Talk:Treaty of Wehlau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Treaty of Wehlau is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	History Portal Germany Portal Treaty of Wehlau is within the scope of the Prussia WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage all articles related to Prussia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).

Most of my edits are rather self-explanatory. Could you give your sources for the date? I was always taught that the treaty was signed on Sept. 9, not 19th. As to the name Welawa/Wehlau: I moved the article because:

• Until the treaty the town was Welawa, it changed hands after the treaty
• The Treaty of Welawa wins with Treaty of Wehlau by a huge margin in Google ("Treaty of Welawa" - 323, "Treaty of Wehlau" - 38)

-- [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Welawa is fine. And I made a mistake with the date. Rübezahl 22:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 ..and Ducal Prussia wasnt a part of Poland 2 Not much talk 3 Royal claims... 4 Terms of the treaty 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.2 Discussion

[edit] ..and Ducal Prussia wasnt a part of Poland

..."get it?" Ksenon 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

More so than Spain a part of Austria. I got it. Space Cadet 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not much talk

For all the reverting going on, there is a distressing lack of talk on this page. Please be nice, chat more, revert less. Your friendly admin support, William M. Connolley 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Royal claims...

...gave way to self determination. Besides, there were no claims, as the Second Polish Republic had no legitimate claims to the land of a fief of the Polish kingdom. Now please stop, this is getting tedious. Ksenon 17:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While the information is esoterically interesting, I don't believe it relevant to include. I don't see how a treaty signed between nobility/royalty in the 17th century should have been valid for post-Romantic nationalism citizens in the 20th century. The Second Polish Republic was not the same entity as the Kingdom of Poland. If the Second Polish Republic had immediately followed the Kingdom of Poland, it is possible the treaty would have continued (similar to modern Russia inheriting many of the responsibilities of the former Soviet Union). However, the fall of the Kingdom of Poland through the partition of the PLC and its disappearance from 1795-1918 rendered its treaties null and void in international law. I'm not aware of anyone who views Russian-controlled Congress Poland or the Central Power-controlled Regency Kingdom of Poland as being valid successors to the Kingdom of Poland, and the Second Polish Republic was not heir to the legalities of the kingdom. Olessi 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, though try explaining anything to the POV crusaders, with limited knowledge on the subject at that. Ksenon 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here speaks about legal aspects :)( I'm sure you can prove Poland had no legal right to exist anyway ;)) Just about return of former Polish territory. Its actually interesting to see that all of territories that found themselfs in Poland after WW2 were in the past part of Polish realm. Anyway Poland considers itself heir to Commonwealth. I wouldn't be so sure of Second Polish Republic as well, since it claimed reperations from SU concering Partitons of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to which Soviets agreed.

--Molobo 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Polish diplomats at Versailles after World War I used the Treaty of Welawa as justification for their claims on the territory, then that should definitely be listed here. If they didn't (and instead based their claims on the territory based on the population of Poles living there), then it doesn't seem relevant to go into post-17th century history in this article. That's what I meant when I was talking about the validity of the treaty in the 20th century. I personally do not know if the diplomats referred to this treaty when the Second Polish Republic was being created. Olessi 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know either, we are just mentioning that the territory returned only after WW2. --Molobo 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terms of the treaty

In this edit user 24.23.39.36 adds that the treaty was to be renewed upon the death of each ruler; therefore, the treaty would cease to be applicable if future rulers did not renew it (and the status quo would henceforth result). Are these terms of the treaty verifiable? Olessi 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)