Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany

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.

B This article has been rated as B-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:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 (discussion over title change)

[edit] Post World War II recognition of jurisdiction/sovereignty

The intro says:

when international recognition that Germany had any right to jurisdiction over any of these territories was withdrawn

but the Potsdam Agreement says that the border between Germany and Poland was a matter to be subject to a final peace treaty. This seems to leave open the door that Germany might be able to assert a right to at least some of the territories. I think the above clause needs to be rewritten. Perhaps this was the subject of debate that has now been archived. If so, please point me at the right place to read.

--Richard 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

see Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 3#Jurisdiction and sovereignty --::Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not OR to point out the destiction between jurisdiction and soverignty, it is an explanation of what the words mean! I can't think of a better example of the withdrawal of international recognition than the Treaty of Versailles! --Philip Baird Shearer 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean Treaty of Versailles or the Potsdam Agreement? Assuming that you meant the Potsdam Agreement, I can see your argument but it requires more explanation than is appropriate for an introductory paragraph.

In the Potsdam Agreement, the Allies state:

supreme authority in Germany is exercised, on instructions from their respective Governments, by the Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the French Republic, each in his own zone of occupation, and also jointly, in matters affecting Germany as a whole, in their capacity as members of the Control Council.

In essence, Germany lost all jurisdiction over all its territory, not just the eastern territories.

Sovereignty was likely to be lost subject to the final settlement of the border.

Your original text says either too much or not enough. That is why I have replaced it with a more straightforward explanation that does not require someone to parse the difference between "jurisdiciton" and "sovereignty".

--Richard 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. I'm closer to 3RR than I have been in almost a year. The "Rasul v. Bush" case doesn't cut it for me as an appropriate citation. I've made my case. Ignore it if you will. --Richard 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the borderline incivility that accompanied the above edit (I wrote "obstinacy wins"). That is at least a bit uncivil and bordering on a personal attack and so it was unwarranted. I will come back later to discuss why I think the current text is not the best to use in this context (i.e. why the intro could be better written) but I don't have time or patience to do it justice right now and I'm very close to 3RR anyway so let's just let it go for a day or so before discussing it further. --Richard 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The text is correct as was. See the sections of the Postam Agreement quoted in the article. The areas are put under Soviet and Polish administration specifically separated from the rest of Germany.--Philip Baird Shearer 18:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Potsdam Agreement more closely this morning. Your point is a fine one. For decades afterward, the Germans claimed that it was "temporary administration" and rejected the Oder-Neisse line. Naturally, the Poles and the Soviets disagreed quite vehemently and this dispute is really (IMO) the primary reason for this article's existence. The Potsdam Agreement was deliberately not clear and so the wording of the intro is imprecise in suggesting that the recognition of right to jurisdiction was withdrawn ("forever" is the implication that is inappropriate). Adding a "subject to a final peace treaty" would help but the real problem is that the whole wording requires sophisticated reading that the average reader will not be equipped to do.

That's it for now, I'll come back and revisit this later today or tomorrow.

--Richard 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree with you that the primary reason for the article is the post World War II settlement. For me it is more useful for articles about the time before Potsdam -- It just depends on one's usage.

The wording in the sentence you are reviewing was worked out some time ago because it balances the POV of several editors who have strong national points of view on the issue. I think you are reading into the sentence "forever" it is not there. I think you will have a hard time explaining to some of the Polish contributers that the boder changes were "subject to a final peace treaty" and that by implication the Polish governemt was not soverign over a lot of its own territory until 1990. Also the next sentence covers the peace treaty and of course all these matters are now covered in considerable detail in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I'm not sure I follow all of the above discussion, but clearly the word "jurisdiction" would be a misnomer — and a politically motivated euphemism — when referring to the post-WWII transfers of territory.

Merriam Webster’s definitions of "jurisdiction" include: "The limits or territory within which authority may be exercised." It gives "control" and "power" as related words.

Dictionary.com gives as "top Web results for ju·ris·dic·tion" —

1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.

2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.

3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.

4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

Answers.com lists four meanings:

1. Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.

2. Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.

3. The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.

4. The territorial range of authority or control.

It's clear from these definitions, and from general English usage, that "jurisdiction" denotes political or legal control. The Oder-Neisse territories, by contrast, were not merely controlled by Germany, they were integral parts of Germany and were universally recognized as such after Versailles and its attendant plebiscites.

I except from the following paragraph 1) Masuria (southern East Prussia) and 2) Upper Silesia: In 1919, the Poles had no thought of acquiring the German territories that would be given to Poland in 1945. The Versailles Treaty, which re-established the Polish state, defined Poland's western border (subject to a plebescite) but not Poland's eastern border.

The Poles of that era focused on claims in the east, including the heavily Polish cities and regions of Wilno (Vilnius) and L'wów (L'viv, a.k.a. Lemberg). For this reason, led by Piłsudski — who hailed from Wilno — they fought and won a war with Soviet Russia in 1920-21, and established their frontier well east of the Curzon Line, which had been suggested at Versailles as a border. (The Curzon Line is generally equivalent to Poland's eastern border today.)

When Stalin made his deal with Hitler in 1939, one incentive for him was to regain the territory of Poland east of the Curzon Line — an area which also was home to substantial populations of Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians. The Soviet Union's reconquest of this region never was questioned at Tehran, Yalta or Potsdam, being a fait accompli from which as a matter of Realpolitik there could be no turning back. This, despite the fact that it had been accomplished under terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

It was to compensate post-WWII Poland for loss of this territory that annexation of the wholly German Oder-Neisse territories was officially justified, not only by the Soviet Union, but also by Britain and the U.S. No argument ever was made at the Big Three conferences that these areas were inhabited by Poles and thus should belong to Poland. Rather, there was long discussion of what to do with the 10 million Germans who had lived there before the war (and before the Nazis) — of whom about half remained or had returned after the Nazi capitulation.

The final communique of the Yalta Conference said only that Poland should "receive substantial accessions of territory in the north and west." Just how "substantial" they would be was not delineated until Potsdam, and even then the new German-Polish border was not agreed upon de jure. Instead, its final determination was left up to a future peace conference, which as the Cold War developed never was held. Legally speaking, the matter was settled only in 1990, although politically, de facto, it had long been accepted.

The word accessions was a euphemism for annexations, but there was no attempt at Yalta or Potsdam to deny that these areas were and had been integral parts of Germany/Prussia for a very long time, and had long been inhabited by Germans. Although it never was said in so many words, these annexations were to be Germany's punishment for the unprecedented and unimaginable crimes against humanity committed in her name during the Nazi era and World War II.

Thus, to say that Germany lost jurisdiction over these territories is a euphemistic smokescreen. Germany lost these territories, pure and simple, and their indigenous populations were evicted.

Sca 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a smoke screen. As the article points out, the wording of the Potsdam Agreement was:

The three Heads of Government agree that, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier, the former German territories cast of a line running from the Baltic Sea immediately west of Swinamunde, and thence along the Oder River to the confluence of the western Neisse River and along the Western Neisse to the Czechoslovak frontier, including that portion of East Prussia not placed under the administration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in accordance with the understanding reached at this conference and including the area of the former free city of Danzig, shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany.

