Talk:Recovered Territories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poland Portal
Recovered Territories is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Beginning of Polish State

(Due to Lysy's removal shown here): 'This boundary is basically the same as the 10th–14th century Polish-German border.'

This map [1] depicts Poland (in the center) at its foundation time by Dago/Dagr, later called Mieszko I. Polish territory, including previously Bohemian/Czech ruled parts) are shown in white and surrounding different countries in darker color. Poland under Bolsma/Bolsleib (later called Boleslaw I, conquered a number of other territories, which were subsequentially lost again. The size and shape of the actual later called Polish land of the 900's compares to the 1815 Duchy of Warsaw.

I would like to remind every one that the map given is very inaccurate and over 100 years old.

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Political-Historical reasoning from Silesia talk page

[edit] Silesia as a part of Poland

I'm afraid you are misinformed about history of Silesia. Poland emerged as a state in years 950-1000, when the first Polish monarchs Mieszko I and Boleslaus I the Brave had united a couple of Polish tribes (Polanes, Mazovians, Pomeranians, Vistulans, Opolians and Silesians) into one political body. This fact was acknowledged by the Pope and by the Roman Emperor, 2 most important political authorities of this time, by the creation of Polish church province (Gniezno and Poznan in Greater Poland, Wroclaw in Silesia, Cracow in Little Poland, and Kolobrzeg in Pomerania)

Except for a short period of Bohemian rule in 1039-1050, the status of Silesia as part of Poland was not questioned for several centuries (until 14th century). In year 1138 Polish duke has created a 'federal' or 'feudal' Polish state consiting of several provinces (Silesia among them). Provinces of Poland were to be ruled by the descendants of his 4(5) sons, but one of the duke (the oldest one) were to hold Cracow and to be the overlord or high-duke of all Poland, responsible for foreign, military and other national affairs. This was the preparation for a royal coronation. Again this 'constitution' was confirmed by the Emperor and the Pope. In the following years the dukes quarreled who should be the grand duke, but the constitution of Poland was not questioned.

Silesia, one of the provinces of Poland, was ruled by the descendands of Wladyslaw II, the oldest son of Boleslaw III. Because the Silesian dukes were the oldest branch of the Piast dynasty, they considered themselves to be destined to be the overlords of all Poland. In 12-th-13th centuries Silesia became the strongest province of Poland (politically and economically) and this period is called the Monarchy of Silesian Henrys (Henry I, Henry II, Henry III, Henry IV). Preparations for the royal coronation were broken by the Tartar invasion in 1241, and Henry IV almost achieved Polish throne before his death in 1290. Royal City of Cracow was inherited by Przemysl II of Poznan and he succeded to achieve Polish royal crown in 1295, there is no doubt that this royal coronation was prepared politically by the Silesian dukes, who considered themselvs dukes of Poland.

After King Przemysl II death in 1296, the royal ambitions were inherited by his nephews, Ladislaus II the Short of Cuiavia and Henry II of Glogow (in Silesia), but also by the Venceslas II of Bohemia, who took control of Cracow, married Przemysl's daughter and was crowned King of Bohemia and Poland 1300. For the next 50 years or so there were 2 competing Polish kings in Prague and Cracow fighting each other and declaring his oponents decisions to be illegal. This dispute was resolved by a compromise. King of Cracow resigned his rights to most of Silesia, and the king of Prague resigned his rights to the 'Polish' title.

But still the Bohemian chancellery, Silesian cities, the chronicles authors in their documents had no doubt the the Silesian duchies and cities belong to the Kingdom of Poland (Regnum Poloniae). In 14th-15th centuries students from Silesia at the German universities were assigned to the Polish nation academic coporations.The Silesian dukes considered themselves the dukes of Poland, and they rules their duchies until they died out in 1675. They called themselves The Piasts from the dynasty legendary founder, and the Piast term itself was invented in Silesia in 16th century. Silesian eclessiatical province of Wroclaw belonged to the Polish archbishopric in Gniezno up to the 18th century, although there were serious attempts to transfer it to the archbishopric of Prague.

When time passed the real political belonging of Silesia to the Kingdom of Bohemia was prevailing over the legal belonging of Silesia to the Kingdom of Poland. Since there was a significant difference between the legal boundaries of Poland, and the real boundaries of territories controlled by the Polish kings, the jurists had developed a legal definition of the difference between two legal bodies.

  • the Kingdom of Poland - means the territory of all the lands that belonged to the Polish kingdom, when it was first established.
  • Crown of the Kingdom of Poland - means the territories that are actually controlled by the the Polish king.

According to this legal definitions Silesia and Pomerania belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and not belonged to the Polish Crown. On the other hand Red Ruthenia belonged to the Crown, and did not belonged to the Kingdom. The medieval documents show that these terms were used frequently and had significant legal meaning. For example a couple of provincial dukes sweared their oaths to Polish the King, the Kingdom, and Crown of the Kingdom.

The legal status of Silesia was that the province belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and at the same time it belonged to (was controlled by) the Crown of St. Venceslas (or Bohemian Crown). Poland was an electoral monarchy probably since 1177 and certailny after Polish-Lithuanian Union in 1386. All Polish royal pretenders between 1370 and 1772 could attain the Polish throne on the sole condition that he will sign a document guaranting nobility priviledges, integrity of Polish Kingdom and promise to do everything to get back the lost lands on his own cost.

The 16th century Polish historian Jan Dlugosz (Dlugosius, Longinus) author of the multi-volume Chronicles of the Polish Kingdom, comenting the end of the 13th-year war (1554-66) wrote that he is very happy that Gdansk Pomerania and Prussia had returned to Poland, but he would be even more happy if Poland could re-claim other lost lands: Silesia, lubusz land and Slupsk/Szczecin-Pomerania. His cronicles were the main source of historical and political thinking in Poland in 16th-18th century and this means that the legal rights of Poland to Silesia were never forgotten.

In the 18th century Poland became a weak country and these rights could not be executed. In the partitions of Poland (1772-1795) even the Polish state ceased to exist, but the Polish political nation and Polish Kingdom were not liquidated. The Kingdom was always considered to be a sacred thing - it continues to exist even if there is no King. Existence of the Polish political nation was proved by its amibiton to return to the political map of Europe, the repeating Polish uprisings, and peaceful national activities.

These political Polish dreams came true when Poland regained its independence in 1918 and regained the lost territories in 1945.

From legal point of view, Silesia was part of Poland for all the time since the foundation of Poland in 1000, and it doesn't matter if the province was actually in hands the Polish monarchs or temporarily controlled by other political bodies. The Polish monarchs had invited many guests from other countries to settle in Poland to find a better life. They and their decendants were guaranteed significant political and economic freedoms and rights. But they and their decendants also had a political obligation - to be loyal to the Polish dukes and kings. Most of them were loyal. We are very sorry we had to expel from Poland those who were not loyal.

CC, 20:10, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)



[edit] Is this a joke?

"We are very sorry we had to expell".

The people of Breslau/Wroclaw and Stettin did not have to be loyal to Poland because they were living in Germany.

The US is taken over for 200+ years by Mexico. Now Americans are no longer obligated to be loyal to the US because it doesn't currently exist or exercise political control over the region...that's basically what you're saying about Silesia. Historically, the province was built by Poles, so even if controlled by Germany, it is meaningless and void to say that Germans developed the region. Absolutely not. That's like saying Lithuanians developed Vilnius and Ukrainians developed Lviv. --Erikson

[edit] Casimir III. of Poland renounced to Silesia forever

In 1337 (1355) the Polish kingdom under king Casimir III. renounced forever to Silesia in the treaty of Trenčin (now Slovakia). In this time Silesia came to be part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation during the whole time of its existence. So, from midst of 14th century until 1945 when Poland occupied Silesia etc unlawfully (the Allies had put this former German territories just under Polish administration), i.e. around 700 years Silesia didn´t belong to Poland. And a southern part of Silesia which in German is called "Grafschaft Glatz" hadn´t ever belonged to the Polish Kindom etc. Well, maybe Poland couldn´t get enough.

--Wikiferdi 13:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stabilisation of the Western Territories

Removed entire text to talk. Full of inaccuracies and extremely NPOV: The Soviet installed Polish government of 1945/47 started referring to the Eastern German land east of the Oder-Neisse line, under Soviet occupation since 1945, as Poland's Western Territories, also as Regained Territories.

Since 1920/21 parts of Germany were 'given' to Poland, then known as Polish Corridor. Poland by 1922 war conquest also added parts of Ukraine in the east and had one third none- Polish inhabitants. Poland went on a rigorous State- and Polish Catholic-Church-supported campagne to rid the 'New Poland' of the native populations, which had now become minorities in their own homeland situated in the New Poland.

Primate Cardinal August Hlond, the highest authority in the Catholic church of Poland, formulated the how to 'rid Poland of minorities' policy with his letter of 1935 and his recorded exclamations.

In summer 1939 a number of (now ethnic) Germans including the Protestant pastors from the Polish Corridor area were collected and sent on a death march from town to town. This event is known as the Bromberg Bloody Sunday.

The long-time-in-planning Soviet take-over took place in and after 1945 and the Soviet Union and Soviet-installed government of Poland took all Eastern-Germany, east of the Oder-Neisse line, under military occupation. The Polish clergy, while some opposed the Soviet Union as well, did however aid the Soviet take-over by expelling the German priests and pastors along with the German native population of Eastern Germany (east of the Oder-Neisse line). Poland claims this part of Germany as Poland's Western Territories or as Regained Territories.

All Protestant churches were closed. Officially there were no Protestants, nore Germans in the Soviet-backed Poland of 1945.

In 1985 the Sczeczin bishop Jan Galecki praised the Catholic clergy of Poland for the roll they played in the establishment of Stabilisation of the Western Territories.

This roll of getting rid of minoritieswas defined by the highest ranking church official of Poland Primate Cardinal August Hlond and adhered to over many years. It was also formulated as "correct" by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, backer of the Polish government.

The Serbian rulers took the Soviet Union, Polish and Czech and Churchill example as their guide in their plan and execution of "how to effectively rid a country of minorities".

It greatly surprised the Serbs, that this same policy is now called 'Ethnic Cleansing".

Polish Primate Cardinal August Hlond, along with many others, was a perpetrator of Polish church and state-sanctioned policies of "how to rid Poland of minorities from lands conquered by Poland and Soviet Union". There are attempts now to legally bestowe sainthood on Hlond.


In my opinion this article need a major rewrite. It should clarify why Poland wanted to recover these territories, the historical background, the positions of Polish Government in Exile and the Polish Communist Government, the diffrences betwen the Allies, in various period of time, and the final reslosion of the conflict. cc, 05:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The aqcuisition of the Western Territories have nothing to do with the loss of the Eastern Territories, the only connection was they apeared during/after WWII -- CC, 06:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Polish claims over Kiev

(In matter of fact, Poles did claim sovereignity over Kiev during the Polish-Soviet war. By the treaty with the Petlura, Poland passed its rights to Ukraine.)

I moved the abovementioned statement to the discussion. As long as the author doesn't post any proof, it should stay here.Halibutt 23:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Anon edits

I did a few minor edits to this page for several reasons. First, it was rather badly written with several sentences that made little or no sense. Second, the page reads like an excerpt from the handbook of a Polish nationalist and little to do with historical facts but instead attempts to justify the shift of the German-Polish border after World War 2. Things like this only the wiki. Stop it already. As far as I am concerned this entire entry should be deleted because the very title alone (Recovered territories?) is not in any way a widely used or accepted term (in the English language) for referring to these areas.

Although the article was (and perhaps still is) somewhat strange, deletion is out of the question. The term Ziemie Odzyskane is commonly used in Poland and as such should also be reported on wikipedia. As long as the article describes the propaganda agenda behind the term and all the situation in 1945 - it's ok.
However, you simply decided to delete everything apart the definition itself, which is IMO a bad idea. I'll move the text you deleted here, so that we could correct it and put it back. How about that? Halibutt 23:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

This ideology was taught in the schools, and was catered to in newspapers and books. All traces of Polish history in the West were carefully recovered, with complete disregard of Polish history in the East.

Even in Germany, one of the positive and widely appraised aspects of the ideology of the Recovered Territories was the reconstruction of historical, old city centers that were demolished in the war. The cities of Wroclaw and Gdansk with their medieval houses look much better now than they did before the war. This is according to some expelled Germans (vide Gunther Grass about the old city of Gdansk).

