Talk:East Prussian plebiscite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	Poland Portal East Prussian plebiscite 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!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Germany or Poland may be able to help!

Contents 1 POV 2 Freikorps 3 Merger from Westprussia plebiscite 4 Some questions 5 Name 6 Technical note on results 7 von Gayl 8 West Prussia? 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion 10 Juliusz Bursche 11 Plebiscite results 12 MAP

[edit] POV

- when did the german “control” over these territories start ? Is Olsztyn “controled” by Poland today?

- Any sources for “german para – military organisations”?

- Allied support for Germany? Didn´t the Allies just fight a war against Germany, why should they support the Germans?

- As Andreas Kossert writes in his book “Masuren” it was a polish condition that all people, who were born in the plebiscite area were entitled to vote, so the Allies did not “allow” to bring 100.000 voters to masuria, it was part of the Versailles treaty – and as far as I know this traety wasn´t very pro – german.

- the plebiscite was supervised by allied troops under control of the League of Nations, shouldn´t this be mentioned

- to be exact, the alternatives were “East Prussia” and Poland, not only “Prussia” ( and following A. Kossert this was also a polish condition )

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 09:53, February 8, 2008

Feel free to cite full references that contradict this article and correct it. See WP:CITE and WP:V for relevant policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freikorps

Any Sources for Freikorps activities? Don´t mix it up with Silesia. (HerkusMonte (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Was Freikorps limited to Silesia? Pl wiki notes (with some POV) "terrorystyczna działalność niemieckich bojówek" - terrorist activities of German miltia/paramilitary units. This page notes that many paramilitary German units were created and active, some even equipped with artillery, and since autumn 1919 Eastern Prussia received Freikorps units from Baltic States region. In many places Polish activists and meetigns were attacked, an example is given for Giżyck, 17 April 1920.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is, how to define a “Freikorps” – a militia, organized in a clearly military way, wearing uniforms and probably based within barracks under commandment of officers ( as it was in Upper Silesia). Attacking a meeting does not mean that this was organized in a military way ( no doubt, that it happened and that people were “discussing” quiet violent), violence is not only used by para – militaries, and wasn´t the Mazurska Straz Bezpieczestwa also a militia.

I just ask myself, if “Freikorps” is the right expression. (HerkusMonte (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, this would benefit from further research. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sources for Freikorps in East Prussia in 1920: as the Freikorps had done in East Prussia in 1920; fears about the disgruntled Freikorps in East Prussia , Freikorps Rossbach, formed in East Prussia in late 1918... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So if it´s not clear, that para – military Freikorps were active , why is this term used here?

(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Merger from Westprussia plebiscite

The problem about Westprussia plebiscite is, that the area of Kwidzyn etc. is not a part of Warmia or Masuria, so it would be wrong to call it “Warmia and masuria plebiscite”. Another point is, that these areas were also seperated in the Versailles treaty ( plebiscite area Allenstein and plebiscite area Marienwerder) with different plebiscite commissions / administration and seperated results. But off course, most people saw it as one event.

Is the name used somewhere in literature? Remember we have to avoid original research (WP:NOR). As far as I know, the literature includes those area in the WaM plebiscite; we can point out in the article that it was broader (and copy your explanation above, perhaps somewhat adjusted), but nonetheless if the literature includes it, so should we.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What "most people" saw is neither here nor there. It was a separate plebiscite and should be dealt with separately. Christchurch (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just my opinion, but didn´t You just mix both areas now ? The area of Marienwerder is identical to what I called Westprussian plebiscite, and the area of Allenstein is identical to what was called Warmia and Masuria plebiscite before. It´s true that the term "westprussian plebiscite" is not used in english, it´s rather the german expression ( as WaM plebiscite is Polish ). But calling it Allenstein and Marienwerder plebsicite also means to put the Marienwerder (Westprussia) results to this article.

P.S. I still believe "most people" saw ( and see ) it as one event, You are one of them.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

And by the way

1. Marienwerder wasn´t a part of East Prussia, it was part of West Prussia, only taken under eastprussian administrative power as Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder after the plebiscite.

2. The plebiscite was´t organised according to Article 97 of the Versailles treaty, but according to Articles 94, 95 for the Allenstein region and 96, 97 for the Marienwerder region. Thats why I seperated both plebiscites.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

OK. I have significant problem with that. All our history books, including the Foreign Office archives, call it the Allenstein and Marienwerder Plebiscite. So thats what I've called it because that is what it is known as in the English-speaking world and that is therefore how it should be presented on the English-speaking Wikipedia. I can have a go at merging what you call the West Prussia Plebiscite here if you would like me to. But maybe there should be broader agreement on that?

