User:Halibutt/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is but an archive. Please add new comments in new sections on my Talk page. Thanks in advance. Halibutt

Contents

[edit] Pommerania

Congratulations to a good work on the Nazi Polish Campaign. Nice to see something else than revertions on my watchlist!
--Ruhrjung 19:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Rokossovsky

Do you have a photo of him in Polish uniform, or during his time as Defence Minister? Adam 04:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Weichsel and other names

I hope you won't mind that, following your logic, I'll add Slavic names to all geographical locations in what is now Eastern part of Germany and Danube area. After all these areas belonged to the Slavs for several hundred years in the past... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Vistula is still often mentioned as Weichsel in some sources, I?ve added the name only to avoid confusion. Prussia was an European superpower and Weichsel had special psychological and geo-strategical importance for it and later Germany. I hope your nationalism does not blind you. GeneralPatton 13:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I fully agree with you (although you'd still have to show me the English-speaking sources to call the Vistula with the German name). That's why I believe you will understand that the Danube (as the southern border of the Western Slavs, one of the most populous tribes in Europe) needs to be called with a Slavic name. Similarily the Berlin article should mention the former Slavic name Berolina since it was founded by Slavs. Also, Elbe and Spree articles should mention their Slavic names. The Slavs were an European superpower and Sprewa had its psychological and geo-political importance as the borders of the Slavic expansion and important trade routes. I hope your nationalism does not blind you and you will not change my entries. It's all about consistency, otherwise it's just German nationalism which should be avoided at wikipedia. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:44, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I'll quote john k "If you can't see the difference between a city that was called Londinium 2000 years ago, and a city that was called Stettin 60 years ago, go right ahead. john k 05:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)". What we?re talking about was just 60 years ago, not 1500 or 2000. I really don?t see why you get so upset over the fact that parts of Poland used to be in Germany. They?re not anymore, and with the current ethnic structure, they will never be again, nobody is claiming them as German lands. But it?s not ancient history, it?s recent, quite recent history. And one question, how can I be a "German nationalist" when I'm not German myself? GeneralPatton 16:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Considering your previous behavior on the issue, I?d not be suppressed if some users go ahead and demand arbitration if you continue like this. They?d have a pretty good case. GeneralPatton 16:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And the name of the article is Vistula the now accepted English name (although it ought to be Vistula River) ,nobody has renamed it Weichsel. And the Danube article does list the various names "The Danube (Bulgarian Dunav, German Donau, Greek Ister, Hungarian Duna, Latin Danuvius or Danubius, Romanian Dunăre, Serbian and Croatian Dunav, Slovak Dunaj, Ukrainian Dunay)". GeneralPatton 16:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And about Berlin and other archaic names, well Berolina should be mentioned but in the History section, especially since no living language uses that name anymore. Weichsel is still widely used and as i've said, it was the principal name not that long ago. And in all fairness, the Polish name does come first in the article. I really don?t see the problem except maybe a desire by some to completely erase the connection with some fairly recent history. GeneralPatton 16:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just showed you, that your point about French and Swahili is ridiculous and is hardly an analogy in the issue. The Slavic names for German cities and rivers will not bother ma at all, it will greatly enrich the article, but this is another ill conceived analogy. Although the areas you talk about were originally populated by Slavic tribes, highly culturally developed and so on, there was never a well established country there. Comparing those tribes to strictly defined country of Prussia is stretching it a bit. Also there is a lot of different Slavic names for the same places, the tribes spoke different languages, you know. How will you handle that? Changing the subject: you still didn't show me the second head (other than in his pants) on the prusiian eagle. You should go to Gdansk, remove the Prussian Eagle from the Neptune statue, because it doesn't belong there any more than French or Swahili Eagle. Rübezahl 16:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's really not "Weichsel vs. Vistula", nobody wants to change the name of the article or something, we?re just mentioning the German name that has some historical significance. GeneralPatton 23:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Weichsel gives me 49,200 hits on Google [1]. Quite enough to keep it in the article, some RfD?s have failed because of just 300 Google hits. GeneralPatton 23:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trial of the Sixteen