After 50 years of education, many Poles believe passionately in Poland's ancestral rights to the areas.

Arguments for the Polish ancestral rights

This position is defended by facts, such as the Holy Roman Empire's meeting at the tomb of Saint Adalbert in 1000, showing Silesia and Lubus were already part of Poland, Pomerania a Polish fief. This area of the country was made into a separate Polish province of the church, which included Silesia until 1850 and Lubus, Pomerania until the Reformation. Also the fact that Poland bordered the Holy Roman Empire was possible only because the Slavic people that lived between the Oder and Elbe rivers were already the subject of conquest from the side of Saxonian vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. During the partial division of Poland in this period (1138-1320), Poland lost Lubus and sovereignty over the western part of Pomerania, which became a separate state called Silesia. Silesia was ruled by princes from the Polish dynasty of Piast until 1675, and eventually, in 1343, recognized the sovereignty of the rulers of Bohemia.

Counter-Arguments

Many who are not Polish and some who doubt the validity of these claims contend that the concepts of the Poland of a thousand years ago and the Poland of modern times bear very little relation to each other. This concept is comparable to the claim of some modern English nationalists who derive their Englishness from the inheritance of Alfred the Great.

[edit] Slavic brothers

"The brothers Czech and Lech are the semi-legendary Slav brothers, from which the Czechs and Lechiten or Poles derived their nations."

I removed the above sentence for several reasons:

  1. these "brothers" are not even semi-legendary, but fully legendary; apart from that, the brother Rus is omitted;
  2. more importantly, the sentence does not have any apparent relation to what was said above and below.

--Thorsten1 12:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I believe you spotted an authentic, genuine User:H.J. artefact. Space Cadet 13:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I remember in Czech version of the legend there's no mention of Rus at all. Halibutt 14:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 700 years borderline between Poland and Silesia

The borderline between Silesia and Poland had existed for around 700 years and was so one of the most stable borders in Europe.

--Wikiferdi 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Silesia was divided onto hundreds of small duchies and princedoms. Some of them were independent, others were dependent on Poland, Bohemia, the emperor or Austria. This pattern constantly changed until late 18th century, so I wouldn't call the border stable. The border of the historical region was defined, but the political borders between spheres of influence constantly changed. Halibutt 14:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Although it was fairly stable in terms of military actions - there were I believe no conflicts between Poland and Germany since early Middle Ages until the time of Partitions (and I am not sure if then-Prussia forces actually took any signingicant part in figthting Polish forces). That is not counting some German activities during some Polish kings elections). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the struggle for Silesian duchies was mostly political or dynastic. It all breaks down to struggle for inheritance of particular duchies after the local Piasts started dying out. That's why some of the duchies remained subdued to Poland until the very end while others were Germanized politically relatively early. However, Poland did not fight for the whole region since the middle ages. If there were any military actions, they were mostly aimed at local dukes and not at the emperor. Halibutt 22:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Additionaly Wikifredi wrote that Silesia didnt belong to Poland for 700 years, he made a simple calculation error. From mid 14th century to mid 20th century there is 6 centuries or 600 years not 700. Not a big difference - the fact remains that it was outside Polish rule for many centuries, i just wanted to clarify the thing. --Serus 00:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right on Home

I did some changes on the depiction of the peace settlement and annexion of former German territiries because the expelled Germans weren´t asked if they like to leave their ancestral homeland. They were forced to leave all they had - without any recompensation. They insist on the humane Right on Home of which they can´t be arbitrarily deprived (cf. Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

--Wikiferdi 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Kind of a ridiculous expectation. First, Germany invades Poland and murders 6 million of its inhabitants, planning to eventually enslave or annihalate the remainder of the population. Second, according to international protocol, an invading country, if defeated, can be occupied legally, thus ending its existance as a state. I'd say that between that and disregarding Polish claims to their ancenstral homelands, that makes it more than fair. Please stop trying to spread nationalist German propaganda.-- Erikson

Poland attempted to use Danzig, which was a Free City under Polish Administration (but German-majority) as a bargaining chip against Hitler. Hitler hated Poland not because of race (they was ONE of his motives but not the largest), but because so much of what he considered German territory was GIVEN to Poland after the first world war -- and much of it he was correct about -- part of the the German side of my family originates in what became part of Poland. Don't forget, post-war the Polish-Soviet forces murdered several hundred thousand German civilians while forcing them to leave. They also received no compensation, even though those areas were German for nearly a millenia -- hardly the Polish homeland. Please stop trying to spread nationalist Polish propoganda (is there any other kind?). Antman 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Second, according to international protocol, an invading country, if defeated, can be occupied legally, thus ending its existance as a state." Erikson, you are correct, the country known as "Germany" ceased to exist as a nation-state in May, 1945. Does international protocol state that if the population of the ex-nation-state institutes a "democratic" government they can claim to be a successor state (accomplished via the noncontroversial and de facto annexation of the DDR in 1990) to the dissolved state?? Even if that were true, BRD does not exist with anything remotely proximate in the East to the precise INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED 1937 borders of the state it succeeded, namely Nazi Germany . . . so, maybe BRD should be known in international law to include a Latin subtitle designation as "Rump Germany" ("Rump" as in more than 25% of it's 1937 land area detached). JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1939

In 1939 the population of the regions assigned to Poland after the Second World War consisted mostly of self-identified ethnic-Germans (although many had Slavic ancestry) and a significant Polish minority. Some one million Poles lived outside of Poland on the German side. Initially Poland was promised East Prussia, Upper Silesia and the eastern part of Western Pomerania up to Kolberg.

These sentences do not make sence to me. In 1939 Who assigned and what regions to Poland? In 1939 Who initally promised EP US and eastern WP to Poland? Philip Baird Shearer 11:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

They were assigned after WW II, population lived in 1939, and regions in question were the Recovered territories. Space Cadet 13:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Stalin decided that Poland should receive large chunks of German territories post-WW2. Although most of the Allies (particualarly the UK) objected, they did not stop it... the Germans weren't in a very good bargaining position either. Those territories that Poland gained (don't give me your rhetoric SC, large parts of it were NEVER Polish or had not been for nearly a millenium) were what the Polish call the Recovered Territories, and the Germans called the Ostdeutsche Gebiete unter Polnische Verwaltung, or East German Territories under Polish Administration. Antman 03:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the article explain just that? Halibutt 08:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed inaccurate section

I removed the section on on supposed views of Poles, it was both inaccurate and unreferenced. The territories in question in fact WERE part of Poland earlier as shown on the map. --Molobo 17:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the article to talk

Acquring territories West to the Oder-Neisse line was part of the process of Polish westward shifting, which went along with Soviet annexation of the land east of the Curzon line. Both changes were decided at the Potsdam conference. This included not only shifting borders, but also movement of people, and tradition.

Despite the fact that a Polish population had always lived in these regions, they had also been politically and ethnically German since the colonization of these rural areas during the Middle Ages by advancing German kingdoms and German farmers.

[edit] Change of perspective required

The article does not make it sufficiently clear that "Recovered Territories" is essentially not a geographical concept, but a political one that did not emerge until the mid-20th century. In post-war propaganda, it was coined to encourage people, especially from the former East of Poland (kresy) to settle down permanently in the newly acquired post-German areas, which these people were very reluctant to do. In its present form, however, with a large section about the Middle Ages, this article implies the existence of a coherent political and territorial entity that antedates the use of the term "Recovered Territories". This, however, is untrue. It is an undisputed fact that all these territories were part of the Polish state earlier in their history. However, apart from that there is fairly little that would link the various regions covered by this term. Explaining the history of Pomerania, Silesia, Greater Poland etc. both here and in their proper articles creates a large deal of unwarranted redundancy. It also constitutes an implicit political statement that we are simply not entitled to make. In short, this article should focus more on the actual concept rather than the territories. (Similar things can be said about Historical Eastern Germany.) With Molobo taken care of for the time being, I hope we can move away from the nationalist POVs that pervade articles like this one. Still, I'd like to hear others' opinions before making any edits. --Thorsten1 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, and I did not realize that until you pointed it out, some things just slip under the radar. "recovered" implies of course that it was lost, then retaken, however this is not really true as in some areas there was no existent Polish population. It would be the equivalent of the UK conquering USA and proclaiming it the "recovered colonies". of course this is obviously wrong, and would be a political statement. I feel links to the articles about the certain areas' histories should be enough and we should not state it again here, for the exact same reasons as Thorsten. --Jadger 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Second that, too. From today's perspective it is not only a political concept but a historical political concept, as it's not in wide use in Poland today, except for its historical context. I'd however prefer to avoid the discussion on whether the territories were really "recovered" or not. It was just the name that was used for political purposes of the times and I'm sure it's still easy to find sources supporting either point of view. I've made first edits to the lead along these lines. --Lysytalk 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not-used Block

What happened to the text block at the top of the page that notified people that this was not a commonly used term outside of Poland? I thought that that was an interesting touch. Ameise -- chat 05:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article reads: "was a political concept used in Communist Poland". What is not clear here ? --Lysytalk 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it can't be -was-, because I still see people on Wikipedia (especially puppets who come over from pl) using it quite often. Ameise -- chat 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Really ? I've never heard it being used in contemporary Polish other than in historical context. --Lysytalk 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A few people on this site I have heard use it, include who was Space Cadet (I think he is gone now?) and a few other people who were very, very nationalistic. Ameise -- chat 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadet is still alive and kicking, just doesn't seem to edit as much anymore. I think the warning at the start is/was good, as people skim over an article they may miss that half a sentence. Kind of like how people are claiming The Da Vinci Code as factual even though it is just a novel. If there is half a sentence at the start then the rest of the article is written as a definition, some people may take it as fact, rather than just a propoganda term used by the Communists to justify the forceful annexation of German lands. What harm does the warning at the start have if you leave it in? NONE, so why take it out? if something isn't broken, you don't fix it.

--Jadger 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have readded it -- going thru the history, it appears to have been removed by an IP that was listed as a vandal. Ameise -- chat 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Should have noticed it myself. --Lysytalk 08:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I am against this merge... 'Recovered Territories' is only a term that has meaning in Poland, 'Historical Eastern Germany' has universal meaning. If anything, this should be merged there. Ameise -- chat 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of map

I think the map showing the territory controlled by Boleslav the wrymouthed should be deleted as has been mentioned here. It tries to make claims to the land/justify the expulsions and territory changes when this article is not about justifying the border changes but simply stating a past political idea. Perhaps mentioning that the land was controlled by what is considered the Polish state of the time is used as an excuse to change the borders 1000 years later. Not to mention it is misleading in that it also includes the lands controlled by the Polish Duke inside the holy roman empire, but were fiefs to the Emperor. These lands were not independent, but it is misleading to think they were also ruled by the Piast Dukes in total autonomy.

--Jadger 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland emerged 20% smaller

Dear Jadger, I do not know what citation you need. If you would go to some historical atlas, you will found a map like that dated 1922-1938 at [2]. Visual diagnostic is enough to found that present Polish territory is smaller. There is also sentence: "The new Poland emerged 20% smaller by 77,500 square kilometers (29,900 sq mi). The shift forced the migration of millions of people – Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and Jews." The exact areas for the different period you probably should gland on Polish Wiki 322 575 km² is at [3] and 389 720 km² [4]. You can decide yourself how the food note should look like in the article. From my point of view, it needs not a citation. --131.104.218.146 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

along with the vast majority of educated people, I do not speak polish, perhaps provide a reliable english link that people can understand. Also, when there is a {{fact}} tag, that does not mean you mention something on the talk page in broken English then delete it, it means you should insert a link to a reference. Also, not all land is equal except in size, the formerly German areas were heavily industrialized and see for instance the value of 1 square mile in downtown Manhattan compared to the same size of land in say, the Sahara Desert. Poland was more than "compensated" it was picking from the corpse of Germany.
--Jadger 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jadger, If you like to discuses Polish affairs you should make a afford to understand the opposite party - also their language. Demanding that the attacked side will give you ready meal is at least strange. I ensure you that knowing better or less English or Polish has nothing to do with level of education, as in both of this languages you can express yourself and study equally well. Languages knowledge has also nothing to do with sense of logic and polities. I do not think I have to fulfill you demand according to you imagination. I can study in Polish and English but most of facts regarding Polish history are in Polish literature, obviously. I give you one ling to En Wiki. For the future I direct you to a Public library, my first choice would be Britanica, but American encyclopedia this size would provide reasonable and in most case objective information. After that, I would question the (citation). When you demand explanation having only desire to contradict is, well – problematic.

