Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Early discussions: city name Gdansk or Danzig
It's historically mendacious to refer to the city by its Polish name, Gdansk, from roughly the 15th century through 1945. Danzig was known as, and knew itself as, Danzig until the indigenous Germans either fled, were killed or were expelled in 1945. It's interesting but a sad commentary on Polish attitudes that, while the Poles have done a wonderful job of restoring the city's historic core, they felt it necessary to obliterate all historic German inscriptions on buildings. The exceptions are the tombstones paving the floor of the Marienkirche. -- Steven C. Anderson PS: Read Günter Grass's "Call of the Toad."
First: I removed the line about Danzig being taken from Prussia Germany and given to Poland. If it was a free city it was not part of Poland.
Second: What were they complaining about? - "Many complaints by Danzigers to the League of Nations for 20 years were completely ignored." --rmhermen
Several functions , like collecting customs, postal deliveries etc were 'given' to Poland, who tried to 'Polonionize' everything.
While Danzig was called a free state , it was in reality not free anymore. user:H.J.
Don't really understand the relevance of the links -- they don't add any substantive information to the article. JHK
Which links are those? --DavidSaff
Emperor gave Danzig to Teutons Hah! Emperor gave POLISH city to Teutons. (!) "Poland imediately began to build military installations. Danzigers objected to Poland's military use of now severed German lands for ammunition depots etc during Poland's war of conquest against Soviet Union in 1922. These offensive measures along what became known as the Polish Corridor, included Danzig harbor and Danzig surroundings , Westerplatte, and Gdynia (German Gdingen). They served as a mobilization sites for the Polish military. For nearly 20 years Danziger burgers filed repeated protests with the League of Nations. They were continously dismissed. " Jezus Christ, why i feel like reading nationalist German propaganda? When i will read here that it was Poland which caused WWII? szopen
I always thought that Danzig, that is Gdansk, was build by first Piasts in order to secure their conquests in Pomerania. Founding a city in 1240 was merely giving new set of rights to already existing city. I think i will add, soon, when i'll have some time for searching in library, some data about abusing rights of Polish minority in Free State of Danzig, constant antiPolish attitude of government, custom war... Plus, of course, some data from earlier history- massacre of Danzig population by Teutons, history of Gdansk in Poland in XV- XVIII century e That article isn't quite NPOV. It is in fact written fro m almost exclusively German point of view. szopen
It would be worth mention that most probably Danzig was founded by Polish Piasts as military outpost. Or that it was part of Poland and was conquered by Teutons (when they were asked for help, they came, helped, and refuse to leave) who massacred majority of earlier inhabitabts (althoiugh number of 10.000 is exaggeration)
Danzig was not in Prussia, but in Pomorze. Emperor couldn't gave Teutons something he wasn't in his posession. This was christian, Polish city, belonging to Poland. Pope in few sentences ordered giving back Danzig to Poland.
- This created a continous stretch of land under one government, able to withstand the various onslaughts of Mongols, Tatars, and Turks. The forces of [Ghengis Khan]? came all the way to Liegnitz in Silesia and to Brandenburg, the area of the modern city of Berlin, where they were finally repelled by Gotthardt von Brandis.
Teutons where far away from Turks, Mongols or Tatars and their funding had nothing to do with them. Genghis Khan was already dead when battle of Liegnitz took place. I've first time heard that Tatars came to Berlin, i've always read that after battle of Liegnitz they returned (since this weren't really big or important army, this was only diversion, since main Mongol goal was Hungary)
Nothing is mentioned about rights of Polish minority in Danzig, about killing and maltreting of Poles.
War against Soviet Union was war of independence, not of conquest.
And the rest is... sounds like if i heard again Hitler accusation in 1939. szopen
To szopen, I have been gone for several days. Will try to catch up on the questions accumulated in the meanwhile. First of all. Danzig is located in the territory of Old Prussian Land. The church however "christianized" Danzig from the West by the Cistercians. Oliva (at Danzig) was founded ca 1178 and christianized from Pomerania- Pomerellia (little Pomerania). Monk Christian of Oliva, was designated the Apostle of Prussia by the pope. Brandenburg margraves had inheritance right to Danzig, but pope gave Danzig and Pomerellia to Teutonic Order together with Prussia, Livonia etc. (Earlier history was recorded as part of Magna Germania).
Prussia was "christianized' from the east. (First Poland tried, was repelled several times by Prussians). Then Baltic Crusades or Northern Crusades against Prussia, Livonia, Lithuania. Archbishop of Riga was then head over the four bishoprics of Prussia (by order of William of Modena, papal legate). Riga was under Visby, Gotland. Posen or Poznan was til circa 1250 under Magdeburg. Before the Polanen received ducal title from emperor , they were part of Czech .(Czech and Lech)Czech and Polish dukes, kings all pledged allegiance to emperors for the land they held in lien (on loan)
Mieszko and Boleslaw were margraves of the empire ( married to Saxons).
Later Polish kings all were married to Habsburgs, Vasas ( Austria, Sweden were part of empire) Archbishop of Krakow (a Hanseatic League city was a prince of the empire. And "Polish " kings continued pledging allegiance to emperors, either by pledge, marriage or as members of the order of the "Golden Fleece". (Catholic Counter-reformation). From circa 1695 to 1768 ? Electors of Holy Roman Empire , Saxony were also kings of Poland.
They probably did not put too much emphasis on all these facts in your country during the communist regime.
With your last statement about Hitler, perhaps you can explain to me the Polish leader Rydz Smygly( can't remember exact spelling) , who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin taking over Germany. What explanation do you have for that ?
What is your explanation of the expulsion of hundereds of thousands of Germans from Polish Corridor starting after 1919 and of the 50 thousand of these (ethnic) Germans from the Polish Corridor in summer 1939, herded on a death march by Polish neighbors( recorded as Bromberger Blut Sonntag (Bromberg Bloody Sunday)?
user:H.J.
Old History section. Even dates are bogus here. See http://www.gdansk.gda.pl/um_green/hg_historia_gdanska/hg_us_historia_gdanska.htm --Taw
Medieval Danzig
In 997 AD, a group of soldiers sent by Boleslaw I Chrobry, duke of the newly created Poland, accompanied by St Adalbert of Prague, ventured north to the Baltic Sea coast near Gdansk. One of the goals of this mission was to convert the heathen; another was most likely to bring the area under the control of the Duchy of Poland.
As "Gdansk" proper, the city was founded in 1240 when the Hanseatic League was granted the right to build a city by the Emperor. The wider area was at the time under the control of the dukes of Pomerelia. When their line died out, the territories around Gdansk passed into the hands of the Margraves of Brandenburg.