Butler and his collegues cite Article 97 for the constitution of the Plebiscite Commissions in Marienwerder. I shall check further. Christchurch (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, what I wanted to explain is, that we had a discussion about wether the district of Marienwerder is a part of the ( former version ) “Warmia and Masuria plebiscite” or a different one. From my POV Marienwerder is not a part of Warmia or Masuria, it´s a part of Westprussia, as the plebiscites areas are seperated by the versailles treaty ( Articles 94,95 for Allenstein and 96,97 for Marienwerder). You can find the Versailles treaty here [1] (a link You removed).

If the english – speaking world sees all this as one plebiscite, I don´t have a problem with that, but in this case there is no Westprussia plebiscite. You just wrote that different things shouldn´t be mixed up, just to mix it up on Your own.

To make it clear, the results given on this page are only the results of the Allenstein area, the results of the Marienwerder area are on the "Westprussia" page ( Marienwerder, Marienburg, Stuhm und Rosenberg)

And why do You clear up Your statements, which I just answered?(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Some questions

Christchurch Now, after You changed all this stuff, where are the results of the Marienwerder district ?

Now added. Every single thing I have added to the page is sourced. Christchurch (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And maybe You might explain some sentences.

“The Poles were also aggravated by the Versaille Treaty stipulation ... Why were the Poles “aggravated” ? Really ? That´s the Polish POV.

Because they did not get all the things they had asked for from the Treaty. I can dig out the relevant minutes if you wish. But their own books constantly whinge about this stipulation. So its a statement of fact rather than POV. Christchurch (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They (the Poles) claimed that German sources said....

Yes, its just a claim really. Not properly sourced so that we can access it. Christchurch (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply don´t understand the sense ( maybe due to my rudimentary English knowledge) To make it easier: why were people from outside ( born in the area) entitled to vote ? What´s the polish POV what´s the German POV ? Or does a true answer exist?

This was a decision of the Versaille Treaty and it related to all areas in Europe where plebiscites were held. POV doesn't enter into it, except when you're saying its wrong. For instance, British expatriates can vote in British General Elections and I should point out that in the recent Polish General Election all those Poles living in Britain were able to cast their votes here. Are you seriously suggesting people who were born and brought up in a place have no right to vote on what should happen to it? Christchurch (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I´m not suggesting anything, the problem about this is, that in a former version someone wrote that the Allies “allowed the Germans to bring over 100.000 immigrants to the plebiscite area ( as an evidence for privileging the Germans ) So from my POV it was necessary to write something about why this happened. Because I don´t know the real and true answer ( who does ) I tried to point out the different positions of German and polish historians a) it was a Polish condition, believing the Ruhrpolen would vote for Poland or b) a privilegue to the Germans by the Allies. I don´t think that this is explained or understandable in Your version.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

“The plebiscite ended as expected with a majority of the voters, both German and Polish, voting for...

Which implies that more ethnic Poles existed, but didn´t vote for Poland (why ?) My Grandpa would have been very upset about this assumption, I´m sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a simple established fact. It may be unpalatable, but it is true. The population statistics of the Polish populations eligible to vote show that in a great many areas they voted to remain in Germany. It is crucial when writing these articles to state the facts, not just those things which suit you. I am neither German nor Polish and I feel I can do that because I can cite a great many more sources than I have! Christchurch (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, the first and most important aspect of ethnic or nationality is, the point of view of that human being himself. And if 98% of the people say they are German (or whatever) they are German ( or Eastprussians ). Nobody might tell any other human that he is from a different nationality or ethnic than this person feels or believes in. I knew a lot of Masurians (named Koslowski, Schwartinski, Kampowski ...) and they classified themselves as german. Why do You know better??