To me, it seemed written from a strong POV (sympathetic to the defendants and antagonistic towards the Soviets). I don't know enough about the trial to make significant revisions of the content, though. Everyking 19:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] result of very bad mood

meta:How to deal with Poles - after recent experiences with Jerzy(t) and CVA, and earlier with Adam Carr and numerous others... Szopen 09:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, I don't think it belong elsewhere than to meta. As I said, it was result of very bad mood. I am a bit tired - in fact this is not the attitude which is to be found in wikipedia alone, you can find it on other forums where i participate too; the more person think he knows about history, the more probably is that he will follow the "rules".
I need some time for rest. I guess i will try to avoid any "historical" articles for some time, i hope that when i will write about failure detectors and similar nobody will say that I am wrong because I am wrong.
Good luck in your exam, BTW

Szopen 10:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Poles

You wrote that you still don't know what to do with it. What's your problem then? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:41, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I accidentally pressed "Enter" during typing in the description... ;) sorry...

What I meant is that I changed some of the section names so they are consistent with others, but there still left a few like: Controversial persons, Legendary persons, People who resisted Holocaust... We might change them to "Controversy", "Legends", "Holocaust" ... but this would not be exactly the same as with "Music" or "Literature" ... Controversy or Legends and especially the Holocaust are not the special fields of activity of those Poles... IYKWIM... Regards, Blueshade 08:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd leave those categories as they are. We could either list people on such lists for what they did for most of their lives (and so the Holocaust category should be deleted since noone could resist Holocaust for more time than it actually lasted), or for what they are famous for. Otherwise we'd have to delete countless poets and writers who, apart from their literary activities - in many cases unnoticed until well after their death, should be listed as lawyers, factory workers, minor businessmen and so on. I have an exam in 5 hours so what I write might not be very consistent, but I hope you got the idea. :| [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:12, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, with all respect, I don't exactly get the idea... More importantly though, I suspect my idea was misunderstood a bit... Thus, I shall try to express it once more. What I meant with the changes of the section names was that I wanted them to be uniform in their grammatical form. I did not want to change anything in actual content of the article. I changed "Musicians" to "Music" for example... I hope you get my point now... - Blueshade 09:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] love that new section link; Mazowiecki

Typos taken care of, AFAICT. Will be away for a while - in case more help is needed, check back with me in October. Krupo 02:58, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eugeniusz Bodo.png

Did you replace the .jpg version with a .png at speedy delete tag the former. If so why? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 20:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chauvinism

It's just my standard comment for minor edits and typo corrections, brother. I never said I had an average sense of humor. Chill, homeboy, no need to panic! Space Cadet 02:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusans at Monte Cassino

1) http://www.svaboda.org/articlesprograms/diaspora/2004/5/0F3B6FB4-16EB-4FB0-976C-8F298B800A11.html - big interview with several Belarusan survivors of the Battle of Monte Cassino. One of them has become a history professor in the US, who has a dozen published works (Zaprudnik). According to his estimates, 10%-20% of battle participants were Belarusans and Ukrainians. The other guy giving the interview (Kastus Akula) emmigrated to the US, and he is a known Belarusian poet. (Here is a bit more extended version of this interview - http://www.svaboda.org/programs/zamiezza/2004/05/20040525124009.asp )

2) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040518182853.asp - another inteview with a Belarusian survivor of the Battle. He claims that according to his reasearch there were more than 2000 people from the Belarusan parts of the then "Western Belarus" (under Polish control), and of them more than 1000 people identified themselves as Belarusans (the others apparently being ethnic Polish from Belarus). And this guy who's been to Monte Cassino afterwards said he counted more than 200 graves there with ethnic Belarusans.

3) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040520122717.asp - interview with a movie director Uladzimir Bokun who made a documentary about Belarusians in Monte Cassino called "Forgotten Heroes". This movie director: I made a thourough research, and I've found 259 graves of Belarusans there. And I made up my mind to make a documentary about them.

4) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040512120729.asp - memoirs of a journalist from Belarus service of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty who was a participant of the Battle.

5) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040511170910.asp - the president of the Belarusan government-in-exile, Mikola Abramczyk, greets several hundred Belarusan participants during his lecture in London, UK, in 1947.

and finally

6) http://txt.knihi.com/memuary/salaui.html - a well-known novel-memoir written by a Belarusan officer who fought in Monte Cassino. Its full title: "Death and nightingales. The memoirs of the Belarusan officier from Monte Cassino".

Regards rydel 12:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I put a number of articles into diffrent theaters. You obviously do not think that Poland is spiritualy if not geographicaly to the East of Germany as you altered my edits to Warsaw Uprising and the Polish September Campaign Please see my comments in the talk page of Polish September Campaign. And also my comments o n Category talk:World War II campaigns and theatres.

Why change the Eastern Front (WWII) back to the general category World War II campaigns and theatres when it is theatre specific? Please reply to this via the Category talk:World War II campaigns and theatresPhilip Baird Shearer 13:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Frantisek

According to most sources, Josef Frantisek was awarded DFM with Bar (Bar was posthumous), not DFC. He was "only" sergeant. Pibwl 18:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jozef Haller.jpg

I just got to ask: why do you think that {{PD}} is applicable, and for what cases is {{polishpd}}? You might want to check the other image uploads of User:Emax: I slapped a {{polishpd}} on some of them, too. Lupo 21:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sick nationalism at Wikipedia ;(

I just read you comment there "There was no Belarus (sad but true)". What can I say? I usually like Poles a lot (in fact, I liked every single Pole that I've met in my life so far), but you are the first person who makes me feel sick with your stupid sense of nationalistic chauvinism. And there, right on the Jewish page it's just ludicrous! What did Poles did to the Jews? Lots of bad things! And even nowadays Poles are still quite anti-semitic. And yet for the sake of nationalistic pride you now protect the content of the page as if you own it, as if you actually own those Jews. Ridiculous. -- rydel 13:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuania, 1917

About the December 11 declaration, 1917. See the answer in my talk page, please.
Linas 11:12, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

[edit] krystyna skarbek

i have recently completed writing the manuscript for what I hope will be the definitive biography of Krystyna. She was definitely not a double-agent. Her accuser was a Polish officer of the Szosty Oddzial (Sixth Bureau) who could not stand to have someone as charismatic as Krystyna on his patch (Cairo). None of the rumours he spread about her were ever confirmed and she was eventually re-instated as an SOE operative.

By the way, Krystyna was NOT born in 1915, but earlier, and not in Mlodzieszyn. Her birth and baptismal certificates have been located in Poland. When I find a publisher for my manuscript I will correct what has been written about her in Wikipedia (which I fully support). Ron Nowicki

Thanks for the info and hope to hear from you soon. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:46, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poznan

Hi, you asked: "Why did you join the revert war in Poznan article?"

I don't really care if the name Posen is mentioned in the first paragraph, as I'm not very familiar with the subject. However, I do know that Gdansk is often named Danzig (referring to historical periods, mostly), so I do often revert the Gdansk article if that name is removed. I think this is according to the consensus on that page.

The edit I reverted on Poznan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Poznan&action=history ) was done by someone who also removed the name Danzig from Gdansk. That's why I came to Poznan. I think that Poznan edit was a bad one, because:

  1. it wasn't done by someone with a neutral point of view (see the Gdansk edit)
  2. I whink it's against the consensus: it seems that the contributors to Poznan agree that the German name should be in the first sentence (judging from the history of the article). The edit war seems to be about how it should be mentiones (bolded or not; "German name", "former name" etc.)
  3. the edit summary "(added industrial parks info as well as borough population.)" is misleading

That last reason wighs especially heavy, as it turns the edit into straightforward vandalism.

As it was a bad edit and vandalism, I did not hesitate to revert. I'm not going to participate in the edit war about the precise wording; I just reverted to the previous version. I will revert again if "Posen" is removed again (unless there is consensus to do so, e.g. on the talk page), but I will not revert any changes in the wording.