In 1308, the emperor gave Gdansk to the Teutonic Knights to govern, along with their other territories in Prussia, Livonia, Kurland and Estonia. This created a continous stretch of land under one government, able to withstand the various onslaughts of Mongols, Tatars, and Turks. The forces of Ghengis Khan came all the way to Legnica in Silesia and to Brandenburg, the area of the modern city of Berlin, where they were finally repelled by Gotthardt von Brandis.
In 1440, Gdansk joined the Hanseatic Cities of Elblag and Torun to form the Prussian Confederation. The Prussion Confederation (Preussische Bund) had to appear before the emperor Frederick III Habsburg in behalf of their case against the Teutonic Knights.
More info needed here.
Taw -- if the names and dates are wrong, please FIX them, not delete... The article needs to be more than just modern Gdansk, and Danzig was a major city. There's no need to escalate the Polish-Prussian conflict ;-)
The last editor changed Gdansk to Danzig, but also inserted an unnecessary gentive. Gedaunum is the Latin name of the city. The second form given was the genitive case form; it is sometimes (rarely!) interesting to known the genitive, but in an encyclopedia it is never necessary. Gedaunum, the nominative case, is enough.
I give up. Taw is willing to deface the page forever to support his view that the name of the city in 1944 was "Gdansk" even though the rulers called it something different. How he thinks this is NPOV is a mystery to me. GregLindahl
City was Gdansk up to 1939, when it was conquered by Nazis. --Taw
Proposal: $history_of_city =~ s/Gdansk|Danzig/the city/g --Taw
- Taw -- i don't get the script, so I can't comment on that. But to an English speaker, the city wasn't Gdansk up till 1939. When we read English language history books dealing with that particular city up till 1945, they most often call the city Danzig. It doesn't mean anything as to who the city belonged to -- Most English speakers don't know or care (in the sense that they don't say to themselves "Danzig -- must be German"). Could you just quit for a while and maybe listen to people who know what they're talking about (i.e., native speakers with an education). This is not about Prussia/Poland -- it's about what title works best in an English language encyclopedia.
Just ran a simple copyedit--things like "its," "burghers," and the use of articles. I don't think I touched any of the controversial matters here.
Having done that--"came under Polish administration by Stalin" is weird enough English that I'm not sure what it's trying to say, let alone whether it's accurate or NPOV. Can whoever wrote that sentence please clarify? --Vicki Rosenzweig
To Vicki Rosenzweig Your simple copyedit is fine (with me, that is). Never know what flack you could be getting yourself into, judging by yesterday and previously.
To the Under Polish administration" by Stalin see : Potsdam Agreement,..all land east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (Oder/Neisse Line) was taken over military by Soviet Union and allied communists. The Soviets "gave" a part of Germany (Deutsche Reich) to Poland and this was officially called : "Under Polish administration , until a peace treaty."
The most northern part of Germany (Deutsche Reich) was taken and kept by Soviet Union and is now known as "Oblast Kaliningrad" ( The area of northern East Prussia including Koenigsberg .
Stalin kept the Ukraine to the Curzon line, which was proposed to be Russia after WW I. Poland however did not adhere to this Curzon line and instead attacked Soviet Union after WW I and conquered part of Ukraine. Poland kept part of Ukraine until Stalin took it back.
Copy of some articles of the "Potsdam Agreement"
B. WESTERN FRONTIER OF POLAND. In conformity with the agreement on Poland reached at the Crimea Conference the three Heads of Government have sought the opinion of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity in regard to the accession of territory in the north 'end west which Poland should receive. The President of the National Council of Poland and members of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity have been received at the Conference and have fully presented their views. The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement.
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.B.
user:H.J.
Much as I dislike Stalin and all his influence on the 20th century, I don't think it is a good idea to characterize all eastern bloc actions as Stalin + verb. If it was under the Potsdam Agreement is was mutually agreeable (however agreed upon) by the Allies, not just Stalin dictating terms.
The Soviets overran the area and kept it. The Potsdam agreement states, that the Soviet Union is to satisfy Poland( to this effect) The Allied Control Council that was the responsible agency ,stopped functioning and the Cold War ensued. No peace treaty. Just limbo.
- no, the Soviets overran it. Stalin was, of course, in control of the Soviet Union. But to imagine that Stalin was everywhere and did everything is not realistic. Churchill and Roosevelt weren't personally responsible for the Western Theatre, and Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the Eastern front (though Soviet political propaganda liked to depict him as such). Lots of Soviet officers and officials helped him. Call it the Soviets. It'll be more accurate. --MichaelTinkler.
- in fact, what 'under Polish adminstration by Stalin' says in English is that Stalin was administering Poland. Directly. 'By' in terms of 'under adminstration by' means is 'directly adminstered by'. What HJ means, I suppose is 'under Polish (that is to say, Soviet-dominated) administration)'. It's poor English, and not terribly clear history. --MichaelTinkler
And who knows what the Russian version actually says. It would be interesting to find that out. Not that it makes any difference, because Stalin read it the way it best suited him .
(He did offer to Germany all of Germany back ( that is the Eastern Provinces under Polish administration ) but only if all Western Germany would have gone under the Soviet sphere. Adenauer and the Western occupation Forces declined that. At least that is what I gather now.)
I will change it to Soviets. user:H.J.
Note to Non- English speakers: Whenever you use the words since or not yet, you are obliged to use the present perfect (or occasionally, the pluperfect) form of the verb. For example, NOT "since 1945, it IS not used", but rather, "since 1945, it HAS NOT BEEN used." Thank you for correcting this error in future.
Once again HJ has been at this entry, beginning with the 'currently a city in Poland' alteration. I don't care enough to do the editing, but it does bother me that she continues to get away with this. Her edits are neither in English or German, she has no sense of overall composition, her punctuation and spacing are atrocious, and her POV is, shall we say, not Neutral. --MichaelTinkler
MichaelTinkler, is Gdansk n o t 'currently a city in Poland' ?? user:H.J.
- No, HJ, Gdansk is a city in Poland. It is a city in Poland which once or formerly was a free city and was other things. You changed it to currently for the implication that it either shouldn't be part of Poland or wouldn't be part of Poland for long. The history of Gdansk (as something other than part of Poland) belongs here, too, but if you start off the first sentence the way you have you are simply being inflammatory. --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler Gdansk is a city in Poland since 1945 ,(as the handmade sign there showed in 1995 ,it is understood at the Rote Rathaus (red city hall) -Polish ref. Ratusz by the current Gdansk inhabitants).
Before that there was a city named Danzig .
Whichever way you want to formulate that, is fine with me .