And .. did You know, that Masuria was one of the most succesfull areas for the Nazis ? Because masurians were Poles? (HerkusMonte (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Name

The last time I checked, per WP:UE we use Warmia and Masuria, not Allenstein and Marienwerder. And I hope nobody is suggesting moving the Upper Silesia plebiscite to Oberschlesien plebiscite? PS. Perhaps we should have a WP:RM on that. But "Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite" does not seem to be popular in English literature (1 hit on Google Print). PSS. Looking at Section IX of the Versailles Treaty ([2]) perhaps a reasonable compromise would be East Prussia plebiscite? That name is much more often used (over 20 hits on Google Print). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong on this and you should not have moved the title of this page to a totally unknown non-English-language entity. You need to check WP:UE again. Moreover, no-one is suggesting we use Oberschlesien because that is not the phraseology used in English-language publications. Our atlases of the time whilst saying Silesia, nevertheless say Allenstein and Marienwerder. I gave three excellent references re the title as we know it, one of them an official British Government publication, as clear evidence of how these two plebiscites were known. Yes, when the Versaille Treaty was first drawn up it just said East Prussia but the Inter-Allied Commission changed that to the official title of Allenstein and Marienwerder. These articles are not vehicles for Polish propaganda. They are supposed to be articles based upon facts, not facts as you would like them to be presented. Another thing, mentioning anything other than the Plebiscite and matters related to it is inappropriate and links to Polish-language websites unacceptable. This is not a propaganda site. It is the English-language Wikipedia. Lets stick to the academic facts and our language. Christchurch (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All three of your refs are in Google Print yet they don't seem to come out to support your hits. As I have shown, your proposal is not used in English literature; I would not object East Prussian as this one appears to be used. As for your other complains, you may want to read up on our policies, from WP:AGF to WP:RS. Polish language sources are perfectly acceptable, and if anyone here is spreading propaganda, modern or otherwise, it is not me. Good day, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in Google. I have the three books here. I had them opened on the cited pages and that is the official line. Your assertion is groundless. You have asked for a reference for the voting statistics. As I did not put them on this page (although I transferred over those for Marienwerder from the West Prussia page) I cannot say where they came from. But doubtless it won;t be hard to verify them as I have the British Foreign Office's Documents on British Foreign Policy available to me. As for giving foreign language (only) references which virtually no-one in the English-speaking world can read that is unacceptable. WP:RS clearly states sources must be accessible and that quite naturally means we must be able to read them! Now if you want me to raise an RfC I am happy to do that. Christchurch (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And I am not the slightest bit interested in the books that you, dear anonymous editor, claim to have checked, when I have checked them as well and cannot verify your claim (could you provide specific quotes and page this term is used on, not ranges of pages)? Google Print is a valid reference tool and it disproves your claim. That's EOT per WP:V.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn´t it a little bit overdone to expect ( and accept ) sources on a topic that is obviously part of German – Polish history only in English language?

The results of the Allenstein area are from A. Kossert, Ostpreussen, page 222. You will find the the results of the Marienwerder area at : Paul Hoffmann; Die Volksabstimmung in Westpreussen am 11. Juli 1920, Vergleichende Darstellung der Abstimmungsergebnisse aufgrund des amtlichen Materials, Marienwerder 1920 ( The plebiscite in Westprussia on 11 July 1920, a comparison based on the official material)

The results for the whole area are also mentioned on these SWISS sources [3] and here [4].(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

All the pre-1990 English sources used German names and post-1990 sources used them for reference. Show me some post-2005 source. Space Cadet (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think those sources are valid; I don't expect they would be falsified (even in a Nazi era) - Germans won by a large margin, so why falsify the data? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet, any sources for Your POV, that the “MAJORITY of the inhabitants were ethnically Polish” ? What´s the problem about “A lot of...having Polish roots / ancestors / origin.....”?

I don´t wan´t to start this discussion, by why had the masurians to leave masuria after 1945, being Polish?(HerkusMonte (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Mostly because of mandatory membership in Nazi organizations. For sources start with the map in the article East Prussia, there is also a book: "Na tropach Smętka" by Melchior Wańkowicz, that I (conveniently) misplaced during the move in January. Space Cadet (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So only the Nazis had to leave? Mandatory membership? Did I get this right, they were forced to be member of NSDAP?? Come on, this is ridiculous. (HerkusMonte (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

And which map, the only map showing nationalities refers to 14th century.(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

The map is my mistake. I'll try to produce something more recent, although I think the text under the map is just NPD propaganda. I saw the same map on the internet pertaining to 1914. Mandatory is ridiculous? Did you live in those days as a Pole? Poles had to constantly prove their loyalty to the regime. Not just NSDAP, but HJ, BDM and other forced activists. Only known Nazis had to leave, yes. Even some Germans were allowed to stay. Space Cadet (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Only known Nazis had to leave and (good) Germans were allowed to stay??? That´s ridiculous and You know that, but it´s senseless to discuss.