Regarding value of land: First above all, your private war is very interesting psychological phenomenon. You are Canadian with one German grandparent and generally mixed national origin. I believe you knowledge of European history is strictly armature. My impression is that instead show interest and objectivity you attempt to prove you vision, which unfortunately dose not have strong foundation in reality. You do not recognize a fundamental fact what is recognized by most people - even in Germany. Hitler's Germany was responsible for aggression, for most deadliest and savage war. In my perception, you want erase a crime saying: "It is no matter who start the brawl. It dos not matter who was victim who was offender. We equal because you lost eye and I lost one. You lost leg but I lost arm. etc." My question: Is it has a sense?.

My opinion is criminal is criminal and he has to be punish because he was the aggressor, the cause. Because the conclusion I am not going to weigh the German and Polish loses with Canadian who pretend to be, ... well I do not know - judge? You need to judge the lost in Polish economy in Polish population privately for yourself. For me it is to personal to argue my family and fatherland loses with a strange person. It is not like for you a book tale only. I will not point a source in literature for you search, I just would wish you to be more scientific and critical with you lectures and demands. Objectivity is an art, and you mentioned at some time that you are biased. I hope that you understood my broken English. Best regard, A --131.104.218.46 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


again, you greatly misunderstand me, on the English wikipedia it is generally understood that everyone who contributes understands English, and some people know other languages. For those of us unfortunate to know the language a link is given in, do you not think we are entitled to ask for it to be translated so that we all may understand it? You don't see me calling you ignorant for not understanding the unique Canadian dialect, or for not knowing quebec French. the rest of your post does not warrant a response, as it was a personal attack, so please stop disobeying Wikipedia rules.
--19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jadger, The principal rule of Wiki is to show neutral, better say objective info. Saying: "Poland was more than "compensated" it was picking from the corpse of Germany." you display very pitiful judgment and offence. The point is you do not understand the two basic thinks: 1) Poland experienced most savage aggression and this cannot be compare with anything what Polish people did at anytime. I direct you to summarization of II WW in English encyclopedias. I am not going to haggle about this numbers. I give you this only to start you study. According to my knowledge: Poland lost: solders 850 000 civilians 6 000 000 in total 6 850 000 (19.7% of population) Germany lost: solders 3 250 000 civilians 2 810 000 in total 6 060 000 (8.7% of population) I hope you do not assume the German loses are Polish fault. 2) Being so careless with you words you offend Poles in such way which civilized Germans would not dare to do. Finally, do not hide you attempts blaming me for personal attack since there was none of such. You overestimate criticism. Personal attack for me is using street words or other unprovoked direct names. My question for example: "Are you Nazi?" is none of such offences or attack. You just do not know what you are doing. I attempt to explain to you that the WW II is subject which you do not understand. I want you to be very careful when talking with Poles about WW II results. It is very very difficult to be patient with such "Poland was more than "compensated" it was picking from the corpse of Germany." Please be careful the decision was USSR, USA and UK and was done for the sake of future peace anyway. Ask them to compensate Germany the “loses”. Ask instead attack (you do it no doubts) give your info and source of info. Just exchange information. Do not judge. Do not force your unsupported wishes. You talk with people whose families were more then decimated. A.


LOL, I don't care to answer your assertions because:
  • you claim I blame Poland for all of Germany's loss (which I don't) and then you go and blame Germany for all of Poland's loss, which is totally false!!!
  • you are a petty nationalist (I would even say borderline racist) who tries to skew everything to make Poland look like the victim of history. Poland is a nation that does not matter on the world stage. GET OVER IT, don't keep trying to blame others/make excuses for Poland's failure. you can try to blame Germans/Germany for Poland's misfortune, but her own leaders did not act to Poland's best interests in the situation, and that is why what happened happened. If Poland's own rulers hadn't of weakened her before the partitions, the partitions wouldn't of been successful, end of story.
asking someone "are you a Nazi?" implies that you think they are. I don't know about in Poland, but when we meet a new person in the English world we don't automatically ask them "are you a Nazi?" for no reason. it is a loaded question, you don't have people walking up to you and asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" do you? you would surely take offence if they did ask you. and in any case, it does not matter how u take your questions to others, in any legal case of harassment it is how the victim takes it to mean that matters.
and finally I don't care how Poles take WWII's consequences as with everyone else, their views (on average) are biased, as you have perfectly shown here on Wikipedia. you have shown how nationalist, jaded, POV and misunderstanding you are. I ask for a citation to prove that Poland lost 20% of its land, in order to improve the article, but then I get a lecture from you on how poor ol' Poland is always suffering. I don't care how or why Poland is suffering! I asked for a reference and got it, that is all that was needed. not some lecture from a crusading nationalist who likes to dabble in historical revision (but its more like historical denial)
--Jadger 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. you said: "Please be careful the decision was USSR, USA and UK and was done for the sake of future peace anyway. Ask them to compensate Germany the “loses”" The potsdam agreement was not a binding agreement, and it never gave the land to Poland, it gave them temporary administration over the lands, and using that administration they expelled and murdered millions of Germans, then claimed the land for themselves with Soviet backing later on. stop trying to blame others for the crimes that your nation committed, the blame lands squarely on your shoulders

18Dec06 >You claim I blame Poland for all of Germany's loss (which I don't) and then you go and blame Germany for all of Poland's loss, which is totally false!!!

I only asked you if you blame Poland for all German losses. I did not claim knowledge of you mine. There are of course Soviet faults but in total is some 80% of Germans.

>You are a petty nationalist (I would even say borderline racist) who tries to skew everything to make Poland look like the victim of history.

Call me as you want. I call my self as patriot. If Poland was victim of history? Well much more then Germany, more then Russia, more then Belgium etc. We were just between two major powers of Europe in the corridor, flat territory where all goes back and forth. This is the difference between Canada and Poland. Its geographical location. You should think about it.

>Poland is a nation that does not matter on the world stage. GET OVER IT,

No comments. Do you love anything, maybe you only love is dollar?

>don't keep trying to blame others/make excuses for Poland's failure. you can try to blame Germans/Germany for Poland's misfortune,

Do you mean forgot the blood which was bloodshed. You do not know what you talking about. It should be never forgotten just for the sake of future generations. In Germany still Nazi party exists.

>but her own leaders did not act to Poland's best interests in the situation, and that is why what happened happened.

What happened? The II WW? Anyway do you believe Canadian leaders doing good job? It is only shallow impression because some economic prosperity.

>If Poland's own rulers hadn't of weakened her before the partitions, the partitions wouldn't of been successful, end of story.

Yes, democratic countries are weak. Poland was in some sense democratic country (less then USA of that days). Possibly if you know the constitution 1791 was the second on the world, just after USA. Beside role of “Solidarity” in last century it indicates something. Any way my impression is you know little about Europe history. There a lot of small countries which participation is important.

>asking someone "are you a Nazi?" implies that you think they are. I don't know about in Poland, but when we meet a new person in the English world we don't automatically ask them "are you a Nazi?"

It was not automatically in the case of so many German arrogant. It was only an example in conversation with you. It was not a personal question. You to often exaggerate.

> and finally I don't care how or why Poland is suffering!

That is bad. You show many consideration how poorly German were treated expelled from Poland. Now you show no respect to the death in concentration camps. Just beautiful. I could not expect anything more. Now: Are you Nazi?

>I asked for a reference and got it, that is all that was needed. not some lecture from a crusading nationalist who likes to dabble in historical revision (but its more like historical denial)

For sure I need not lecture from you how I should treat my fatherland. Also I need not lecture how to treat German revisionism. I am not revisionist I accept the present borders of Poland :))), I do not look for revision. You do.

>The Potsdam agreement was not a binding agreement, and it never gave the land to Poland, it gave them temporary administration over the lands,

It is you interpretation check the American, British and other atlases. Give me the “temporary” proof if you can.

>and using that administration they expelled and murdered millions of Germans,

millions? Do not be funny. Murdered maybe accidentally a few, it could happened because the post war disorder. After the war, what was German fault anyway. Millions you are absolute arrogant, where came from the number. You will have to apologize I am sure. In total was 3 millions how many death. Such number you are perfect crazy in XIX century Trucks did kill 1.5 million Armenians and we know it and after WW II in center of Europe MILLIONS of Germans. I have no words on you insolence. You will apologize it in bold big font on first line of the discussion or I will publicize you all around the World. Andrew


thank you very much "Andrew" (really User_Talk:131.104.218.46), you have firmly proven the points which I had made above. As for asking me to cite my source, here you go: "The Allies had transferred the German Silesian, Pommeranian and East-Prussian territories to Poland in 1945 for occupation, but not necessarily for outright annexation.[[5]]"
as for numbers: see here or [here]
--Jadger 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the authorized text of the Potsdam conference? You serve me some German Bla Bla in link first. I am not in mood to get this from you. At last link is: Died during flight or expulsion.: Poland 263,000 I underline both “flight or expulsion.” Where the f… MILLIONS? Also the number 263 000 is no realistic at all this is revisionist propaganda. It would be 100 000 death from 4.1 millions flight and 163 000 from 3 millions at expulsion. It would be possible maybe 10 000 old people etc. because they (of course) did not have trains or cars - who had that time. Any way, this is my last words to you or you apologize. No discussion with you any more without the apology. A

"Died during flight or expulsion.: Poland 263,000" read the note at the bottom of that table though, it says that the "recovered" territories were included in Germany because that is where the pre-war census data was from. 263 000 were all people living in what was prewar Poland, not postwar. I have cited sources, but you have not once cited yours, you cannot pull number out of a hat and say they are factually accurate. and what am I apologising for? the millions of Germans who were murdered or expelled? I am not entitled to apologize to them as I have no connection with the corrupt Polish regime that murdered some of them and took all of their homes from them.
--Jadger 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong interwiki link

Hi, some days ago I removed an obviously bogus interwiki link from this article to de:Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reichs ("Eastern territories of the German Empire"). The German article links back to Historical Eastern Germany, which is probably the closest equivalent. The German Translation of "Recovered territories" would be "Wiedergewonnene Gebiete" which does not exist as a separate article. --Johannes Rohr 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

this is probably done automatically by a bot that doesn't know the difference between the two articles, and to tell you the truth, I think this article should be deleted. Now the Polish nationalists are going to all get up in a rage, attack me, calling me a Nazi etc. etc. and claim I am doing this just to "keep Poland down", but first let me explain my reasons.
the title of the article is "Recovered Territories", and the opening warning/note states it is a political concept created by the former Communist Regime in Poland. but what's this? nowhere in the rest of the article is there mention of it as a political concept. The rest of the article outside of the opening note is just a propogandist excuse page for the Polish annexations in 1945. If this were an article about a political term, it might have say, excerpts from speeches of politicians who used the term, or who developed the term, or something else that is there to clarify and illuminate on the subject. none of those things are done!!! THIS ARTICLE IS A THINLY VEILED ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE EXPULSION AND MURDER OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
So, I think we have two reasonable options: we can merge the article with Historical Eastern Germany, taking what little useful information is in this article and placing it in the historical eastern Germany article, perhaps under a new header, although that may mean creating a POV fork. The other reasonable option we have is to just delete this page as it offers nothing useful to wikipedia or the reader, it does not enlighten, it propogandizes.

so which should I request? merger or deletion?

