Talk:German Eastern Marches Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article German Eastern Marches Society has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-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.)

Contents

[edit] Early discussion

Article about Hakata [1] in Polish. --Ttyre 17:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Jews who keep trolling this article are merely trying to cause a problem. If they weren't then why are they always together, Jewish and all on topics even just slightly related to Jews? Maybe they should learn to read Polish? God forbid that I would stick up for the little guy, whilst these jackasses won't stop their ganging up. I've already been threatened with a promise by User:Humus sapiens for my legit criticisms of their hostility. TShilo and Jayjg are trolls and they should be banned, plain and simple. TheUnforgiven 00:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I found out about this article and Witkacy's pushing for the inclusion of HKT here, because of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism. Your personal attacks are a blatant violation of WP:NPA, your blind reverts are trollish, not Jay and I, your negative characterizations of your "guess" regarding my or anyone else' except Witkacy's contributions are a violation of WP:AGF, and overall, basically everything you write on Talk: pages and in your edsums are violations of WP:Civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; one of the prerequisites for collaboration is working together, something which you have not yet demonstrated either a desire nor an interest in doing. This begs the question, "Why are you here?" Tomer TALK 00:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Any time that you gang up on people you don't like, with other Jews as a "collaborative effort", you are violating NPOV and is Wikipedia:Gaming the system. You foment unrest and aggravation by your trolling. Your Ad hominem reverts are based on those who are not Jewish or your brand of Jewish. Don't be a hypocrite, because you're speculating on Witkacy's motives when you are suspected of harbouring ulterior motives yourself. You are hardly in a position to judge or guess. This apathetic way of dealing with everybody on Wikipedia is also a violation of WP:Civility and WP:POINT. Nobody cares about how tough you think you are and how much you can push people around. Everything you are doing in effect is breaking WP:NPA. The two pages on VFD are pushed because they only violate the will of certain Jews. TheUnforgiven 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

English language sources on Hakata:

  • Richard Wonser Tims, Germanizing Prussian Poland; the H-K-T Society and the struggle for the Eastern marches in the German Empire, 1894-1919, New York, AMS Press, 1966 [c1941].
  • Tomasz Kamusella, The Dynamics of the Policies of Ethnic Cleansing in Silesia in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Open Society Institute, March, 1999. [2], see pp. 224, 229-230, 241, others or search for Deutscher Ostmarkenverein. --Ttyre 01:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Right. One reference to H-K-T society. That's the one I found. The other says "known to Poles as Hakata", not "HKT". Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can see that others have the right to edit according their knowledge, just as much as you? What gives you the right to doubt so much of everybody else? Here, you've barely conceded the worth of other edits from your own. Try humility some time. TheUnforgiven 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalistic or not?

In my opinion, the society was indeed nationalistic, because it aimed at making the new German national state more German by oppressing the Polish minority. @Sciurinæ: Of course it was only "german nationalistic", not "polish nationalistic", since it only granted the Germans the right to have an own state, not the Poles. I think that doesn't contradict the definition of Nationalism, at least not Wikipedia's definition:

Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief.
The Eastern Marches Society did make cultural and politic claims on behalf of national arguments, but only in favor of the "superior" German nation. --Langec 09:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
According to Oxford's Advanced Learner's dictionary, 'nationalistic' is defined as "(usually disapproving) having very strong feelings of love and pride in your country, so that you think it is better than any other." To 'disapprove' is defined as "~ (of sb/sth) to think that sb/sth is not good or suitable; to not approve of sb/sth". In other words, the word 'nationalistic' carries negative connotations in it (or else Molobo wouldn't use it) and is therefore not really congrous to the NPOV-policy. I must admit that I didn't read the Wikipedian article as I think neutrality often ends in wiki-articles where international relations or politics in general begin. Having read it now, I think that the wiki-definition is pretty vague and for consistency you would have to label the Silesian Uprisings or any resistance movement in the same way. Anyway, because Molobo could find one example with Google that describes the organisation as 'nationalistic' he would insist on the adjective until I could find "a source contradicting that Hakata was an antipolish nationalistic organisation" so I give in here. Sciurinæ 13:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So maybe this discussion boils down to redefining "nationalism" in the Wikipedia ­-- Why not? But, to make sure I understand the definition correctly: Does the word "nationalistic" have different connotations in the English and German language? My German "Wahrig" dictionary (I'm German, as you are) defines "nationalism" as "overreaching national feeling" (German: "übersteigertes Nationalgefühl"), which is far more general than the Oxford definition, and would suit this article quite well. --Langec 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
When I told you about the meaning of "nationalistic", I was confused because the OUP dictionary referred to "nationalism" as "1)the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country 2) (sometimes disapproving) a feeling of love for and pride in your country; a feeling that their country is better than any other". And it defined "nationalist" as "1) a person who wants their country to become independent 2) (sometimes disapproving) a person who has a great love for and pride in their country; a person who has a feeling that their country is better than any other". But when it comes to "nationalistic", it reads "(usually disapproving) having very strong feelings of love for and pride in your country, so that you think that it is better than any other". (no, I did not italize the letters of "disapproving", it is this way in the book) So why is "nationalistic" different? I can't answer you that (any more than I can answer you whether 'nationalistisch' and 'nationalistic' have developed different connotations) but look at the definition of the Cambridge dictionary here. I was obviously right in guessing that now that Molobo has managed to Google one page on the net that refers to it as "nationalistic", this is it, no more talking, 'nationalistic' it is. I've briefly toyed with the idea of searching for sources on the net describing Lech so-and-so (the right-wing President of Poland) as "nationalistic" but then, I won't step to the same level and having managed not have the organisation slyly indirectly accused of 'Genocide', as Molobo had tried is a success. Sciurinæ 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Yawn I have the book since 7 years at my home Sciurinæ. And as always you ignore any source you don't like --Molobo 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Those were the days of Hakata, the German nationalist association with the aim of ousting Polish landowners and peasents from their lands, by every cunning trick and chicanery" Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution: Ideological Polarization in the Twentieth Century by J L Talmo

Historia 1871-1939 Anna Radziwiłł. Wojciech Roszkowski.Polish Ministry of Education year 2000. Page 82. "...it was an lobby group, representing German nationalists from eastern territory of German Empire. which aimed to influence administration, to pursue and continue to fallow an antipolish course on territories of Prussian Partition." Now please provide a source contradicting that Hakata was an antipolish nationalistic organisation. --Molobo 17:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added the tag

Since the debate and sources provided have been ignored completely and currently the page is vandalised to whitewash the organisation, infamous in Poland for persecution of Polish people, as doing something "normal" in order to preserve national unity. I will return the neutral version as soon as possible. --Molobo 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC) See also http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=158381122407932 Germans, moving from passivity toward a growing support of active Germanization, partly through the openly nationalistic Deutscher Ostmarkenverein --Molobo 19:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your disjointed yawning-comment did not prove that I was the one ignoring other peoples' comments/sources. On the contrary.

The organisation's objective was to support the nationalistic policy of Germanisation mainly in Provinz of Posen, i.e. it wanted all citizens of territories taken by Prussia from Poland to be ethnic Germans, by eradicating the native Polish population through settlement of German colonists, and repression of Polish culture.

You're hiding concrete descriptions behind loaded abstract adjectives and nouns, Molobo. For example if some sources call it 'nationalistic', well, what are the facts they base this value judgement on? As Langec said, "because it aimed at making the new German national state more German by oppressing the Polish minority." ? You just might as well only state their measures and have the readers think for themselves, draw their own conclusions. 'Nationalistic' mainly has negative connotations (or else Molobo wouldn't have used it, or else User:Space Cadet (who is a fine one to talk) wouldn't have called it as an insult when he felt labelled as a nationalist). Molobo, on your talk page you wrote, "No insults, neonazis, devoted nationalists please," so you can't tell me you didn't know what I'm talking about. Space Cadet preferred another description for himself: patriot. As for words like oppression, repression or eradicating (what?!). Just put that in rather more concrete terms where possible. Sciurinæ 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Not my problem if you don't like the sources because they contradict your nationalists POV. You are free to find sources supporting your view.

