ambiguous expressions, especially in the opening paragraph. Anyway, I consider the matter closed at the moment. I'm fine with the compromise we established a long time ago and I see no need to change it for now. If the community decides to change the opening para by taking part in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Names issues - fine. But so far I believe that further discussion here is pointless. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, moje przyjaciel, how about this: Gdansk (prior to 1945: Danzig) blah blah blah and then explain in the history section what happened in 1945. ??? The fundamental historical reality is that some 10 million Germans lived in Danzig, Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia before the war and that nearly all of them were either killed or expelled in 1945-49 -- and that they were replaced by Polish people (except in N. East Prussia).

The reason it is important not to obscure this history with a linguistic smokescreen that makes it sound as if these areas were sort of like Alsace-Lorraine, with mixed populations that could have gone with either country, is that this was a huge instance in recent, modern history of ethnic cleansing and forced migration, which supposedly were proscribed by international law and certainly were contrary to the principle of self-determination supposedly held sacred by every civilized country, most of all the U.S.A. I repeat: This history is today still not generally known in America.

Another reason for "formerly Danzig" is that all atlases published in English prior to the late '40s showed the city as Danzig -- again, not because Danzig was the "English" version of Gdansk but because it was the city's own name for itself and the name by which most of the world knew it.

User:sca 20nov04


I'd agree on your proposed wording, but only if we include a starting date as well, for instance "Gdańsk (1795-1945 Danzig)". Other than that it would be equally wrong, only from the other side. But first please allow me to ask: why is it so important to say in two or three words in the opening paragraph, what is said extensively and in great detail in the main body of the article?
In my honest opinion, if we left the header without any mention of the German name of the city, the article would be just as good (provided that the history section is not changed and still explains the matter). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:58, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Alas, I am not enough of a scholar to authoritatively critique the history section. Exactly when the city became predominantly ethnically German is a question I can't speak to with certainty. However, I can say that the history section as currently written seems to me -- based on what I have read about the Teutonic Order and related topics -- to be written entirely from a Polish point of view. My general impression is that the city's German character dates from much earlier than 1795, and probably goes back to the late Middle Ages. I feel quite sure that saying or implying that the city was ethnically German only from 1795 to 1945 is not accurate.

LATER INSERTION:

The Polish-American historian Oscar Halecki, in "A History of Poland" (1992), in discussing relations between the Order and the Polish Crown in the decades following the First Peace of Thorn, writes that in 1457:

"The German element predominated in the Prussian League, which was particularly enranged against the Order, and the town of Danzig, in which the majority of the population was at this epoch already German...."

User:sca 5dec04


I notice several other things about the history section: There is no mention of Danzig's membership in the Hanseatic League, a predominantly German organization, or of the extensive trade that moved through Danzig via the League to western Europe and Britain. And regarding the Order's conquest in 1308, it sounds funny to say the city was "demolished" and then to say "this led to the city's decline." It's a little like saying someone was killed and this led to his serious illness. "Demolished" probably is too strong a word, but I don't know the details of the 1308 incident. Also, the part on the battle of Grunwald in 1410 should include "(German: Tannenberg)" since it's generally known in the West as the (first) battle of Tannenberg. You could throw in "(Lithuanian: Zalgiris)" too, if you wanted to.

The section about what happened in '45 and thereafter is not too bad at this point, but I think it should contain this sentence: "All German names for streets, buildings and localities were replaced with Polish names, except one: Westerplatte, where the Germans started the war in 1939." You could go on to mention the bombardment by the battleship Schleswig-Holstein of the Polish Post Office, just as a matter of historical interest, but it's not necessary.

Regarding your last statement, esteemed Halibutt, I think it would be a serious mistake not to mention the German name in the beginning. The city's identity as Danzig is a living memory for countless people around the world. "Danzig" was famous as the bone of contention between Germany and Poland after Versailles, and as Hitler's primary pretext for attacking Poland in '39. "Danzig" appeared in thousands of U.S. and British newspaper headlines in the interwar period, and was instantly understood by readers as denoting more than just a city on the Baltic.

User:sca 21nov04

On a quick search of the New York Times archives between 1918 and 1950, I got 14,760 hits for "Danzig," nearly all of them articles, and 119 for "Gdansk," most of which were shipping notices, not articles.

User:sca 22nov04

A few thoughts. First, and least important: Isn't Grunwald just as much a German name as Tannenberg? It certainly looks more German than Polish to me. At any rate, as to the name, I've frequently said that I'd very strongly prefer "formerly Danzig." The problem with giving a starting date is that it's totally unclear. I continue to think that (1308-1945:Danzig) would make a lot more sense than starting in 1793. But this seems vaguely inaccurate to me as well. From 1308-1945 the city was predominantly German. Throughout this time the German inhabitants called it something akin to "Danzig." But I'm uncertain whether that means that the city can be said to have been named Danzig for that precise period. On the other hand, starting at 1793 seems equally problematic, if not more so, since this implies that there was a forcible name change at the time of the Prussian annexation, which was not the case. "Formerly Danzig" seems to me to be nicely ambiguous without being misleading. The vicissitudes and specifics can and should be discussed in the article, but I fail to see what is so inaccurate about "formerly Danzig" that it cannot be used. The city was called Danzig for some (somewhat indeterminate) period before 1945. It is no longer called that today, except sometimes in German (which should, ultimately, be irrelevant to this article - there is no reason to go into fits about what Germans call it today, because it is not a city in which Germans live anymore). The fact that Poles have always called it Danzig seems irrelevant to me. I ask again my hypothetical question about the French annexing Trier after WWII. Let's say that after World War II the German city of Trier and its hinterland was annexed by the French. The German inhabitants are expelled, and replaced by French people, who call the city "Treves," the name by which it has been known in French for centuries. Furthermore, one might argue, the city was originally named Augusta Treverorum in Latin, so that the French name is closer to the original name than the German. So, the French claim, the city was a Gallic/Latin city, which was forcibly conquered by the Germans in the 5th century, and is now being returned to its rightful rulers and name. Thus, our hypothetical French wikipedia editor claims, it would be incorrect to say the city was "formerly Trier," because it ignores the fact that French people have always called it Treves, and that once, long ago, it was part of the Roman Empire, and the Romans called it something that sounded more like "Treves" than it did like "Trier." Would you support such a line of reasoning?