Please give a source for Your assumption about a Polish MAJORITY(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

In rural areas, I said. Space Cadet (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

- Chaps, listen, all of these classic endless arguments are out of place here. We are building an encyclopaedia. Conjecture, stories, propoaganda, have no part to play here. As for publications, English-language sources are preferred on the English-language Wikipedia. (For obvious reasons!). It would be a mistake to think that the English-speaking world does not have hundreds of thousands of books in print on European history by experts in their fields, and it would be a serious mistake to contradict the words of the Inter-Allied Commissioners on the spot. Don't forget that their countries had just been fighting the Germans. Christchurch (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What words of IAC? As I have shown above, the English world uses the name "East Prussia(n) plebiscite", and I'd support a move to it. The English world most certainly does not use the Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite name, with maybe one or two exceptions to the rule. And yes, for the record, the same applies to Warmia and Masuria plebiscite (which is why I would support a move to 'East Prussia(n) plebiscite'. I am just not sure whether it should be "East Prussia plebiscite" (27 print, [0 scholar] hits) or "East Prussian plebiscite" (24 print, 7 scholar hits). PS. For the record "West Prussia plebiscite" is unused, and "West Prussian plebiscite" produces 4 print and 1 scholar hit.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, No,No

it´s not getting better. The Westprussian / Marienwerder plebsicite is NOT the Masuria plebiscite ( nor East Prussia/ Allenstein = Warmia ) Warmia and Masuria are parts of former East Prussia, according to the Versailles treaty, it´s the area of Allenstein( Olsztyn is the capital of Warmia !). The Westprussian plebiscite ( expression used in German ) was organized in the area of Marienwerder ( Kwidzyn, Malbork, Sztum, Susz ), which is NOT a part of Warmia or Masuria and has not been ( until 1920 ) a part of East Prussia. According to Versailles, it´s the Marienwerder area.

In Poland such a differentiation seems not to exist. The city of Kwidzyn calls it “plebiscite of the “Lower Vistula region” [[5]]

And this Polish page seems to call it Plebiscite of “Powisle” [[6]]

But these terms are obviously not in common use in Poland.

So the question is, how to name it in English: The contemporaneous sources, such as Sarah Wambaugh here [7] call it “Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite” (as used by the Versailles treaty). And this – as it seems – has never changed in scientific literature.

What about calling it Allenstein / Olsztyn and Marienwerder / Kwidzyn plebiscite. The Allied commission issued special stamps with such an overprint, like the one shown here at Olsztyn.

P.S. the sources for the results are definitely not falsified by Nazis. The books of A. Kossert were first issued in 2001, he was born in 1970 and is working at the German Historical Institute at Warsaw, he´s not a Nazi or anything like that; and the Hoffmann book was published in 1920, why should he use incorrect numbers.(HerkusMonte (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

For the n-th time, not a single scholarly source uses "Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite". The only names to consider are East Prussia or East Prussian plebiscite. In the article we can discuss naming and regions, but we should not create articles on subjects that are ORish just because we think the existing literature is incorrect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is a "scholarly source"? Give me strength. I have cited scholarly sources which you choose to ignore. Christchurch (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical note on results

They would look much better in a table. Any volunteers for conversion? See WP:TABLE for help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] von Gayl

The article states: The German Government were permitted under the Protocol terms to attach a delegate and they sent Baron von Gayl, former Interior Minister. Yet according to Federal Ministry of the Interior (Germany) only "von Gayl" in that office was Wilhelm Freiherr von Gayl (DNVP) who held it in 1932. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made the correction according to the letter of the book. Christchurch (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Prussia?