I hope this satisfies you? Eugene van der Pijll 15:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] buffer states

The concept of buffer states between Germany and Russia may seem to have survived until 1939/40 when they all were either peacefully sectioned (Czechoslovakia), invaded or made otherways dependent on either of the former empire. It may even seem that most countries (the United Baltic Duchy is an obvious exception) that were created in the buffer survived until the late 1930s. It would be hard to believe that you have a different perception, why one must ponder if you contest the connection between the German policy and the creation of countries that later, after Germany's defeat, could gain full independence.

Feel welcome to enlighten my curious soul. Cheers!

--Johan Magnus 18:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that there was little or no connection between the buffer states created by Germany at the end of WWI and those states that regained their independence shortly afterwards. In most of those countries that did manage to regain their independence even the anniversaries and national feasts indicate the date of post-war liberation rather than creation of buffer states during WWI. Look at it like this:

Speaking of Mitteleuropa countries in terms of 1940s is a slight anachronism. Technically those states were buffer states (just as Germany is a buffer state between Poland and France and the latter is a buffer state for Germany and Spain). But in the political sense neither of the two powers had much influence on internal politics of those countries and their independence was gained thanks to Central Powers' fall, not due to their policies in late 1917 or early 1918. Does it explain a bit? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:52, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I tried to be precise in the wording proposed, and wrote "put an end to the independence of those buffer states between Russia and Germany, that were established as an outcome of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Germany's defeat in World War I."

In my view, there were two (or three) factors that were decissive for their early inter-war history:

  1. the Mittel-Europa policy of (Imperial) Germany (together with the support of Russian revolutionaries) that primarily aimed at a weakening of Imperial Russia, but also led to the establishment of the buffer states
  2. Germany's defeat, that made their independence possible
  3. The Russian Civil War, that made them important as proxies for the anti-Bolshevist viktors of the World War.

It's true that there many times weren't much of continuity with regard to regimes and constitutions, but on the other hand there was with regard to population and borders, and I don't really see why this should give reason to not mentioning one of the important factors in their establishment. On the other hand, maybe the place to mention that (i.e. the introductory paragraph) wasn't an optimal choise. But to return to my chief question, maybe you hold the opinion that they would have been created and gained independence in any case, regardless of the German attempts? That's an interesting question, and as far as I understand not easy to answer in the cases of Finland and Balticum, that I know somewhat better than Poland. Maybe you can direct me to facts and arguments supporting that opinion?

Finally, I do disagree with you on one particular point. I do not agree that the Mittel-Europa policies attempted at the creation of buffer states, but rather of satellite states. They became buffer states after independence (that in most cases couldn't be total before the German defeat). I do also not agree that Germany ever was a buffer state between Poland and France, since Poland and France for most of their history have had affinity not aversion to eachother.

--Johan Magnus 22:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Attitudes toward Germans

Dear Halibutt, In response to my comment in Wroclaw discussion (29 Sept.), you left this comment on my user page:

"I fully agree that there is a trend among many people in the east to deny or downgrade the cruelties that happened to the Germans on the Eastern Front. However, it is to be noted that for some 30 years already there is also a trend to depict Germans as innocent victims of the Soviets (or Poles, Czechs and so on, for that matter), just as if all that happened in 1945 was totally unprovoked. In my honest opinion this has little to do with communist propaganda (or any propaganda at all). Just go to Western Germany and ask any of the elderly people what they did during WWII. You'll be surprised that in 1938 the whole nation was composed of forest workers, medicians and railway workers. Even the wehrmacht soldiers seem very scarce, not to mention other formations."

Well, we seem to have widely divergent perceptions of attitudes west and east of the Oder-Neisse line. I've known many Germans, beginning with a foreign exchange student who lived with us 20 years ago. I've been to Germany quite a few times, and I have a good working knowledge of German. However, I also lived in Poland for a time, in 1996-97, and I've spent a good deal of time in Lithuania, where my wife is from. So I think my perspective is not one-sided.