On another note, I've noticed that all references to the city in the history section have, without discussion, once again been changed to call it "Gdansk," including the absurd "Free City of Gdansk" stuff. Although there's never been a clear consensus on this, I think it has been agreed that at least for the 19th and 1st half of the 20th century it should be called "Danzig" in the history section. Until we iron out a real consensus (which, of course, seems a bit unlikely at the moment), we should stick with this way of doing it. john k 06:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with John, whose view seems eminently reasonable. His analogy to a hypotethically Frenchified Trier is enitrely apt.

Regarding Tanneberg and Grunwald, they were two nearby villages, according to a book I read called "Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights," by Stephen Turnbull. Tannenberg today is called Stebark in by the Poles. I believe 'bark' is a Polish transliteration of 'berg,' but I'm not sure.

I have debated at length with one of our Polish editors regarding the Polish view of city names in the context of the territorial changes and population expulsions of 1945. In the end one must conclude that Polish people of whatever political stripe tend to be acutely myopic on this issue. To argue that the city was not generally known by its German name for all the centuries it was inhabited (primarily) by Germans, simply because it was founded by Poles (or perhaps, West Slavs) a millenium ago, and because the Poles always have referred to it by its Polish name or some variant thereof, does not strike them as illogical, even though it does not correspond to historical reality. This seems to be the case even though, of course, they may be in general very congenial people in other ways.

I believe the English version of this article should be edited by neither Poles nor Germans, but by native English speakers with a strong background in the relevant historical periods. Failing that, I advise anyone who is interested in this topic to study the history books, not Wikipedia. Wiki is a noble experiment in the marketplace of ideas, but one which is intrinsically flawed by the absence of qualified, disinterested gatekeepers.

User:sca 24nov04

It's not myopia, I think. It's decades of Communist propaganda trying to justify the post-war border changes. Remember, according to the Commies, East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were ancient Slavic, Piast lands, which were brutally occupied by those fascist Germans obsessed with their Drang nach Osten, and which were finally recovered and rejoined with the Motherland, for the sake of historical justice. I'm not trying to defend those of my compatriots who don't want to be taught anything else than they've been already taught at school, but it might be good if others try to understand why some Poles don't want to hear about Gdańsk or Wrocław ever being German cities. --Kpalion 01:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • to say something from my german point of view ;) ... if you say that the former german name was Danzig it is wrong as it is still today the german name.. saying the former offical name was Danzig it is IMO correct. I dont know why there is a need to say the german name of the city in en in the first sentence. but i think there is an agreement about this?! ... anyway you also find it on pl .. and funny thing as far as i know there is no such discussion ;o) ... on de as well .... but on en there is ... a bit strange isn´t it?...Sicherlich 08:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merkwurdig. Dziwny.

I do think it's important that the English entry convey the historical story accurately, because so few Americans, at least -- and perhaps Britons, too -- know the history. In the U.S., the politically correct view of everything associated with WWII and the Germans of that era is, they were bad, and everything bad that happened to them (like Dresden, etc.) was justified. This simplistic view is prevalent not, of course, among scholars, but among the general populace, even those who are (like me) liberal politically and committed to human rights for all.

The PC view in the past always has been to assign to Poland all the virtues of the oppressed victim, which of course in a large sense is correct. But that has meant that the "recovered territories" myth fostered by Stalin et al has been uncritically accepted in the West, even to the point where thoroughly German territories acquired by Poland in '45 are now sometimes described as having been part of "occupied Poland" during the war. I saw an instance of this recently on a History Channel program about "The Great Escape."

It's interesting that the attitude of the Russians about the Kaliningrad Oblast is entirely different (I've been there). The Russkis make no bones about it having been German, and indeed are in a way still proud of this fact. Why? Because they won. They beat the Germans and took it from them. The Poles, on the other hand, had no voice in the "two steps left" territorial lurch of '45, unless you credit the Lublin Poles (Stalin's lackeys) as having been representative, which I don't.

User:sca 25nov04

Besides, The "Recovered Territories" did belong to Poland some one thousand years ago, so it could be used to justify the annexation. But Königsberg had never been Russian before 1945. Actually, Poland had more historical rights to Królewiec (as Königsberg was called in Polish) than Russia -- it used to be part of a Polish fief. But Stalin decided that the Soviet Union needed a non-freezing Baltic port, so he gave Poland Stettin instead. --Kpalion 14:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but that part of East Prussia was never inhabited by Poles. Northeastern East Prussia had a Lithuanian minority, and once in a while in Lithuania (I've been there, too) you encounter a reference to it as "Lithuania Minor." The first books printed in Lithuanian, as I understand it, were printed in Konigsberg. And of course, Memel/Klaipeda went back and forth.

"Justify" is not quite the right word regarding the other territories, since the uprooting of 10 million human beings (and killing of 1.5 million of them) in the 20th century can scarcely be justified by any medieval background.