--Molobo 08:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "new" polish settlers

Molobo, when Scurinae refers to "new polish settlers" he means those Poles that came to the German lands of what is now Poland from the Russian owned section, as everyone knows the situation and persecution was much worse in Russian lands, not to mention Russia was still suffering under serfdom.

--Jadger 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • as everyone knows the situation and persecution was much worse in Russian lands, not to mention Russia was still suffering under serfdom

Please read some history books before posting such nonsense --Molobo 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, those "removed Poles" you are talking of were some thousands who stemmed from the Russian partition of Poland, were mainly migrant workers - I think, and had no German citizenship yet. Were there any other significant numbers of "removed"? Poles were not allowed to build houses in a certain period in two areas, but except for one single use of the Aussiedlungsgesetz, there were no other "removals", were they? Sciurinæ 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Again the recent author has changed the POV to his dark they-wanted-to-persecute-us-Poles!! bashing. The law of 1908, which is so vividly described here, met resistance even with the German conservatives and was only used one single time, which I told the author before. In addition, there are further attempts to stress that the Province of Posen was Polish territory. "Province of Posen" was even renamed to the Polish name Poznan Province, which only existed from 1815 until 1848, ie not at the time of the organisation. He rejected the explanation that the Polonisation of the eastern territory put the German ownership of them at risk. "The main goal was the total elimination of Polish language in Prussia" is was only a means to an end. Neither sources nor their translations were presented. "The founding of the organisation was one of the results of growing tendencies of nationalism, imperialism and chauvinism" is again what the author tries to highlight in disapproval, and the organisation's mission is implied as "against Polish population" throughout the text. The bias is unnacceptable. Sciurinæ 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He rejected the explanation that the Polonisation of the eastern territory put the German ownership of them at risk. 1-How can Poland be Polonised ? Untill partitions Poznan was always Polish. 2-They wouldn't be at risk if they wouldn't take Polish territory and try to settle it. This is a absurd excuse. Likewise you could say that presence of partisans puts the invader at risk. 3-The law of 1908 existed.

The founding of the organisation was one of the results of growing tendencies of nationalism, imperialism and chauvinism" is again what the author tries to highlight in disapproval Oh actually that is almost direct translation of sentence regarding the organisation in article on the Polish government site :) --Molobo 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


disapproval, and the organisation's mission is implied as "against Polish population" throughout the text. Its also in the organisation's motto.

The bias is unnacceptable Feel free to present sources how the organisation was helping Poles. --Molobo 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing you two jump on each other again (pardon my french) I decided to give this article a try and I'm currently working on expanding it - and referencing it the best I possibly could. There's plenty of Google Books links out there to create a pretty little article, even one that could be called a comprehensive. My aims are to reference it to the limits, as that's usually the best way to treat controversial topics related to Polish-German history. Three times the number of references is three times less insults and intellectual ping-pong at the talk page. Of course, such a rewrite would most probably make me even more unpopular here, but what the hell ;) For instance, what Molobo wrote about Junkers is only partially true: they are indeed primarily associated with the HKT, and especially so in Polish propaganda of the 1960s. However, in fact already in 1890s most of the Junkers got fed up with the HKT as the society opposed any immigration of Poles to the area, while the Junkers could not live without seasoned workers migrating there every year, mostly from other parts of Poland. This made the HKT an organization formed mostly by the German settlers and newcommers, that is middle class members of the local administration, and not the Prussian Junkers. At the same time, Sciurinæ's dark they-wanted-to-persecute-us-Poles argument above is wrong as well as... basically what HKT wanted was a persecution of Poles - and that's what written in every single book on the matter, be it Polish, German, English or American.
Anyway, feel free to check my progress at User:Halibutt/HKT. Suggestions for sources to use are highly appreciated. //Halibutt 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion by Halibutt