The Soviets and the Poles only gained administration of the territory. The transfer of the territory was dependent on the peace treaty, which when the Allies wrote the Potsdam Agreement, would have been expected to follow in less than 45 months not the 45 years! Of course "facts on the ground" are important when assessing territorial claims, and if there had been no transfer of Germans from those territories, then the decisions made in 1990 could easily have been different. But there is a fundamental difference under international law between jurisdiction and sovereignty. Fore example the status of the British military bases on Cyprus [1] and bases such as the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base although in day to day administration of such areas, as the us US Supreme Court has highlighted in Rasul v. Bush [2], there is little practical difference. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Philip... the sovereignty and ultimately the jurisdiction also were disputed officially by West Germany until 1970. I.E. It took them that long to accept that they had really lost the territories forever. (Hey, Palestinians still want "the right of return" 40 years later.) The "facts on the ground" were probably deemed irreversible by 1970 and yet it took another 20 years to sign the Final Settlement. I don't feel that the explanation in the intro and the weird reference are appropriate for getting these ideas across. --Richard 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous populations were evicted

[SPLIT OUT See start of the last section for the rest of the message]

Thus, to say that Germany lost jurisdiction over these territories is a euphemistic smokescreen. Germany lost these territories, pure and simple, and their indigenous populations were evicted.

Sca 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think you mean "indigenous". This usually means aboriginal tribes like the Native Americans, Australian aborigines, etc. Almost all those Germans were settlers who moved there in the 1500-1600 years prior.

Here's a good discussion of the definition of "indigenous". Now the "Old Prussians" are getting closer to being indigenous but I would wager that "indigenous" has little meaning in Europe where tribes migrated back and forth for centuries.

--Richard 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly wrong on several counts - most of the German settlement of these areas was in the last millenium, especially from about 1200 on, in the wake of the Teutonic knights and more peaceful movements (often invited in fact). Much of it was in the Modern period, reinforcing existing German populations. "Tribal migrations" were relatively infrequent in Europe - rather more so than for most parts of north America from the little I know of the subject. They were pretty much over by 800, apart from the Magyars. Probably much earlier than that in the places the article is talking about. Johnbod 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Richard may be confusing "indigenous" with "aborginal." My (Webster's) dictionary defines it as

1. existing, growing or produced naturally in a region or country; belonging (to) as a native

2. innate; inherne\\ent; inborn — syn> see NATIVE.

There is no confusion: Indigenous means (to quote the OED): "Born or produced naturally in a land or region; native or belonging naturally to (the soil, region, etc.). (Used primarily of aboriginal inhabitants or natural products.)"

The distinction is rhetorical only. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, the Germans who lived in Sileisa, Pomerania, (Danzig,) and East Prussia were rooted there for generations; they were not "occupiers" who had been imported during the war by the Nazi regime. The German settlement and development of these areas went back to the 12th and 13th centuries. They were just as much part of Germany as East Anglia is part of England.

The difficulty many English-speakers who aren't familiar with the details of German history have is, they confuse prewar, pre-Nazi "eastern Germany" with wartime, Nazi annexations (the so-called Wartheland, etc.). Breslau, the capital of Sileisa; Stettin, the capital of Pomerania; Danzig; and Königsberg, the capital of East Prussia had been German cities for centuries — twice as long as, for example, New York has been (Anglo-) American. Sca 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sca 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No English speaker in this discussion has shown any such confusion. You do not, I note, do anything so silly as to make the same claim for Posen, or for the countryside of East Prussia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand PMAnderson's point about Posen or the "countryside of East Prussia". Can someone explain this to me? --Richard 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In many places you had essentially German cites surrounded by essentially "indigenous" (slavic/baltic) rural areas, or rural areas with German landowners & "indigenous" populations. Calcutta, Singapore, Southern Ireland, and Kenya are alternative points of comparison here. Johnbod 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(response to SCA)

Well, we're both right. Look at this quote from the Indigenous peoples article

The term indigenous peoples has no universal, standard or fixed definition, but can be used about any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection. However several widely-accepted formulations, which define the term "Indigenous peoples" in stricter terms, have been put forward by important internationally-recognised organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. Indigenous peoples in this article is used in such a narrower sense.

Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of "indigenous peoples" for certain purposes has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:

before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

And who furthermore:

have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

To the above, a criterion is usually added to also include:

peoples who are self-identified as indigenous, and those recognised as such by other groups.

So, if you read the above, I think we can agree that ethnic Germans in Central Europe (i.e. Poland/Czechoslovakia) and Eastern Europe fit the above description.

Nevertheless, "indigenous" does really come closer to meaning "aboriginal" than you may think. Your Webster's dictionary is not giving you a good definition or you are interpreting the definition incorrectly.

Look at Indigenous peoples and Indigenous peoples of Europe. According to these articles, there are (as I said) few indigenous peoples of Europe. After all, even the Celts (Gauls) came from Asia according to one hypothesis and all the other "barbarian" tribes that invaded Europe came from Asia.

Quoted from Indigenous peoples of Europe...

Europe's present-day indigenous populations are relatively few, mainly confined to northern and far-eastern reaches of this Eurasian peninsula. Whilst there are numerous ethnic minorities distributed within European countries, few of these still maintain traditional subsistence cultures and are recognized as indigenous peoples, per se.

Notable indigenous populations include the Basques of Northern Spain and Southern France, Sami people of northern Scandinavia, the Nenets and other Samoyedic peoples of the northern Russian Federation, and the Komi peoples of the western Urals.

Huh? Why aren't ethnic Germans included in this list? Well, you know, their kind of indigenousness is different from that of the Basque, Sami, Nenets, Samoyeds and Komi peoples.

Let's not quibble about this any longer. You know what I mean and I know what you mean and we basically agree. I just wanted to point out that using the word "indigenous" in the way you used it is not going to be universally understood the way you would want it to be understood.

--Richard 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to PMAnderson: We are not editing this article for those people who already know a bit about this topic and are discussing it here. We are creating this article for people who don't know anything about it, and so will be confused by it. and I believe Sca did say East Prussia in the first line of his statement, perhaps you should read it over a few times before slamming him for what he says. East Prussia was as Polish or Russian in 1944 as New York is Dutch today. or would you rather us to use the term New Amsterdam?

--Jadger 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The point being...

Okay, we've had an enlightening semantic discussion of "indigenous." I accept that some authorities define it more narrowly than meaning I intended, although I think "aboriginal" is nearer such a narrow meaning, i.e. the Urvolk. I still think "indigenous" also can connote established residency not of recent vintage or sudden influx. Related German adjectives would be ansässig (resident) and sesshaft (established, settled).

The area of modern Poland (and modern Germany east of the Elbe) has been inhabited (and uninhabited) alternately by Germanic and Slavic peoples during successive epochs over the last two millennia. Neither group is "aboriginal," but both have been in my meaning "indigenous" to various regions therein at various times.

As an aside, I suspect the notion of "aboriginal peoples" is a questionable one in anthropology, since all peoples came from somewhere at some point. The native Americans, i.e. American Indians, are thought to have come from Asia via Siberia millenia ago; does that mean they're not "aboriginal" to the Americas?

The point I've been trying to make all along is quite simple: The territories transferred from (pre-1937) Germany to Poland and the Soviet Union after WWII, including the erstwhile Free City of Danzig, were inhabited prewar by some 10 million people, the overwhelming majority (in the high 90s percentagewise) of whom were German and who had been born and raised there, as had their parents, grandparents, etc. The territories, as I've noted elsewhere, were Germany. They now became Poland and the USSR. The resident population — what remained of it — was expelled, evicted, "transferred" to what remained of Germany, and the expellees never were allowed to return to their native turf (Heimat).