My earlier references to several different ways of spelling ( common for all German language cities and names) was inserted with the purpose to clear the strange references). That can also be edited. user:H.J.
To MichaelTinkler in reference to the legal name and status please read my text I inserted in Gdansk starting with 1965 letter by Polish bishops. HJ
- Why, HJ, would I think that bishops have some valid control over the nationality of one city or another? Please don't try to involve me in your irredentist argument. Gdansk is a city in Poland. If the world had listened to the Pope Pius IX on international affairs there would be no Italy. --MichaelTinkler
Now there's a scientific answer. HJ
Sarcasm aside, HJ, He's right. Have you bothered to even look at the articles I suggested? Let me ask you something -- When you are ill, do you go to a doctor? Most people do. When you go to the doctor, you go because you know he has had a lot more training than you on things that go wrong with the human body. He has studied for years. You know that, even if a doctor is a specialist in one area, he has probably (because of all that study), a lot more knowledge about the human body and its workings than somebody who hasn't studied medicine.
I notice that you (and a lot of other people -- I'm not saying you are the only person) don't go onto the articles on philosophy or math, or the sciences and argue your opinion, and I ask myself, "why not?" The self-evident answer is that most people don't feel comfortable arguing with "experts" in those areas -- and we have people who are experts! So what is it that changes this rule when we talk about history? Just as a trained doctor may not know all the latest stuff on every specialization, but he still has the training to make generally sound medical judgements. Some of us have the training in history and how to approach it equivalent to a doctor's training in medicine. You wouldn't argue with a doctor -- so why do you feel that you have any grounds to argue when a trained historian says that your approach is invalid as far as writing history (which is what you are attempting to do) is concerned? Think about it, please. Your continued arguments against and willful ignorance of historic method is not resulting in good articles -- just generating a lot of debate. JHK
I really didn't think this could get worse, but it has: non-latin names being passed off as 'Latin', distilleries, incomplete sentences about Lech Walesa. Urbs Gyddanzyc is made of a word in Latin + another word. It is NOT a Latin name. Contributors here are putting in sentences that are NOT English. MichaelTinkler
Who knows WHAT this said before revision:
- Other Slavic none Polish settlers had arrived in Germania already around 600 AD.
It's not English. It goes. And why do the Goths only temporarily displace the Borussians? Do we have any proof? Or is this folk-memory and 14th century chroniclers? This stupidity is why I have drastically reduced my Wikipedia presence. MichaelTinkler
In fact, I think that you don't really understand the philosophy of the wiki world. All contributions are welcome. there is no rule except the will to do something together (and not only with experts or graduate people).
fred
- Fred, I happen to agree with Michael Tinkler. It is not a question of who knows more or less or who has more academic credentials. It is a question of whether people should have the right to use Wikipedia to promote their own views on a subject, and that has certainly been happening here. I think that if there is one rule, it should be that the articles be NPOV. Unfortunately, that has been violated too many times. As for academics, the way I understand it is that everyone is welcome to write, but with writing comes the responsibility of accepting editing by people who happen to know the subject-matter better. Personally, I have seen some of my work changed. If I asked why, I received an explanation. In those cases, it was not meant as an attack on me. I actually feel thankful that I had a chance to learn more from people who are authorities in their fields. Finally, for the Wikipedia to really be effective, we do have to reach some consensus about issues like nomenclature, since this will make it possible to link related articles. Unfortunately, a seemingly simple issue like nomenclature can also be used to promote certain non-NPOV positions. When that happens again and again, it can be frustrating. Danny
-
- Fred, I've been here since August, 2001. The wiki-way is fun and intriguing, but it's no no way to make a reference work. A few cranks keep those famous 'many eyeballs' too busy to do much new work. MichaelTinkler
-
-
- Fred -- where does it say that the wiki way is to allow any crap that gets posted to remain? I thought the wiki way was for everybody to strive for the best articles possible, realizing that one doesn't necessarily need a degree to produce good, informative articles. One does, however, need to be able to write lucidly and defer to people (with or without degrees) who know more. The wiki way is not a license to ignore evidence and the properly written presentation thereof. JHK
-
During the rulership of Stefan Bathory, Gdansk was part of Poland, so the king didn't have to conquer it, rather to quell an uprising. Anyway, I deleted the whole comment as misleading and un-NPOV. Iskra!
- Local dukes were not descendants of Piasts, nor were they Gryfici, although during their lives there was such a belief among common people. Gryfici were believed to descend from some Polish noble family.
- Batory had to quell uprising of Gdansk, but this was uprising not against Poland, but against him, because Gdansk recognized Maximilian as king, not him. Gdansk then was _defeated_ (Although not decisively - one could argue, that in fact, it was a stalemate) and had to recognize Batory as king, and in exchange Batory recognized it's rights and abandoned some rights introduced by statut of Laski. Batory wanted to calm down things quickly and secure his position as king, that's why he didn't listen to some hawks, and thanks to that few years later he was able to use artillery from Gdansk in war with Muscovy.
cite from here:
- The port of Gdansk, which supported the Emperor's candidature, sought the protection of the King of Denmark, rather than swear allegiance to Batory, but Batory was not a man to be trifled with. In September 1576 he stopped all commerce with the city, moving all trade to Elbing, and declared the leaders rebels. Gdansk retaliated by plundering the Abbey of Oliwa and the Poles sent Jan Zborowski to deal with them. On 17th April 1577 Zborowski with 1,350 cavalry, 1,050 infantry and a few cannon crushed rebel mercenaries, comprising 3,100 landsknechts, 800 cavalry, 6-8,000 town militia and 7 cannon, at Lubieszow. However further attacks and the blockade failed. It looked like developing into a war of attrition, which suited neither side, and the Peace of Malbork was negotiated in December, where Batory received a hefty subsidy and Gdansk retained much of its freedom.
later Polish forces (mainly Hungarians under Bekiesz) defeated Gdansk forces close to Elblag. However Polish army was unable to take Gdansk, Russia attacked from east, so king and Gdansk agreed to compromise (Gdask paid 200.000 zlotych plus 20.000 for rebuilding monastery in Oliva, apologised king, agreed to still paid "palowe", Batory confirmed Gdansk's privileges).
"Before the Polanen received ducal title from emperor , they were part of Czech"
The country of Polanie was never the part of Czech. It was independent since about 2nd half of 9th century. But the country of another Polish tribe, Wislanie, had been conquered by Czechs in the end of 9th century. Polanen dukes haven't received ducal title from emperor, or anybody. Also every Polish king was crowned with the agreement of pope, not emperor.
"...who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin taking over Germany. What explanation do you have for that ?"