And again, I hope my tactics of escape ahead by expanding and referencing disputed articles would prove a good way to avoid conflicts. I have spent the best part of today trying to use as many sources as possible. Hopefully all problems are fixed or sourced now, though I'm not so sure about the overall readability... Any suggestions?

BTW, here's a short list of links I had either no idea what to do with, or no time to make use of. more on creation extreme nationalism vs. Bethmann [3] [4] 2200 members One of the earliest propaganda societies in Europe Government inspiration walka z polskością [5] Cheers all, //Halibutt 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to note it worked indeed. //Halibutt 09:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Hold

I've decided to put this article on hold on the GA nomination page, I was all set to promote it, but then the article suddenly ended :/. It appears broad enough, but it doesn't seem organized to be broad enough, the final paragraph in particular seems to discuss the impact this organization had on multiple time periods and I really think some of those things are important enough to warrent their own sections. Try to break some of that up, and I really do think this will be GA worthy, I mean look at all the references! Homestarmy 05:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean here. The final section was meant to discuss the impact of the HKT on various aspects of internal and external politics of Germany and later Poland. And, in my honest opinion, it does just that. We could of course add links to, say, History of Poland and History of Germany, but it wouldn't be that helpful, would it. Or perhaps there are some specific issues you'd like me to expand on? Otherwise your comment above is not really informative... Halibutt
I mean that it needs to be more organized, you know, put it into more sections, the last paragraphs seems to be discussing the impact the organization had on various major events in history, but for all the detail this article has on the organization, it just seems that everything it impacted is lumped together in one section :/. Like the Poland part seems to switch between paragraphs dealing with culture, then what happened there during the war, and then what happened to the organization as a whole in that time, and it just sounds like things happened which were major enough to warrent their own sections. I mean, if there's really nothing more to this organization i'll understand, it just seemed like the article ended abruptly for such an apparently extensively documented organization. Homestarmy 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
There must be something wrong with me, but I still don't get it... There are four short paras explaining the afterlife of the organization and its impact on the history of the region (not really on major events). In a decent article there would be no such section at all (do you find a separate section on Republic of Hungary in the article on, say, Panonia?). Yet I thought it might be somehow interesting to note that the HKT continued to exist, even though it lost its' raison d'etre. Do you actually suggest I split that part onto four different chapters?
Also, what is it exactly you'd like me to expand on? Finally, what is the Poland part you refer to? Basically all of this article is about Poland and Germany, so are you referring to the entire article? Please, specific arguments are much more helpful.
Oh, and as to ending abruptly - I couldn't disagree more. Note that this article follows more or less the chronological order. If so, then what would be a better ending than... the closing down of the society and its after-life? This is the end of the story, basically, and I'm not really sure what else could be said. //Halibutt 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have substantial edits on the account of the sectionning critic. On the other hand, the article looks find and IMO should be promoted. Since I wasn't the one placing it on hold I will let Home decide the GA review. Lincher 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I know when im beat. I'll pass the article :/. Homestarmy 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's revert war

why do you keep reverting my changes? for one: A nation that has never previously existed cannot "regain" independence that it never had before; before 1918 the 2nd polish republic never existed. the map itself says Posen right on it, so why do you keep violating the Gdansk/Danzig ruling? The territory was called Provinz Posen, not greater poland.

