Talk:Historical eastern Germany/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 June 20 2006 2 June 23 3 Questions 4 Map 5 please clarify this 6 The giant map by Smith2006 7 German wikipedia 8 The birthplace of Erika Steinbach

[edit] June 20 2006

I reverted the page because:

• removing "which were under the administration of a unified German state from 1871 until 1945" could be taken as implying that the regions are still German.
• The terms are not being used in this article to describe East Germany there is not need to mention that it is the independent state popularly known as particularly as it is debatable whether it was an independent state, and even if it was there was a time that East Germany was a soviet zone of occupation and not independent.
• the text removed from the History section is AFAICT accurate if not a {{fact}} should be added. The new numbers added were not sourced.
• The text added to the image "The eastern German regions still belonging to the territory of Germany at this stage, were virtually all ethnically German. They form the ethnical historical eastern Germany." has a strong POV (and "ethnical" is not English) . This article is primarily about eastern territories which formed part of the state of Germany. The ethnicity of the regions can be mentioned in the text where a balanced point of view can be presented but not in the space available under a caption.
• The removal of "These numbers, however, are disputed." unbalances the NPOV of the paragraph.
• I'm not for or against the insertion of a map of current day Germany.
• why the change from "of Poland" to "of the independent State of Poland"
• Klaipeda has lots of name in lots of languages why include the German name?

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read your personal history, my dear Philip. And given the fact, that you have already displayed an a-historical, yes, more or less anti-German sentiment (POV, remember?) in other articles (especially at the Germans' national hymn Lied der Deutschen), I think my minor changes were sufficient to satisfy you. This article is not a Polish propagandistic pamphlet, nor your pamphlet, neither a German pamphlet, but an objective article. As I have no connections to Germany and am of partially Jewish ancestry, I think I can legitimately revert one leap back. I am objective enough. I chose the 1945 Allied zones to illustrate, that Germany was parted at that time and that the annexations by Poland were in that cadre. Klaipeda historically was German, and in this article, we are speaking of historical Eastern Germany, to which Klaipeda belonged more or less. Klaipeda was known as Memel in England and English academical works (and in Jiddish) until 1960, after which date the expulsion of Germans was seen as final and non-reversible.Smith2006 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Smith2006 do you also edit Wikipedia as the user name user:Matthead?

No, he/she doesn't. You better don't make such an accusation without providing evidence of sockpuppetry and informing the third person involved. It's quite irritating to stumble across it, but in your case, it confirms my (and probably others) impression of you. Just don't make such unjustified claims within a article talk page. I'm confident Wikipedia has policies on this, look them up and respect them. --Matthead 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made one edit to Lied der Deutschen 10:47, 26 May 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (→Geography - Make it clear that the river is called Memel in German but Neman in English and Memel in English usually means the city now called Klaipeda"), which does not seem to me to display an anti-German sentiment. Please explain what the anti-German sentiment was in that edit. Further if I show the anti-German sentiment you claim why would I make edits on this page like these: Revision as of 23:42, 26 August 2005 Philip Baird Shearer and Revision as of 15:35, 1 September 2005 Philip Baird Shearer? (Which shows two of many similar edits all available in the history of the page) There is also the previous talk page now archived in sections like Talk:Historical Eastern Germany/Archive 1#Extremely POVish article where others think me too pro-German! --Philip Baird Shearer 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As I started the article Battle of Memel under that name, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me with "Klaipeda was known as Memel in England and English academical works (and in Jiddish) until 1960" I also fail to see what particular weighting Yiddish, or any other foreign language, should have in deciding on the name to be used for "Klaipeda" in English. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From Revision as of 15:40, 21 June 2006 Smith2006:

Most present-day German historians refer to historical eastern Germany especially in reference to those annexated territories, which from 1919 until 1937 had been part of German state territory. They do not refer to the territories under German state control in 1914.

Smith2006, I do not think editorializing like the above should be placed as the text to a picture, because there is no room for a NPOV. Why only those territories in that time frame? If one was writing an article in English about the 1914 German offensive in the East could one not refer to Gdansk and Memel as part of East Germany? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not matthead. And my edits were justifiable. No, this article is about the parts of Germany annexated after 1945. In 1914 it would have sounded differently of course.Smith2006 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted most of User:Smith2006's edits, leaving only the parts that were not biased (NPOV). Smith2006, your English grammar and spelling are not ideal too. Therefore some of my corrections are pure copyediting. I also left a comment on User:Smith2006's talk page reminding him that he does not own the article and asking him from refraining from further personal attack against myself as he did in this edit comment. ProudPomeranian 06:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 23

Explaining my edit. These are the parts I changed:

• "under the administration" is POV as it assumes the borders of Germany between 1971 and 1919 were illegal. Do we really assume this? I don't think so.
• "a unified German state": how many unified Germanies we had at the same time? Anyway, if one assumes no legal continuity in recent German history, any mention of border changes is meaningless. Therefore every one of those united German states are a "Germany".
• "until 1945". Not true because not all changes happened in 1945. Germany lost part of its 1971 territory already in 1919 after World War I.
• "recognised as part of Germany by the majority of the international community". Pure POV as we do not have proof anyone polled the international community. In fact, one has no need to support the German rule of the territories in 19th century with international community. The borders of 1971 are a historical fact whether one believes them just or not.