The present discussion is not about whether it was right or wrong. It is about what happened. Obviously, what happened had causes. But none of that changes what actually occurred on the ground.

I am a liberal and a pacifist, and no apologist for the German cause, if one may use such a neutral term, in WWII. What I've been battling against here on Wikipedia is the mendacious tendency of some parties to perpetuate the "recovered territories" propaganda myth in an bid to whitewash or obscure what actually happened — and the tendency of others in the West to naively accept it. Poland did not "recover" the territories in any normally understood sense of the word, anymore than Mexico today would stand to "recover" California if it were handed back to her by a superpower and all the (Anglo-) Americans expelled. And Germany did not have mere "jurisdiction" over the territories; it included the territories and their people.

I continue to believe that the Expulsion of the Germans remains a largely untold story in the West, and think it should be told along with all the other horrors of the WWII era. I was glad to see that a recently published work by an American historian, Benjamin Lieberman, on ethnic cleansing includes a fair-minded, accurate account of the expulsions. (See Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 2006; ISBN 1-56663-646-9.)

Sca 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population numbers would be really helpful

The story that SCA tells above is definitely not told in Expulsion of Germans after World War II , German exodus from Eastern Europe or Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe, at least not the "full story" that he tells above.

Here's the critical point, as I see it... 12.5 million Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe. The great bulk of these were expelled from the former eastern territories of Germany. 10,000,000 Germans lived there, 7,400,000 were expelled and 1,225,000 died. (Yes, yes, these numbers can be debated but let's use them for now).

The question is... what percentage of the total population of eastern Germany in 1945 does this 10 million represent? Are we saying that the population was 10 million Germans and no Polish people? More than 85% of the Germans were killed or expelled. Who was left to "welcome" the incoming Poles? Was the territory a wide swath of "ghost towns"?

I'm embarassed to say that I never really thought about this until today but I now think that it's an important part of the story. It's one thing to expel 20-30% of the population in an area. It's another thing entirely to expel 70-80%. (I'm not talking about morality here. Expelling 20-30% is just as bad as expelling 70-80%. I'm just trying to get a gestalt of what life was like in these areas at the time.) -Richard 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than in passing I do not think that this is a subject for this article. This is one for Expulsion of Germans after World War II --Philip Baird Shearer 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In this article, I think it warrants a sentence or two at most. In the other expulsion-related articles, maybe a paragraph or two. The point is that the proportion of Germans to Poles is a key bit of information necessary to understand what the situation was. I think it may also defuse some of the polemic (or at least we can hope it might)

--Richard 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German camps for displaced persons

And, while we're at it... we talk about 12.5 million Germans being expelled. Where did they go? Did they all wind up in refugee camps in BRD/DDR? How many wound up in the BRD and how many in the DDR? How were the expellees resettled in BRD and DDR?

Where is the Wikipedia article that describes those camps and the plight of displaced persons in Germany. It almost seems that we only care about their expulsion and not about their ultimate fate. For one thing, I would like to know how many died in the after they reached the refugee camps in Germany because it affects the way we might view the charge that 1-2 million Germans died as a result of the expulsions.

--Richard 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is difficult and perhaps to early to give the real encyclopedic answers to your questions. In Northern Germany people moved westward by ships across the Baltic Sea, by train and they rode horseback or walked. Many villages travelled in groups, came westward into villages which were already abandoned by their former inhabitants, and so on. So, some went from the very east to the very west, but even more moved in steps. For this reason there are villages in Western Pommerania, in which special religions from Eastern Prussia gathered and formed majorities of inhabitants, since the real inhabitants were gone westward. Religion is even today a tool to measure these movements, since the Prussians let many religious refugees settle in the East in the 17th and 18th century.

In the Russian occupation zone there was another approach than in the British zone. The Russians integrated the refugees from the eastern territories through the land reform. In many places up to 50 % of the "Neusiedlerstellen" in the "Bodenreform" was given to people from east of the Oder river. The land reform was a political goal of the Russians and their German poltical allies and a necessaty to fight hunger as well. The western zones had more camps and food brought into their zones. I believe, that the Germans still need some more time after reunification to work out these issues with the necessary neutral approach. But Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern both doubbelt their inhabitants after 1945.--Kresspahl 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At last in de:Zweiter Weltkrieg it is stated that 2-3 Million Sudeten germans, Silesians, pomeranians, and germans from Poland and East Prussia died after the german capitulation which would reduce your number to about 9.5 Million beeing expelled but i think the number is higher like about 14 Million. It is stated in de:Vertreibung#Die Flucht und Vertreibung der Deutschen .281944 bis 1948.29 that about 12 Million Sudeten and East germans fled and settled in West Germany, the GDR and Austria until 1950. This shift caused for example that Mecklenburg doubled its population and many regions that had been mainly catholic had now majorities of protestants or other confessions. I will try to find a better source which splits up percentages how many people settled where if i can find the time --Panth 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe has some numbers about the number expelled and the number that died. For decades, the German perspective asserted 12.5 million expelled or fled, 2 million died. These come from the Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Department of Statistics) of the FRG. More recently, historians (German and Polish) have revised the number of deaths downward to 1.1 million. We know where the expellees came from but we don't know where they went. 10 million were expelled from the former eastern territories of Germany but where did they go? How many went to the DDR, how many to the FRG and how many went to other places (like Western Europe, U.S. or the U.S.S.R.)?

--Richard 01:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Lübeck as example

There are special articles on statistics for German cities with graphs like the example for Lübeck in de:Einwohnerentwicklung von Lübeck or de:Einwohnerentwicklung von Rostock, other cities in de:Kategorie:Einwohnerentwicklung deutscher Städte. For Stettin/Szczecin you will find the remarkable figures in pl:Szczecin, they went down from 382.000 (1939) to 26.000!, -all Germans out-(1945), climbing Polish to 108.000 (1946) and reached 388.000 inhabitants in 1980 again.--Kresspahl 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Unfortunately, we cannot attribute the entire drop in population to expulsion of the Germans per se. As has been pointed out many times on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, the drop in population could be war deaths, bombing, etc. Also, some of the "bounceback" from 1945 to 1946 could be returnees of Germans who had been evacuated, fled or expelled. We don't know how many of those are Germans and how many are Poles. Thus, these statistics are interesting but not of sufficient granularity to tell the story.

I also note that the numbers in the English Szczecin article are quite different for 1945. This discrepancy between the Polish and English Wikipedias should be resolved by someone who can communicate with the editors of the Polish article.

Assuming for the time being that the numbers in the Polish article are right, we could probably say (of Stettin/Szczecin) that over 90% of the population left Stettin between 1940 and 1945 and that after 1945, population growth slowly restored the population although by 1950, the population was predominantly Polish whereas it had been predominantly German in 1940. Attributing the cause of the population drop cannot be done with these numbers alone.

--Richard 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The airraids and the rate of destruction in Housing areas have to be considered too. But it would be nice to have graphs with the figures/curves from lets say Stettin, Rostock and Lübeck and Kiel on one sheet for the time from early Weimar to lets say 2000. In the East, the people were not really free to move until 1990. And the last count before the 1930ies is important, because it is without the WW2-industries in these cities which were the reason for a considerable rise of the population in the 30ies. And then the same for Breslau/Leipzig/Hannover.--Kresspahl 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see historical demographics of Poland for city population numbers for cities claimed both by Poland and Germany - and particulary note the source (which should give you numbers for all German cities if somebody wants to add that data to Wiki).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

1. There were very few Poles who were permanent residents of the territories of pre-1937 Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line. The Free City of Danzig was 96 to 97 percent German, and the percentages in Pomerania and Silesia within the 1920-37 German borders would have been similar, according to the research I've done on this topic over the years. It's my understanding that, in Pomerania and East Prussia, Polish people were employed seasonally as ag workers.