Have you ever heard about propaganda??? Polish government have known about German "proposal" of giving Germany Polish Corridor since 1938.
"Stalin kept the Ukraine to the Curzon line, which was proposed to be Russia after WW I. Poland however did not adhere to this Curzon line and instead attacked Soviet Union after WW I and conquered part of Ukraine. Poland kept part of Ukraine until Stalin took it back."
Yes, Poland attacked first, becouse the Polish army couldn't wait and give Soviet Army chance to be strengthen. Polish Chief of State Jozef Pilsudski wanted to create independent Ukraine and maybe Belarus and Lithuania, becouse he belived that this countries would protect Poland from Soviets and would be good allies. He had made an agreement with Ukrainian chief Semen Petlura. Polish and Ukrainian troops attacked together and conquered Kiev, but after Soviet offensive Pilsudski had to sign a peace treaty in Riga without possibility of creating Ukraine. --swPawel
Pawle,
keep in mind that talk pages are for _making encyclopedia articles better_. Although sometimes it is hard to resist to some statements, it's not really helping improvement of articles of arguing with old comments (how old are they? some half of year now?)
moreover, it is not true that all Polish kings crowned with approval of pope, not emperor. Two Polish kings at least were crowned with approval of emperor, namely Waclaw (someone, i can't remember his number) and his son. Usually in our tradition they are either omitted or treated like occupiers, but they were Polish kings, who BTW did much to reform Polish administration (e.g they introduced office of starosta into Little Poland, which proved later so useful that later it was also introduced into other parts of Poland) szopen
Don't really get the usefulness or point of all the links at the bottom...JHK
What's the Rosicrucian stuff doing here? If anything, it belongs in an article on Rosicrucianismn. Vicki Rosenzweig
- I'm guessing that HJ found information and couldn't let it go to waste, no matter how irrelevant...JHKAnd, as we should know by now, all roads lead to Danzig ;-) Danny
Still arguing about this, I see. The Germans and the Slavs have been fighting over Gdansk/Danzig for a thousand years, I don't think we'll solve it here. ;-) John
I believe, it has been solved already.
User:Space Cadet
Well, HJ has been at it again on this one. I went through the introduction and simply deleted any NPOV comments (i.e., Polish claim vs. a true and accurate date) tried to create some English, and deleted everything that did not have to do with the subject matter--DANZIG/GDANSK. This is not an article about German claims to Prussia. It is not an article about the Borussians, lousy etymologies, folklore passed off as history, nationalist ranting, etc. Frau user:H.J., contrary to what you like to believe, Danzig was populated by members of different, often competing ethnic groups. Yes, it was under Prussian hegemony at some point, but it was also under Polish hegemony at other times. The Poles did not make their first claims to the city in the 16th century. In fact, the Prussian nationalism you are promoting here is completely anachronistic. Ethnic nationalism did not exist through much of the period about which this article is concerned. Nor is the first printing press in Danzig really worthwhile information, nor is the forming of the local chapter of Rosicrucians, et al. Or will we soon be treated to tidbits like Danzig's first pay toilet and the founding of the local K4 club. Enough already. Tomorrow I deal with Rudolf Hess, as now portrayed as a "great peacemaker." Danny
I'm glad to see that some things never change! HJ up to her usual stuff - though the Rosicrucians ARE a new interest for her. Well, my term from hell is over and I'm back to help until June. MichaelTinkler
Once again, I've copyedited this. Does anyone fighting over this know how to punctuate this language, or understand the user of articles and linking verbs? (If not, feel free to drop me a line after any substantive edits.) Vicki Rosenzweig, Monday, June 24, 2002
To HJ. Can't you really do any more but delete somebody else's hard work and just restore your old, unedited bunch of XIX th century myths and popular beliefs? You can always create another article called: "History according to German irredentists" and put your stuff in there. I promise, I'll leave it alone. Anyway, I responded by deleting yours and restoring Vicki's version.
This seems to have been un-changed again, all the copyedits removed. -- Zow--------------------
User:Space Cadet !!! You seem spaced out again !!! user:H.J.
user:H.J.!!! Why do you think so?
The City of Gdansk was chartered in 1224 -- um, is the name on the charter Gdansk or Danzig? If I understand the history correctly, it's Danzig. I also don't think the phrase Gdansk is called Danzig in German is correct -- today, I suspect that most Germans call Gdansk Gdansk. -- GregLindahl
And it's all true. But wether it was chartered or not, it was built and settled by Poles around 980 and it's name was Gdansk. I've seen this name being used on most German sites, with exception of the straight forward revisionist ones. On the other hand the Poles call many foreign cities by their own polish names, for their own use. But that doesn't mean, that they claim "polishness" of those cities. Examples: Nowy Jork (New York), Londyn (London), Rzym (Rome) etc. Different story with the cities situated in today's Germany, which originally belonged to the pagan Poland, back in the day when there was no German people on the east side of river Laba (Elbe): Misnia (Meissen), Budziszyn (Bautzen), Lubusz (Lebus), Lubeka (Luebeck) etc.
- Please answer my question: Does the charter read "City of Danzig" or "City of Gdansk"? If the first, then the article is clearly incorrect. And if you think you answered my second question, you didn't, as I have no idea what you mean: If Germans call Gdansk Gdansk, then Danzig is NOT the German name for Gdansk. -- GregLindahl
Space Cadet messed the article Gdansk up completely on Jun24, while claiming to have re-installed Vicki's version. He was made aware by Zow and by my comment. I waited for him to correct Gdansk, but he did not. I corrected it today ,June27., but shortly thereafter # 166.90.231 did the same thing, messing it all up, like Space Cadet did on June,24. I now assume that he/she (#166.90.231), perhaps both (#166... and Space Cadet)are committing deliberate vandalism. user:H.J.
I had reverted it assuming vandalism again from user:H.J., otherwise known as 66.47....
To user:H.J.
I did not mess anything up! Just did some research and entered the information that I found. Vicki came after and did some constructive editing, for which I am grateful. Then you came back, deleted all my entries and put back your unchanged stuff. I re-entered Vicki's version of which I notified her (common courtesy, unknown to you). Your "comment" did not make me aware of anything, because it did not contain any information, just an insult. Of course, I do appreciate that rather than calling me a Commie, like you used to, you suggest a mental sickness. Now you're also calling me a vandal. Thank God, no Slavic tribes are used as a synonym for "mindless ruiners".
To User:Space Cadet, There you are ! Hi ! Apparently you do not look at what you are creating or else you would have seen the mess yourself. Go to article Gdansk , to history, back to Jun 24,to Space Cadet, click on it and see for yourself.