--Jadger 20:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Some kind of compromise along the lines of merger seems most reasonable. Dr. Dan 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclude Jadger

Anybody who has enough experience with ill will of Jadger please give me a hand. --Serafin 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or where you're from. From your contributions, I will assume that you are Polish. If so, that's sad for the great Polish people. Hopefully, you are not living in the United States. Wikipedia is an international project which was created in the United States, the land of my birth. As a proud American, and I say that with the knowledge that my country is not without "sin", I must tell you that whoever you are, you need to recede back to what ever close-mind totalitarian "society" that your thought processes evolved out of. I give a rat's ass about Jadger, but think people like you, not Jadger are the problem! You bray, Exclude Jadger, and then ask for help from "others". This is censorship, and unacceptable to my understanding of the Wikipedia project. All viewpoints, including ones that both of us should deplore, are entitled to be expressed, and then debated by the community. Even yours. Exclusion of someone or something that you disagree with, is very bogus. It wasn't too long ago that instead of wanting to "exclude" Jadger, people with your POV preferred to "liquidate" the Jadgers. Jadger has every right to express his thoughts and opinions. It's called freedom of thought and freedom of speech. It's your mindset that has got to go! Dr. Dan 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that !!! - (I hope you don't mind the y ?) This number 131/Serafin has done this for several months at the German wikipedia, he accused and attacked everybody and everything and they finally blocked him. He goes on and on here. He does know Polish, contributes ? on Polish wiki too, but he writes from Troy MI Guelph Uni. I have traveled on Polish trains several times and visited cities and towns and met many very nice friendly helpful Polish people and yes, many nowadays do speak German and travel between Danzig, pardon me Gdansk and Stettin and Berlin and School groups exchanges are on a daily basis and nothing out of the ordinary. I met and talked to a man from Danzig, and yes the people that live in the German East or Polish West do know and whats more use the German names for the towns. Compare that to this ongoing idiocy at wikipedia, where all English names of people and places have to be in Polish. Its the people like this person, that give Poles a bad name. Is he a re-incarnation of Caeius, Polish Politician, Witkacy, Emax, Molobo or what ?? I am not answering him anymore, he gives me a headache. Labbas 19 December 2006

As you may note here this "Serafin" is a noted disruptor on the German Wikipedia. It is also stated that this is the same person as the disruptive User:131.104.218.46. That is pretty clear as they have both been signing their comments in the identical way, and have the same identical editing habits, as you will see here: [[6]]
as for questioning which blocked user he may be a sockpuppet of, I doubt it can be Molobo, as he has been busy compiling a list on his talk page of articles he is planning on disrupting when his ban is lifted, to think I almost miss the guy, but I think he will be back with a bang for sure.
--Jadger 11:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All of you accept the truth you will need to blame anybody. Stop spreading Jadger the Nazi garbage.

Ecxample: “Poland was more than "compensated" it was picking from the corpse of Germany.” or “Poland, it gave them temporary administration over the lands, and using that administration they expelled and murdered millions of Germans,…”

Freedom of speech does not freedom of lies. Is it the USA guy imagination? A.--131.104.218.46 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous 131.104.218 etc., those of us who can read, write, and understand English will be able to handle all of the different viewpoints without censorship, of all the various contributors. BTW, the "recovered territories" title has a strange "ring" to the English speaking ear. Wouldn't you agree? Try signing in and registering. It's free. Dr. Dan 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He has Dr. Dan, by having a active anon I think he is hoping to be able to sockpuppet votes, without actually creating a sockpuppet, because the same person is User:Serafin. Or maybe he just forgets to sign in most of the time, I assume good faith and hope it is the latter.
--Jadger 11:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antman's latest reversion of my edits

I don't understand Antman's last reversion to this article which had an edit summary that said "revert vandalism (by unnamed ip)". The edit immediately before his reversion was mine and, as far as I can tell, did not make any substantive changes to the content but rather improved the English. In particular,

1. "It is also possible (based on Tacitus' Germania that Germanic were also moving through these lands."

This sentence is awkward for a number of reasons.
a) there is an unclosed left parenthesis
b) Without the paarenthesis, the sentence says "It is possible that Germanic were also moving through these lands"
Since when is "Germanic" a collective noun? Why not just say "Germanic tribes"?
c) If you fix the above issues, you wind up with "It is also possible (based on Tacitus' Germania) that Germanic tribes were..."
This is still a bit awkward. Better to just come out and say "According to Tacitus' Germania, Germanic tribes were..." and then add a caveat if it is unclear whether or not historians credit Tacitus' account e.g. "Some historians believe that Tacitus' account is credible."

2. "After World War I, in 1918, the Polish state (which was previously an elective monarchy) was reestablished as the Second Polish Republic."

This sentence is awkward for a number of reasons
a) "the Polish state (which was...) was re-established...". A better use of verb tenses would be "The Polish state, which had previously been..." was re-established..."
b) Also, the sentence is in the passive voice and could be improved if it was cast in the active voice. Who re-established the Polish state?

3. "Its territory included the territories of Prussia that had been acquired in the third partition of Poland(and from 1871 was a part of the German Empire).

This sentence is awkward because
a) verb tense agreement - "territories of Prussia that had been acquired... and from 1871 was a part of..."
In this case, a better locution would be "territories of Prussia that had been acquired... and had been a part of the German Empire since 1871"

4. "The provinces taken from Germany and ceded Poland by the Treaty of Versailles include"

This sentence is awkward because
a) The sentence is in the passive voice; use of the active voice would be preferable
b) The word "include" is used for the second sentence in a row. This is not a major problem but it makes for weak prose.
c) "taken from Germany" (by whom? by the Treaty of Versailles? perhaps but this is a shorthand that could be expressed in a better way. Perhaps "by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. This is a minor point.
d) "ceded Poland" - "ceded" is a transitive verb, "ceded to Poland" is the correct locution

I am reverting back to my edits. If you are not happy with my edits, please feel free to improve the text but please do so in consideration of the above points (i.e. improve on my text rather than reverting back to the previous text).

--Richard 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to revert back to my revision but User:131.104.218.46 beat me to it. While I appreciate the support, I want to distance myself from 131's edit summary which characterized Antman's reversion as "chauvinism". Antman may be chauvinistic but I don't want to characterize my edits as part of a chauvinist/anti-chauvinist conflict. My edits were intended primarily to improve clarity and diction. It was not my intent to change the meaning of the text in any substantive way.
In general, I do not wish to start an edit war of any type and, in particular, I do not wish to engage in POV pushing.
I just felt that Antman's edit summary did not seem to describe my edits so I wondered if he had reverted my edits by accident.
--Richard 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted your edits by accident, right now there is a lot of stuff going on in the article, and I was removing good-faith edits by the unnamed IP as well as Piotrus, and yours happened to get caught in the crossfire. Sorry. Antman -- chat 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The article as written is written in extremely poor English, and what it does seem to say does not properly portray both sides of the issue; currently, it is strongly biased towards stating that Poland is in the right, and the article seems to be trying to tell the reader that 'Recovered Territories' was an actual legitimate concept, and not simply propaganda. Antman -- chat 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the usual explanation is that it is a political term, so does not actually describe what is actual fact. I don't know why this article needs to be so long, it seems to be just a page meant to create excuses for the expulsion of the German inhabitants and annexation by Poland. I would say that pretty much all that needs to be said in this article can be summed up in a couple of lines: "Recovered Territories" is a political term created in Communist Poland to justify the annexation of German lands following WWII. Some of these lands had been separately ruled by various autonomous feudal Polish Dukes from the 9th to the 13th century. Germans had been settling in these areas for many years and by the 1300s, these lands had been either conquered by the Teutonic Knights, or had been incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire. After WWII, the Communist governments in Moscow and Warsaw demanded these lands be ethnically cleansed of Germans and annexed by Poland to compensate Poland for the loss of its Kresy territories. Is there really anything else I forgot? of course, you can find ways to put it nicer and make it not seem like it was as horrible crime as it was.
--Jadger 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: Piotrus removed the POV tag on the grounds that it was not explained on the Talk Page. Antman made the mistake of adding the explanation at the top of the Talk Page rather than at the bottom per convention. That's probably why Piotrus missed it. I think the beginning of the article starts out NPOV and then loses that stance and slips into a "Poland is right to refer to these as Recovered Territories" towards the end of the article. It might be OK to restore the POV tag but I would suggest that someone just fix it. --Richard 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, feel free to restore the tag, although by the same reasoning the tag should be added to the 'pro-German' Historical Eastern Germany.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

so would anyone be against my above edit which would try to wipe the POV from this article?

--Jadger 08:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For starters, you forget to tell the user that those territories always had a significant number of Poles living there... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This entire article needs to be torn down and either deleted or rewritten. It does not need to be as large as it is, as it covers material that is already discussed in other articles, and right now it is dripping with pro-Polish POV. Antman -- chat 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggested once merger with Historical Eastern Germany as mixing this with an article dreaping with 'pro-German POV' should create something reasonably NPOV. Alas, that idea was rejected by fans of having their POV forks... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that both articles should be merged (as they generally cover the same thing), but neither side wants to do it, and I personally believe that if that happens, we will have a war between people who have a German-bias (such as myself), and those who have a Polish-bias (yourself and others). Right now, with having two articles, conflict is minimized. Antman -- chat 19:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Our policies strictly forbid creation of 'POV forks'. My old proposal was to merge HEG to this article (as this term is used in some historiographies) - but I guess some ppl couldn't stomach the title. Nonetheless the current proposal - to create an article on Territorial changes of Germany split by period (and/or region) seems much more reasonable. And your template (Template:German borders is certainly useful.)-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I really can't think of a viable solution to either issue myself that would satisfy all involved; we -should- have a talk page devoted to both trying to solve the issue and merge both this article and that article; splitting the discussion into two pages is not helping. Thank you for correcting the links on the template; I was not sure what to link to. Antman -- chat 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

can you cite any sources that say that all these lands had a "significant" Polish population in them for all their history? because I've never heard that from anyone credible before. also, would you please define "significant" as I notice you have never used words that are quantifiable (i.e. large, majority etc.). <1% is hardly "significant".

And Pan Prokonsul, your previous proposal of merger was hardly fair, you wanted this "article" to take precedence over a article that isn't just about communist political jingoism.

--Jadger 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'communist political jingoism', nonetheless, takes precende over 'political jingoism by a disgruntled Wikipedian', my dear Jadger.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

that made no sense Pan Piotr, as those aren't opposed, they are both definitive of your stance. perhaps you could clarify what you meant?

are you going to cite a source that backs up your claims that all these areas always had "significant" Polish populations. or could you atleast define "significant" so the rest of us can do some research?

--Jadger 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When I make an edit of the article, you can be sure I will reference this well.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

well, I am trying to reach consensus and edit the article also, can we not have a source? or do you not have one? maybe you're still writing the html code, I'm not sure.

this article is not your property Piotrus, since you haven't cited any sources contrary to my above proposal (and I haven't found any), that means I can edit as I mentioned above. After all, I don't think there is anything that I stated above that hasn't already been referenced in the article.

--Jadger 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

as a matter of fact, is there anything that is relevant to the subject that isn't already stated in the opening paragraph. it defines the term, this article should be on wiktionary, not wikipedia. unless of course we have an example of how it affected international politics.

--Jadger 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed falsehood

I removed the following obviously wrong statement: In English-speaking countries the term is unknown: proof. Also, in German the name appears to be Wiedergewonnene Gebiete (correct me if I am wrong here, my knowledge of German is rather poor).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term is definitely UNUSED in English... I have heard Oder-Neisse Line. Antman -- chat 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Google Books search result above gives 298 English language books in which the term is used. This to me is evidence that the term is used in English. If you disagree, please present your arguments to the contrary (hopefully better than: "I've never heard of it", which only demonstrates the extent of your knowledge and little else). Balcer 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
About a third on the first page alone were written by Polish authors in Poland who were writing in English. A search for "Oder-Neisse :ine" returns more hits. Antman -- chat 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it makes perfect sense that Polish authors would write about these territories (who else?). Nobody is arguing here that this term is more popular than the "Oder-Neisee line". However, it is used frequently enough that no special disclaimer about the term not being used in English is required. Balcer 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The disclaimer does not say that it is not known in English, what it says is that it is not an accepted term, which is correct. Antman -- chat 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

298 books in all of google books for you is proof that it is used in English? please, my elementary school had more Hardy Boys books than that. and as Antman said, most these google books were written by Poles, which just proves that it is only used in English papers written by Poles. and can you cite some examples where it is used, as I bet a bunch of the times it is just as a definition of what the term means that is being referred to.

--Jadger 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who wrote the books, what matters is that they are written in English. So the term is used in English. Anyway, trying to judge the validity of a book by trying to track down the nationality of its author is a strange tactic. Google Books is not owned or run by Poles, for crying out loud. It is an impartial storagehouse of information, which the whole world can access. Google creates it by scanning books found in libraries in the English-speaking world (not Poland)! If you believe the term is unknown, please present evidence, and then explain why this matters (given that most people in the world have minimal knowledge about the history of Eastern Europe, and yet we don't put everywhere the disclaimer" This event/party/concept is little known in the English speaking world). Balcer 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, don't you think that transferred is a more realistic term than recovered, and a more neutral description of what took place? I know for certain that many of the Polish editors involved in this current debate, prefer "transferred" to "recovered" when discussing Vilnius' return to Lithuania. Personally I would like some consistency and logic applied to these discussions, if remotely possible. Dr. Dan 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is about a propaganda concept employed by the Polish Communist regime, so there is no other option but the current title. We cannot invent a new name for it here. Balcer 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I most certainly agree with that, and have very little doubt that the Polish communist propaganda apparatus will continue to champion any necessary monitoring of this article and a "plethora" of others on WP. Obviously that element, Jeszcze nie zgineło! Dr. Dan 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who wrote the books, what matters is that they are written in English. so the English translation of Mein Kampf is proof in English that their is a Jewish conspiracy? come on, try to be a little bit convincing.