2. The exceptions to the above were:

a. Upper Silesia, which in the League plebiscite voted about 60 percent for Germany and 40 percent for Poland, and which subsequently was partitioned between the two countries, leaving minorities (and discontent) on both sides. In defining the territories above, I do not of course include that part of U. Silesia that was assigned to Poland after the plebiscite.

b. Masuria, i.e. southern East Prussia — also termed the "Allenstein District" by the Allies. (Allenstein is today Olsztyn.) This area was inhabited by a mixture of Germans and Masurians, the latter being ethnic Poles who had long been integrated into Prussia, who were Protestant (Lutheran), who were considered culturally Germanized, and who often were bilingual. A plebiscite there in 1920 produced 97.8 percent (362,209 votes) for Germany and 2.2 percent (7,980 votes) for Poland.

3. The aggregate number of people involved in the annexations and expulsions in the territories defined above depends on how one looks at it. Overall, about 10 million Germans lived there prewar. About half were either killed in the war or had fled by the time of Potsdam (actually, even more had fled, but some returned, temporarily). After the large-scale expulsions came to an end, by 1949, the number of ethnic Germans remaining in newly defined Poland probably was around 1 million, although estimates vary. The largest group was in Upper Silesia, around Opole (Ger.: Oppeln), where a small German minority remains today.

4. Documented estimates of the number of German civilians killed — in the Oder-Neisse territories — in the last phase of the war and in the expulsions range from 1.5 million to 2 million. By "documented" I mean based on prewar census data, wartime ration-card data, and postwar census data.

5. A significant number of the ethnic Germans remaining in postwar Poland was allowed to emigrate to West Germany in the '70s and '80s as a result of Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik and his renunciation, in 1970, of German territorial claims east of the Oder-Neisse. (One of their descendants played on last year's German World Cup team.)

6. The total number of ethnic Germans subjected to wartime violence and postwar expulsions in Eastern Europe (not including the Volga Germans of the Soviet Union) was at least 16 million. Those who suffered the most violent treatment were the Germans of the Oder-Neisse territories, the Germans resident within 1919-39 borders of Poland, and the "Sudeten" Germans of Czechoslovakia. All three groups were subjected to vengeful actions by the Soviets, Poles and Czechs, motivated of course by Germany's aggression and horrendous savagery against their countries in 1938-45.

Sca 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I inserted a cleaned up version of some of the above numbers and User:Philip Baird Shearer deleted it with the edit summary ("more than a couple of sentences"). There's a disconnect here. I meant to say that the description of "ghost towns" is worth a sentence or two. I agree that the details of the expulsions belong in the expulsions-related articles.

Perhaps a longer discussion is useful to characterize the nature of the expulsions followed by repopulation. This shift from 90%+ German population to 90%+ Polish populaton is arguably the single most important phenomenon in the history of the area.

If the Polish Wikipedia's article on Szceczin is correct, 95% of the 1940 (German) population was gone by 1945. Is this sort of steep population drop followed by a slow regrowth characteristic of this entire area?

--Richard 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of some places. The regrowth wasn't always slow - the Poles had their own refugees from territory incorporated in the Soviet Union at the same time (or shortly after). The people of Wroclaw (former Breslau) right in the south of Poland, have Russian accents, Poles from Warsaw will tell you. Johnbod 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stettin/Szczecin

"By 1945" is misleading. Stettin was wholly populated by Germans until the end of the war, though of course many had fled as the Red Army conquered the area. On the other hand, many German refugees and expellees, including a number who came by ship from points further east, fled to Stettin initially as the Soviets advanced.

I don't know how many Germans remained in Stettin by the time of Potsdam (July-August 1945), but it was still a German-populated place at that time. It was only after the "western limit of Polish administration," as some of the officialese from the Potsdam Accords put it, had been defined to include Stettin and a triangle of land around it west of the Oder (also including Swinemünde, which had also been a destination for German ship evacuations) that Stettin officially became Szczecin and the remaining Germans were expelled en masse. (Swinemünde became Świnoujście.)

Somewhere I read that there was for a brief time a postwar German mayor of Stettin, installed by the Soviet-sponsored, Communist German officials who were to form the DDR, and that this German mayor formally (and under compunction) handed the city over to the new Polish mayor sometime late in 1945, but I don't have reference for this.

Footnote: Swinemünde in German means "mouth of the Swine (pronounced Svee' nah, not like the English "swine"), and refers to the Swine River — in Polish Świna, which I believe is pronounced Shvee' nuh. I'm not entirely sure how Świnoujście is pronounced, but it also means "mouth of the Świna.”

Sca 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage in articles

The Federation of Expellees article has this as its first sentence:

The Bund der Vertriebenen (BdV) (German for "Federation of the Expelled" or "Federation of Expellees") is a non-profit organization formed to represent the interests of Germans displaced from their homes in historical eastern Germany and other parts of Eastern Europe by the expulsion of Germans after World War II.

I removed the double redirect from Historical eastern Germany to Former eastern territories of Germany but I did not replace the actual text as I wanted to discuss this first. What would would be the best phrasing to use in the above sentence? I'm inclined to say "displaced from their homes in what was then eastern Germany". Any other opinions? --Richard 15:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should discuss that on the talk page of the article you are considering editing. But in passing, see the Churchill quote in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the decision about the use of "historical eastern Germany" should be discussed primarily on the Talk Page of the article in question.

Now that we have made at least a temporary decision to call this article "Former eastern territories of Germany" rather than "historical eastern Germany", we should at least take a stab at deciding whether the phrase "historical eastern Germany" should be used anywhere in Wikipedia.

I could see an argument that this discussion should take place at WP:Wikiproject Germany and we might wish to move it there eventually to get a broader legitimacy for the decision.

However, I would like to see a discussion of whether the decision we just made applies solely to the title of this article or whether it should apply to the usage of the phrase "historical eastern Germany" anywhere it is used in any Wikipedia article. (a very broad dictum, I admit, but exceptions can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in the Talk Pages of the articles where exceptions should be made).

--Richard 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason redirects exist is so that people can use more than one phrase for the same thing. It is not up to the editors of one page to dictate to the editors of other articles what they should or should not use to describe an event or article to which they wish to link. For example is it the American Revolutionary War or the American War of Independence? For a more contentions one see the Indian Mutiny or the First War of Indian Independence. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Ethnicity map

[edit] Polish map

Dominating nationalities in Poland and around, 1931.