In all my travels and encounters, I've never encountered any overt anti-Polish attitude among Germans. The Germans I've known tend express sadness over their country's loss of the territories given to Poland by Stalin (let's be frank), but are quick to acknowlege that this came about because of Germany's crimes during the war ? or as Marion Grafin Donhoff put it, "durch deutsche Schuld." I've never encountered any rational, educated German who entertains the slightest thought of "reclaiming" those territories. All the Germans I have know simply regret what happened in the past and hope to achieve friendly relations with their former enemies ? as they have done so well with the French.

Among Poles, I often encounted a one-sided and attitude that lays great ? and justifiable ? stress on how greatly Poland suffered at the hands of the Germans, but fails to admit that Poles and especially Russians took a terrible revenge on the Germans at the end of the war and thereafter. One aspect of this attitude is the Polish attempt to portray the history of the Oder-Neisse territories in a fanciful way that denies the fact that formerly, and for many centuries, they were German in population and character.

Yes, the Germans were the agressors, and Germans committed the most horrible crimes during the Nazi era. The world knows this, and the Germans have acknowledged it repeatedly and continue to do so to the present day. What the Western world remains largely ignorant of is the sadistic treatment of Germans, mainly civilians, in the territories in question after the war and their brutal expulsion from them. Research I have done indicates that 1.5 million to 2 million German civilians ? most of them women, children and old people ? lost their lives in this process. These people were for the most part not those who perpetrated the Nazi genocide against Jews, Poles and others. Accordingly, they, too, were victims.

I like Poland and enjoyed getting to know some Poles when I lived in Warsaw, but I feel that Polish attitudes toward their western neighbors are urgently in need of updating. The two countries live next to each other and have shared much in the past besides the atrocities of the 20th century. They will live next to each other in the future, too, and I believe it's time for Poland to first take a realistic view of its own postwar past, and second to work for reconciliation with Germany, for the good of both peoples and the future of Europe.

Those Poles who persist in suggesting, for example, that the Polish city of Gdansk always has been Polish and always has been called Gdansk, never Danzig, in the long run are doing their country a disservice by perpetuating a myth that ultimately will promote resentments on both sides. At the same time, as I've said elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's also time for the Germans (and the German media) to stop calling this city Danzig. The city of Danzig ceased to exist in 1945. And of course, this city is just one example of a larger reality. When Wroclaw was known as Breslau, it was a different city with different people and different institutions, including a very well known German university. That's past. Please acknowledge the past, accept the present, and look to the future.

User:sca 30 Sept 04

Hello again Halibutt, Thank you very much for your long and thoughtful response on my talk page. It's refreshing to be able to actually discuss these matters in a reasonable way. And, again, it's interesting that we have such divergent perceptions of prevailing attitudes, at least with respect to present-day Germans.

First I have to disagree on one historical point. West Germany recognized the Oder-Neisse line as Poland's permanent western border in 1970. In conjunction with this act, the chancellor at the time, Willy Brandt (who had himself fled Nazism), made the dramatic and widely appluaded symbolic gesture of falling to his knees in front of the memorial to the Warsaw uprising (which I often walked past during my time in Warsaw).

In the German media at the time there was a lot of discussion about the "Heimatsrecht" of the Polish people now living in the former German areas. The argument was that while the transfers of 1945 violated the "Heimatsrecht" of the then-German inhabitants, those rights now were superseded by the "Heimatsrecht" of the new Polish inhabitants. In other words, two wrongs would not make a right, as we say in English.

This recognition was only reaffirmed in the Two Plus Four treaty on German reunification in 1990.

As an anecdote, let me relate that when, in the early '80s I asked our German foreign-exchange student, who was from Marburg, how he felt about West Germany's renunciation of claims to the Oder-Neisse territories, he said: "The people there are yearning not to be German, but to be free."