User:sca 25nov04

Recently, I have spent a few hours in Frankfurt airport waiting for a connecting flight and I noticed how they pronounced the city name during announcement of the flight to Gdańsk. In German version they said "Danzig", while in English they said "Gdansk". Poszwa 02:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You see? The German nationalists and POV pushers are everywhere :D Halibutt 09:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

breaking this article up

i have removed some of the lists from this article and given them their own articles. this makes the Gdansk article less bulky and confusing. i will continue to help this article become more clear. Kingturtle 22:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

images that i've temporarily removed

i have removed these images temporarily until this page becomes better organized:

 
Old city by night
File:Westerplatte Pomnik1.jpg
Westerplatte Monument
File:Danzig old.jpg
Gdańsk in 1900

sincerely, Kingturtle 22:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is there a nondisplayable character where the "n" should be?

This is the English language Wikipedia, isn't it? In english, the name is Gdansk, not something undisplayable. 172.169.21.14 22:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's an n with an acute accent. When writing borrowed words and names from languages that use use diacritics, we maintain the diacritics except under certain circumstances where the diacritic-less version has established itself as a separate English word or name, which is not the case with Gdańsk. Nohat 22:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's not an acute accent, but kreska, a diacritical symbol similar to acute accent. Polish language does not use any accents. Kreska is used for palatalization of consonants and not for accenting the vowels. The article on acute accent contains wrong information, I have to correct it some day. As far as the use of Polish diacriticals on English Wikipedia - we use other non-English diacriticals, English newspapers and Encyclopedias use "ń" all the time - so what's the problem? Space Cadet 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Unicode name for the character is LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH ACUTE. How exactly is it not an acute accent? Maybe you imagine that calling a diacritic an "accent mark" somehow implies anything about its function? Because it doesn't. Nohat 20:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No problems here. Just a curious anon user who needs to download the special characters. -- PaulHammond 18:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
It's ok to use French or German (or others) but not the Polish characters!! In my opinion - use of Polish characters is POV, nationalistic and antisemitic... :)--Emax 21:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, Nohat...! Google kreska diacritic and learn more about the difference between the accute accent and kreska. Sheesh. Space Cadet 21:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So the mark has different functions in different languages, what difference should that make? The letter w is pronounced quite differently in various European languages, but I don't hear arguments that it's not a w. Shimmin 14:22, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Emax is right, kreska is not exactly the same thing as an accent. It not only has a different funcion, it also looks different. Kreska is similar to an acute accent but it's more upright. An acute accent must be more tilted to the right so that you wouldn't confuse it with a grave one. Well, I guess we need a separate article about Kreska. – Kpalion (talk) 14:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in Polish typography, the acute accent is more slanted than it is in French. And in Czech typography, it is less slanted. Yet from a Unicode point of view, these are font localization issues, not a cause for considering them different diacritics. And honestly, if you don't adopt this "if it looks like a duck, it's a duck," viewpoint, on what basis will you decide when that little upward-slanting stroke above a letter is the same diacritic in two different languages, or two different diacritics? In 1940, Englishmen and Germans pronounced the letter w differently, wrote it differently, and called it by different names; but will anyone claim that it was anything but a w? Shimmin 17:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. There aren't any cases where kreska and acute accent are used over the same letter and the difference between kreska and acute accent makes the two words different. Without a minimal pair the argument that they are fundamentally different is weak. Nohat 18:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Distortion

The continuing effort of an editor of this entry – who I suspect is not a native English speaker – to suppress those aspects of this story that are less than complimentary to Poland constitute a gross distortion of history and an attempt to present half-truths to the English-speaking world for purely nationalistic reasons.

In particular, I condemn:

  1. The elimination of the German title for the Free City of Danzig – Freie Stadt Danzig – which was the Free City’s actual name for itself in 1920-39.
  2. The elimination of mention that the Free City issued its own stamps and currency bearing the legend, "Freie Stadt Danzig," which obviously serves to incontrovertibly document the previous point. The Danzig stamps and currency remain extant in many collections around the world. You can’t un-issue them.
  3. The suggestion that the city, still at the time known as Danzig, was being “returned to Polish sovereignty” under the Potsdam declarations -- rather than being annexed to Poland along with most of Pomerania and Silesia and southern East Prussia as “compensation” for Poland’s (geographically larger) losses to the Soviet Union in the east.
  4. The use of the term “denazify” to cover the expulsion of the indigenous German residents from the city in 1945-46. This was, by a later term, ethnic cleansing in every sense of the phrase. No distinction whatever was made as to the “Nazi” or non-Nazi political status of those who were expelled; ALL remaining ethnic Germans were expelled.

This has been going on for a long time. I can assure whoever is perpetrating these distortions that this effort to obscure the true history of this part of the world in 1945-49 is doomed. Ultimately, truth will prevail. Sca 21:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of numbering the above questions by Sca for easier reply. Hope the author doesn't mind.
  1. The local name of a country belongs to that country article. Duchy of Warsaw article should mention the Polish name of Księstwo Warszawskie, but we don't have to cite the Polish name every single time we refer to that state - and I don't think the Polish name of that state needs to be mentioned in the article on Warsaw at all. For me the link to Free City of Danzig is enough.
  2. Again, the currency, postal stamps, geographical location, administrative division and all the details on the state belong to the article on Free City of Danzig. Why repeat them here?
  3. The matter of annexation/re-annexation has been discussed here ad nauseam. The city belonged to Poland in the past, so it might've been returned to Poland. Similarily, if the area belonged to Germany in the past, it can be re-annexed (rather than annexed) by that state. Is this problem really that serious?
  4. Indeed, I agree that this part was changed by some user - for the worse. Currently it puts an equation mark between all the civilian inhabitants of the city and the nazis. This should be corrected as soon as possible. However, denazification could also be mentioned.

--Halibutt 22:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt! Isn't it past your bedtime yet?

Why repeat them here? Because it's an unusual, almost unique aspect of the city's history (in the modern context) and one that helps to explain (and document) its complex history.