I (and others) spent a lot of time re-entering info messed up. In the process I also corrected some of the false info , such as the ficticious claim etc. Anyway, the person # 166.90.231 did the vandalizing.
Spacing out = does not indicate a mental sickness, just that you are ...off in thoughs,... off in orbit, like your ficticious name indicates. No need to throw you Commie and Slavic remarks around. Anyway I suggest, when you change some text, take the time and look at it, after it is saved, to be sure that you do not leave it messed up as on Jun 24.
user:H.J.
To user:H.J.:
"Brandenburg's fictitious claim to the Gdansk Pomerania was based on a treaty between Waclaw III and the Brandenburg which took place on August 8, 1305, promising the Misnia (Meissen) territory to the Czech Kingdom in exchange for the Gdansk Pomerania. The claim was fictitious, because the Czech king Waclaw III had no right to Pomerania and Brandenburg never ceded Misnia to the Czechs."
What's false in this info, can you be specific?
If, by messed up you mean "not the way you like it", then I apologize ('bitter irony'), but this encyclopedia is not your property. And finally, I'm not the one throwing "remarks around".
In Poland's long history many documents were written in Latin, German, Ruthenian, Lithuanian etc. Frequency of the use of Polish language in official documents was quite low, especially if you compare it with Latin, Ruthenian and German. Kind of like at the British royal court, when the official language was French. Kind of, but not exactly, so don't use XXI century criteria to draw conclusions from a XIII century document. German name for the city is Danzig. It doesn't stop being a German name, if on English language sites or even German language sites, Germans use the current name in it's original version - Gdansk. They can do that for many reasons, mainly to avoid being confused with the irredentists, neo-nazis etc. Still, the German name is Danzig.
User:Space Cadet, Mruk, the Gdansk site that you messed up, was completely without links, without the spaces between the people on the bottom and texts removed etc. As I wrote earlier, go to history and to your entry on Jun 24 and you can look at it yourself. Anyway with a help of several wikipedians it has been fixed again. Who knows, for how long ?
I added a lot more text to Pomerania and to Gdansk]]. Everytime you come up with something, there are records, that contradict that.
You have to remember, that German and especially Prussian records have been under Allied Military Occupation for 50 years and some are just now starting to become available.
Thanks for mentioning the Gdansk official website and putting it on top ! I had added that to the bottom some time ago, and despite of what you wrote, it does use Danzig. When you click on the site, click again on the right button, for German language (black, red, gold), then the German language text with Danzig will come up.
The people in Danzig apparently know, that the Heimwehtouristen the expelled homesick-tourists will not visit Gdansk, but do visit their home city Danzig.
devoted friend - Oddany Przyjaciel user:H.J.
HJ! Your "przyjaciel" Mruk, is not part of this kameraderie no more. You can find him, though, on some Bridge sites, where he still uses alias "Space Cadet". Thanks!
Zaciekły Wróg Space Cadet
To GL:
I had no idea it was a "historical name". I just thought it was a typo, so I corrected it. Using so called "historical name" without even mentioning the current name, at least in parentheses, don't you think that's rude? You're pretty quick with name calling, too.
Another thing: is freedom and equal rights of African Americans still an open issue in America, just because of some quacks from K.K.K. and their publications?
Quid Erat Demonstrandum.
- I don't know what names that river has had in the past. I was asking you, since you seem to have a clue, and I made an informed guess as to what was going on. Claiming it is a straight "typo" when most geographic features in the region have at least 2 names is pretty rude. As for your attempt to invoke Godwin's Rule, no thanks: It's pretty clear that schoolchildren unable to find Danzig on a modern map are not the equivalent of KKK members. -- GregLindahl
To: GL
OK (sigh), since you decided to pretend not to understand, here's a simpler approach:
Is a question of wether Earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old, still open in science, because of Scientific Creationists and their publications?
The region you refer to is called Republic of Poland, or depending on the scale Central Europe, or Europe. Most geographis features (auto maps, school maps, atlases) have only one name and thats the name in official language of the country, the feature in question (be it river, city, lake or mountain) belongs to. Yes, there are some exceptions (recently more and more rare): Wroclaw (Breslau), Szczecin (Stettin), Odra (Oder), but certainly not Motlawa. If you think people in Poland should memorize all the German names of Polish cities, villages, rivers and streams, aren't you slightly detached?
Now, if I'm so ignorant for not knowing the "historical" name of Motlawa, do you know off hand historical names of Braniewo and Lidzbark? How about something smaller: Olecko, Zawady, Wigry, Parseta, Czukty, Ketrzyn, Pisz, Olsztynek, Kruklanki?
- I haven't pretended anything. I am not a Creationist, nor do I think that Creationists have anything to do with this argument. You know damn well that Gdansk used to be called Danzig, off and on for the past thousand years. I'm sorry that you can only accuse people who disagree with you as being equivalent to the KKK, but I'm not surprised, because I've seen many people do the same thing. I can only hope that you grow up enough to realize what the Neutral Point of View means. Meanwhile, if you have no idea what the other name of Motlawa is, you can do better than delete it in Wikipedia; you can research the matter first. I looked on google; perhaps you have better resources. -- GregLindahl
To User:Greg Lindahl: Yes, other people are home. Part of the weirdness here is that user:H.J. has been doing her best to suppress the fact that the city today is, in fact, named Gdansk and is part of Poland. That the city Website uses only the current name is no more evidence of controlversy than the presence of "Danzig" in that same context would be. Vicki Rosenzweig, Monday, July 1, 2002
- Vicki, the page in question is about the history of Gdansk, so yes, it is quite
significant that the word Danzig never appears -- and kind of bizarre (to an American mind) that the official German translation always uses Danzig and never Gdansk. That's one method out of several of dealing with the Gdansk/Danzig issue; another is to claim that only one name or the other is always correct, which is only pushed by skinheads on the German side, but fairly commonly on the Polish side. Meanwhile, us English speakers are wondering why we can't find Danzig on a historical map. It would be nice to have a wikipedia page about this topic, so we could link to it from the numerous pages which have this issue. GregLindahl
---
Hi User:Greg Lindahl and User:Vicki Rosenzweig
When Space Cadet entered that section I wrote the following to him, copy :
Thanks for mentioning the Gdansk official website and putting it on top ! I had added that to the bottom some time ago, and despite of what you wrote, it does use Danzig. When you click on the site, click again on the right button, for German language (black, red, gold), then the German language text with Danzig will come up
It was then removed by someone and re-appeared again.
user:H.J.