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's accurate, why did Upper Silesia vote to remain in Germany? Antman -- chat 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a complex question, probably to to with cultural assimilation and economic prosperity in Germany as opposed to Poland. Based on the 1910 census roughly 60% of Upper Silesians were Polish speaking (some probably bilingual), but in the referendum imposed by the Allies only 40% of the areas population voted for Poland, i.e. a large part of the Population with some kind of Polish roots preferred to live in Germany rather than Poland. Remember also that the area hadn't been part of any Polish political body since the fourteenth century, further diminishing any ties with the new Polish state.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolshevik invasion of Poland, and bullying of Polish workers from Ruhr region not to go to vote or lose job also contributed to the results.--Granet 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruhr region? I know Millions of Poles have emigrated to the Ruhr area, and elected to become completely German with only the family name to remind of the old heritage. Are it these people you are refering to? Why should they vote about Silesia?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anybody "knows milions". I know Poles who remained Poles and didn't elect to become Germans and were in the "Union of Poles in Germany"[3]. "Why should they vote about Silesia?" because they were Poles from Silesia working there. So just because they were born there, regardless of the fact that they were living somewhere else, they should have a say in the future of the area? Then I guess the 12 million Germans that had moved from the eastern territories after the war should have had a post-war say in the future of "their areas" e.g. Breslau and Danzig. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) "So just because they were born there, regardless of the fact that they were living somewhere else, they should have a say in the future of the area?" This was the decision. Germany brought 182.000 voters from Germany that were born in Silesia.

Then I guess the 12 million Germans that had moved from the eastern territories after the war should have had a post-war say in the future of "their areas" e.g. Breslau and Danzig. No Pole will ever agree to any German say in Polish matters after Poles were classified as "menschentiere" by German state and destined for complete extermination. --Granet 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ( SO what the Polish used simelar words for the Germans) Johann

That is not an answer to my question. Why should Poles have the vote in Germany but not Germans in "Poland"? Besides, why do I hear the echoes of Serafin (talk · contribs) and Molobo (talk · contribs) here?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All people born and living in contested territories of Upper Silesia had the right to vote in the plebiscite, it didn't matter if they were Poles or Germans. --Granet 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Under what treaty did everyone living in contested territories have the right to vote in a plebiscite? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was writing about contested territories of Upper Silesia :Under Article 88 Treaty of Versailles, Annex part 4:

"The right to vote shall be given to all persons without distinction of sex who: (a) Have completed their twentieth year on the 1 January of the year in which the plebiscite takes place. (b) Were born in the plebiscite area or have been domiciled there since a date to be determined by the Commission, which shall not be subsequent to 1 January 1919, or who have been expelled by the German authorities and have not retained their domicile there. Persons convicted of political offences shall be enabled to exercise their right of voting. Every person will vote in the commune where he is domiciled or in which he was born, if he has not retained his domicile in the area. The result of the vote will be determined by communes according to the majority of votes in each commune." --Granet 09:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This map is nonsense it is either frensch or british mostly this kind of maps where frensh. For political reasons allready before the wars beginning the ethnical composition was allways drawns against the real german Languageline. This was overtaken from the sixties on by political influence of the EU witch is dominated by France in this things by the New Germany so you can foget the German sources after 1970 because they are all political made up.

The realitiy was that even West Prussia ( Pomerellen) was more tha 50 % German before 1918 but than was allready soft ethnicaly cleanst by the Polish during interwar time. Most of the Polish in Upper Slesia and the Masuren voted for germany because they new a new Polish state would be an economical and social and political backtrop in a Protorussian like corrupt and unsecure state, witch it was and you till today can see how fare away Poland is from the rest of Europe so Germany ment the West for them that was the reason they votes for Germany. An other reason was that the POlish themselfs treated the Mixed Polish German Population like the Masures so bad that they prefered to integrate in western Germany after the ii WW that to become Polish. The Real language line befor 1918 was different the one 1939 too . For 1939 you can so due to ethnical shifting it was allready nearly identical with the existing borders but smaller german and Polish minorities remaind and Danzig was pure German. The map shows the German Minorties 1/3 to small and the Polish 1/3 to big but it is not completly wrong. Johann

[edit] U.S. 1944-45 population distribution map

Although this American map from when the Allies were planning for the expulsions circa 1944 seems to indicate a clear German majority in the area--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This map shows whole Upper Silesia-not the part that was awarded to Poland.Only part where were the majority voted for Poland was handed over to Polish state, not whole Upper Silesia. Also the map is false as there was Polish minority in Wroclaw for example, although small. --Granet 22:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Breslau there was virtually no Poles in Breslau by 1939, thus there certainly should have been none by 1944-45.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Norman Davies in Microcosm writes that by 1945 they were 33,297 Poles in Wrocław. Page 451.In 1918 there were 4-5.000 Poles in Wrocław, Polish school, masses were made in Polish. In 1939 Polish organisations in Wrocław made a rally under the slogan "Faith of Fathers" ended by police action. Last mass in Polish language in Wrocław before 1945 was made on 17th September 1939-Microcosm page 395. Also page 424-at the end of 1944 30-40 Polish civilians were sent to Wrocław after failure of Warsaw Uprising. (Ethnic) situation was complicated by fact that some Poles were classified as Germans(Volksdeutsche). Later Davies writes that illegal masses in Polish took place in Wrocław church of Saint Roch. On 11 November 1944 Poles took part in mass singing "Boże coś Polskę" risking being arrested by Gestapo. 1939 census was made by Nazi authorities which doesn't make it reliable, they were notoriously downgrading Polish minority in statistics.--Granet 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, forget about Poles-there were 6,000 Jews in Wroclaw alone in 1939. The "100% Germans" number in Lower Silesia according Nazi census is wrong. --Granet 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Before 1871

From my talk page:

Hi. i dont understand, whz the history before 1871 seems so uninteresting to u? there is much mess and confusion about these regions between poles and germans right now today. some people in germany do not understand, why the poles call these regions Recovered Territories. Thats, why i tried to add some information about the history before the germans came there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.23.201 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I added to the history of the article please see the archives. This is an article about former eastern territories of Germany, not about the region. If we include any detail before 1871 then this article becomes less focused and unless we include lots and lots of history will not have a balanced POV. By not including the history of the region before 1871 we sidestep the whole issue - after all there are plenty of other articles that include the history of the region. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Information on how territories of Prussia gained Polish population is important, it was a new event, it doesn't go hundreds of years ago, and current version makes impression those territories were always in Prussia/Germany.

--Molobo 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is always part of a state, if one goes back far enough neither state or nation occupied a territory. If we are going to mention events earlier than 1871 then surly the most recent and relevant territorial settlement in the area was the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the Polish-Saxon crisis that it sparked? After all the territories in the area had been redistributed during the First French Empire under the 1807 Treaties of Tilsit creating the Duchy of Warsaw not the earlier partitions which were only a contributory factor to the outcome of the Congress of Vienna? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i think i make a link to Recovered Territories, then it will be fine 141.51.23.201 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

Several authors are trying to push a nationalist POV into this page using biased vocabulary and unbalanced presentation of facts, possibly unsourced claims as well. Please everyone help stop these edits, thank you. Anorak2 (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For others to understand what you mean you need to be a little more explicit. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Greetings all. I'm just concerned at the insertion of this rather conspicuous POV into this article:

Due to the fact that those territories originally were part [of the] Polish state rather then Germany, following World War II, parts these regions were known as the Recovered Territories in Poland.