I do hope that the changes are not controversial to any side. Not that we need any sides here, anyway. ProudPomeranian 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Administration does not assume that the borders of Germany between 1871 and 1919 were illegal. What makes you think that? One there is currently an European Union. It does not imply that there is more tham one of them. To be perdantic most of the the lands lost in 1919 were recovered in 1939. This is the introduction, the details of what were lost and gained when should be in the body of the text.

International community. How then do you explain Polish-Saxon crisis at the Congress of Vienna and the Potsdam Conference if international recognition is not part of the equation? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do I think that "under administration" is NPOV? Because at the time Germany did not recognize the post-1945 borders it called the lost territories "Deutsche Ostgebiete unter polnischer Verwaltung" ("German Eastern territory under Polish administration"). Therefore this phrase is rather loaded for both German and Polish readers strongly suggesting non-recognition.

On the internatioal recognition: I do not get your point and you probably do not get mine. I question neither of the congresses/conferences. And this is exactly why I do not see the point of making unreferenced statements about "majority of the international community" inside the definition of Historical Eastern Germany. Does the definition depend on how many countries signed the treaties? If the recognition is important it should be described elsewhere in the article.

Therefore, I reverted your edit, especially as its second sentence wasn't even grammatical. Plus, part of the territories were separated from Germany in 1919 (Posen, part of Schlesien and the Polish Corridor) and as this was also done by treaty one cannot argue that was not recognized by international opinion. Please re-read what you have put today into the header and ponder whether it makes any sense.

Again, I do agree that the recognition question should be put somewhere, but not into the header. ProudPomeranian 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On 1919 vs. 1918: Treaty of Versailles was 1919. At the end of 1918 Germany still held to all the territories we discuss except for Posen where a Polish uprising has already started before the year end (but only on December 27!). That's why 1918 is obviously the wrong year to give for the post-WWI losses. It is different from 1945 when all the German territory was under occupation (therefore making 1945 the year of the actual territorial loss). ProudPomeranian 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of the page and the talk page, the reason for administered is because it was a compromise over the issue of legitimacy. The international recognition is crucial because the borders of this area of Europe have been fixed numerous times only by International recognition, as the locals (both state and peoples) would dispute the validity of the administration one way or the other. The example you gave of "Deutsche Ostgebiete unter polnischer Verwaltung" is an example of this. That some of the were territories lost (as I said separated is a very bad word to use because of the Polish Corridor), but your construction implies that they were all lost in 1918 and lost again in 1945. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

However your edit strongly implies that Treaty of Versailles was illegal (which is a dangerous statement as it seem to agree with the Nazi view of the German history - not that I believe it was your intention). Why illegal? Because according to your edit, international recognition of the border changes started in 1945 while the article body lists losses of 1919. Weren't the new German borders internationally recognised between 1919 and 1945? In fact they had been even more than the present ones were until 1991 (when Germany finally accepted the Oder-Neisse line). I do not want to go into a revert war with you even as I believe your edit is more misleading than mine. I'll try to create a compromise text in a few minutes. ProudPomeranian 07:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. "Separated" was not my addition. I wrote "lost" which is in my opinion neutral. Matthead changed it into "were separated from". I do not like the change. I see you agree so I'll restore "lost" in my new edit. ProudPomeranian 07:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

'International recognition that Germany had any right to jurisdiction over any of these territories was withdrawn in 1945. I would agree with you, about Versailles if I had not included the word any in the sentence. I know that you used lost, I think lost is better, but there is probably a better word than lost -- I just have not got around to looking it up in a thesaurus --Philip Baird Shearer 08:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you feel it can be still understood as meaning that the international community has not recognised the 1919 border changes before 1945? Please see my new version. I believe it covers both your and mine concerns. ProudPomeranian 08:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost territories: Google notes 68,900 webpages with the exact phrase (see here). I do not think any of them was lost by omission ;-) Therefore, I believe it is a proper term. Even Tolkien had a lost kingdom of Arnor and he was a real master of the English language (as well as an English language professor in Oxford). ProudPomeranian 08:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we've reached the consensus finally. I also agree that the partitions of Poland have nothing to do with the article subject (which starts almost a century after the final partition of 1795). But therefore the map of modern Poland may also be unecessary in an article basically about 1871-1945 Germany. What do you think? ProudPomeranian 09:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Two questions:

• Now that Poland has joined the EU, there is presumably nothing stopping the expelled Germans or their descendants settling in this region again. Are any doing so?