Our article states: ...a plebiscite for self-determination of Warmia (Ermland) and Masuria (Mazury, Masuren) regions, then part of East Prussia and West Prussia respectively.... Yet Masuria article states that it was part of East Prussia. West Prussia for the most part was transformed into the Polish Corridor; hence the entire argument that there was a West Prussian plebiscite is rather problematic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having slight difficulty in finding out whether Marienwerder was in East or West Prussia prior to the end of World War I. (Allenstein is well inside East Prussia). The 1903 edition of the maps volume for the Encylopaedia Britannica does not show the division between the two provinces. Baedeker's Northern Germany (1904, p.164) also fails to show the division but puts Marienwerder in the district of Kulmerland and states that it was "the seat of government for the distict." It seems to be a question as to whether the Vistula was the dividing line between the two provinces, at least at that point. Christchurch (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn´t know that it´s so difficult to understand ( and would cause so much trouble ). Marienwerder etc. is a part of West Prussia . On the map and the list of cities You will find Marienwerder as well as Stuhm, Marienburg and Rosenberg quit easily just starting at the Baltic sea and going South. I hope it´s not “dubious” any more.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. See my comment further up the page. Christchurch (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My first comment here was under the mistaken assumpion that Marienwerder = Masuria. Since now we have clarified we are talking about the town of Kwidzyn, it seems indeed to be considered part of West Prussia. This, however, doesn't change the fact that most of the plebiscite territories were from East Prussia, and it is known as such in literature (just compare how often "West Prussia(n) plebiscite" is used and how often, "East Prussia(n) plebiscite"; I have provided relevant links on this page already).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Both names (Polish and German) are used at "results", so it should have been clear which town we are talking about. The expression "Westprussian plebiscite" (Volksabstimmung in Westpreussen or in Ost- und Westpreussen) is used in German ( as Warmia and Masuria in Polish and as I mentioned before ), sorry for that. It´s obviously not the right term for English Wikipedia.(HerkusMonte (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Both names are used since I added the Polish ones :) I certainly support adding the German names to the lead, just as Polish ones are used (the more the merrier). But in English language I think the best name is the East Prussian plebiscite (and of course, redirects from all other names, which I think I have created plenty of by now).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It´s really not the point to discuss, but I created the "Westprussia plebiscite" side and I used both names, christchurch copied these names to the WaM plebsicite. Don´t be silly.(HerkusMonte (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

To clear up some pre-Versailles confusion, Marienwerder was in "eastern Prussia" from 1466-1772 (part of the Duchy of Prussia). After the First Partition in 1772, Ermland was added to East Prussia and Marienwerder was transferred to the new West Prussia. After the Napoleonic Wars, Marienwerder became the seat of Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder, an administrative unit in West Prussia. After World War I, Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder was reduced in size through the creation of the Polish Corridor, and the territory remaining in the Free State of Prussia was split between East Prussia and the new Posen-West Prussia. The territory which was restored to East Prussia was renamed from Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder to Regierungsbezirk Westpreussen, in honor of former West Prussia. After the invasion of Poland in WWII, the Marienwerder region was moved from East Prussia to the new Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia and restored to its original name of Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder. Olessi (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juliusz Bursche

Is anybody able to create something about Juliusz Bursche? There´s a large page about him on Polish Wikipedia, maybe some basic informations should also be incorporated on EnglishWP.(HerkusMonte (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Will do so shortly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the stub. I will need more time to get to translating more, however. Space Cadet (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plebiscite results

I converted the results for the Allenstein area into a table. Can someone please check for typos. I would have liked to to the same for Marienwerder but there is something wrong with the numbers and I have not got time to look into it. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; did Herkus address the issue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Made a table for Marienwerder as well and converted the number into percentages. Somehow, the figures do not add up to the total given below. There are minor differences which I chose to ignore for the moment.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAP

The recently added map contradicts the plebiscite results in an absurd way. While 98 % of votes were given to remain in Germany, this Polish propaganda map still claims a Polish MAJORITY in almost the whole plebiscite district. It´s nothing else but chauvinist right-wing propaganda, that shouldn´t be accepted on Wikipedia.(HerkusMonte (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

What? The map is regarding nationality not votes in the plebiscite. The plebiscite wasn't a vote about who is a Pole or who is a German.--Molobo (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would still like to know what the source of the map data is (other than just the book Atlas Historyczny PWN, Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych). I.e. - is it based on German 1916 census? Or something else? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is simply based on nothing but phantasy and wishful thinking. It´s remarkable that even after almost 90 years the plebiscite-results are still inacceptable in Poland.(HerkusMonte (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

P.S. Do I understand it right - "Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych" - this map is used at schools ? Oh my God.