It's not a matter of annexation and re-annexation -- it's a matter of the city's popultion being forcibly changed -- "cleansed" of Germans and replaced by Poles.

When the city was under the suzerainty of the Polish crown, prior to the partitions of Poland, its population even then was predominantly German. Haven't your read the history? Yes, the city "belonged to Poland" politically, but it hadn't been ethnically Polish since the 14th century. Your attempts to obscure this fact and foster the idea of "returning" a German city "to Poland" constitute an oblique falsification of history. One doesn't "return" a city to a country by removing, in one way or another, nearly all its inhabitants and replacing them by others.

There was no "denazification" of then-Danzig; there was only degermanization. Nazis and non-Nazis alike were either killed or expelled. It's a fact, and you know it! You also should be rational enough to realize that not all Germans were Nazis. But even if they had all been Nazis, they still wouldn't have been "denazified" by being expelled -- they would simply have been expelled (or killed).

PS: There is no such thing in English as an "equation mark."

Sca 23:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, not all Germans were Nazis..., about 0,5% of them were Communists !!! :)--Emax 23:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another Polish nationalist heard from. Very amusing.

Sca 23:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very amusing are Polenwitze.
Do You know the saying: Wie man in den Wald ruft, so schallt es zuruck? :)--Emax 00:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Sca, I did not understand the bedtime remark, so let's just forget it, ok? As to the rest of your comments:
  1. The Free City of Danzig was not that unique of a period in that city's history. It was called a Free City of Dantzk between 1807 and 1815 (de facto ocupation by France). But still, being the capital of Duchy of Warsaw was also an important (and unique, of course) period in Warsaw's history. However, inserting the Polish name of the state everywhere on the article on the city of Warsaw would make no sense. Similarily, when I write about some forest that has a large population of wolves, I don't have to put the - unique and unusual - Latin name of the species next to the link. The link to the article on wolves is enough. Of course, we could simply redirect the article on the Free City of Danzig here and then insert as much info on that state here as possible. But does it make any sense?
  2. You yourself wrote about returning to Polish sovereignty as opposed to annexation to Poland. That's why I refered to the two concepts.
  3. As to the expulsion of Germans - perhaps you didn't notice but I fully agreed with you. No need to argue with me, I'm already convinced.
  4. Saying that there was no denazification in Gdansk is, to say the least, strange. So, following this logic, weren't there any nazis in the city? Only peace-loving, innocent civilians? And those who sent people (including local Poles, Kashubians and Germans) to the Stutthof camp and those who hanged ethnic Germans on the city lamps for supposed defeatism were just some alien nazis that came there from the outside? The trial of Albert Forster, gauleiter of Danzig responsible for some 125 000 deaths, was yet another example of Polish oppression of ethnic Germans, right? Arthur Greiser was but an innocent sheep, persecuted and killed by the merciless and blood-thirsty Poles? Rubbish. My friend, when you ask for a balanced view, do not propose a distorted POV instead.
--Yours truly, Halibutt 01:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Of course there were Nazis in Danzig -- among them, the infamous Albert Forster. The Nazis were old Danzig's tragedy, as anyone who has read Grass's first two novels knows.

My point was that no distinction was made in 1945-46 between Nazis and non-Nazis; all Germans were expelled. The expulsions fell on people due to their ethnicity, not their politics. Therefore, the expulsion of Danzig's residents (those who survived) was not denazification, it was degermanization, i.e. ethnic cleansing.

I never have argued that what the Germans did to the Poles, Jews and others during the Nazi period was justified in any way, shape or form. It was despicable and horrible beyond words. But as I've said elsewhere, two wrongs – Hitler's and Stalin's – didn't make a right.

There is a basic fallacy to the nationalist-Polish argument that the expulsions -- and killings -- of the Germans were justified because for the heinous crimes of Nazi Germany. A rationale human being knows that all human beings remain human beings no matter what their nationality. Being deprived of one's property, homeland, liberty and even life hurts just as much whether you are Polish, German, Jewish, Moslem, white, black, etc. ad infinitum.

Beyond moralizing, what happened happened; you can't keep on drawing a veil over it by writing bland histories of a savage period.

Secondly, from a historical and cultural viewpoint, the former German cities that today are Polish cities as a result of expulsions and annexations represent, in many cases, something previously unknown in European history: Cities that (thanks to painstaking Polish restoration) present in part the outward appearance of their former selves, but which are inhabited by different populations, ethnically and culturally. In the long history of European wars, cities and provinces often changed hands politically, becoming the property of this or that dynasty or empire, but never were their populations completely emptied and replaced by ethnically different populations overnight, in historical terms.

The German residents of the former German imperial city of Strassburg (today: Strasbourg), for example, gradually became oriented to France over a period of centuries, and still their language is spoken in that city today. No one speaks German in Gdansk anymore, outside of tourists and academics. The same may be said of Wroclaw, the former Breslau, Szczecin, the former Stettin, and many smaller places.

No one who finds this reality troubling should blame Poland. It was done by Stalin and the Soviets and their Polish-Communist proteges, and was possible as a direct result of Nazi Germany's aggression against Poland. But it did happen, just as surely (and on a larger human scale) as European-Americans expelled the native Americans from their ancestral homelands a century earlier. Neither was pretty.

I believe this entire debate hinges on a basic human weakness: The inability to keep two opposing but true ideas in focus at the same time. Yes, the Germans were the villains vis a vis Poland in World War II, but yes, Poles and Russians also committed crimes against Germans at its end and afterewards.

No country is blameless. America incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians in World War II, perhaps millions in Vietnam (productivity!), and recently tortured prisoners in Iraq. It's all part of the savagery of war, a central feature of which is the "otherization" of the "enemy."