It is an impartial storagehouse of information, which the whole world can access. yes, since it is impartial it does not research the contents it posts (for the most part). Whereas Chapters has refused to sell Mein Kampf because of its content. Sure google books is impartial, but that does not mean authoritative.

If you believe the term is unknown, please present evidence, and then explain why this matters LMAO!!! how can we provide evidence that it doesn't exist? by citing sources that don't contain it? yes, so if it doesn't exist, I must cite a source that says it doesn't exist? but in order to cite a source that says it doesn't exist or that it is unknown, it must exist or be known in the first place. your reasoning is totally faulty!

and yes Piotr, the 3RR block on me was lifted because of your unfair characterization of the dispute.

--Jadger 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to present evidence for the lack of something; look at the God vs No God debate. I can only dispute your 'evidence' that it IS used, not provide evidence that it is not. Antman -- chat 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Your analogy to "Main Kampf" is completely misplaced. (ever heard of Godwin's Law, by the way?) . We could still use a demonstration from you how a term used in 300 English language books is unknown in English (and those 300 contain major and very influential historical works, for example God's Playground, a History of Poland by Norman Davies, the most important history of Poland in the English language).
But even if you did manage to demonstrate that the term is unknown in English, why should that be included in the article? After all, in that case the term would also be unknown in Spanish, Japanese, and Swahili. Should we add that vital information to the article as well? Even more significantly, should any article in Wikipedia on subjects not familiar to readers in the US or Britain carry such prominent "unknown in English" disclaimers? What would be the point?Balcer 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, do actually understand Godwin's Law? this article is on what followed from Nazi actions, so of course it is going to include hitler or the nazi party in the discussion. Can you please cite the examples of how "Recovered Territories" is used in God's Playground? for all the evidence we have so far, all Davies may say in the book is "Recovered Territories is a term that was used in Communist Poland...." (the exact same thing the opening of this article does)

But even if you did manage to demonstrate that the term is unknown in English, why should that be included in the article? again, we don't have to prove that, as it is faulty to logic to try to prove that something doesn't exist. the onus is on you to prove that recovered territories is an accepted English language statement? I bet many books have the words "recovered" and "territory" in it, it doesn't mean they support the

But even if you did manage to demonstrate that the term is unknown in English, why should that be included in the article? see article like schadenfreude or gemuetlichkeit, both of which are used more often than "recovered territories" in English. it is still mentioned in those articles that it is from a foreign language, and that there is no english language equivalent that is commonly used.

--Jadger 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will put it as simply as I can, because you are just trolling here, and I don't want to encourage you. Every single statement in Wikipedia should in principle be backed up by a source. If no source can be found when requested, the sentence can be removed. So, provide a source for the statement "In English-speaking countries the term is unknown." Otherwise, I will oppose the inclusion of the statement, and revert your attempts to insert it.
Per Wikipedia:Attribution All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.Balcer 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The notice does not say that it is absent from the English language, it states that it is not an accepted concept in English-speaking countries; you are purposefully misinterpreting it for your own means. Antman -- chat 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, and you still haven't referenced any sources that use "recovered territories" as you claim it is. so by that reasoning this whole article should be deleted. Please assume good faith, that is a personal attack by accusing me or anyone else of trolling and since when is asking for a reference trolling? the act of accusing someone of trolling is even more of trolling.

how are we supposed to accomplish anything when you readily engage in a edit war, and threaten an even worse one if we don't obey your whim and come to agree with your POV? you are over interpretting that wikipedia guideline Balcer, as this is what the current article would look like if we removed all sentences that aren't referenced: In post-war Communist propaganda, the term "Recovered Territories" was coined mainly in order to encourage reluctant people, especially from former Eastern Poland (Kresy) to settle down permanently in those areas. Kresy were in turn annexed by Soviet Union, and as a result, the post war Polish territory was shifted westward and also became nearly 20% smaller (389,000 km² [1]).

--Jadger 03:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As Piotrus pointed out, this article is sorely in need of references. I could not agree more. You might even remember that I myself added the only reference included so far in the article. Please help with that effort. If you feel any particular statement needs a reference badly, add the cn tag so that others can track it down.
As for the "unknown in English" statement, you yourself basically stated that it will be impossible to find a reference for that statement. Well, if it's impossible, there is no way we can include that statement in the article. Balcer 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Jadger, again I have to say you're a better man than me, because after you were accused of being a troll and told some nonsense about Godwin's Law (which is humorous because it was always the "out" for the marxist debater), I probably would have "shut it down" as a waste of my time. Kudos to to you and your patience. Dr. Dan 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So Balcer, because this article is in need of references, you delete a sentence fragment? why didn't you delete everything but that one sentence that is referenced? if you're going to delete one thing for being unreferenced, you should delete everything that isn't referenced. I am busy trying to find references, but as the topic is unheard of in English, it is very hard as I don't speak Polish.

you yourself basically stated that it will be impossible to find a reference for that statement. yes, because as myself and others explained before, something that doesn't exist doesn't get any book created on it simply to state that it doesn't exist. tell me, can you find any published references that say "User Balcer is a great person"? To make a comparison, can you find a source that says unequivocably that Bigfoot/loch ness monster do not exist, and there is no way that they can ever have existed? It has been pointed out that only <300 books in the huge compilation of google books actually has that combination of two words in it. If that isn't proof, perhaps you can be more specific of what is? another example, this is your reasoning: can you find any evidence that the asfasdauid eagle doesn't exist? NO! well then surely it must exist.

danke schöne Dr. Dan, I try my best.

--Jadger 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the reverting. Please debate this here and reach a compromise of some kind, and let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

alright, since there are less than 300 books in English on the subject (most of which are translated from Polish as per discussion above) I propose we change unknown in English to Almost totally unknown in English. because, 300 books is not enough to claim it is a widespread political concept.

P.S. thank you SlimVirgin

--Jadger 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as you find a reference that validates that statement. Also, what number of books would you consider sufficient for a term to be "known in English", and why? Balcer 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a source, Piotrus already did in the above discussion, by citing google books, and you backed up the verification of that source. An example of "known in english": take a look at the number of books on the subject of WWII on googlebooks, I think we can both say that it is a known concept in English.

also, I notice you still havent provided any evidence that the asfasdauid eagle doesn't exist... that mean it exists, right? that would follow from your reasoning above.

--Jadger 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Balcer already cited the relevant policy. It is your POV that 300 books is 'almost nothing'. Wikipedia is not here to back up POV of any single editor. Your revers based on your POV and ignoring WPs policies are disruptive. Please stop disrupting this project.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed path to forging a consensus

I don't think the two sides will reach a compromise by continuing to argue about this. I doubt either side will convince the other that they are wrong.

Instead of trying to win the argument, I think it is better to conclude that the argument isn't that important.

I suggest that each side put down here their "best" proposal for a compromise text. By "best" proposal, I don't mean the text that you see as ideal. What I mean is the closest that you can come to compromise on this question. This will help us see how far apart you are.

Here's my perspective on this matter:

As far as I can tell, the current dispute is about whether or not "Recovered Territories" is a commonly used phrase in English. I would say it's not but I would also say that it is unimportant to emphasize this. It is sufficient, in my opinion, to mention that the phrase is a direct translation from the Polish phrase and leave it at that.

This is the English Wikipedia which means that it is written in the English language. The scope of the English Wikipedia is not restricted to England, the United States or even to English-speaking countries. It is not even restricted to concepts that "exist" in the English language, whatever that might mean. The scope of any Wikipedia, whatever the language might be, is the entire corpus of human knowledge. If there is a Polish concept of "Recovered Territories", we should document it. If "Recovered Territories" is a direct translation of the Polish phrase, we should report that. It is unnecessary and almost certainly OR for us to pass judgment on whether or not "Recovered Territories" is a widely-used phrase in English or a widely-recognized concept outside of Poland. In fact, this goes beyond OR and smacks of POV pushing.

My recommendation would be to drop any mention of whether or not "Recovered Territories" is widely or not widely used in English. Not because I think it IS widely used in English (I think it isn't) but because I think it is unimportant to make this point unless you are trying to push a particular (German) POV.

--Richard 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above, and would have no problem with dropping any mention of how widely the term is used in English (that's what I have been arguing for here). Still, to achieve a workable compromise, I am willing to accept the version proposed by Richard below. Balcer 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If "Recovered Territories" is a direct translation of the Polish phrase, we should report that. yes, and we must place emphasis that it is a purely polish construct that is intentionally POV that is not necessarily supported by the English speaking world. when one sees "recovered anything" one always thinks that it was either stolen or lost, and is now back in the possession of its rightful owner, that is not a point that wikipedia is here to make.

--Jadger 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is extremely hard to figure out what such a nebulous entity as the "English speaking world" supports. One can have one's opinions about this of course, but it would be quite hard to turn that into a referenced statement backed by sources. From my experience, the average person in Canada (hence a member of the English speaking world) could not care less whether a city like Szczecin was "recovered" by Poland or not (assuming he or she ever heard of it, which is highly unlikely). Balcer 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you'd stop stereotyping Canadians as naive backwater people who know nothing of European history or politics. And you just showed your own lack of knowledge, the average person in Canada is not necessarily an Anglophone, French is a language of equal legal status to English.

--Jadger

I think it's time to stop worrying about what the "English speaking world" supports or doesn't support. We can't know what it supports or doesn't support. Let's go back to this statement ...

If "Recovered Territories" is a direct translation of the Polish phrase, we should report that. yes, and we must place emphasis that it is a purely polish construct that is intentionally POV.

Note that I deliberately left off the part that says "that is not necessarily supported by the English speaking world". This subordinate clause is itself POV and OR. You don't know whether or not the POV is supported by the English speaking world (yeah, yeah, probably most people don't care one way or the other but the point is that to assert anything along those lines is OR).

The article already says that the term is a Communist propaganda term (an assertion that I would like to see supported by a citation). That should be enough. Stop beating a dead horse and get on with it.

--Richard 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but for the record, the issue is not whether the term originated out of communist Poland (that's a given), and propaganda may have a pejorative connotation in some quarters, but then again not necessarily. It seems to have had a large degree of success from the Polish perspective of the matter. And Btw, any WP article "peppered" with citations takes on a garish and non-encyclopedic quality. I offer Vilnija and Jan Dzierzon as poignant examples of that. Dr. Dan 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said Richard. If we want to argue notability of this term, supported by hundreds of books in English, then we certainly need to slap similar and more strict tags on "Historical eastern Germany" (not used by any books...) or [http://books.google.com/books?q=Gro%C3%9Fdeutschland&lr=&sa=N&start=700 Großdeutschland (used by just ~500 books)...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed compromise text

Here's a whack at a compromise:

Although the concept (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) is generally understood in Poland, it is not as widely used in English. The more common way of describing these territories in English is by making reference to the Oder-Neisse line.

Note that the above text does not say that that "Recovered Territories" is "unknown" or even "rarely used" in English. What it does say is that it is not as widely used in English as the Polish phrase is used in Poland.

Is this proposed compromise acceptable to you? If not, please state your objections and indicate what would be an acceptable compromise text.

--Richard 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. support I proposed it, after all. --Richard 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. support as I already stated before. Balcer 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. support - per above -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Discussion

A reasonable solution to our quandary. I find it acceptable.
We still have to resolve where this will be placed though, as that was one of the issues fought over during the edit war. I find that putting a large note above the article lead is unsightly and goes against Wikipedia Manual of Style. In effect such a note becomes a warning flag, which a good article (which is our goal here, I hope) does not require. Would anybody object to placing the above sentence among the first few sentences within the lead? Balcer 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should not be a large, unsightly note at the head of the article. It should be sufficient to put it somewhere in the first paragraph. --Richard 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above text does not say that that "Recovered Territories" is "unknown" or even "rarely used" in English. yes, exactly, that is the problem, it still gives one the impression that it is used in English when referring to the actual lands and not to the political idea.