What is wrong with Polish schools teaching history of Polish people when they were under foreign takeover ? And what does it have to do with this article ?--Molobo (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there another map in this book, showing the plebiscite results? Or is the only information Polish children receive, that Masuria had a Polish Majority in the 1920s?
• The Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship has 1,427,091 inhabitants. How many of them were born there before 1945 or have ancestors born there before 1945? And how many of them have ancestors born in (today) Ukrain or Southern Poland? So what happened to your Polish Majority? And please – be honest.(HerkusMonte (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Do you have any source for your claims? Unless you can present such sources, you cannot tag the map simply because you don't like what is shows. You need sources - preferably a different map - that could be used to claim this one may be erroneous.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A source ? You are asking for a source ?? 98 % voted to remain in Germany, it´s an obvious ly to claim peolpe Polish who voted with 98 % to stay German! The whole discussion here is simply unbelievable.(HerkusMonte (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Come on, HerkusMonte, Piotrus' suggestion makes sense, doesn't it? Just come up with a map showing Masuria to be German or mixed. Shouldn't be too difficult. Try "bsv Geschichtsatlas" or "Putzger Historischer Weltatlas" or "dtv Atlas Weltgeschichte". I think none of the can rightly be accused of nationalist tendencies. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way: How about contrasting both maps (if you can come up with one illustrating the German viewpoint)?Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I´m not going to start an editwar on this. We all know, what´s going to happen, when I would add a map like this
  

  

  Deutsche Mundarten

and I think it should be acceptable to add the POV tag as somebody who isn´t familiar to the topic is able to see, that the Polish map is - discussable.

• I don´t think an article should use plenty of maps just to show the different POV´s.
• I don´t claim anything, the map claims a Polish MAJORITY in an area that just voted with 98 % to stay German.
• Just because something is written somewhere we shouldn´t stop to think on our own - and claiming a Polish Majority in Masuria in the 1920´s is quiet obviously wrong.
• Btw - since I started to work on this article I learned a lot about modern Poland and I never thought that such an uncritical POV is still that common in the year 2008. (HerkusMonte (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

This map, though it quite accurately displays the linguistic reality in East Prussia about one hundred years ago, is not acceptable for at least three reasons:

• It displays language/dialect use, not ethnicity
• It is unsourced, if I am not mistaken
• If I remember correctly, User Michael Postman was banned for his, well, extreme political views.

But I still think you should look for a suitable map, as the one you tagged is indeed a sad example of nationalist propaganda. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I´m not going to add this map to the article, it´s just what I found first. It´s fine to find someone who understands my problems with the Polish map, Thanks. (HerkusMonte (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

As Unoffensive text or character noted, it is reasonable to illustrate the article with maps showing different POVs - as long as they are properly referenced to reliable sources. The above map is indeed unfortunately unreferenced, and as such is not the best choice of what we should add to this article - although I'd like to hear from other experts (ex. Molobo) w/ regards to this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the map in question, I find another problem:

The legend says ..Yellow: territories incoroporated into Poland as a result of the plebiscite. Green: territories with a Polish majority. Grey: territories with a German majority...

Now, this implies that in the green territories, there was a Polish majority in the plebiscite, which is obviously not the case. If we corrected the legend to something like "with a majority of ethnic Poles", this raises another host of questions:

• What does the Polish legend say (a literal translation would be useful)
• What is an ethnic Pole as opposed to someone who speaks Polish as his mother tongue and as opposed to someone who opted for Poland in the plebescite?
• How would the author of a Polish schoolbook find out about the ethnic (whatever that may mean) composition of a handful of Prussian "Landkreise"; i.e. Piotrus' question regarding the sources of the map. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The translation is quite literal. As for additional info, User:Molobo may know more (per this post). I suggest you ask him to join our discussion here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• What´s the problem with the "POV" tag? Do you think, the term "Polish" implies already, that the map can´t be neutral?
• I still don´t see, why it´s necessary to use this map. There´s already a map showing the plebsicite district. Everybody who is interested in the plebiscit surely knows, where it took place and it´s easy to find with all the different towns mentioned. A map showing the "true" ethnicity is just POV - pushing and a try to relativize the results.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

The map shown above is based on

1. Heinrich Nabert: The spreading of the Germans in Europe 1844-1888 (hrsg. 1890) - by far the most exact representation map of the German linguistic area at that time (with this representation map upper and southFrankish dialects are added due to the geographical location the Central German one.)
2. New Brockhaus (1938), Bd. 3, S. 301: Dialects: Map of the German dialects (also with this representation map upper and southFrankish dialects are added due to the geographical layer the Central German one.)
3. Lingen Atlas: Dialect map, S. 158/159, Lingen publishing house (1970) language education, expenditure B VI: A work book for German instruction at the six-form high schools, S. 126. Diesterverlag (1975)
4. dtv Atlas to the German language; S. 230/231 (9th edition; 1992)
5. Fischer information Atlas Federal Republic of Germany, S. 63 (1989) the "large hand encyclopedia in color",
6. Bertelsmann publishing house (1979) with the latter representation maps is assigned upper and southFrankish dialects due to the carried out high-German sound shift to the upper German.[12]

