Talk:Demographics of Poland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Demographics of Poland 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! |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] complete census results 2002
(nationality) Polska 36983720
Niepolska 471475 afganska 111 algierska 273 amerykanska 1541 angielska 800 arabska 459 australijska 224 austriacka 346 belgijska 245 bialoruska 48737 bulgarska 1112 chinska 212 chorwacka 336 czeska 831 dunska 154 egipska 132 francuska 1633 fryzyjska 109 grecka 1404 gruzinska 141 hinduska 234 hiszpanska 242 iranska 186 japonska 149 kanadyjska 513 karaimska 45 kaszubska 5062 libanska 174 litewska 5846 lemkowska 5863 lotewska 151 macedonska 286 marokanska 113 mongolska 176 niderlandzka 540 niemiecka 152897 norweska 166 ormianska 1082 palestynska 229 romska 12855 rosyjska 6103 rumunska 328 serbska 442 slowacka 2001 syryjska 312 szwedzka 258 slaska 173153 tatarska 495 tunezyjska 102 turecka 232 ukrainska 30957 wegierska 579 wietnamska 1808 wloska 1367 zydowska 1133 inna niepolska 2369 niepolska - nieustalona 4227 Nieustalona 774885
(languages)
albanski 96
angielski 89874
arabski 1835
bialoruski 40650
bulgarski 1076
chinski 309
chorwacki 414
czeski 1482
dunski 759
finski 169
flamandzki 488
francuski 15282
grecki 3166
gruzinski 90
hebrajski 225
hindi 160
hiszpanski 4154
islandzki 86
japonski 371
kaszubski 52665
litewski 5838
lemkowski 5627
macedonski 169
mongolski 145
niderlandzki 2768
niemiecki 204573
norweski 733
ormianski 872
perski 108
portugalski 299
romski 15788
rosyjski 15299
rumunski 308
serbski 570
serbskochorwacki 217
slowacki 921
szwedzki 1842
slaski 56643
turecki 390
ukrainski 22698
wegierski 908
wietnamski 1883
wloski 12001
zulu 128
niepolski - nieustalony 15834
Nieustalony 772223
To Kpjas
The major but not well organised part, that mostly concerns past, also very biased and including irrelevant information was moved to Historical Demographics of Poland. Please give me reasons why you want to try to revert those changes AM
I don't get why someone wrote that Ukranians is the largest minority group while a couple of pages below we have CIA info: "Ethnic groups: Polish 97.6%, German 1.3%, Ukrainian 0.6%, Byelorussian 0.5% (1990 est.)" Or have they expelled Germans since 1990?
-- Methyl
As a matter of fact, in that sense also Great Poland (Wielkopolska), the region when Poland originated, was also taken from German Reich and given to Poland. In WWII this region became Warthengau. Germans expulsed thousands of Poles from that area.
szopen
...when land was "taken" from the German Reich and "given" to Poland. That stretch of land then became known as "Polish Corridor".
Either the land was taken and given or it wasn't. The apostrophes are in general a bad idea, since they only come up when you are disagreeing with someone's theory. We're not doing so here, we're simply stating what actually happened.
Well, it would also be good to include the taker and giver - obviously it wasn't conquest, because it was in a war settlement. Actually, 'assigned' is also a useful word in these contexts, given that we're talking about a treaty that was negotiated and signed by both parties. --MichaelTinkler
- I thought the Poles were also a specific slavic people?? Also, despite the fact that I am one of the more serious American Germanophiles I know, I am having a very hard time with the constant implication (in this series of Poland or Communists vs. Germany articles, that is) that the re-assignment of disputed territories to Poland was somehow unfair to Germany. Yes, Versailles screwed Germany -- it was deliberately punitive, and I do believe it helped to foment the resentment that allowed Hitler's rise to power -- but it's not like the German Empire wasn't trying to take over most of western Europe! And few people would argue that Germany was an innocent bystander in WWII -- remember, that's the war where the Allies and Communists won -- those territories would probably not have been assigned to the Eastern bloc without a war...JHK
- As a consequence the population of Poland became one of the most ethnically homogeneous in the world.
Even with very conservative CIA estimates there is about one milion non-Polish people in Poland. With recent more liberal estimates it might be more like 2-3 milions. This sentence is highly exaggerated. --Taw
One of the great ironies of WWII is that it was started by the British and French supposedly to defend the territorial integrity of Poland, but at the war's end the eastern part of Poland was incorporated into the Soviet Union (which had seized it, in collaboration with the Nazis, in 1939). - HWR
- If I read you right, you are saying the British and French started WWII. I thought Germany started WWII. -- a hapless amateur
- Well, it were Soviets who started WWII. (Germans had also something to do with it, but much less than Soviets). --Taw
Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Had they not done so, a general war in Europe would not have begun at that time. So, in that sense, the European war was started by Britain and France. -HWR
Ah, depending on the meaning of "start" we could say that WWII was started either by
- (A) the German invasion of Poland, or
- (B) the British and French declaration of war in response to A.
I'll never be a diplomat. --Ed Poor
- But the war didn't involve Southern Europe until Italy attacked Greece in 1940. So, following HWR's reasoning, the European war was started by Italy in 1940 (before, there was only Northern European war). And when did World War II start? The war didn't involve the Pacific region before Pearl Harbor. So maybe Japan started World War II? But wait, the war didn't involve South America before the Brazil-German conflict. So HWR's reasoning leads to the following conclusion: WORLD WAR II WAS STARTED BY BRAZIL IN 1942.