--Jadger 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's not mine revert war as it is not me to introduce controversial changes to the article without discussing them here first. As to specific issues - Poland was dismembered in 18th century and lost its independence, which it regained in 1918. There was both a direct link between the two states and a direct continuity. Just like modern Germany is a direct descendant of the Third Reich, eventhough there was no Bundesrepublik before the war. Anyway, the main aim of the Polish politics during the WWI was to make the occupying powers declare their pacts null and void, which was achieved. The state that emerged in 1918 was a direct descendant of the previous one, even along with its debts. Moreover, Poland even got a significant retribution for the partitions from Russia, along with the pieces of art stolen by the Russians in 19th century. That's about your argument that Poland did not regain her independence.
As to the map itself - it indeed says Posen, since the map was printed in German. However, it does not even mention the "Provinz Posen" you refer to. And it shows the entire region of Greater Poland. Like it or not, that's the English name of that region. And the talk:Gdansk agreement applies to... Gdansk. Check the talk page or the voting if you don't believe me. And, as the map shows, Danzig and Poznan are two completely different places. //Halibutt 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no direct continuity between the Poland before partition and the 2nd polish republic. it is not just like the Bundesrepublik following the third reich, as the third reich was destroyed but there still existed a Germany under occupation. Other countries did not claim to own Berlin, Munich or Hamburg or any of what is post WWII Germany, whereas Poland was totally dissolved and annexed. the name Second Polish Republic itself states that it was not the same nation. next why don't you go edit the American Revolution page and state that the United States was also "regaining independence". That would after all be the same thing, no one was still alive from when England did not own the 13 colonies, and no one was still alive in 1918 that was alive when Germany, Austria and Russia did not own Poland.

Danzig and Poznan are two completely different places, but if u would actually read the Danzig/Gdansk vote, it not only applies to the Danzig page, but is a general rule where there is a historical argument over which is correct term. And what was decided in the Danzig/Gdansk vote is that when it is under a nation's control, that nation's name for it is used, and I have rarely heard the term "greater poland" outside of yours or Molobo's(R.I.P) use, not to mention in English usage it is called Posen to distinguish it as the land under German rather than Polish rule.

instead of just flaming me Halibutt, why don't u point out a single one of my controversial changes? I'd like to see a single sane neutral person try to argue with my changes.

you said: :As to the map itself - it indeed says Posen, since the map was printed in German. However, it does not even mention the "Provinz Posen" you refer to. And it shows the entire region of Greater Poland. but according to your change to the article below, they were the same thing, I am atleast coherent with my changes to the article. Contrary to other parts of the German Empire, in Greater Poland - then known under the German name of Provinz Posen - the Kulturkampf did not cease after the end of the decade

and why do you change all of my changes, including the grammar corrections? English is my native language, allow me to do the grammar checking Halibutt, because I atleast do it right.

--Jadger 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One by one then.
  1. Second Polish Republic is just a handy term coined by the journalists and used almost exclusively by them. It is handy, yet completely unofficial. The official name of the state did not change at all.
  2. So how is the case of Germany any different? The state did not exist, and then reemerged after several years of non-existence, just like Poland. Besides, what's exactly wrong with my statement that Poland regained her independence? Poland used to be independent before. Then it lost its independence, and regained it afterwards. No logical flaw here.
  3. American Revolution is a completely different thing, as the US of A were not independent before. Poland was.
  4. As to the example of Gdansk/Danzig, you are mistaken. Read the {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} template again and show me the exact place where other cities are mentioned.
  5. Sorry if some justified changes were lost in the process. However, most of them were little but trying to push your (? any sources?) POV, hence my revert. I think it is quite justified here. //Halibutt 08:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. if we are going to base our argument on this premise then fine, I have no problem with that.
  2. the case of Germany is different as after WWII when a "Germany" did not exist, it was under occupation, but other nations did not claim to own its land. whereas Poland was annexed to Austria, Prussia and Russia. after WWII there was still a concept of a land of Germans. Poland on the other hand was totally obliterated. If it is the same Poland as before partitions, where is your monarch? before partitions it was an elective monarchy. from the article Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: "Today's Republic of Poland considers itself a successor to the Commonwealth" keyword there is successor, as in not the same thing.
  3. Do you really think that Britain owned the Thirteen Colonies since the beginning of time? there were still many Indians living in the land during the revolutionary time period, and they fought on both sides during the rebellion. They of course claimed to be their own nation(s), as the 6 nations confederacy (Iroquois) still does today.
  4. this rule: For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises. Posen, although a region and not a city, fits this description.