This statement wilfully conflates the territory seized by Prussia during the partitions and later returned to newly-constituted Poland with the territory given to Poland by the Soviets in 1945 at the expense of Germany. This is the Polish communist government position in a nutshell, and it should be given space in this article, but it isn't necessary to whitewash history. Colonel Mustard (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More to the point as the German state did not exist before 1871 it is not saying anything of relevance because some of the territory had also belonged to half a dozen different political entities. If we go this way we will need to list every single political entity that each and every part of the territories had ever belonged to from time immemorial. There is no need to list events pre 1871 in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See above #Before 1871 there is no need for this article to go before 1871 there are lots of other articles that cover this. I would those who wish to insert information about the history before 1871 never talk about the any of the territories belonging to the Prussian state and not the German state and why it is more important to link to the Partitions of Poland rather than the more recent Congress of Vienna#Polish-Saxon crisis --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Anorak2 (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Expect of course that the fact that they were originally Polish was one of the main reasons Germany was forced to return them. This can be easly sourced and is relevant enough to be mentioned.--Molobo (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This assertion rests on one's concept of "originally". Originally they were void of humans, and the first humans there were neither Polish nor German. Furthermore it's impossible to determine if Germans or Poles were "first" because the definition of either nationality is not clearcut. Nationalities are a modern concept, applying them to events thousans of years ago gives meaningless results. You can of course craft a definition of nationalities that fits your assertion, but someone else can craft another definition that disproves it, and neither would be more valid then the other.

We can present the Allies' motivations in 1945, and if you find a source that proves that Poland's earlier borders were one, I have no objection. We still shouldn't present the 1945 Allied viewpoints as facts when they are subject to interpretation anyway. Anorak2 (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anorak, but history is clear that Polish state was on those areas far earlier then German one. Your personal theories on nationality are irrelevent to the article. As to the fact that Allies clearly mentioned the fact that those territories were originally Polish, I already gave you the link to that in previous discussions. Original scanned collection of official documenation from Potsdam Conference hosted on US Government site.--Molobo (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo what do you mean by "I already gave you the link to that in previous discussions". Which Polish state are you talking about? Clearly there was no German state in the region before 1871 because the German state did not exist! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

German state maybe, but the German provinces existed. That's what unification of Germany in 1871 meant, unification of German provinces. Don't play ignorant all of a sudden, I know you're not. Space Cadet (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The process which created a German state in 1871 was not called reunification it was called unification. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor detail, big deal, my point stays. And why was the new Germany called the second Reich? Space Cadet (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When you make an edit please do not change the meaning what was written previously as anyone who does will not understand the comment I made. The First Reich was the Roman Empire which split in two to form the Eastern and Western Empire. The German claimed was that the Western Empire morphed into the Holy Roman Empire so theirs was the second Empire. -- Something that English have never taken very seriously see Richard the Lionheart's comment when asked to pay hommage to the HRE "I am born of a rank which recognizes no superior but God" ("Dieu et mon Droit").

Correct me if I am wrong Space Cadet, but I think you are confusing territory of a state and the territory occupied by a nation. This article is not about the territory occupied by the German nation, it is about the territory of the German state. The territories of the German state may or may not in you opinion be legitimately part of the state, but that is not what this article is about. It is about the former eastern territories of German state. The by various parties are only relevant in explaining the change of borders, it is not a question if those claims were legitimate or not. It is sufficient in this article to mention that the borders changed, but there is no particular reason to try to justify those changes as that is detail that is not needed in this article and as you well know leads to endless POV wars. To try to put it in perspective think of the British Empire. In 1947 Indian and Pakistan became a fully sovereign states inside internationally recognised frontiers, arguments about who ruled India before the British turned up and whether the British had a legitimate claim to India is not relevant to the fact that in 1930, no state disputed that India was part of the British Empire, and are not relevant to the International community recognising both states existence in 1947. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All the above doesn't change the simple fact that the territory taken by German state was originally Polish and this fact was one of the main reasons that it was returned to Poland. This is a simple historic fact, I see no reason why we should hide it as it is relevant to the article and certainly encyclopedic. The bottom line is that those territories have been returned to Poland in part as they were originally part of Polish state. This is encyclopedic, can be sourced and there is no reason to remove that information--Molobo (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there was a German Kingdom although it is not widely used term and the Empire of German Nation. However I do agree that that that terminology is not widely used or accepted. As to previous discussions I was talking about my exchange with Anorak2 in other article where he requested a source that Piast Poland was mentioned by documents regarding border and population changes made by Allies during and after WW2. The borders of Piast Poland are mentioned several times in United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers : the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference) 1945 Volume I (1945)[4] [5] Just to give two examples.--Molobo (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Molobo refers to Polish Communist ambassador Modzelewski's message to Soviet Union (Harriman) July 10, 1945, Moskow

The United States Department of State papers mentioned by Molobo are excerpts from a message written by Zygmunt Modzelewski, the Polish Communist ambassador to Soviet Union. The text is written on July 10, 1945 at Moskow. The full text is on pages 757-777 and contains many inaccuracies. It is written to claim as neccessary for Poland's survival the Oder Neisse Rivers including Stettin as a minnimum.

Was the German Kingdom was any more real than the "Last King of Scotland" claim to Scotland or for that matter the centuries long claim that the English kings made over France? When you say "Empire of German Nation" do you mean the "Holy Roman Empire?".

Molobo Which Polish state are you talking about? Why it is more important to link to the Partitions of Poland rather than the more recent Congress of Vienna#Polish-Saxon crisis? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the Piast Poland state, and the territories were not returned in 1918 to Poland based on Congress of Vienna but based on Partitions of Poland.

The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment After 75 Years - Page 313 by Manfred Franz Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, Elisabeth Gläser The Polish question goes back to the partitions ot the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the late eighteenth century

Poland & Germany - Page 27 by Studies Centre on Polish-German Affairs - Poland - 1969 The Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of most of her spoils gained during the partitions of Poland

Europe, 1715-1919: From Enlightenment to World War - Page 239 by Shirley Elson Roessler, Reinhold Miklos Nonetheless, by May 1919 the Treaty of Versailles with Germany had been drafted ... Germany had to give up all the areas of Poland gained by the partitions

A History of Poland - Page 281 by Oskar Halecki, Antony Polonsky (...)the Treaty of Versailles. As regards these, the Polish claims were clear(...) It was a matter of repairing the injury of the Partitions.

etc. etc. --Molobo (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But if you go down that route, are you not arguing that either the congress of Vienna was illegitimate or if "The Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of most of her spoils gained during the partitions of Poland" then those territories that were under German jurisdiction between 1919 and 1939 and ceased to be under German jurisdiction in 1945 were not part of "her spoils gained during the partitions of Poland"? Given the statement from Shirley Elson Roessle "Germany had to give up all the areas of Poland gained by the partitions" presumably she considers that none of the lands that had German jurisdiction removed in 1945 that had been under German jurisdiction after 1919 had any thing to do with the partitions of Poland. In which case the statement "Due to the fact that those territories originally were part Polish state rather then Germany" is false, in part because the German state did not exist before 1871 and because those territories not covered by the Versailles treaty were not in the main part part of the partition of Poland (and so not part of the Polish state that was partitioned). Do we really want to include in this article all that baggage? I think it better that it is not as there are other article better suited to this stuff. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please no Original Research. If you are interested in Congress of Vienna start a discussion there. Your personal theories and questions are not relevant to this article, do read on OR policy and please remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. A German state existed before 1871 and was called Kingdom of Germany, it even has a Wiki article, quite detailed btw.--Molobo (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether the German state existed before 1871 is very debatable, See the talk page of the article Talk:Kingdom of Germany. What are you talking about Original Research into what? Or are you saying that Shirley Elson Roessle did not mean what she wrote and you quoted on this page? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to issue AVfD for that article. Considering however that they are historical books called The Kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages (900-1200) John Gillingham, I would rather vote against deletion--Molobo (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The borders of Piast Poland are mentioned several times in United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers : the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference) 1945 Volume I (1945)[6] [7] Just to give two examples.--Molobo (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the assertions above, more than one actually. First main reasons, please provide sources stating this was one of the main reasons, if it is so easy to source.