I just wish Poles would stop pretending they acquired the Oder-Neisse territories as some kind of "right," and would acknowledge it for what it was: Power politics of the harshest kind, imposed from without.

Sca 19:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: Here's a question for you Polish nationalists: Would it have been better, after WWII, if Poland had kept her borders of 1937 -- in other words, if everything had returned to the status quo ante bellum (including Germany's borders)? Or was 1945's territorial "compensation" in fact a good deal for Poland?

Sca 20:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polish nationalists? I would prefer the term "Polnische Banditen"--Emax 09:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

The only "right" solution I can think of is: ante partitionis (1766) borders in the East and post bellum 1945 borders in the West and North. Any other type of borders would always have to be injust, ahistorical and unnatural. Space Cadet 00:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right Space Cadet, and the rest of Germany should be partitioned (like Poland in 1795) between France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Denmark. :)--Emax 09:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, since apparently most of your comment was not aimed at my humble person, I'll reply only to the last question - the question of borders. I'm not a Polish nationalist (although that's what some people say - see my user's page to see what I mean), I'm a native of Poland, so perhaps my reply could also be interesting.
As with everything related to history of Central Europe, this matter is quite complicated. And especially so because you asked about our feelings and not necessarily our oppinions. You known how difficult the Slavic hearts are... Anyway, to make long things short: economically there was little difference. We were given a deserted area looted by the Germans and then by the Soviets in exchange for a deserted area looted by the Soviets, then by the Germans and then again by the Soviets. The difference was an exchange of medium deposits of coal and oil for large deposits of coal and no oil at all. And of course the Baltic sea, but the ports had to be built almost from the scratch so the economical importance of seafaring became only visible as late as the 1970's.
Culturally it was a disaster. Poland lost two out of five of its most important cities, together with all their culture and customs. In addition, almost half of the nation was resettled and mixed, which successfuly destroyed the local traditions and languages.
As to the ethnic problems - I believe they were largely overrated by pre-war nationalists under heavy influence of Dmowski's political thought and post-war communist propaganda, that in some instances was far more nationalist than the pre-war nationalists themselves.
Finally, as to my own feelings: the ideal border would be a mixture of both pre-war borders and post-war borders of Poland. The border in the east could IMHO be moved far eastwards, even as far as the Curzon line (with Wilno and Lwów on the Polish side, obviously). Perhaps some part of Prussia and Silesia couls also be granted to Poland as war reparations, but if it was my decision, I would leave both Wroclaw and Szczecin on the German side. Even today I find those places somehow alien. Those areas are pretty and picturesque, and everything, but I don't feel there at home - contrary to Lwów.
But of course, the best solution would be that proposed by Marian Hemar in one of his poems he wrote in 1960's in London. It goes like this: Poland should stretch herself from one sea to another. See what I mean? From Rostock to Vladivostok :D

-- Halibutt 03:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Playing the armchair historian here -- one solution that might have been more satisfactory to most of those concerned (but not to Stalin!) might have been to give Poland all of East Prussia, and Danzig, but not Silesia and Pomerania. Although this still would have been unjust in terms of the human rights of the German East Prussians and Danzigers, it would have been less severe for Germany overall and would have left at least one of the established borders intact. It also would have eliminated once and for all the geographic anomaly of East Prussia, which in the form of Kaliningrad persists to this day.

In my view, the problem with Poland's prewar borders was Wilno (today: Vilnius). But I don't know enough about the history of that city to know to what extent it was Polish before all the uprootings of the war. I can tell you from experience that today it is very, very Lithuanian, with a sprinkling of Russians (I married one).

It's a crying shame what the Soviets did to old Königsberg (today: Kaliningrad). It's probably the ugliest place in Europe -- and one of the most polluted. It had been a jewel. Going from Kaliningrad to Lithuania is like going from night to day.

Sca 22:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population of Wilno Area, 1939

Poles 321 700
Jews 107 600
Belarusians 75 200
Lithuanians 31 300
Russians 9 000
Total 544 800

Source: 1939 Lithuanian census

Well, Wilno was as Polish as Danzig was German. There was a bigger percentage of Poles in Wilno before WWII than in Poznań, Katowice or Łódź. According to the Lithuanian census of 1939 (not to mention the earlier Central Lithuanian census of 1919, Polish censae of 1921 and 1931 and the German census of 1916, that are of course disputed by the Lithuanian historians) the whole Wilno area that was annexed by Lithuania had some 60% of Poles while the city itself was predominantly Polish (I don't remember the exact data, something like 20% Jews, 70% Poles, 9% Belarusians and less than 1% of Lithuanians; I'll check that if you're interested). The number of Lithuanians living in "Vilnius" in 1931 was 1 579 - some 0,8% of the population.

According to the Soviet census of 1959 the percentage of Poles in the area of Vilna ('though not in the city itself anymore) was 80,3%. By 1989 the percentage dropped to 63,5%. So, all in all, neither the city nor its area was a big problem before WWII. It was a problem in international relations (or rather lack of such) until 1938, but barely anyone living in the city cared.

Finally, before one starts crying over what the Soviets did to Königsberg, one should think for a minute or two over what the Germans themselves did to their city - by starting the war with the entire world and destroying countless other cities without mercy. But all this discussion is OT here and I believe we should move it to somewhere else. What do you say? Halibutt 10:20, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we know all that, Halibutt; we know the Germans started the war and did everything else they did. That doesn't need to be repeated everytime something related to WWII comes up.

According to what I've read, Königsberg already was heavily damaged, and parts of it virtually destroyed, by a big R.A.F. bombing attack in 1944 -- in August, if I remember right. Thousands of civilians were burned to death. By the time the Soviets finally conquered the place in April 1945, massed Red Army artillery had done the rest.