--Jadger 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. No idea what you mean
  2. Yet there still was the idea of the land of Poles. And..?
  3. Don't tell me you consider the US of A a successor state to pre-Columbian Indian federations...
  4. Which means that the first time the name of Poznań is used, the German name could also be mentioned. Once. //Halibutt 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. I said that I was willing to assume good faith and run with your premise on the media making up "2nd Polish Republic"
  2. yes, but only in Polish minds, as the rest of the world recognized that most of what we now call "Poland" was inhabited by multiple groups. and as I stated, it was owned by other nations, Germany after WWII was not, totally opposite of "Poland" after partitions.
  3. no, but I was showing that your "logic" in saying post 1918 Poland was the same nation as pre-partition Poland was inherently flawed and wrong. It is the whole philosophical debate of Oddyseus's ship, only slightly different.
  4. not really, it means that it should be stated: "Posen (now Greater Poland)" then Posen is used throughout the rest of article.

--Jadger 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Actually the phrase is quite handy, as we used to have several completely different states, all of which are considered the same state with a different system and with different timeframe. Hence, much like in France, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd republics are used mostly to denote the time frames. I agree it's handy, but I must also admit that our current PM - president duo is starting to number the republics as if these were proper names and not just mental shortcuts.
  2. Yet the idea of Poland was still there, not only geographically. And not only in Polish minds. Take note that the contemporary English documents refer to the area mostly as either duchy of Poznan (or duchy of Posna), or Prussian Poland. Same with Russian Poland and so on.
  3. Apparently the matter is much more complicated than you try to portray it. In Poland it is called restoration of independence, because we believe Poland to be a concept rather than an economical entity. So, Poland was independent, lost independence, and then regained it. Poland did not gain independence in 1918 as it used to be independent before. The treaties with Soviet Russia made the situation a tad more clear, as they specifically underlined the direct continuity, both in terms of economy (indemnities for 123 years of partitions) and cultural heritage (retribution of works of art stolen between 1760 and 1915).
  4. And why exactly that way? Perhaps we could hold a vote or something, but I seriously doubt the German name should be the more prominent here. Especially that, while writing this article, I tried to refer to the geographic area rather than political entities. The earlier is there since times immemorial, the latter change constantly. //Halibutt 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


  1. but those French republics do not claim to be the same one, as you are saying Poland is. as it has been stated previously and in the articles, modern Poland is the successor to the past Polish states. now what is so wrong with "re-establishment of the Polish state" that you must revert everytime you see it? The Second Reich did not claim to be the same country as the First Reich, and neither did the Third.
  2. I have yet to find or hear of one of these contemporary English sources that call a part of Germany "Poland"
  3. those were all just propoganda psycho-babble after the Bolsheviks needed time to regroup after taking over Russia, just like the treaty of Brest-Litovsk
  4. since time immemorial is not true of course, you are trying to extend Polish rule into prehistory, which has been discussed elsewhere and everyone knows the Poles and other slavs migrated to the region. what is a better description of a geographical area for a layman(who we write these articles for)? the name for a clearly defined contemporary political entity with known borders(Posen), or a name that has described many areas (not just this one) that never existed at the time we speak of (Greater Poland). If Germany were to take her land back from Poland 50 years from now, you would still want the land called by its Polish name when referring to now when it is under Polish rulership. You would not want Gdansk to be called Danzig if people are writing history books 50 years from now, if Germany has taken it back by then.