Second, what are the sources you provided from the diplomatic papers supposed to prove? the fact that Allies clearly mentioned the fact that those territories were originally Polish as you state above? The paper you source is a statement made by an official from the Communist Polish Government.[8] If you want to interpret that as "the Allies clearly mentioned the fact..." fine. Personally I see no American/British endorsement.

However, to have a communist mention the term "recovered territories" is not surprising, since it seems to be just that, a communist term, used by communists for propaganda purposes, see this source: [9]

By the way, the article Recovered Territories should really be renamed "Western and Northern Territories"[10], unless it is restricted to only deal with the communist propaganda effort to justify the annexation and indoctrinate the Poles".

From the book:"Secondly, indoctrination commenced with the purpose of forging Polish settlers and repatriates arriving in the region into a coherent community, loyal to the new regime in Warsaw. Wroclaw was to be turned into what Kenney has called a 'frontier of Communism. On a more general level this involved creating a picture of the new territories as integral parts of historical Poland (hence the expression 'Recovered Territories')"[11]

Please stop spreading Communist propaganda terms.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The statements were made by Government of National Unity made of different political factions. I am surprised you consider people like Mikolajczyk communists. Please read more on history. Of course Poland was a member of Allies so again I don't reckognise what's the problem.--Molobo (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you are so well versed in Polish history I'm surprised you don't know what is said in the article on the Provisional Government of National Unity. I am also surprised that you didn't provide the wikilink to it so we could check what you are talking about. Well, I have now provided the link. Let me quote from the article in question "In fact, the Communists had little intention of giving any opposition any real power, or carrying out the promised 'free and fair' elections. The members of the opposition that received any positions were kept in check by their deputies and staff, always loyal to the communists, so they had little real power." You are trying to argue that a secondary source is wrong where it states that "Recovered Territories" were used by communists for indoctrination purposes, and all you have to argue with is that a non-communist was included in the communist government? Besides being an attempt at OR, it also is a very evidently bad argument as the wiki-article you choose not to link to shows.

"Of course Poland was a member of Allies so again I don't reckognise what's the problem." Yes I can see that you are having dificulties understanding my problems, but let me explain them to you. You point to a Polish statement in an American collection of diplomatic papers, and pose that it was an Allied statement regarding Poland. I'm sorry but to me that doesn't sound quite right, it was rather a Polish statement about Poland. But this is what you wrote: "As to the fact that Allies clearly mentioned the fact that those territories were originally Polish, I already gave you the link to that in previous discussions. Original scanned collection of official documentation from Potsdam Conference hosted on US Government site.". Someone who didn't bother to actually check the sources you were referring to might be mislead to believe that they show that the U.S. supported the Polish claim. But then those who don't check have only themselves to blame if they get things wrong I suppose.

I will take your suggestion to read more on history to hart, I've realized thanks to you that there are many interesting articles left to write there, particularly on Polish history. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Molobo you do not seem to have answered my question "Are you saying that Shirley Elson Roessle did not mean what she wrote and you quoted on this page?" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I am interested in this article, not your personal questions. If you show sources that have those questions in connection with the subject of the article, we can discuss them. Wikipedia however is not based on thesis of Wikipedians, as it is against the rules. --Molobo (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is relevant to the article because if she is correct then the German territories that were not ceded in 1919 were not part of Poland before the Partition of Poland, so how can they be recovered territories? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, who formulated the question regarding this issue, can you show the source ? Alse the above claim is false, as they were several territories from Partitions in the west that were not returned to Poland until 1945.--Molobo (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article merger with Recovered Territories (Silly idea?)

The territories described in both articles overlap to a large extent (Meaning the former eastern territories of Germany fully include Poland's Recovered territories), and they describe the same events, just from different POVs.

In a perfect world we would have only one page for these territories, describing its changing history and national allegiances in the main paragraph, and presenting the reasoning for each side's claims from their own POV in separate paragraphs, as well as their current position (which would be that there are no territorial claims at this time from either side).

This would take a lot of self discipline from authors in holding back their own POV. I'm not sure we could achieve such a discipline given the edit histories of this and some other articles. But we could discuss the idea ...

Anorak2 (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, this articles covers much wider area that Germany already returned after 1918. Recovered Territories refers to to specific term regarding areas returned after 1945 which have very special history, conditions and their development goes forward in time after 1945.--Molobo (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Poland 992 AD - Lack of Polish in 899 AD

Much is written that Poland today is about the same size as land of of the Polans, the later Poland, a 1000 years ago, that is in its beginnings of the early Piasts. This is a MAP of POLAND 992 AD]. Some territory was already conquered from Bohemia, such as around Wroclaw area, named for duke of Bohemia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Small pocket was already conquered from Pomerania, but Poland was nowhere near the Baltic Sea.

Not only was was Poland nowhere near the Baltic Sea, but prevously there had not even been any Poland, let alone Polish people. Alfred the Great, who died in 899, had travelers going all around Europe and described among other reports Wulfstan of Haithabu's trip to Prussian trading place Truso [12] Also described in Europe is Germania [[13] (all across northern Europe From Rhine to Don river, to the White Sea). Described are Bohemians, Moravians, Lusatians,Sorbs, but nowhere Poland or Polans or Piasts.

A strange mentioning however is of the territory later referred to as Masovia. By 899 it was called by Alfred the Great Maegtha-, Maegdha-land (German: Magd, plural Maegde English: maids, women) and the land is referred to as land of the Goths. It was puzzled about if it was the land of the Amazons)

MfG 29 Feb 2008 addition 6 Mar 2008

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(in answer to Molobos statement below)

The description of Germania and Goths, as stated above, (#13), is by Anglo-Saxon Alfred the Great [14]. He died in 899 AD, a bit early for Molobo Hitler propaganda. Also an odd statement, "that the (Goths and other tribes) just wandered through... and that it is well known that they did not establis(h) any modern states there". You might want to read up a bit more about History of the Goths, of Theoderic the Great, of a number of other 'tribes' within and outside the Roman Empire and in Free Germania, the countries at that time. "Modern states" have only been formed in the 20th and 21th century. Mixing up Slavs with Germanic tribes or with Baltic tribes is still going on today. It started with the first mentioning of Slaves (Sclavs), which a thousand years ago was the name for all 'heathen' not yet christianized people. Still today many authors (deliberately) word their text as to make it seem or "mistake" Baltic or German(ic)-tribes, -people, -land for Slavic or rather nearly all the time for Polish. The only actual mentioning of Polans, [Poland]] start (perhaps at the end of the 10th) in the 11th century and Piasts in the 17/18th century. The travel reports made by or made for historians, rulers etc are the actual sources we have.