Although the concept (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) is generally understood in Poland, it is not widely used in English, and then only in reference to the idea, not the lands in question. is my proposal.

--Jadger 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To me this sounds too confusing. But I am glad you are at least willing to concede that the term is used in some sense in English. Balcer 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Richard's proposal is good and almost perfect. Jadger's additional input is not confusing, and pertinent. A small tweak here and there and it can probably be "laid to rest". Dr. Dan 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never meant that it is not used in English totally, it is a given that most adjectives and nouns will at one point in history be used together in a phrase. What I have always objected to is where, in English it would refer to the territories in question (and not the propoganda) i.e. a newsreport saying "the recovered territories today were hit with a bad snowstorm" but that the term "recovered territories" is only used in reference to communist propoganda concepts.

--Jadger 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the term 'Recovered Territories' is used in English; they are two words in English that form a cohesive meaning when combined. That does not necessarily mean that they are used to describe the territories in question. Antman -- chat 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, for an example of what Antman means, land is "recovered" or "reclaimed" from previous bad uses (such as landfills) and made into green uses, such as parks (in cities) or agicultural fields have been reseeded with trees to create new growth forests, as the agricultural overuse has stripped the soil of its nutrients that allow it to grow crops. Thus, there are many uses of the term "recovered territory". perhaps we should make this a disambiguation page.

--Jadger 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for suggesting a sandbox version, this is indeed a good way to deal with those kinds of disputes. I three two suggestions here. First, let's create a section on name and its use. Second, lets source all claims (Polish communist propaganda, popular in Polish publications, unpopular in English, etc.) that ppl find confusing or controvesial. Third, let's agree on a shorter summary of that issue in lead (please remember that per WP:LEAD, lead is only a summary of information in the article, not a place to discuss stuff not raised there).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources/References

I can't edit the article since it's protected, but here's a source on the term "recovered territories" being identified as a propaganda term from an English history book:

"Polish efforts to characterize these regions as "recovered territories" only underlined the state's weak historical claims."

Debra J. Allen. The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War. Contributions to the Study of World History Series. Westport and London: Praeger, 2003. ISBN 0-313-32359-3. PDF

This Time article from 1958 is also using the term. So clearly it is known in the English-speaking world, contrary to what the article says right now (statement marked as citation needed).

Another possible source for material for this article (haven't looked at the actual article since I don't have access to the journal):

Koblinski and Rutkiwska. Propagandist use of history and archaeology in justification of Polish rights to the "Recovered Territories" after World War II. Archaeologia Polona, 2005, vol. 43, pp. 51-124, ISSN 0066-5924 [7]

- tameeria 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia gives the German translation for the term as "rückeroberte Gebiete", which translates into "recaptured" or "reconquered" territories, rather than "recovered", which (not surprisingly) suggests a slightly off-colored POV of the term in German language use. - tameeria 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the correct German translation is "Wiedergewonnene Gebiete (which in de: is a redir to Historical Eastern Germany). Of course, this term is used rarely and it is commonly identified as a propaganda term. --Johannes Rohr 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points of contention that should be resolved here rather than via edit warring

I am trying to build a consensus so that we can get page protection lifted.

Unfortunately, there have been multiple points of contention that have led to edit warring so there is not a single solution that will get page protection lifted. I have been reviewing the edit history and am starting this section to list and resolve all the recent disputes that have been the subject of edit warring.

Once we resolve these issues, we can ask an admin to lift the page protection.

I will start the list now and add to it as I have time to review the edit history further. --Richard 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term "Recovered Territories" is "unknown" or "rarely used" in English

User:Jadger, User:Balcer and others have been edit warring over whether the term "Recovered Territories" is "not widely accepted" or even "unknown" in Germany and English-speaking countries.

  • Comment I have proposed compromise text which reads as follows:
    Although the concept (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) is generally understood in Poland, it is not as widely used in English. The more common way of describing these territories in English is by making reference to the Oder-Neisse line.
    User:Balcer has agreed to this text but no one else has.
    User:Tameeria has provided references to suggest that the term has seen some usage. It is, of course, difficult to prove that the term is "only rarely used" as opposed to "widely used". I would suggest that we steer clear of any effort to assert that the term is "rarely used". To say that it is less widely used outside Poland than inside Poland seems a much safer assertion to make. --Richard 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits made by alleged sockpuppet of Serafin

User:Antman reverted edits characterizing the territories as "recovered by Poland" to the previous text which read "gained by Poland". The justification was that the word "recovered" was POV while "gained" apparently was not. --Richard 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The current text reads
    "Recovered Territories", "Regained Territories" or "Western and Northern Territories" (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane, Ziemie Zachodnie i Północne) was a political and propaganda concept used by Communist Poland authorities to denote the territories of Nazi Germany which were placed under first Soviet and subsequently Polish administration after the Second World War. These border changes were recognized by East Germany in the 1950 Treaty of Zgorzelec, by West Germany in the 1970 Treaty of Warsaw, and confirmed by united Germany in 1990.
    I wrote much of the new phrasing and so I think it hits the NPOV "sweet spot". Any objections to considering this revision the consensus? --Richard 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now it reads as if "Western and Northern Territories" is considered a propaganda term as well. I don't think that's accurate. It sounds more neutral to me, and I have only seen "Recovered Territories" or "Regained Territories" mentioned as propaganda terms in the sources I've looked at. - tameeria 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silesia vs. Polish Silesia

  • User:LUCPOL has replaced "Silesia" with "Polish Silesia" at least twice with the edit summary "compromise". Apparently, this has been meant as a proposed compromise. However, there seems to have been no discussion of the compromise on the Talk Page and this edit has been overridden either deliberately or accidentally. Please discuss the merits of this edit here and come to a resolution as to the appropriate wording. --Richard 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fact, fact, fact: Pomerania, Silesia, Lubusz Land situated in Poland and Germany. Not only Silesia is in Poland and in other country.
My edit and revert by Jagder. Why? I proposed compromise: 3 x "Polish" word (Polish Pomerania, Polish Silesia, Polish Lubusz land) or 0 x "Polish" word (Pomerania, Silesia, Lubusz). 0 x "Polish" word (Pomerania, Silesia, Lubusz) is OK. LUCPOL 00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Silesia is actually split between three countries now: Polish Silesia, Czech Silesia (formerly Austrian Silesia) and Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis in Germany. Therefore, disambiguating it by specifying "Polish Silesia" might make sense, depending on the context. - tameeria 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Name type "Polish Silesia" or "Germany Silesia" does not exist, only exists officially name "Austrian Silesia" and "Czech Silesia".
  2. Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis is only piece of "German" Silesia. LUCPOL 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big note explaining the term "Recovered Territories" vs. incorporating the explanation in the lead paragraph

  • I believe this issue has been resolved and is not an open dispute but I mention it since it was the subject of recent edit warring. If you have any objection to the current treatment (i.e. as part of the lead paragraph and not as a separate note at the beginning of the article), please indicate the reasons for your opposition here. --Richard 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion about the use of the term as propaganda tool etc. should be separated out into its own subsection and properly sourced. - tameeria 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I broke it out into its own section. Is that what you had in mind? If so, can you add the citations? Thanx. --Richard 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia edit-warring = continuation of the Cold War?

I'm not keen on getting involved in this whole mess and this might well be my only comment on the topic. I will certainly refrain from any edits to this article since I am admittedly biased. The whole discussion on the articles relating to the German eastern territories reads to me like the Cold War still waging on, even more than 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the communist regimes in eastern Europe. History has been warped by propaganda being used on both sides of the Cold War, and the truth is somewhere out there, but whether it will ever be found on Wikipedia during our lifetimes is doubtful.

For example, this article lists only one (pro-Polish, I presume) source. It is extremely underreferenced for such a controversial topic. No wonder it ends up biased. There are other reliable sources that can and should be used to complement the article (see my examples above - those are just the ones I found through Google Scholar, I'm sure there are many more).

That Polish editors will defend their POV or even consider it "neutral" doesn't surprise me either. It wasn't until 1989 that Poland became a democracy. Anyone who went to school in Poland before that time likely was objected to indoctrination by communist propaganda. That means many Polish editors in their thirties or older very likely have been presented with the "recovered territories" viewpoint in school as the only account of post-WWII history they’ve learned.

Resistance against the idea that it might be based on propaganda doesn't surprise me either. It is painful to realize you've been fooled into becoming an instrument in someone's political agenda, and it takes some time for that realization to overcome denial. Germans are still struggling with coming to terms with their own history in this regard. I find it promising to see Polish researchers looking more closely and critically into the topic (see Koblinski and Rutkiwska. Propagandist use of history and archaeology in justification of Polish rights to the "Recovered Territories" after World War II. Archaeologia Polona, 2005, vol. 43, pp. 51-124, ISSN 0066-5924 [8]), but I'm not surprised that public opinion in Poland would still be biased by decades of anti-German indoctrination.

The voice of the expelled Germans appears to be lacking on Wikipedia. That doesn't surprise me either. My dad was a toddler when his family was expelled, and he's a retired senior now. My grandfather would be 105 years old, if he were still alive. So the few expellees who survive are now well advanced in age and much less likely to contribute to Wikipedia than middle-aged Poles in the prime of their lives feeling a need to justify Poland's current borders and their "right" to inhabit it.

The perceived need to come up with a justification for Poland's borders arose during the Cold War, as explained in the sources I've listed above. In particular, Poland felt pressured by the US and UK's insistence that Poland's borders were still an open question at the beginning of the Cold War (see Time magazine article). What the recovered territories article makes out of this is: "During the Cold War some in West Germany claimed that the concluding document of the Potsdam Conference was not a juristically binding treaty." This is weaseling with words ("some in West Germany"), unsourced, and screwing historic facts in an anti-German fashion – just one example of how the article creates bias.

It's somewhat saddening to see the Cold War being expressed in the form of Wikipedia edit warring, even so many years after it officially ended. I would like to see an article here that sorts out the propaganda from historic fact (based on multiple reliable sources) and refrains from indulging in political agendas. - tameeria 16:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's sad to see this continuation of the Cold War more than 17 years after it ended. However, read Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) for another heated controversy over a war that ended 85 years ago.
Your wish for "an article here that sorts out the propaganda from historic fact" is noble and worthwhile but difficult to achieve. I'm not even sure what it would be titled but perhaps you could propose a title and a basic outline.
As for the "voice of the expelled Germans", have you seen Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe, German exodus from Eastern Europe, Evacuation of East Prussia, Federation of Expellees,Minorities in Poland after the War. The first two articles are protected due to edit warring but these articles will give you some idea of the coverage of expelled Germans in Wikipedia. Perhaps you can help expand and improve these articles although I will warn you that most of these articles are subect to even more heated debate than this one is.
--Richard 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Making sweeping generalizations and trying to force "Polish editors" into some stereotypical framework (in their thirties or older, hence indoctrinated by Communist propaganda and doomed to be biased) is patronizing and very unhelpful. One look at the user pages of User:Piotrus and User:Halibutt will show you how misplaced that generalization is. I myself have left Poland at a rather young age and have lived in Canada and U.S. for most of my life, so if anything I suffer from Canadian bias on various matters, whatever that might be. Balcer 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but regarding the two examples listed above, they may not be in their thirties or older, but my experiences with them shows a strangely biased and inconsistent mind-set that fits the example quite nicely. Dr. Dan 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope this line of discussion can be ended here. I see little value in continuing past this point. I think Balcer's point is well-taken even if the specific editors selected as examples are not the best examples to choose. --Richard 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to imply I was talking about all Polish people. I made an honest typo saying "any" where I meant "many". Didn't catch it on spell-check... What I was trying to say (maybe not very clearly) was along the lines: As long as Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit and as long as there are Polish editors out there who fit the stereotype (not trying to imply that all of them do and I don't even know or ever had contact with the people you've named, but it appears logical to me that there must be biased editors around based on Poland's history), the chance is high that there will be POV edits and edit warring on articles like this. So any attempt at creating a NPOV article might be doomed from the start. - tameeria 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. We have a number of articles on seemingly hopelessly controversial topics vulnerable to being messed up by people of various strong biases, which due to diligent work have reached Featured Article level. Among them: History of Jews in Poland, Katyn massacre, History of Solidarity, History of Poland (1945–1989), Polish-Soviet War, Invasion of Poland (1939), and most recently Jogaila. So there is hope. Wikipedia can cope with biased editors quite successfully. I would certainly like to see this article reach FA level, as the topic is fascinating. Balcer 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - the FA count and a check of which editors are involved in creating them, in which limit themself to edit warring/flaming, is enough to see what's going on on pages like this.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the FA status of the History of Jews in Poland and was bemused by finding this out from this thread. When I saw it last month is seemed to me plain horrific to a degree that and I was surprised to even see some known to me FA writers in the article's recent editing history even though I am not a big fan of those writers and we have many content disputes.