- I think I've shown that this kind of reasoning is dubious. The war started on the 1st Sept 1939, when Germany attacked Poland. Two days later France and Great Britain declared war on Germany, because there was a defense treaty between them and Poland. But they didn't attack Germany, they waited for Germany to attack them. Later, other countries joined and the war spread all over the world. That war started when Germany attacked Poland, so Germany started the war. Let's not search for "other senses" of the word "start", because it doesn't make too much sense. Kind regards. Boraczek 11:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My point was not to begin an endless (and ultimately pointless, essentially semantic) discussion of who "started" WWII. Rather, I was making the point that while the western Allies entered the war (thus making it a multilateral conflict) in supposed defense of Polish territorial integrity, they collaborated in the violation of Polish territorial integrity by the Soviets at the war's end. But as to the question of who "started" the war, the alternatives you mention are not exhaustive. The German invasion was, after all, in response to Poland's refusal to accept Germany's territorial demands. And those German demands were in response to the loss of German territory imposed by the Allies after WWI. And WWI... etc., etc., ad infinitum. But the real question is not how far back one can trace causative factors, but rather at what point the multilateral conflict in Europe was actually initiated. Hitler did not invade Poland with the intention of initiating a general war, although he was willing to accept that consequence if the western Allies forced it upon him. The Allies need not have declared war to defend Poland, it was their choice to do so, and had they not so chosen, a general war would not have ensued. So I believe it is indeed correct to say that the Allies started WWII in Europe. That is not to say they were not justified in doing so, of course. Most people would agree that they were. - HWR
- Thanks for your answer. That pretty much settles it for me. --Ed Poor
- This isn't right answer, because allies have to declare war on Germany since they guaranteed Polish borders. They can't just say "oh, we didn't really mean we will help you" and break their own given words. French in addition were in military alliance with Poland. It seems that many people in west thinks that English and French just wake up 3 september and decided: "well, we will declare war on Germany". They didn't. They warned Germans about consequences of invading Poland earlier, and none have to be genius to guess that if state A is allied with state B, and both states A and C guaranteed borders and promise help to state B, then when state D invades state B, A and C declare war to B. In fact, declaration of war was quite a formality. szopen
To MichaelTinkler I just came across this statement of yours,above ( see copy):
"Well, it would also be good to include the taker and giver - obviously it wasn't conquest, because it was in a war settlement. Actually, 'assigned' is also a useful word in these contexts, given that we're talking about a treaty that was negotiated and signed by both parties. --MichaelTinkler "
In answer to this ,I have to tell you , that it is not correct. It was never negotiated. The government of Germany Deutsche Reichg) was not allowed to be present or negotiate anything. When confronted : "Here, sign this" , the government officials resigned. It was then said, we'll just continue bombing until you sign. Someone, anyone eventually signed. This was after Germany had Russia sign the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk and Austria and Germany had already agreed on Poland having a kingdom again, seperate from Russia. H.J.
- "Sign this or we'll invade you" constitutes negotiations. The Germans didn't want to go on fighting. The Allies said "fine, we'll stop attacking you, but only if you agree to these demands". Eventually, the Germans agreed, and freely signed. (The threat of invasion did not constitute duress because it was justified -- Germany had invaded and occupied part of the territory of the Allies, the Allies were entitled to invade and occupy Germany in response.) -- SJK
- Sorry to point this out (again), but I'm pretty sure that the reason representatives of the German Empire were not invited to negotiate at Versailles may have had something to do with Germany having started a war that cost most of the participant countries (some of whom were actively defending themselves and others against German aggression) close to a generation of their young men. Unfortunately for Germany, Germany lost the war. Losers don't normally get places at the negotiation tables. Winners are oftern punitive in their negotiations. Had this been a war at the height of Rome's power, the Kaiser would have been brought to Rome in chains, many of his people enslaved or turned tributaries under Roman rule. Germany's "agreeing on Poland having a kingdom again," by your own standards, was never within Germany's right to grant.
The main reason that German Empire officials weren't at Versailles is that Germany had a revolution near the end of WW1 that destroyed the Empire and rendered most of the people who could represent it either dead or irrelevant. It is difficult to argue that Germany started WW1. The start of WW1 was very complicated, but most of the Allies (Belgium and USA are the obvious exceptions) declared war on Germany before Germany declared war on anyone, and before Germany started fighting. WW2 is a different story. Germany takes a large part of the blame for starting that one, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi revisionist fuckwit. -- Geronimo Jones
Germany told Russian to stay out,but was attacked in the east in East -Prussia ,then beat the Russians and said we accept Wilson's proposals. But instead they got attacked heavily in the west. And if you want to be specific, it was not Germany that declared the war, but Austria, because the legal government of Austria (Crownprince and wife) were assassinated. H.J.
[edit] Statistical data
What is the source of the statistical data? Polish Central Statistical Office publishes different figures. For example population 38,191,000 (2003 est.), population growth -0.04% (2003), infant mortality rate 7 deaths/1000 births (2003), life expectancy: male 70.67, female 79.23 (2004 est.), total fertility rate 1.222 chidren/woman (2003). Population growth is negative since 2002. Infant mortality is below quoted 8.7 since 2000. Population from 2002 census is 38,230,080. It looks like the data in the present article are quite old. Poszwa 02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "pre-Holocaust"
"*7,000-15,000 Jews. Its representatives live mainly in large cities like Warsaw, Wrocław and Kraków. They avoid often to consider themselves as "national minority", since they are a religious and cultural minority, not an ethnic one. The pre-Holocaust Jewish population was about 3,474,000."
This is kind of misleading, since this number is not only pre-Holocaust, but also pre-emigration, pre-Kielce_pogrom, etc.-AchtungAchtung 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rename from demographics to demography
Please see Talk:Demography#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