--Jadger 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. It's not me to question the fact that Poland regained her independence. It's you to change that to some strange statements.
  2. Just google for Prussian Poland and you'll be there.
  3. Well, but the fact remains that they indeed paid the indemnities and returned the pieces of art. So it was not merely propaganda, it was one of the main questions during the peace negotiations and one of the sine qua non prerequisites of peace.
  4. All right, you're right, before Pangea separated, the area was covered by a shallow sea. Then came the glacier and all that. However, after it melted down, the area appeared there and little changed ever since. The rivers did not change significantly, neither did the hills and the Pomeranian Lakes are still there. For the other questions you raise (which, BTW, are not related to what I wrote as I meant just that: a geographic entity), check the article on Greater Poland. You might also want to check the etymology of the name and its usage throughout the ages. //Halibutt 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)



  1. what "strange statements" do you refer to? all I see in my edits are clarifications, which are than reverted and the subject is clouded again.
  2. contemporary means at the time, as in between the partitions and 1918, I did not know the internet existed that far back in history? but maybe the Poles invented it and kept it secret from their German masters. I searched as you said, and came up with no contemporary sources, perhaps you could provide the link, although if the webpage is from before 1918 I bet it will be out of date.
  3. indemnities:Germany paid war reparations to the victorious allies after WWI, how is that any different from Soviet Russia paying Poland for peace, calling it "indemnities" so it was easier for the public to swallow. Germany was forced to take blame for WWI, but anyone slightly knowledgeable on the subject knows that it was only a contributing factor, a major one, but did not solely cause WWI. It was a prerequisite for peace because Soviet Russia was in a tight situation and had to agree to unfavourable treaties (like Brest-Litovsk) in order to survive. Its like if I were to have a gun put to my head and forced to admit to crimes I may or may not have committed, does that mean I committed them? of course not.

--Jadger 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. I mean your clouding of the fact that Poland regained her independence in 1918.
  2. Just use google and you'll see. Actually this search might also help you. 24,000 links, lots of them pre-1918.
  3. Let me repeat: Russia paid not only war reparations (much like post-war Germany to the Western Allies and the USSR), but also indemnities for economic exploitation of Poland between 1795 and 1915. Perhaps the only such case in history of mankind. Also, Russia was indeed forced to sign the Treaty of Riga, but it was not a result of its WWI-situation, but rather because of its failed warmongering. Which does not change the fact that it indeed paid indemnities for the partitions. //Halibutt 06:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. clouding this "fact" that makes no sense, as it cant even be proven, and if you ask any sensible person you would hear them say it is not the same nation.
  2. those are modern sources, that use the term "prussian Poland" to clarify for uneducated people who do not know of the background of the region. you said contemporary sources now cite one
  3. claiming it freely paid indemnities for the suffering it caused is just plain BS and you know it, the Soviets never had a guilty conscience about what the tsarist regime did. They simply had to pay Poland for peace, and Poland liked to see it as vengaence rather than a greedy landgrab

--Jadger 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

Well, Lincher seems to of made it more orderly, and I know when im beat. The article clearly is well-referenced, NPOV, it reads well, (I still think it seems to end abruptly, but if nobody else can see it, I guess I can't just force the issue), it's stable, (Unless, of course, User:Jadger up there is causing some sort of major content dispute, it doesn't sound like it), the picture is in the public domain it seems, and it is sufficiently broad. Try to find one or two more pictures, and I still have this feeling that the article ends abruptly, for such an extensive sounding organization, I don't understand how it could just vanish like that so quickly after the war. But hey, if there's really not much else, im not about to suggest anyone re-write history just to make the article sound better. Homestarmy 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation and definition of Eastern Marches

The quote near the top of the article should be attributed. I can see that it's sourced, but I can't read German well enough to understand who the quote is attributed to. I would recommend using a blockquote or quotation template to encapsulate it instead of table code. Also, it would be helpful if there was some kind of upfront definition or explanation of what Eastern Marches or Ostmark refers to in the context of this organization. heqs 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)