The "crying shame" I alluded to refers to the ugliness of what the Soviets built there. Have you seen photos of Europe's ugliest building -- the never-finished House of the Soviets, built on the site of the royal castle, the ruins of which were blown up on Brezhnev's personal orders? And that building is just the most conspicuous of a whole lot of Soviet-style architectural atrocities in Kaliningrad. The only things charming in Kaliningrad are the few leftovers of old Königsberg, such as the recently restored cathedral.

By the way, from what I have read, the Red Army purposely burned down much of Danzig AFTER they conquered it. You have to wonder why. Didn't the army know they were going to give it to Poland?

Sca 20:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention

What happened to the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention? Last edit on October 2004. Is this still voted on or has a consensus been found? -- Chris 73 Talk 05:54, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Neither. But the debate moved elsewhere - mainly here. --Henrygb 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, not much going on here either. Even though this is a central problem for many other articles (i.e. is (s)he born in Gdansk or Danzig). -- Chris 73 Talk 02:28, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Its very simple - if someone was born in times when Gdansk was part of Poland, Gdansk. In times of Prussia or Germany Danzig. Its very simple and easy to remember. :)--Emax 02:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Before 1793, Danzig/Gdansk was indeed part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a state in the way that modern Poland is. Within that polity, Danzig/Gdansk was a largely self-governing city, and it was inhabited almost entirely by Germans (at least, from the 14th century it was). Calling it "Gdansk" because it was part of the PLC is anachronistic - it assumes/implies that current models of the nation-state applied in the eighteenth century. Which they certainly did not. john k 02:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All right, I can agree with you, but only if we decide to call the city of New Orleans "Nouvelle-Orléans" until 1840s and the city of New York - Nieuw Amsterdam (at least until 1800). For exactly the same reasons as stated above. Otherwise we'd have to continue with the anachronysms. Halibutt 08:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
So it would be for example the Battle of Volgograd (instead of Stalingrad) and the Fall of Istanbul (instead of Constantinople)? Danzig is still commonly used in English, if not more so than Gdansk, and removing its usage whereever the city is mentioned is plain wrong. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Even in Germany the use of "Danzig" is slowly replaced by "Gdansk" - and btw i have noticed that you edit articles but never have your own opinion/knowledge, you only using other peoples comments/opinions. If someone would claiming that Warsaw was a german city, you will belive it, if someone would claiming that Gdansk was never part of Poland, you will support such opinion. Why do you take part in disscussions and revert wars if you have no idea of the subject?--Emax 14:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Are you being purposefully dense, or do you just not get what everyone who disagrees with you has been saying for months (hell, years now). Other than the now banned Gzornenplatz (who seems to at least partly agree with you on that), nobody particularly cares what the current German name of the city is. The question is how the English language refers to the city during the time before 1945. And that remains Danzig. I don't even understand what you are talking about at the end of your rant. john k 15:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"I don't even understand what you are talking about at the end of your rant" I was talking about Chris 73 lack of knowledge of Polish history. And i asked him why he edit Poland-related articles and starting editwars, if he have not even basic knowledge of subject matter that he edit. He only wait until someone (like you here on Gdansk) rewrite an article to a pro-German version, and then if someone else reverting the german biased version, he starting an editwar. (in the same way he started to revert on Lucas David, Arthur Schopenhauer, Szczecin, etc.).--Emax 16:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why do you edit on the English wikipedia, when you don't have even a basic knowledge of English grammar and syntax? john k 17:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1) why do you answer questions that i asked Chris? I think he is old enough to do it by himself. 2) Its not your business :)--Emax 17:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I see you missed my point entirely. Shocking that. My point was the incredibly hypocrisy of someone whose command of English is as sketchy as yours is attacking Chris for supposedly being too ignorant to work on this page and others relating to Polish issues. If Chris's knowledge of Polish history isn't good enough for him to contribute to articles on that subject, then your knowledge of English certainly isn't good enough for you to contribute to anything on the English wikipedia. john k 20:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is a big difference between asking someone why he starting revert-wars without basic knowledge of the subject matter he reverted and asking someone for the reason why he joined the eng. wiki. ... --Emax 20:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, what is the basis for your claim that he does not have basic knowledge of the subject? Secondly, I am not asking why you joined the English Wikipedia. I am asking why you feel you have the right to attack somebody else for alleged ignorance, when your ignorance of the English language is clear, and is being displayed in this very edit war, by your reversions to a version with extremely poor English syntax. My knowledge of French is probably at about the same level as your command of English, and I certainly would feel uncomfortable going onto the French wikipedia and repeatedly reverting because I felt that French people shouldn't call American cities by the names they call them. But maybe that's just me. john k 20:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1)I have reverted your "Danzig" mania, its not my fault that by the way im also reverted your gramatical changes of the article. 2) Firstly, what is the basis for your claim that he does not have basic knowledge of the subject? his edits :) 3) Until its "The Free Encykclopedia" and not "The only for English people Encyclopedia" you should not asking me why im here. 4) Only because my English is poor i will not stop to remove the german bias.--Emax 20:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
1) There were only about three or four Danzig's in my whole edit that were not referring to the city between 1793 and 1945, when everyone involved has agreed that Danzig should be used. The proper response would have been to simply change the earlier references to Danzig back to Gdansk. I would not have objected to this. 2) This is not very specific. 3) Considering the level of your English, how can you possibly claim to dictate what English usage is and whether what I am doing is a "German bias"? I suppose in a sense it is a German bias, because the English language as such has a bias towards the German names for central European locations. But Wikipedia is not the place to try to change this. In English, we call the city "Danzig" when discussing it before 1945. This may be unfair, unjust, or whatever. But it is what is done. Every single native English speaker who has ever commented on this issue has said this. And you continue to engage in unproductive revert wars over this issue, and never seem to listen to anything anyone else says. And then you have the gall to say that somebody else shouldn't edit these subjects because they're too ignorant? The whole basis of this dispute is your ignorance of English usage. If not for that, there would be no argument at all. So all I was saying is that if ignorance is a bar to editing an article, well, physician, heal thyself, I guess. Whatever you want to do on the Polish Wikipedia is fine with me. I wouldn't presume to tell you that you should call the city Danzig on the Polish wikipedia when referring to it before 1945, simply because that is what is done in English. But that's exactly what you are doing here, and it's arrogant and obnoxious. john k 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my ignorance of English usage..., thats why since the Gdansk article exist it was several times protected and every month started a new edit-war. The edit-wars will never end, until people like you dont stop to call the city Danzig shmantzig, calm down and stop to acting as Chris father, however thanks for answering the questions that chris should answer (seems that he is not able to do it by himself) Here is something for Danzig fans [12] :)--Emax 23:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
My problem with Emax is that he seems to be unable to compromise. As he accused me above as not having my own opinion: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be based on cited sources, and not on our own research. In case of disputes, a compromise should be found that the majority can accept. Unfortunately, Emax is completely unhindered by anything like a reference or majority view, accepting only his view regardless of sources or other peoples comments. There would be much less edit wars if Emax would be able to compromise, but as it is now we either have the option to have factual incorrect articles or to have edit wars. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:03, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Chris you are the one who try to change (germanize) the articles not me. I was not the one who wrote the Gdansk, Szczecin or Arthur Schopenhauer article, but you are the one who want to change them. What are your sources? Comments by Helga Jonas? Majority view? You, Helga Jonas and Sca, the dreamteam (i guess Nico and Burschenschaftler would also help you) of german revisionism :) You have shown already on Helgas talkpage (you know what i mean), "what kind of German" you are...--Emax 00:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Your attitude, Emax, is not very convincing. Eventually, you'll understand that; but until then, your perpetual campaigns afflict your cause more harm than good. ...to the relative advantage of the Lithuanians, the Russians, and the Germans, of course.
--Ruhrjung 00:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
You are right, i will stop now to waste my time with silly disscussions...--Emax 00:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I think Emax has pretty clearly revealed himself over the course of this discussion to be the same person as Caius2ga/PolishPoliticians, and so forth. Hey old buddy, good to see you again! (If he's not, why all the references to people who weren't even here when he arrived.) john k 00:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If im Polishpolitician (the paranoia problem is back...) then you are the Burschenschaftler one :) (If he's not, why all the references to people who weren't even here when he arrived - its good to know what happened befor my arrive ;) )--Emax 00:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I see you don't know very well what happened "before" your arrival. I've had numerous edit wars with Burschenschaftler. john k 03:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I forgot that one has to underline the sarcasm if used in wiki discussions. But I'm glad Chris 73 uses my own arguments from this very discussion (check the Archives :) ). Halibutt 18:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, I'm not sure I understand. However, I will state that we ought really to follow English usage, and not worry so much about what the city was called by its inhabitants, or by the Sejm. In English usage, the city is normally called "Danzig" when it is being discussed in historical contexts before 1945. The fact that from the 14th to the 20th century, the city was largely to entirely inhabited by German-speakers, simply shows that this common English usage has some rational basis in the actual conditions of the city, making the decision to switch in 1945 sensible and easy to explain (on the other hand, as we've discussed before, the English name used for a city like Lviv is a lot harder to figure out in any clear way). At any rate, English never uses "Nieuw Amsterdam." In any case, the Dutch-descended inhabitants of New York, who were never so numerous as you seem to think, as far as I am aware, did not call the city Nieuw Amsterdam after 1664 (since, after all, that was no longer its name, in a sense more like the Königsberg/Kaliningrad situation than the Gdansk/Danzig one), and, whatever their ancestry, were largely speaking English well before the American revolutionary wars. By the way, the current naming rules that Emax is insisting on for Gdansk would result in New Orleans being "Nouvelle-Orléans" before 1763, "Novo Orleans" (or whatever the Spanish is) from 1763 to 1803, and then New Orleans from 1803 on.