Secondly, I have a little problem with your terminology. Wroclaw, for example, did not merely "belong to Germany" -- it was German. The people who lived there spoke German. I have to observe that Poles, even those who take a more balanced view, have a tendancy to portray these cities and territories as having only been "occupied" by Germany, not essentially German in character. The fact is, German Breslau was transformed into Polish Wroclaw -- as I understand it mainly by moving in settlers from the Lwow region.

Two anecdotes: I knew a Polish woman in Warsaw who was from Wroclaw. Her father indeed was from Lwow. She told me the joke about two Poles meeting on a train, one saying "Where are you from," the other saying, "I'm from Wroclaw," and the first one saying. "Oh, great, I'm from Lwow, too!"

I also have a German friend whose mother was from Breslau. Her mother was only 6 when the family escaped from "Festung Breslau" in 1945, but she retains a strong emotional attachment to old Breslau. This friend, a young woman who is an elementary school teacher, has been to Wroclaw a number of times with student groups, has nothing against Poles and has Polish friends. But she is irritated by the simultaneous unwillingness of Poles to say anything about the fact that the city used to be German, and their eagerness to sell visiting Germans old artifacts of German days left behind when the Germans were expelled.

And by the way, I don't agree with your statement that " the crimes against Poles are largely forgotten in the West." While it's true that most Americans associate "Nazi crimes" first with "Jews" and "the Holocaust," everyone also knows generally that the German occupation of Poland was very harsh; and while they may not know the numbers, like everyone knows "6 million Jews," they know that the German occupation of Poland was itself a crime against humanity. My own view is that it will take Germany centuries to overcome the infamy of those 12 years of Nazism. Even today the first association many people in the West have with "Germany" is "Nazi." This of course is unfair to the present generation of Germans.

I do think the recent attempt of the Prussian expellee organization to seek return of properties that once belonged to expellees is a mistake -- not because they don't have a grievance, but because their loss is hugely overshadowed by all the other losses of the war in which their country was the aggressor. The territorial changes are history and aren't going to be revised. It would be like Mexico seeking to regain Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc. from the U.S. it isn't going to happen.

The past is past. Time to move on. But as a journalist, and a liberal humanist who believes strongly that human rights are for all people, including Poles and Germans, I think both sides of the past need to be told truthfully on both sides of the Oder-Neisse border. As an amateur historian, my perception is that the German side of the 1945-49 story has not been told in the West. I don't read European media much so I don't know, but I'm surprised at your statement that it's the Polish side that hasn't been adequately told.

Some years ago I wrote an academic paper on the topic of the 1945 territorial changes. I have it in digital form if you would like to read it. My sources were limited at the time, before the Internet, to the resources of a small college library and books I had read, and I certainly would not pretend it is an exhaustive presentation of the topic. But it is a story that hasn't been told in the U.S.

Currently I'm reading a lot about the Teutonic Knights, including a new book by an American historian, William Urban. One of the interesting aspects of this story is the extent to which nationalities in those days were less important than religion and dynastic relations. In the Europe of the future I believe nationalities will be less important than economics and culture. But I have to say that in my experience the Poles tend to be the most nationalistic people in Europe today, and I believe this attitude to be out of touch with the times. Again, this is not to say I don't like Poles -- to the contrary. I have only the best hopes for Poland and its integration into the EU and the Western world.

I hope you find something of interest or value in this discussion.

Czesc! User:sca 1 Oct 04

Again, thanks for your thoughtful response on my page. Perhaps "nationalistic" is the wrong word for the Poles -- but something to describe their ethnic sensitivity, assertiveness and occasional defensiveness would be appropriate.

Regarding German reluctance to recognize the territorial losses, I think it was for two reasons: the domestic political clout of the expellees, and an understandable human sense of shock and denial over the loss of one-fourth of their prewar (and pre-Nazi) territory. Most peoples would be loathe to accept such a thing, no matter how much they themselves were to blame for it. It seems to me that the Germans, two generations later, have done far better at accepting losses and moving on than some peoples in the Balkans and the Middle East, who seem determined to be revanchists forever.

I'd be happy to email my paper to you -- just send me your email address, please. Mine is saks2800@aol.com.

Dziekuje.