Piotrus, I know that you won´t be convinced by any kind of argument, but the content of the polish map isn´t sourced and it´s absolutely unknown, on which basis this map was constructed. Again and again ( even if it´s boring) 98 % voted German and there´s simply not any kind of evidence for a Polish MAJORITY. Please respect, that there is a discussion and that this fact should be mentioned in the article.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Voting for a country does not determine ethnicity. Poish MAJORITY voted for Germany (or Prussia, to be exact) because of fear of oncoming Soviets and for many other reasons. Space Cadet (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize:

• 98% voted to remain in Germany, so 98 % defined themselves as Germans. That´s a sourced fact nobody (Do you ?) denies.
• The Polish map claims a Polish MAJORITY in this area. This is a claim that is denied, that´s why we have a discussion and that´s why the POV tag is suitable.
• It´s not necessary to disclaim a map only by a different map, I think the different positions are quiet clear.
• The lingual map shown above is sourced.
• Space Cadet: You´ve got a source for this claim?

(HerkusMonte (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

I deny, because people who voted for Prussia (not Germany as you erroneously keep insisting) did not necessarily inentified themselves as Germans, but as Prussian Poles. Space Cadet (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

98% voted to remain in Germany, so 98 % defined themselves as Germans. The vote wasn't about "Are you German" but about territorial changes. As Poland was being overrun by Bolsheviks it's no surprise people voted against such changes. Since the vote was made due to Polish presence in those areas therefore map combines both the base claim (ethnic group) and area of the voting with the results. Btw-I noticed there is little about falsfication of the votes by German state(which had overblown the support in results).--Molobo (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why Polish-speaking inhabitants of Eastern Prussia voted for Germany are numerous. Majority of Poles were/are Catholics, while in Masuria, Polish speakers are/were Protestant. Germany had been an established state for years, Poland had just been born. National awareness among these people was still not developed, and IMO this is the main reason, these people, even though speaking Polish, did not think of themselves as Poles (or Germans). Note that on voting cards, instead of Germany/Poland, there was choice between East Prussia and Poland. Tymek (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe You´re right, maybe I am, but WHY is it obviously inacceptable to add the POV tag, as a Polish MAJORITY (+50%) is - disputable.(HerkusMonte (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

P.S. The whole discussion is sad, simply sad.

What is so sad about a map that points out the fact that Germans weren't the only group in their Empire ? Anyway Wikipedia isn't about telling us about your feelings.--Molobo (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation (HerkusMonte (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for participation. Hope you like the new map I just uploaded. Space Cadet (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "Polish" or "German" majority? Unoffensive text or character (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The area shown in Yellow (“territories incorporated to Poland as a result of the Plebiscite”) falsifies the true proportions (concerning Masuria) as only 3 small villages (Lubstynek, Czerlin, Groszki), directly at the border, voted with a majority for Poland and were incorporated after the plebiscite. The territory of these villages isn´t nearly as large as suggested by the map. If the Yellow territory is supposed to show the area of Dzialdowo, it´s wrong as this town wasn´t part of the plebiscite district. (HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Give me the right information or even another map and I'll correct our map. Space Cadet (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, it´s OR, but if you search for these villages at Google Earth (Lubstynek 53°31`25.93” N 19° 53´02.51” E, Czerlin 53°29´39.90” N 19°53´13.41” E, Groszki 53°25´23.13” N 19°58´10.50” E), it should come clear, how small these villages are. The yellow area in the map is much larger than only three villages and the area would have been called different, if there were other (larger) villages inside. The point is: the map isn´t based on verifiable facts and shouldn´t be used here.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The nearest larger town is Lubawa, less than 10 km west of Lubstynek, and this town was already outside of the plebiscite area. And Frygnowo is 15 km east of L., but was part of East Prussia. Most probably the borderline near L., shown at Google Earth, is still the same.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm... I'll look for other maps. But I have a question: Is it true that after the Plebiscite East Prussia didn't have access to Vistula river and all the eastern bank was Polish? Because that's not on my map either. Space Cadet (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article 28 of the Versailles treaty [13] :

...thence up the course of the Nogat River to the point where the latter leaves the Vistula (Weichsel);thence up the principal channel of navigation of the Vistula, then the southern boundary of the Kreis of Marienwerder,...