At any rate, the situation of European colonial cities in North America remains quite different from ancient German trading cities on the Polish coast in the same time period, and I'm not sure the comparison is worthwhile. And, again, our touchstone should be English usage. If English usage is totally confused, as it sometimes is (for Lviv/Lvov/Lwow/Lemberg, or perhaps for Poznan/Posen), we kind of have to cut through the bullshit and come up with a way to do it. But for Gdansk, the English usage situation is (reasonably) clear - Danzig before 1945, Gdansk after it, with only the very earliest centuries confused. I will add that I am not discussing English usage before 1945 by contemporaries. Obviously there are numerous cities that were called by different names in English at one point. In the 19th century, "Ofen" seems to have been used most commonly for Buda, or "Ratisbon" for Regensburg. But no contemporary history would call Buda Ofen, or call Regensburg Ratisbon, even if it is discussing those periods when people would have used those names in English. I am discussing the way contemporary historians refer to the place when discussing it in earlier times. Danzig is, as far as I can tell, far more common. Given that the change in the ethnic composition of the city in 1945 makes this shift sensible, I think we should name it in this way. john k 22:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name to use 1308-1793

Alright, the editing dispute seems to have come down to the question of what to call the city between 1308 and 1793? Can we perhaps work on coming to an agreement on this? I'll lay out the case for using Danzig:

1) English language sources generally use Danzig when referring to the city at this time. General use textbooks like John Elliott's Europe Divided 1559-1598, Geoffrey Parker's Europe in Crisis 1598-1648, William Doyle's The Old European Order 1660-1800, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, Jeremy Black's The Rise of the European Powers 1679-1793, and so forth, all refer to the city as "Danzig". A JSTOR search shows a limited number of references to the city as "Gdansk" - only 61 articles total mention "Gdansk", and many of those are references to the city since 1945. There are, on the other hand, 552 articles which mention "Danzig", and many of them are discussing the eighteenth century and earlier. [this is a JSTOR search of articles in the 56 journals that are classified as historical. john k 08:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

2) This English usage makes sense. The city was primarily a linguistically German city from the early 14th century on. Since 1945 it has been a linguistically Polish city. It makes sense to make the name switch only in 1945, because this corresponds to a major shift in the city that did not occur in 1454 or 1793.