Very recently I removed a whole bunch of antisemitic rants from the History of Jews in Poland article like the unspeakable nonsense about "Jewish complicity (!) in crimes against Poles (!!!) during the WW2" [9] or Zydokomuna conspiracy theories presented passingly as not even needing a reference[10].

Perhaps they were trying to make a reference to Salomon Morel? --Richard 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I research for who added that stuff to the "FA" which was supposed, I guess, to be watched by the author(s). Check this edit by some anon or this (note the edit and the summary) by a known troll. Why was not that removed either on the spot or for another year while our friends continue to edit the article? Is it because it was added by a troll who is known to generally be useful elsewhere? So, for a year the article was "featured" with that stuff. Was anyone even embarrassed?

Why was that stuff allowed to stay for over a year until my first edit? Should I have asked then? Now I find out that it was a featured article. All I can say is a big WOW. --Irpen 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point us to any Wikipedia policy or guideline which suggests that articles must be watched by their authors, and that they are personally responsible for content put in later by nasty anons. If you have a problem with any FA article, there is always Wikipedia:Featured article review. Finally, this is Talk:Recovered Territories. We are drifting hopelessly off topic here. Balcer 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the article must or must not be watched. If you check its editing history, it was watched for a fact.

It is indeed OT but it was not me who started to attempt to silence the opponent by boasting the FA's while it has been repeatedly shown that many of them were at that point (or remain) as far from NPOV as one can be.

Take another one, the PSW, is, thanks god, changed much from those days but wasn't it containing something like "It was a sad for Ukrainians when Poles left Kiev to Soviets" and that the Poles and Petlurovites "fought bravely shoulder to shoulder" but lost due to the "unlimited Russian reserves" I can find an exact quote by digging through history. Let's just not bring up other FAs when discussing "recovered territories" to prove one's committment to NPOV because if this is done, there is much to be said, believe me. --Irpen 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am not saying that the articles I listed are perfect, and Wikipedia is constantly raising its standards so what is great this year may be very poor indeed next year, but was any one of those FA's degraded via Wikipedia:Featured article review? If not, then your statement about them being "as far from NPOV as one can be" may be a bit of a stretch, to say the least. I am not commenting further as this is discussion now officially off topic. Balcer 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
PSW went through a FAR and the consensus was it should stay a FA. History of Polish Jews is not up to modern standards and should be updated with inline references, certainly. Of course, that doesn't mean they should be POVed to Irpen's view of reality - they were obviously NPOV when they first passed the FAC process.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
PSW by the time of the FAR has greatly benefited from East from Poland editors' participation that it lacked at the time it was FAed, true enough. It is now in a much better shape.
HPJ currently is worse than even the GA standards. If you think that with the Zydokomuna theories being part of the article and allegations of the Jewish responsibility for the Polish suffering in WW2 the article was neutral and with my removal of those after being there for about a year on your active watchlist it became less neutral, this does not even require any comments.
I guess in response to your provocation about "Irpen's view of reality" you expected something that would have given you an excuse to go elsewhere with requests for sanctions. I must disappoint you on that. Happy edits. --Irpen 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is getting further and further off-topic. I invite you to read and respond to my comment on Talk:Żydokomuna. --Richard 07:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Having just discovered this discussion, I do ask myself which century it is we are living in? There is so much nationalistic nonsense in much of the discussion that one can seriously question the learning capability of this species called homo sapiens. The anachronistic superposing of nation-state concepts in the history of Central Europe was the source of all evil. The feudal times in the middle ages did not result in national identities but rather dependancies to ruling families, non-regarding which language they spoke (rather which religion they shared...). And to take this concept of going back a millenium to justify that this or that territory belongs to this or the other modern state is an insult to intelligence. When territoral lines of rulers changed in the past, people couldn't care less as long as their towns and villages weren't burnt and looted. The big change came in the 19th and 20th century when suddenly everybody had to live in one nation, speak one language (and subsequently get rid of any other disturbing elements like ethnic or religious minorities). In that respect President Wilson had some ideas that sounded well to many people, but reality turned out to be a bit more complicated than just saying "Let's have nice little nation states for everybody an draw new entities and everybody will be happy" (c.f. the ideological experiment Yugoslavia with the results we all saw). The ethnic element really came into being then. True, wide scale ethnic cleansing was set as policy by the Nazis, meaning by the Germans, starting in 1938 with smashing Tchecoslovakia, and on an unseen level in Poland 1939 and what was then the Soviet Union in 1941. Does this morally justify all that happened the other way 1944-1947, especially coming from powers who were battling for the reestablishment of justice? Not the topic here. But to deny that Silesia, Pomerania and Eastern Prussia were German way before 1945 is as ridiculous as those who say they are still German now. Nobody would question that this chapter is closed once and for all. Just bear in mind that we are not speaking about maps, but of the fate of millions of people: Poles forced from what was Eastern Poland and Germans forced from what was Eastern Germany. Interestingly enough, no article mentions Stalin's intention of creating such animosity between Germans and Poles by the changes that Poland would always depend on the Soviet Union to maintain the westward movement of the country. In that respect, some of the arguments exchanged in this forum seem to fulfil stalinist policy ;-). If communists and others in Poland created this legend of the "regained territories", it was to fend off any German attempts to claim any of it back. And, for having been there, it is true that for decades Poles who already went through Stalins cleansing (neatly called humane and orderly transfer) from Galicia to Silesia after the war (todays population of Wrocław/ formerly Breslau is basically composed of what was Lemberg!) were afraid to be on the run again from returning Germans one day. THIS IS OVER. There is a treaty since 1990, both countries are now EU members and that's it. I do not see any sense in this kind of "losses and ordeals"- mathematics spelled out, let alone this pseudo-historic nonsense. A last argument: What would Wikipedia gain from having a German contributor taking up the same map of the Holy German Empire (which was at the most German in it's title but a mix of hundreds of feudal states on the ground) and claiming: hey, Northern Italy or Burgundy were "german" a thousand years ago, we want Tuscany or the Côte d'Azur with the best wine layers in Burgundy "back". For a serious article, stick to facts and acknowledge that our modern day "nation state" definitions do not fit everything. Luckily, former Silesians now in Germany and nowadays' Silesians in Poland are a lot closer in acknowledging the common cultural heritage than weirdos on such fora fighting over who owned whom a 1000 years ago. I'd rather have something on that than this anachronistic amok! Thinktwice 15:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

For those reading in Polish, an interesting article about the Recovered Territories: http://www.historia.terramail.pl/prasa/ziemia_wyzyskana.html --Lysytalk 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone translate any relevant passages into English so that we can consider adding them when the article is unprotected? Also, does this article give indication as to how much the term is used in present-day Poland? I have removed text from the article that asserts that "Recovered Territories" is no longer used in present-day Poland because, absent a citation, it is original research. (i.e. nobody I know uses the term and so it must not be used any more). --Richard 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you mad or something??

Recovered Territories", "Regained Territories" or "Western and Northern Territories" (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane, Ziemie Zachodnie i Północne) was a political and propaganda concept used by Communist Poland authorities to denote the territories of Nazi Germany which were placed under first Soviet and subsequently Polish administration after the Second World War

These are the first lines of the article and I think everybody who has ever learned a tiny bit about German and Polish history knows what is so insultingly wrong in this sentence. POMMERANIA, EASTERN BRANDENBURG, EAST PRUSSIA AND SILESIA WERE NOT TERRITORIES OF NAZI GERMANY. THEY HAD BEEN GERMAN FOR A MILLENIUM. Poland justly regained the territories that Nazi Germany had occupied since 1939 (Warthe-Gau, Generalgouvernement), but in those named above millions of Germans whose families had always lived there were expelled - had they been Nazis or not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.165.137 (talk • contribs)

These were territories of Germany since 1871. There was no nation-state called Germany prior to 1871. Yes, we are aware of the expulsions; see Expulsion of Germans after World War II. User:Balcer has removed the word "Nazi" from the sentence you pointed out and added the qualification "pre-1937". I hope this addresses your concerns. --Richard 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are totally bonkers. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the intro. I think it's fixed now.
--Richard 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I found your rewrite puzzling. Surely this article is about territories which were in Germany up until 1945 and were not within Poland's borders before 1939. Is this article to be about something completely different now? Balcer 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure and I don't have time to dig into this now. Propose a different wording and, better yet, propose a definition that draws a sharp distinction between what you think the article is about and what my new intro seems to imply.
As a personal note, it would help me if you would compare and contrast Recovered Territories with Former eastern territories of Germany. Are these two articles talking about exactly the same territories or is there a distinction which I am glossing over?
--Richard 17:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I read your edit summary and revised wording and I think I was just not thinking straight earlier this morning.
--Richard 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Around 700 years borderline between Silesia and Poland - Part II

  • Additionaly Wikifredi wrote that Silesia didnt belong to Poland for 700 years, he made a simple calculation error. From mid 14th century to mid 20th century there is 6 centuries or 600 years not 700. Not a big difference - the fact remains that it was outside Polish rule for many centuries, i just wanted to clarify the thing. --Serus 00:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia article on Silesia de:Schlesien counts the Polish time of Silesia from 992 to 1146. Since 1138 a fratricidal war had started and Poland was devided. "After his death the country had entered a period of instability, but had been unified under the reign of Bolesław the Wrymouth. After he had died in 1138, however, the kingdom had been divided among four of his sons, ushering in a period of fragmentation." (cf. History of Poland) Wladyslaw II., the "senior duque" (interesting that this chapter of Polish history isn't recounted on the English Wikipedia site), who had been fought by his brothers, had asked Conrad III of Germany for assistance and had submitted himself and his lost Polish kingdom under the sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. Thus theoretically Silesia had already become part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 12th century...
To make it short: "700 years" should be seen as an "average value". Wikiferdi 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of term in Poland

The term was in use immediately following the end of World War II but is no longer in usage today.

I live in "Ziemie odzyskane" and I assure that the term is used today. Rarely, but it definitely is in usage today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakas1 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

How is it used today? I think the article means that it is no longer used in official gov't documents, etc. because, of course some archaic uses of many terms are still sometimes used by the populace, but not endorsed by the gov't anymore.
--Jadger 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The term is used in official documents. If someone wants to call area of Silesia, Pomerania and Mazuria in the same time he usually uses the term "Ziemie odzyskane" even if the context is not linked to history after World War II. It is not an everyday word in current Polish, but I would never say that the term is "is no longer in usage today". The sentence in the article has been changed and I think it is acceptable now. --Jakas1 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered vs Annexed

We should not make any assumptions to the correctness of the concept of Recovered Territories -- hence, we should not use the term 'Poland recovered' or any such derivations... I don't like to use annex, but we need a better, non-POV verb. Antman -- chat 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should resort to the ambiguity of the passive tense. We could say that "these territories were incorporated into the territorial boundaries of postwar Poland". --Richard 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over intro

OK, let's stop edit warring over the intro and discuss it so we can develop a consensus.

This is my latest revision...

"Recovered Territories", "Regained Territories" or "Western and Northern Territories" (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane, Ziemie Zachodnie i Północne) was a term used by Communist Poland's authorities to denote the territories of Germany (within its 1937 borders) which were placed first under Soviet, then subsequently Polish administration after the Second World War. These border changes were recognized by East Germany in the 1950 Treaty of Zgorzelec, and generally by West Germany in the 1970 Treaty of Warsaw, and confirmed by united Germany in 1990.
The purported rationale for use of the term "Recovered Territories" was that these territories, recorded as Pomerania, Silesia, Lubusz Land, and Warmia-Masuria, had been held by various Polish dukes and kings for many centuries before they came under the control of first Prussia and then the German Empire. Following World War II the area was occupied by Soviet Union, and most ethnic Germans living in those regions were forcefully expelled or died, and the land was annexed by Poland, as sanctioned by the Potsdam Agreement by the Allies of World War II, especially Soviet Union.