- user:H.J., learn to read the wikipedia history. _I_ mentioned the Gdansk official website, and no, the English page never mentions Danzig. As you know us English speakers are pretty surprised when a history page leaves off important information like that. The German-language translation likewise never mentions Gdansk, so apparently the people writing this page come from the "Danzig is the German tranlation of Gdansk" school of thought. GregLindahl
Gee, the GoPoland web site, aimed at tourists, not ax-grinders, manages to make its way through the history of "multinamed Gdansk" without popping a blood vessel. Link provided for the curious. Ortolan88
- That's a pretty good link -- while it is written from a mildly Polish-centric point of view, it does a great job of showing the ebb and flow of power over the years. GregLindahl
To Greg, that's true, that their English language site, does not mention it. They are the ones that also wrote the German part with Danzig though. (German and English ist required from college students and plenty of them learn it). Give them credit for writing Danzig and Danziger at least in the German version. I made note of their use of Danzig in German on the Gdansk site and also added another Polish Gdansk website about the invitation to Danzigers.
Reading the English versions with the Polish names (as wiki does too),always makes it sound as if those are different places. I have looked at enough of them though, that I can nevertheless recognize them. The deliberate use of the Polish names only in the English versions and also nearly all other Polish writings has been very successful for them , just look at all the Polish names in this wikipedia alone.
The list of Buergermeister-mayors, which is on the same Danziger invitation site, is very interesting and surprising, that they did not 'translate' them too, as is usually the case.. user:H.J.
- If you took more care to appear to be different from skinheads, you might have more luck changing wikipedia. Please feel free to insert historical names in parenthesis after modern (Polish) names. I don't think the list of mayors was a good contribution to the article, nor do I think the "aimed at tourists" comment is a good contribution. GregLindahl
Greg, I looked at google to find out what skinheads are and I believe no-one would be so absurd to even remotely make the slightest connection between me and a -British-Doc-Martin-Boots-wearing-Shaved-Bald-headed-Swastika-Keltic Cross-wearing-Reggae-Music-loving-Twenty-year-old.
There are many things I consider flawed in this article. Most importantly, this seems to have become a repository for "interesting/quirky facts about Danzig/Gdansk." Please, user:H.J., if you must add these kind of details, take on the responsibility of making the article a coherent whole. At one point, it was a fairly well-written article. Now, it is just a disjointed list of facts. Since you have added most of these facts, it's your responsibility to turn them into good English. JHK, Tuesday, July 2, 2002
User:JHK, I see, you are back from vacation. There have been some vandalism attempts etc and it has been a chore. This is my best effort at English and with help of the other wikipedians, I have managed to muddle along. Of course, we have already missed your expert editing and we welcome you back to it. Meanwhile, many new important facts, which are also of interest, appear. user:H.J.
To GL.
Your reply to user:H.J., (just like your replies to me) doesn't contain any information or valid argument, just unfair insults. OK, so we all know that Prussia is like some kind of religion for user:H.J., and that the opinions she's defending are always biased and never NPOV. But she's a very good, deep digging, researcher, not afraid to express her unorthodox way of thinking, and not afraid to challenge the, so called "official", history teachings. I know that her version of this article strongly implies that Gdansk was never polish prior to 1945, name "Gdansk" was invented in 1945 and no Polish people ever lived there before the war. It only motivates me to do more research, during which I'll probably learn a lot of new things.
"Danzig is the German tranlation of Gdansk" is not a school of thought, it's just a more or less accurate approximation of the way things are. Example: (see if you can follow it, without finding an excuse to accuse me of "invoking Godwin's Law", telling me to grow up, making more "informed guesses", or calling me a "Polish Skinhead". Then again, let's see if you can follow it, period!) The city of Koenigsberg has a Polish name Krolewiec and a Lithuanian name Karaliaucius. All three can be accepted as loose translations of each other, and they are, respectively, German, Polish, Lithuanian "versions" of the same name. The current name of the city - Kaliningrad - is not a translation or "russian version". The city has been renamed by the new "landlords" and newly invented name replaced the historic names (all three: German, Polish, Lithuanian are historic names).
- Space Cadet, you are just proving that you have no idea what NPOV is. Other people don't always agree with you, and insisting that "it's just a more or less accurate approximation of the way things are" doesn't help. Good luck learning how to live with other people in peace; you'll need it. GL
"It's pretty clear that schoolchildren unable to find Danzig on a modern map are not the equivalent of KKK members" - I never made that comparison, you're putting words in my mouth, just to ridicule me, in lack of better arguments. I know many PhD's who were not able to find Poland, Switzerland, Sweden and Italy (not to mention the newly independent states like Lithuania, Estonia, Armenia etc.).
To: HJ
"You have to remember, that German and especially Prussian records have been under Allied Military Occupation for 50 years and some are just now starting to become available." I remember that they were still in the German country, with German Government, German universities, legal German organisations (for example Heimatvertriebene), German people reading German literature and speaking freely the German language. What you have to remember, is that Polish and especially Prussian records, were under foreign occupation for between 150 to 200 years, with no Polish country, government, educational system, or organizations. Where Polish history was being erased from the record, Polish language and traditions repressed. The three partitioning powers did everything they could, to make it impossible for the Polish state to ever emerge independent again. Nothing this drastic has happened to Germany.
And another thing, can you finally answer my question on what's false with this information:
"Brandenburg's fictitious claim to the Gdansk Pomerania was based on a treaty between Waclaw III and the Brandenburg which took place on August 8, 1305, promising the Misnia (Meissen) territory to the Czech Kingdom in exchange for the Gdansk Pomerania. The claim was fictitious, because the Czech king Waclaw III had no right to Pomerania and Brandenburg never ceded Misnia to the Czechs."
Otherwise I'm putting it back.
Zaciekły Prrzyjaciel Space Cadet
User:Space Cadet I agree with you on calling off the "namecaller's".
To the records being in Germany... they were under 50 years of military occupation by east and western allies, who kept the records in their installations and only recently was Berlin and whatever records there are, returned. Many of the records are not in Berlin but in many different places and everything is recreated from old books etc bit by bit. Prussian records are totally scattered everywhere, firstly, the Prussian government under Otto Braun on July 20, 1932 was by military coup ousted, taken-over, then in 1947 Prussia was resolved by Allies , both illegal acts by international law, I believe.
Polish records, while there was no seperate country of Poland, nevertheless, were kept in German and Polish language as I can see from official documents from Lodz and from the Warsaw library. And on German maps Poland did not disappear, it was shown as Russisch Polen -Russian Poland. I do'nt know what you comment about Prussia in that context is supposed to mean.