User:sca 2 Oct 04

Regarding your many interesting entries:

Many years ago, when I was a young man -- in 1971, to be exact -- I vistited Mauthausen during my first trip to Europe. It was a chilling and indeed sickening experience.

When I lived in Warsaw, my apartment was in Mokotow. It was far from luxurious -- very cold in winter! At the time I was working for the Warsaw Business Journal.

I have photos of the tomb of the unknown solidier, which I could have digitized and could email to you if I had your email address.

I've been to Druskininkai -- Do you like Ciurlionis? -- but for me the most interesting place in Lithuania, outside of Vilnius itself, is Palanga. Vilnius is fascinating. Have you been through the Jewish Museum and the KGB Museum there?

You might be interested to know that my wife, Katerina (Polish: Katrzyna--haha!), or Jekaterina, is an ethnic Russian who was born and grew up in Vilnius. At age 5, when she went to school, she was suddenly expected to speak Lithuanian, which wasn't spoken at home. At that age it doesn't take one long to learn, I guess. She is fluent in Russian, Lithuanian and English, and can get by in Polish.

My own language skills are limited to a good working knowledge of German, plus a smattered of French, Dutch, Polish, Lithuanian and Russian.

Do you read German? If so, I recommend "Zeugnis vom Untergang Konigsbergs," by Michael Wieck (Heidelberger Verlaganstalt, 1993). Wieck by the way is Jewish.

I appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you.

User:sca 3 Oct 04

[edit] WikiProject Battles progress section

I came to feel the main project page should be fairly static and that "progress" should be monitored on sub-pages (such as the "New articles (Battles)" page) but I'm too lazy and/or cowardly to do anything about it myself. I did tinker with building a maintenance table of all battle articles in which their stub/battlebox/category/etc. status could be marked. Anyway, you're not alone in working on battles. Geoff/Gsl 02:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Battles

Hey Halibutt, I think you may be the only one active at the moment...I try to add battleboxes whenever I can, but I just don't have time to write any new battle articles at the moment (although I have several I plan to write eventually). Adam Bishop 05:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Germany vs. chancellor Hitler

Ruhrjung as a part of his recent (great, BTW) modifications changed the mention that "Germany supported Franco" to "the governments of Germany supported Franco" (or something along these lines). While I would be the last one to accuse Ruhrjung of any hidden agenda, I don't really get what is wrong in saying that Germany supported Franco. Both the government and a large part of German society supported Franco and I really see no reason to blur the sentence by adding some softening agents. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:40, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth - but I guess from my recent experience as a brother-in-arms with Ruhrjung (yes, that's intended as a partly ironical drift - the reader is intended to smile!) that the idea here is
  • either that in the case of Germany there was in the mid-1930s not the same degree of double-way influence between population/educated elite and government as in most other European countries at this time and as in most other times in Germany. At least, this is my opinion. While I have only an average knowledge on inter-war Germany, this average knowledge makes me belief that there is a victors' bias against Germany and Germans at large, that often paints the Germans during the twelve years of the Third Reich as more responsible for disliked policies of the German government than what we usually attribute to other peoples under dictatorship.
  • or, that there is a tendency on Wikipedia to identify the Third Reich with the Federal Republic, that I know of personal experience from young Germans I know, that many perceive as having increased in recent years, maybe particularly in english-language contexts, as signs of an anti-German campaign more-or-less. If you look at Ruhrjung's many small edits in this run, there is a strong tendency to change "Germany" for "German", which I personally may find exaggerated, but on the other hand, it's not quite without reason, and not more exaggerated than much other things here around. /Tuomas 13:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Email -- sca

Dzien dobry, Halibutt,

I still don't have an email address for you! Please send it to me at saks2800@aol.com. When I first left this address on the "attitudes toward Germans" page, I left out the "2800" part (later corrected), so perhaps that's where you emailed. In any event, I haven't yet received any email from you.