Everyone can tell the embellishments apart and they are perhaps more accurate, than what todays 'propaganda ministers' or 'spin doctors' come up with. MfG 7 Mar 2008

Germania was a general name, and travelers mistook Slavic tribes for Germanic tribes quite often in that area, as to Goths, that is part of German nationalist mythology-for example Hitler wanted to settle Crimea due to wandering of those tribes there once. However this was just a place of wandering, like many other tribes. Even if they went through those territories it is well known that they did not establis any modern state there. As what one Alfred heard, that is quite relevant in the article about him and the tales he was given by travelers engaging in tale-talk with him. However we should base our knowledge on serious research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molobo (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Poland won Battle of Cedynia 20 years before in order to secure Pomerania. Few years later, new bishopry for Pomerania Congress of Gniezno was found. So in 992 Pomerania was Polish. The rebellion in Pomerania started in 1005. Cautious (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you look on a map, before you make nonsense statements? Here is a map of Brandenburg, Germany with Zehden at Oderberg and the Oder river, just a bit to the north/east of Berlin. Pomerania is north of Brandenburg at the Baltic Sea. Poland uses false names for places, like Thorn,Pomerania or Zehden (Cedynia), Pomerania. Perhaps that is done, so you guys get deliberately confused? Anyway, as you can tell from the map, Zehden is not at the Baltic Sea. Seems to me, that Zehden (Cedynia) also used the Red Brandenburg eagle in its city crest/emblem? Anyway, even if Miesko I or after him his son Boleslaw I conquered the Pomeranians for a few years, by 1014 he lost it again. And Poland tried to conquer the Pomeranians several more times, and they always lost again. Does not show, that Pomeranians wanted to be conquered by the Poles, does it? MfG 29 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did SPD demand 1914 borders post-WW2 ?

I just found this poster and I wondered if SPD demanded 1914 post-war ? I did heard that organisations of transfered Germans did make such claims but from the looks of this SPD did also ? [15] --Molobo (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That poster is from the 1949 West German election. You linked it from a right wing website which presents it as part of a propaganda campaign. I recommend not to use such sources, they may lead to false conclusions. This is a more serious source, unfortunately they don't mentíon the reason for that border display.

Anyway the 1937 borders would be a more typical claim for post-WW2 SPD, as shows this poster from the same election campaign. I'm not aware of written sources for any further claims by mainstream parties of that era. Anorak2 (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

Currently the article says:

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

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

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

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

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

Source that the term applies both to Partitions of Poland territories and territories recovered by Poland after WW2.

Source that violation of Congress of Vienna treaties by Prussia was reckognised-the abolishing of freedoms for Poles and Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie.

Explanation why massive uprisings of Polish people in Silesia and Poznań are mentioned as 'diplomatic struggle.

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

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

[edit] Middle Germany

In the case of East Germany and Central Germany I would be tempted to change the words to state that during the Cold War (before the final treaty) that it was not uncommon for some German books to refer to East Germany as Central Germany for example Bavarian school atlases in the 1970s still did and needless to say so did those organisations like the Federation of Expellees --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

User:Skäpperöd please explain what you think is a a non neutral point of view in the version that you edited. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey PBS. The lead: As the article's title is "Former east. terr. of GER"", the reader should get an idea what territories we are talking about in the lead. Instead, the reader is given some three paragraphs which - as a result of edit warfare - consist of

a mix of phrases (e.g.jurisdiction withdrawn, sovereignty over some or all of these territories was subject to much diplomatic activity, important precursor, important factor etc pp.)
a rather detailed review of German aggression concerning Posen and West Prussia in the main part (but without mentioning which territories exactly, the reader must know the Versailles treaty to understand this) which only in a wider sense are part of the former eastern territories
a bunch of Polish claims (most of which were taken in Partitions of Poland, Due to Polish historical claims, following World War II, parts these regions were known as the Recovered Territories...)
an undefined "German question"

The only clue the reader gets of what the authors are actually talking about is provinces or regions east of the Oder-Neisse line. So he must know about the Oder-Neisse line and which territories are beyond. How many average Anglo-saxons do you think there are getting this?

Next problem with the lead is the NPOV. As I mentioned above, we got Versailles, Polish claims, German aggression all in the lead. We do not have any information about the core of the former eastern territories - East Brandenburg, Farther Pomerania, East Prussia and Silesia. They are not even mentioned, nor briefly described. We do not have Stalin, who shifted Poland into these areas in Potsdam to get back to "his" Curzon line again. We do not have the "ethnic cleansing" or whatever it should be called, that took place in and around these territories before, during and after WWII. Instead, the reader is left with an impression that Germany somehow "took" some territories east of some line from Poland and Poland recovered them soon after in the course of the two WWs. POV.

Now instead of creating an overlenght lead covering all major issues, which all will be charged in content and style by other editors who want to get their POV in the lead (and all others out) lets please have a short lead determing the territories the article is about and put the rest in special subtitles. That way I hope we get the edit war out of the lead and are able to present different POVs in overall NPOV subtitles.

Skäpperöd (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it for the moment and see what other think. But I am going to remove Prussia from the intro as that is seen by some to bring in history before 1871. If there was an article that just talked about Prussia in the German Empire then the link could go to that article but AFAICT there is not and if that information is wanted it can be found via the Empire article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some rescued information

I thought I'd dump some information rescued from "Recovered territories". I have given up all hope on that article. It can be used as a reference for explaining the RC in this article, not that I expect any explanation to be stable...

Recovered territories is a propaganda term^[1] The creation of a picture of the new territories as integral part of historical Poland in post-war had the aim of forging Polish settlers and repatriates arriving there into a coherent community loyal to the new communist regime.^[2] The term was in use immediately following the end of World War II when it was part of the communist indoctrination of the Polish settlers in those territories.^[2] but seems to have been "officially" dropped from Polish communist propaganda sometime in the 1950s. By the 1960s, it had clearly been dropped from official use but it is still occasionally used in texts and in common language.^{[citation needed]} Instead of the term "recovered territories" nowadays the term "Western and Northern territories" is usually used.^[3]

[edit] Notes and references

^ An explanation note in "The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy Over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland", ed. by Polonsky and Michlic, p.466
^ ^a ^b Martin Åberg, Mikael Sandberg, Social Capital and Democratisation: Roots of Trust in Post-Communist Poland and Ukraine, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 0754619362, Google Print, p.79
^ Martin Åberg, Mikael Sandberg, Social Capital and Democratisation: Roots of Trust in Post-Communist Poland and Ukraine, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 0754619362, Google Print, p. 51

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I cannot really speak about english usage, but the German usage of "Ostgebiete" seems to focus mainly on those areas that were lost (or [enter more neutral word here]) in WWII, not on those lost in WWI. See also de:Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches. I also wonder what the numbers under "Transfer of German populations to post-war Germany" refer to - they do seem to include all German expellees and refugees from Eastern Europe, not just from areas within Germany's 1937 or 1913 borders (i.e. they seem to also include ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia).

Just for the record, before someone re-inserts it: There is no "city council of Berlin". There is a Senat (senate, equ. to the governments in other Länder) and an Abgeordnetenhaus (lit. house of representatives, equ. to parliaments in other Länder) on the Land-level, neither of which has any NPD-members, and there Bezirksverordnetenversammlungen (lit. district representatives assemblies), Stadträte (lit. city magistrates), and Bezirksbürgermeister (district mayors) on the communal level. "City Council" sounds as if it could be a translation of Stadtrat, by someone who does not understand Berlin's administration structure (both officials and administrative bodies can be referred to as "Rat" in German). A quick google search turns up no NPD-Stadtrat in Berlin, but this may just be my ignorance. They seem to have seats in four of Berlin's twelve Bezirksverordnetenversammlungen, though Yaan (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)