To your question on Waclaw III , Brandenburg and what you call Gdansk Pomerania Wenzel III, Wenzeslaus III or whatever name, was the son of ,Wenceslaus II of Bohemia, King of Bohemia/Poland. ,Wen.. means, that he did have other names too. Bohemia means he was a part of the HRE Holy Roman Empire, because Bohemia was a part. Wenceslaus II , son of Premysl Ottokar II, the great, king of Bohemia was an imperial officer , if you will. Wenceslaus III was married to Gutta Habsburg, later to Elizabeth.
Elizabeth's 1. marriage to Wenceslaus II Elizabeth's 2. marr. to Rudolf III Habsburg, king of Bohemia Rudolf III was the son of Albert I Habsburg, HRE acc. 1298 + 1308
Waclaw III or Wenzel III was the son of this Elizabeth, dec. of the emperor and her husband Wenzel II. I attribute it all to family ties.Also read Casimir IV Milai ginnis kails user:H.J.
user:H.J.
Milai kails to you, too.
He was annoying, wasn't he? (I'm talking about the little "know it all", who made a lot of fuss, but forgot to make a point).
About Polish records during Partition: of course some documents survived the "dark times", but majority was never seen again. The so called "Russisch Polen" or the Congress Kingdom existed only from 1815 to 1846 and it was really nothing more than a name. It was a russian province with the russian Czar as the king.
I understand the genealogy of Bohemian (or Czech, because this country "did have other names too")rulers now. But what does it have to do with my statement about "ficticious claims" that you deleted?
Sp Cad
To User:Space Cadet You had to make me go dig for info again, didn't you. !! Tried to answer yesterday but was too busy gathering facts., Again bit by bit, chovel by shovel . I put it in Pomerania , where I added a lot of the pertinent info, and again it boils down to family ties.
Have a good 4.of July user:H.J.
HJ -- removed the following figues pending some attribution. I just would like to be able to say, "according to ... the population..." -- this will keep the arguments down. JHK
By June 1945 there were 8000 Poles and 124,000 Danziger Germans in the city.
1949 There were 185,000 various people from Poland and 3,000 Danziger German living in the city.
HJ -- I removed your stuff about Adalbert and Christian of Oliva, because it really wasn't about Danzig, but instead was about the saints and missionary activity in Prussia. It distracted from the main point of the article, rather than adding pertinent information. JHK
Naming conventions say that the English version of a citys name is to be used. Gdańsk is the Polish form, Gdansk is the English one, Danzig the German. So I think Gdansk should be used. -- JeLuF 00:15 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
Wow, I thought we solved this. Now we are opening up an old can of toxic worms, yet again. My suggestion: start the article as follows. "Throughout much of its history, the city of Gdansk, now part of Poland, was ruled by Prussia and later Germany, which called it Danzig. Both names are commonly used to refer to the city." Then, in the article, when it was under Polish rule, call it Gdansk, and when it was under Prussian/German rule, call it Danzig. Just a suggestion. Waiting for flames from both sides (btw, JeLuf, Danzig is also used in English, and in some contexts is more correct in English too.) Danny
I think we should use only Polish names (English are only Warsaw &Cracow). Gdansk (also Poznan, Wroclaw, Szczecin, etc.) is NOW in POland. But I am against using Polish names for cities like Dresden or Leipzig (nowadays part of Germany), although the cities were founded by Slavs. Gdarin
JeLuF and Gdarin, perhaps on your day off you can go visit the Danzig Minority Organization, chartered in 1990. You and others may also want to go to the Rathaus (city hall) and take a look at the list of mayors , in German Buergermeister (burmyster or something like that in Polish) Is that the official Polish word for mayor? I added it on the Gdansk page. The historical and official name was for many centuries Danzig in German and in English , that is more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, everyone I talked to in all the places in East and West Prussia does understand and know the historical German and English names. My position in wiki has been to state the correct names during the centuries of history and state , that since 1945 the officially used name is Gdansk, Elblag, etc etc. It is also ok to state Danzig/Gdansk or Gdansk/Danzig , but this is meant for all wikipedians, it is incorrect to only state the Polish names, just because for about 5 to 10 percent of the history the place is called the Polish name. user:H.J.
From 980 to 1308 - 328 years. From 1466 to 1792 - 326 years. From 1945 to 2002 - 57 years. Divide that by total from 980 to 2002 - 1022 years, and multiply by 100%. 711/1022x100%=69.6%.
The same calculation for Germany gives: from 1871 to 1919 - 48 years. From 1939 to 1945 - 6 years. 54/1022x100%=5.3%
Spaced Out, Split Personality - Cadet
Ok, Space Cadet. Here is the url to the LDS Latter Day Saints website showing their filmed church records of Danzig. http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=topicdetails&subject=352724&subject_disp=Germany,_Preußen,_Westpreußen,_Danzig_-_Church_records&columns=*,180,0
The LDS started filming in 1920 with the newly created 'Polish' Corridor. The church record (German: Kirchenbuecher) were started at the time of the Reformation in order for the Catholic and Lutheran churches to know where the paying members were (slight joke!... of course also for the pastor/priest to take care of his flock)
Before Luther, no church book records were needed. Everyone had to be a baptised Catholic. The Danzig/Westprussia/Prussia individual churches are all listed by name and when you go to the bottom of the page, click on 'here' for printed record. Then you will find the individual years and: Taufen, Heiraten, Tote(meaning, baptism, marriage, death).
These Danzig Kirchenbuecher (church records0, filmed by the LDS, go back to 1533.
For before that, I can only offer you the Danzig city government seal and the Hanseatic League (for Danzig to 1669) records for before church records and after.
But I suspect you might actually know all this, but with your creative and interesting math, you really just want to through me off or humour me. user:H.J.
Hi user:H.J.. It's your math that's creative, because you took your "5 to 10 percent of the history the place is called the Polish name" out of the blue. That's why I had to break it down for you, so you can see that it is more like 70%.
Space Cadet
In 1772 the Polish Province of Royal Prussia was incorporated by the Kingdom in Prussia, fom now on known as the Kingdom of Prussia with the exception of the city of Gdansk, which was to remain a part of Polish Crown, although separated from Poland by non-polish territory. In 1788 the Kingdom of Prussia offered Poland an anti-Russo-Austrian alliance, under condition of polish resignation of the cities of Gdansk and Torun. Poland didn't accept this condition and declined the alliance. The alliance was accepted 2 years later, but with cities of Gdansk and Torun remaining in Poland, and Prussia not lowering its taxes for Vistula trade. Gdansk became a "free city" for the first time in 1806 under Napoleonic rule.
64.175.121.242 23:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Proper name: Polish Pomerania
In my opinion, Polish corridor is not NPOV at all. Its a propagandist name given to the area by the Nazi Germans between WWI and WWII. Proper name: Polish Pomerania.