Very few maybe, don't know. Within united Germany, the trend is clearly a move westwards for economical reasons. Some of the few expellees I know/knew have said they don't even want to visit their former homes in order not to disturb memories from childhood/youth. --Matthead 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why do none of the maps actually show the borders of the annexed territories? I will make one. Adam 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Two answers:

• I believe there are some temporary provisions making it difficult for foreigners to buy land in Poland for several years after the accession (9 years? - I'm not sure as the Treaty of Accession is no longer on EU server: the Enlish PDF gives a 404 error)
• Do you mean something like this [1] map from Recovered Territories (an article being actually the Polish flip-side of this one)? Why not link it? Or maybe merge the articles? Joking, joking...

--ProudPomeranian 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. If you make the map, you can do one better than the one I linked. It does not show the Northern part of East Prussia which is now the Kaliningrad Enclave of Russia. The author forgot that not all territories Germany lost after 1945 are now in Poland. ProudPomeranian 06:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I found the property purchasing restriction negotiated in the accession treaty here. Poland negotiated a transitional period of five years regarding the acquisition of secondary residences. This does not apply to EU nationals and nationals of States party to the EEA Agreement who have been legally resident in Poland for at least four years continuously. There is also a twelve-year transitional period for the acquisition of agricultural land and forests. Self-employed farmers from the EU and EEA who have been legally resident and leasing land in Poland for at least three years or seven years continuously (depending on the region) are not affected by these measures. I would bet some money that the seven year regions cover exactly the territories discussed in this article. All the dates count from May 1, 2004.

Also, I realized that the author of the map I linked is actually... you :-) ProudPomeranian 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that map does not show northern East Prussia is that the map was made to illustrate the article Curzon Line, and does not show anything outside Poland. Adam 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I leave this to others to include in the article. Some of the other maps can be deleted. Adam 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I think Hultschiner Ländchen is missing (and the colonies), and also a reference to the changes of Austria. After all, Austria proper would have likely joined Germany if the treaties wouldn't have prohibited this. Maybe some internal border should be included, between Westprussia and Posen for example, as this was no entity. --Matthead 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about Austria or about Germany's colonies. I agree the small territory in Silesia ceded to Czechoslovakia should be added. I will do that tomorrow. Adam 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Silesian territory and separated West Prussia and Posen. I am not going to start adding internal borders in the ceded territories because they are too detailed for the purposes of this map. Adam 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please clarify this

East Brandenburg, Silesia, East Prussia, West Prussia, Pomerania and Province of Posen were incorporated into the German Empire by Otto von Bismarck in 1871. While Germans did not make up all of the population in these areas, in some they did not make up a majority, even if settled German communities in the territories east of the Oder–Neisse line survived since the beginning of the 13th century (East Colonisation). In some areas, such as the Province of Posen or the southern part of Upper Silesia, the majority was actually Polish, in others the population was mixed.

I have bolded the part that makes no sense to me (in the context of the paragraph), can you put it in some other words please. thanks

--Jadger 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove this bolded text. Apparently somebody attempted to make a point here, but the meaning is not clear. I'm not even able to tell if this was supposed to be a part of the pro-Polish or pro-German POV advocacy effort. --Lysy^talk 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. the paragraph seemed to repeat itself so I shortened it a bit.

--Jadger 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The giant map by Smith2006

Isn't the giant map User:Smith2006 added today against some WP rules on illustration size? I'm not sure myself but I'm sure I've never seen such a large map image anywhere in WP. Additionally the copyright of this map is probably not lapsed. Smith2006 claims the map was compiled in Nazi Germany (see the image description) but it clearly shows post-1945 borders of Poland with Germany and Russia (or GDR and the Soviet Union depending when the map was compiled). Therefore the map is most probavbly still copyrighted even if reprinted in the Soviet Union in the meantime. Friendly Neighbour 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I reported the image as a possible copyright infigement after posting a warning on User:Smith2006's Talk page and removing the image from the only page when it was used. All those steps are required by Wikipedia:Image use policy. Friendly Neighbour 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German wikipedia

German wiki has name Eastern Territories of German Reich. It is more precise term and neutral. --Januszewicz 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it is exactly the opposite, the word reich in english is equivocated with the Nazi regime, most don't even know what the first and second reich were. Also, that titles implies that they are still a part of Germany, while the current title I fail to see any POV in it at all.

1. Historical- in the past, Germany possessed the land in the past for considerable time
2. Eastern- referring to where it is compared to the rest of Germany
3. Germany- shows that it was a part of the nation and not another one at the time.

now how is it POV/not neutral?

--Jadger 23:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The birthplace of Erika Steinbach

The Erika Steinbach article has been protected to encourage editors to resolve an edit war over the wording of her place of birth (in essence Rahmel vs. Rumia and text describing its location in German-occupied Poland). There is a vote going on at Talk:Erika Steinbach regarding how to word the place of birth. Please express your opinion on this issue if you have one. --Richard 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)