Regarding your latest post on my page, it's unfortunate that German isn't among your impressive language skills, as there's nothing like reading things from the other side to understand what the other side is thinking. I wish I could read Polish, but I only spent half a year in Warsaw, and I was working in an English-language office. (Do you ever read the Warsaw Business Journal?) And I'm afraid that, of all the European languages with which I've had contact, Polish is by far the most difficult for an English-speaker. Even Czech would be easier, I think.

Lithuania today is in many ways charming, but it's not the Lithuania that Mickiewicz or even Milosz wrote about. I didn't notice much evidence at all of Polish habitation there, outside of architecture and Catholic religious buildings and shrines. There were only a couple Polish restaurants in Vilnius when I lived there.

You really should visit Vilnius -- it has a beautiful baroque old city that wasn't affected much by the war, and there is a lot going on there, with many fun restaurants and clubs, etc. Also, Palanga, north of Klaipeda (Memel), has one of the most beautiful beaches I've ever seen, and I've been to the California and Oregon coasts. On the Kurskaya Kosa (Kurische Nehrung) is the charming old fishing village of Nida (Nidden), with Thomas Mann's vacation house as a museum and an old German church and graveyard.

I've been to Kaliningrad, too, and it's kind of depressing but historically fascinating, with empty, fallow fields and moldering German ruins. One observation: The Russians are perfectly candid about its German history -- unlike, it must be said, the Poles in relation to all the places they took over in 1945. Perhaps that's because it was the Russians who conquered it all. They remain very proud of having defeated Germany, but at the same time seem to have no problem with German tourists coming to Kaliningrad on "nostalgia" visits. You will even see in restaurants and bars maps and photos of old East Prussia and Konigsberg. A nice seaside place in Kaliningrad is Svetlogorsk (Rauschen).

Do widzenia.

User:sca 4 Oct 04

[edit] Romanian Jews and the annexation of Bessarabia

Please, consider if you can understand the following sentence from the article on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and if so maybe rewrite it so also people with less of a forehand knowledge may get it?

The annexed Romanian territories had a large concentration of Jewish population. While the Soviet Union tend to consider them Ukrainians, Ribbentrop asimilated them with Germans, showing the German interest regarding their future.

I'm also in the process of writing a comment on the German Mittel-Europea policy on my talk page, but am not yet finished. Until then: Thank you for your answer! --Johan Magnus 16:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the author wanted to include four pieces of information in those sentences:

  • There was Bessarabia that was populated by Romanians
  • Stalin treated the Romanians living in Bessarabia as romanised Ukrainians
  • Hitler treated the Romanians living there as Germans (Volksdeutsch, I guess)
  • There were also some Jews living there.

If that's not the case - I have absolutely no idea what would this text mean. However, if this is the case then perhaps it could be rewritten as The annexed Romanian territories were inhabitated mostly by Romanians, with a significant Jewish minority also present. However, the inhabitants of Bessarabia were treated by the Soviet Union as romanised Ukrainians while the German authorities treated a large part of them as ethnic Germans, or something along these lines. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Do you mind if I (without reference to you) take your rewrite above to Vasile and ask him if that would be an appropriate clarification of the sentence he introduced? --Johan Magnus 17:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not much wiser from Vasile's last contributions. I guess I lack some of the relevant background information. --Johan Magnus 17:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland some time ago to settle the naming conventions for Polish Voivodships, powiats/counties and gmina/communes, as well as to create a set of infoboxes for use on these pages. I thought you might be interested. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:51, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Howdy. My only edit on the listed article was a minor edit fixing a malformed link. Kindly update your algorithm for selecting possible interested parties from edit history. Ta kindly. - TB 13:01, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

I'll leave you a message in the Polish Wikipedia

[edit] Allied policy towards Central Europe

Can we finally move the User talk:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe to to public Wiki and make Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and its redirects an redirect to it? Yes, I know it is not finished but it is so much better then the current version... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I breach some etiquette rule now, but I second that. It's important also, in my opinion, to consider from which articles there OUGHT to be a reference to this important but, in the West, lesser understood theme, and write a sentence, or a half, in each of them with a link to the article. --Johan Magnus 17:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)