CC, 00:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Polish corridor is the internationally accepted and used name. The polish corridor was nothing more than an occupied corridor of land, which was liberated in 1939. Nico 13:28, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Not that anyone will get happy from me uttering my opinion, but in this case I see absolutely no reason to divert from the term known from inter-war European debate. The term might be considered propagandist, but it is the relevant term, burned into our history by the outbreak of World War II.
--Ruhrjung 14:16, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Danzig
I'm not sure of the basis for Wik's claim that the name Danzig is no longer used in English or in Scandinavian languages. The name is in fact commonly used in English, even to refer to the contemporary city. Even when the name Gdansk is the primary one being used, it is often written as "Gdansk (Danzig), Poland", or similar—somewhat similar to the way English-language media will refer to "St. Petersburg (Leningrad), Russia". For both cities, both names are still in use in English, though the current official names are slowly becoming the dominant ones. (Disclaimer: I have no Polish or German ancestry, so don't consider myself particularly biased towards either side here.) --Delirium 20:56, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Simple Google test:
- "Gdansk Poland" - 1,620,000
- "Danzig Poland" - 1,100
- "Danzig Gdansk Poland" - 110
- "Gdansk Danzig Poland" - 69
- The addition of "Poland" ensures both that only English-language texts are considered and that the reference is to the contemporary (Polish) city, not to the historical Danzig.
- I think the numbers are clear. I also strongly dispute your claim that Leningrad is still used for the contemporary St. Petersburg. "Leningrad" may be noted parenthetically as the former name, but it isn't used alone. No English-language media would say that something happened "in Leningrad" today. --Wik 21:18, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Upon further thought I agree. My main concern was that from a pattern of recent edits it appeared there was an attempt to excise the former German history of parts of modern-day Poland, which struck me as a bit POV; but I may have been misinterpreting that. But the current sentence that discusses the historic German cultural presence and the associated name Danzig is sufficient IMO. --Delirium 23:18, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
Norsk and Dansk
Dansk: http://www.ambassade.dk/dkpolangdac-da.php3
They use Gdansk.
Norsk: http://odin.dep.no/odinarkiv/norsk/dep/ud/p10002480/annet/032091-991018/index-dok000-b-n-a.html
Would people stop making improper changes now ?
- In official documents (embassies and MFA's) the official Polish name of course may sometimes be used for diplomatic reasons, although both the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish name of this city is Danzig, not Gdansk. Se no:Danzig and sv:Danzig. In the da:Danzig you will read Danzig (traditionally also used in Danish). da:Danzig should probably have used Danzig as the first form according to the "danishization" policy - I guess they just have translated the English article without making it national. Nico 14:18, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
And where did you make up this information from ? Sources??? 24.2.152.139 21:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
City population
source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI
1960: 286.900 inhabitants
1970: 365.600 inhabitants
1975: 421.000 inhabitants
1980: 456.700 inhabitants
CC, 30 October 2003
History
Was decline affected by Thirty Years' War or by wars of Poland with Sweden? I would rather think that the latter. While the former was far away and affected only trade, the latter was in direct neighbourhood of Danzig and even caused temporary occupation of Gdansk neighbourhoods. (and Gdansk too? Or is my memory skewed?)-- szopen
I'm not sure if the naming problems have been solved, and I hope this doesn't cause the problem to open up again, but I was thinking about a possible solution. It's not great, but there is precedent - there are some articles under both names that deal with different parts of their history. Edessa and Sanli Urfa, for one...I think there are some others like that as well, with Turkish cities that were formerly Greek. So, you could write about Danzig under a Danzig article, and Gdansk under a Gdansk article. Of course, Gdansk/Danzig is probably a lot less obscure than Edessa or some tiny village in Turkey, and maybe other articles like Edessa/Sanli Urfa should be merged, but I thought I would mention this possibility anyway. Adam Bishop 15:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
How will you determine the periods? Poles throughout whole history used the name Gdansk. German used Danzig. And what, Danzig will be about 130x-1466 period plus 1793-1918 and Gdansk about 900-1300, 1466-1793 and 1945- today? szopen
Gdansk is the city of Kashubians
Gdańsk is a city on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, the biggest city and capital of Eastern Pomerania region, north-western Poland, and a county-status city of Pomeranian Voivodship with a population of 460,000 (2002). It is the capital of the Kashubians, who call the city as Gduńsk, and the biggest seaport of Poland since in 997 (first mentioned as Gyddanyzc). Until 1945 the city was also known by the German name of Danzig, reflecting the presence over many centuries of a German-speaking population.
At least two names should be listed: Gdańsk the English/Polish name, and Gduńsk the Kashubian name.
CC, 18 Nov 2003, 5:50
This is the English language Wikipedia
At least two names should be listed: Danzig, the English name until 1945 (or maybe longer?), and Gdansk, the current English name. Remember: This is the English language Wikipedia. -- Nico 09:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Gdansk and the Kaszubians
I have introduced this text: It is the capital of the Kashubians, who call the city as Gduńsk based on the entry in this book Tadeusz Bolduan, Nowy Bedeker Kaszubski, where the author says that Gdansk has become now the capital of the Kasubians
Of course I know about Koscierzyna, Kartuzy and other Kashubians 'capitals' but there is no doubt that Gdansk is now the biggest place of Kashubians. However I do not mind the other version proposed by User:145.253.32.3. Your edits are welcome.
Assisting the Poles to rewrite history
It is a tragedy that the Wikipedia has, for its entry on Danzig, a Polish propaganda sheet which would make Goebbels proud. Like the Irish, and the Americans, the Poles are experts at churning out history as they see it or want to to be seen. Inevitably large chunks of it cannot be found or are almost unrecognisable in our history books.
Danzig was a Kashubian fishing village before German immigrants began building their seaport. Early Swedish and Roman Catholic Chroniclers all record this. Anciently Poland did not reach the Bay of Danzig but shipped their produce up river to Danzig. Yes, they ran around in fits and starts conquering their neighbours (right into the 20th century - Lithuania being a good example) but these were usually short-lived conquests. If we were to accept that once non-Polish lands were conquered they instantly became 'ethnically Polish, then presumably India is 'ethnically British'. This just demonstrates how absurd their claims are.
Amongst all their scandalous propaganda, they gloss over their fantastically brutal and murderous treatment of the inhabitants (98% German according to the League of Nations) of this area at the end of World War II, criminal activities carried out largely, one should point out, in peacetime. And no, I am not German, and I don't have any German blood. I am British (honours degree in Modern History) and I am disturbed that this kind of propaganda can be flagged up as factual history. It seems to me the editors of Wikipedia need a firmer line on the display of factal sources.