The river (the principal channel) was the borderline between a point near Nowe in the South and the river Nogat in the North. I think it´s still a borderline (Voivodship?), take a look at Google Earth. (HerkusMonte (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Soooo... ...Poland had the entire eastern bank and East Prussia did not have direct access to Weichsel, yes or no? Space Cadet (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the treaty, the border is in the middle of the river (principal channel of navigation) and East Prussia had access to the eastern bank. But: Is there a larger town (harbour) in this area? (HerkusMonte (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

H. G. Wells in The Shape of Things to Come criticized the Polish Corridor as one of the future causes of World War II:

And to keep the waters of the Vistula as pure and sweet for Poland as the existence of Danzig at the estuary allowed, the peace-makers ran the Vistula boundary between Poland and east Prussia, not in the usual fashion midway along the stream, but at a little distance on the east Prussian side (Jacques Kayser, La Paix en Péril, 1931). So that the east German population, the peasant cultivator, the erstwhile fisherman, the shepherd with his flocks to water, was pulled up by a line of frontier posts and a Polish rifle within sight of the stream.

I'll look into all that, but give me some time though. Space Cadet (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a very good, military map of the 1932 Poland, I just cannot find it. I also own a 1939 road map of Poland, and it looks like East Prussia had direct access to Wisla west of the town of Sztum (Stuhm), near then-Polish village of Walichnowy. Tymek (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the description to the map is misleading: "Polish Majority" reads as if there had been a Polish Majority in the plebiscite and you wonder why only the small yellow parts became Polish territory. The Polish original Map says "języka polskiego/nimieckiego", so something like "areas predominantly Polish speaking" could avoid any unwanted implication.

This (in Polish, here in German) is the story with the access to the Wisla, there are even pictures of the scene and a map. Cheers --ThePiedCow (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But even this is wrong, as, at least according to the 1910 census results there was a German speaking majority in the following Landkreise: Elk (Lyck), Lec (Lötzen), Olecko (Marggrabowa), Olsztyn town (Allenstein Stadt), Ostroda (Osterode), Reszel (Rößel) and Zadzbork (Sensburg).

Jansbork (Johannisburg), Nibork (Neidenburg), Osztyn country (Allenstein Land) and Szczytno (Ortelsburg) had Polish speaking majorities.

So, the map is at least dubious.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish scholars for one dispute German census results for that region and time.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The map shows area of Polish majority and doesn't represent numeric majority. As German colonizers and descendants of teutonic invaders lived mostly in concentrated areas then the map is ok. If one small area has 10000 people of some nationality it still will be smaller in graphic representation then large area settled by 5000 people.--Molobo (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So what, Piotrus? A census is at least something. The map in question is obviously completely unsourced. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If scholars disagree on those numbers we should have either two maps next to each other, which would present a good picture of the dispute, or no map at all. (Kossert in his book Masuren, Ostpreussens vergessener Süden also mentions that data by both Polish/Germans were mostly collected with political bias. So at least the map should note on whose data it was created.)

I´d prefer no map at all, as it doesn´t help to clarify this disputed matter. --ThePiedCow (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is sourced to a reliable Polish publication. As stated above, I'd support adding a map showing German data and POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we could use the 1910 data for a second map. But actual German scholarship (like Kossert) refuses to commit to one side as there is no unbiased data.

From what year is the Polish source? --ThePiedCow (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is Atlas Historyczny PWN, Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych, but no year of publishing is given. As schoolbooks are regularly revised I wouldn´t say the map is sourced, like citing Britannica without naming the edition. So map should be taken out until there´s a consensus. --ThePiedCow (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the uploaded to give more information. Since gimnasiums were introduced in Poland only a few years ago, it is safe to assume the atlas is pretty modern.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx for reply, but wouldn´t it be accurate to insert the map again after progressing from assumption to knowledge? I went here and wasn´t able to find Atlas Historyczny PWN, Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych, no matter what year. Cheers --ThePiedCow (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The title is too generic, as there are dozens of atlases with similar name. We can only hope the creator will answer, or one of us will be able to look through the atlases and find a map which can be seen is the source. I would suggest you support my proposals for creating tags for unsourced maps - I have suggest it few times in the past, but there was never much support for this idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)