3) These two factors alone should be sufficient to make the case. Now, one might argue perfectly rationally that it would make perfect sense to just call the city "Gdansk" throughout, or to complicatedly switch it depending on whether or not it was under Polish or German sovereignty. But only one usage has the support of common English usage, and that is using "Danzig" for the city for the entire 1308-1945 period. If it was common in English to use "Gdansk" for its whole history, or for its history before 1793, it would make sense for wikipedia to do that as well, whatever its inhabitants may or may not have called it. But that is not how it is done. "Danzig" is the main name used for this period, and Wikipedia should follow that usage.

A final point:

4) The question of whether Danzig is the current German name is completely irrelevant to the English wikipedia. Since 1945, the city has not been a German city. As such, the name that Germans call the city today is of as much interest as what the Romanians call Warsaw - that is to say, it is not of interest at all. The reason the name Danzig is important is because it is the name the city was called when it was inhabited by Germans, not because it is the name Germans do (or do not) call it today.

I look forward to a healthy debate on this question. john k 06:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. As an additional point, I would also propose to add the other name to the first mentioning of one name. For example, in articles where the city is called Danzig, then the first mentioning should be Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Danzig (Gdansk). Similarly, in articles where the city is called Gdansk, the first mentioning should be Gdansk (Danzig) or Gdansk (formerly known as Danzig). This would help users searching for the city using the other name, for example by using Google. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
This was my idea which i contributed quite long time ago, though nobody seemed to be much interested in that at that time...Szopen 11:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think there was general agreement that we should do that, but since we never came to any agreement on when we should use "Danzig" and when "Gdansk" (and on which name to use on this page), it was never really implemented. john k 16:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly support doing this for Danzig (Gdansk). For post 1945, I don't think it's necessary - the city is now Gdansk. I would not object strongly either way, though. john k 08:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It may be of note to see what contemporary Englishmen called the city. The astronomer Johannes Hevelius (Jan Hewelke) was a resident of the city, and was in regular correspondence with the Royal Society of London. Looking through his letters published in the Philosophical Transactions I find ...

... lately discovered again at Dantzick, by M. Hevelius ...
... That Eminent astronomer of Dantzick, Monsieur Hevelius ...
... in the same language it was written from Dantzick the 1st of May ...
... written by Monsieur Hevelius to the Publisher, from Dantzick ...
... Aeque nos hic, ac Hevelius Gedani ...
... Written from Dantzick to the Honourable R. Boyle

and so forth. Most of these are from the 1670s. It seems that when they wrote in English, at least this particular group of Englishmen wrote something akin to Danzig. When they wrote in Latin, they wrote whatever something beginning with Gedan... Shimmin 18:57, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point - but I think not of particular relevance. A similar study would, for instance, show that Regensburg was being called something like "Ratisbon", and Mainz as something like "Mayence". john k 19:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, anybody? john k 05:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm sick of arguing about this, and even sicker of how whenever a serious attempt is made to come to some kind of agreement, nobody seems to be interested and we just all retreat into a stagnant truce for a few months until somebody comes along to stir the pot again. There's no reason we can't come to some resolution of this that is sensible and generally acceptable. But it's not going to happen if nobody makes any effort. john k 05:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This looks like different old spellings for Danzig to me. In any case, my feeling is that many native english speakers still know the city as Danzig, and any article using Gdansk should also mention Danzig so users looking for Danzig actually find the place. Does anybody know if there has been a vote that came to a conclusion? Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention seems to be left incomplete. We could either restart the old one (from October 5 2004) or start a new vote. In any case, it would be good if this problem here would get solved. If possible, this should also include a whole lot of other cities and towns with a similar problem related to the polish/german history. Alternatively, we could also do a request for arbitration, although The Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes, and a content dispute would be something new for the comitee. I would give my full support for any vote or Arb request. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

A vote will have no validity if certain users are determined to ignore its results. Despite an overwhelming talk page majority in favor of using Danzig rather than Gdansk for 1793-1945 period, until a few days ago Emax and Space Cadet were repeatedly reverting to a version that uses the nonsensical Free City of Gdansk formulation. john k 05:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could include a vote on the enforcement, that violations against this rule can be reverted as simple vandalism. Community consensus can enforce guidelines. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

JOhn, you are not the one who is sick over the whole issue. I have enough of that too. The discussion is going in circles and the same arguments are used and used again and again. I think that right now is agreement to using Gdansk post 1945, and pre 1308, Danzig after partitions, and the only problem is year 1308-1790s. I once proposed including the link (as template or something) to article explaining the controversies about status of Gdansk and Royal Prussia. But this oculd be too much: So we could agree for Gdansk (Danzig) or Danzig (Gdansk) in articles about the period. In Biographical articles of German persons it would be Danzig (Gdansk) and then Danzig. In Polish it would be Gdansk (Danzig) and then Gdansk. In controversial we would sacrifice the virgin and wait for enlightenment. In history articles we could toss a coin, or something.. The issue is burning our forces and makes me feel tired... Szopen 08:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk/Archive_9&oldid=933424396"