I introduced the phrase "had been held by various Polish dukes and kings for many centuries before they came under the control of first Prussia and then the German Empire" as a compromise to sidestep the edit war over how long the territories were held by "various Polish dukes and kings".

Balcer just recently reverted the edit of an alleged sock but with the comment "without necessarily endorsing the current revision". I would like to get endorsements of the current revision so that we can defend a consensus version of the intro.

Are there any objections to the wording of the current intro? If so, please raise your objection so that we can negotiate a phrasing which addresses your concerns.

--Richard 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two notes: Polish kings and dukes would be probably more correct with less stress on kings and more on dukes (link Piast dynasty). Second, while the term undoubtedly originated originated in Polish commies propaganda, but we should note it is widely used in English academic literature (unlike the infamous Historial Eastern Germany), ex: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Further as I wrote before this article needs heavy inline references (for every sentence), preferably with English sources only, to cut down on bias and revert wars.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

notice on your links PP that the term is used in the context of so called regained territories, and for the most part is not used in English as an actual condonation of the annexations. Other then that, I agree with PP.

--Jadger 06:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One more note. The lead should note that the recovered territories were a compensation for the lost Kresy territories (Poland, in effect, lost more territory than it gained in this switch, and good part of communist propaganda was to extoll how 'good' this deal really was...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Which, you forget, Poland had taken from the Soviet Union in a war of aggression.... Antman -- chat 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Which Soviet invasion of Poland do you mean?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He never said Soviet Invasion, he said the Polish were the aggressors, or would you like to explain how, somehow the USSR just gave up lands assigned to it under the treaty of Versailles? They didn't want them? then in 1939 wanted them again?

--Jadger 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the Polish-Soviet War. This is OT. But you may want to think what would've happened if the Poles haven't saved Germans from the Soviet embrace in 1919/1920 one of those days... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union in 1918 and represented at Versailles ? This is pure science fiction. Neither did SU exist back then, nor was it reckognised internationally. Bolsheviks were just seen as unruly rabble by Western powers. Read history.

To Piotr

  • The lead should note that the recovered territories were a compensation for the lost Kresy territories

At least the Western Aliies had stipulated much less territory to be given for compensation than Poland took under Stalin.

“ In spite of the formal postponement of the frontier question, however, the government of Poland, with the encouragement of the Soviet Union, prematurely annexed or claimed to have annexed all of Germany east of the Oder and Neisse Rivers, far more territory than the Western Powers were disposed to concede in the peace treaty. These annexations effectively denied the Western Powers a source of possible reparations and, more importantly, a source of food for the German population in the Western zones of occupation. Anglo-American protests were ephatic, but wholly ineffective. As Admiral Leahy, a participant in the Potsdam Conference put it, "we would have had to be prepared to take military action to overturn the Soviet fait accompli". (cf. Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN 0710084684, p. 156.) ”
  • what would've happened if the Poles haven't saved Germans from the Soviet embrace in 1919/1920

Poland waged around five wars against her neighbours between 1918 and 1938 to make Poland bigger, in this spirit annexed German territory in 1921 (contrary to the democratically declared intention of the majority of the people living there), mealy-mouthed thousands of the so created “German minority” out of Poland and you dare to say that Poles saved Germans “from the Soviet embrace”? To me this is ridiculous.

Wikiferdi 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Pomerania, Silesia, Lubusz Land, and Warmia-Masuria, had been held by various Polish dukes and kings for many centuries...

For many centuries? Silesia? What is "many centuries"? Please mention a reliable source for these allegations! Well, there is a clear "drift apart" from the very beginning of the existence of this political entity - take just a look some lines more above where you can check how long Silesia was separated from "Poland" (as it existed in the Middle Ages). Just this time of independence of Silesia (towards Poland) is worth to call it "many centuries". Wikiferdi 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused... the standard phrase is "independent from X". Is this what you mean when you say "independence of Silesia (towards Poland)"?
In any event, the problem is that before my edit, there was an edit war over "between the 9th and 13th centuries" vs. "between the 9th and 17th centuries". My edit attempts to resolve the edit war, not by deciding who was right, but by using "many centuries" to cover both cases ("many centuries" can mean 5 centuries or 9 centuries).
--Richard 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF is with all these maps?

  1. two maps are pretty much identical. except the one has an additional line on it. are both really needed?
  2. this map [15] refutes this map in article [16]
  3. another two maps[17] [18] during the same era, and being totall different. One making claims to lots of land outside of Poland, the other, only one area outside of Poland, which still wasnt under its control judging byyet another map [19]
  4. since this article is referring to lands taken from Germany, should we not have a map that reflects the German-Polish language distribution in the area? [20] or [21]

I think its rather telling that only maps showing Poland at its greatest power are on this page, in order to argue that Poland had a right to these lands, but on the reverse, we could also thus claim that poland should be taken back to this [22]

--Jadger 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. Which maps are identical?
  2. Then both maps should be present, next to each other, with information who and when published them. Simply a NPOV issue.
  3. As above.
  4. Agree, it's a good addition. Although it doesn't seem to be citing its source...?
Removing maps which you don't like and replacing them with maps supporting another POV is not the best strategy. Adding new maps, referenced and representing views of both sides, is better. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. [23] and another one which has now been removed
  2. no, one good map should not be placed beside a clearly POV and wrong map, the latter of which is in this article.
  3. you ignored the fact that the different maps on wikipedia I cited all dont agree with each other.
  4. it clearly does cite its sources, if you would dare to read the image's page.

I never said that I didnt like them, indeed they are very flashy and pretty... but as for being factually correct, that's why I want them removed, not because I dont "like them"

--Jadger 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

now your maps are even worse, [24] and [25] are both stating the Polish lands in the same YEAR (992) but are very different.

--Jadger 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple compromise: let's remove all maps that can't be sourced w/ verifiable, reliable citations. Let's also make a list of the maps here and discuss each one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you really wanted that, why did you add the contentious maps back in to the article?

--Jadger 02:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am simply restoring to the stable version before Matthead deletions. Now, for the individual maps:
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Piotrus, thank you for reminding me to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus occasionally. This is rather disappointing considering that I perceived our recent edits at Polish-Teutonic War etc. as constructive cooperation. When looking up pre-1308 situations I came to Recovered Territories and was not satisfied with the article being scattered with maps of which two were similar. I assume you somehow missed the fact that I had not "removed" or "deleted" images, but ordered them chronologically (and resized all to 300px), commented some out to suggest related ones in instead, and added others that should illustrate periods mentioned in the article. Anyway, after your total reverts (rv removal of useful maps) (rv, please use talk and stop removing maps you don't like) of my original and updated suggestions, and after repeated talk with Jadger who also questioned the images, you still find no better wording than "restoring to the stable version before Matthead deletions". As for the color image showing "Dominating nationalities in Poland around 1931", it is helpful to show that even according to Polish POV, Poland Second Republic was "Dominating nationalities" in 1931. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • has been disputed by a bunch of much better maps, by better sources, as can be seen from this discussion previously.
  • we only need one of those maps
  • also been disproven by other (better) maps that have been published.
  • clearly shows a different border than the ones that you keep inserting (which are unsourced)
  • if you click that pictures discussion page, the source is given. [26] as for those other maps "better looking" I beg to differ.

but why do we need maps of barbarian Poland? the only purpose is to make claims to lands as if this PROPOGANDA TERM were actually in any sense truthful, but it's not. this article is about a propoganda term, not actual history. by the same respect the Basques should have claims to all of Europe, as they were the first ones, or Romans to all of what was the Roman Empire, as they were the first civilized peoples to control the lands. use some common sense PP

--Jadger 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) "why do we need maps of barbarian Poland? " What is "barbarian" Poland ? It is the first time i hear such name ? I don't see any such maps. --Molobo 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Indeed, for the same reason we could cut all pre-20th century history and maps. Is this what you are suggesting?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We need a map of Piast Poland-the past borders of Piast Poland were used as one of reasons for border of 1945.

--Molobo 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

can we get some citations of that Mol? never heard of that before. and when I said "Barbarian Poland" I meant it as in pre-(western) civilization, i.e. Christianity. In the same way the Germans were called Barbarian during Roman times, until they were christianized.

--Jadger 07:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/SlavStudsPoland45-89.htm "reintegration of country: ‘Regained Territories’ (return to borders of ‘Piast Poland’"

"The idea of Piast Poland was part of a search for a general line of development of the Polish state, as well as an attempt at reinterpreting national history from the contemporary point of view. The return to "the Land of the Fathers,” as the Western Lands and Pomerania were called, was interpreted as a return to the traditions of the early-mediaeval Polish state, to the glorious days of Mieszko I and the Boleslaus rulers" Between Continuity and Discontinuity: A few comments on the post-war development of Polish historical research Rafał Stobiecki Historical Institute of the University of Łódż[www.sipa.columbia.edu/REGIONAL/ECE/vol4no2/stob2.pdf]. --Molobo 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

PS:Never heard the term "barbarian Poland"-did you invent it or is there some source you read it in ? --Molobo 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, I cant believe you refer to a source that calls Poland during the expulsions "gentle revolution". But then again, 2 million murdered is gentle by Polish standards. Also, that latter source (you forgot the "f" on the end of the URL) is a good source for this article, we could use it elsewhere, because it deals with this subject as a propoganda concept, but does not seek to prove what you are (that Piast Poland owned parts of Germany).
also, I like your choice of source, I like this quote from it, it describes your position perfectly: History is given meaning by people. To be precise: various people give it various meanings. The same goes for rogues, who sanctify their practices by invoking Progress and Historical Necessity. However, their vision of history is nothing more than a way of deluding themselves and others.
--Jadger 17:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"But then again, 2 million murdered is gentle by Polish standards" Sorry I don't respond to WP:CIV violations combined with falsehoods(400,000 died in various conditions). Also I don't desire to prove anything-the fact is that Recovered Lands were associated with Piast Poland after WW2 and will be mentioned, its not Wiki's job to judge what is right or wrong but to report facts. --Molobo 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


The source seems reliable; I have reworded the fragment to make it clear that we are presenting a post-war Polish POV (which after all came up with the term).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise would be a map showing both the Piast Poland and contemporary Germany/HRE? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be fine, as long as we make it explicit in the caption that much of Piast Poland was subject to the German Emperor and thus, much of Piast Poland was subservient and not independent, so the two maps would be overlapping.
--Jadger 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Poland wasn't indepedent ? Source please. German Emperor ? It is the first time I hear of this, perhaps you are confusing historical periods. At that time there wasn't a "German Emperor" as far as I know. The title Holy Emperor of German Nation was invented much much later. --Molobo 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your argument, but if you would like to suggest appopriate map, and text changes (with references), please go ahead and we can see whether its deemed acceptable by all sides.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

read second paragraph of History_of_Poland article, here I will cite it and add emphasis at what I am getting at:

The Polanes, first mentioned in the 10th century chronicles of Ibrahim ibn Jakub , were up until then a part of the Czechs. The Polanes tribes came into Silesia at the Oder river, where the German kings and emperors had affirmed the rule of the Moravian and Bohemian dukes. In 966 the Holy Roman Emperor Otto I the Great affirmed the ducal title held by the Polanes leader Mieszko I. Mieszko, born circa 930, and later his son Boleslaw I Chrobry, pledged allegiance to the emperors from part of their lands.

--Jadger 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

According to wiki policies wikipedia can't be used as a source within articles. Besides the text only speaks about "Holy Roman Emperor" not "German Emperor" and about their readiness to support him, nothing about indepedence or Germany.

--Molobo 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

or later in that same article: Lands under Duke Mieszko's rule including lands kept as vassal of the emperor and as margrave encompassed Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Masovia, Silesia and Pomerania.

I am all for your idea PP of removing any pre 20th century maps, as they don't seem to be valid. I think at most we should have three maps: pre-WWI Germany, one with all the border changes, another with prewar population makeup of recovered territories (note that the current ones doesn't refer to recovered territories at all, and is rather untrustworthy)

--Jadger 02:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) The vassalship was quickly broken by Polish rulers and most historians consider it to be a trick against Holy Roman Empire to entry international politics-this can be sourced if so desired. As to maps-a map of Piast Poland is relevent because as the text now sources-this was the Poland to which 1945 borders refered to. --Molobo 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious usage of maps on Wikipedia

I've been watching your debate for a while, and my conclusion is that Wikipedia lacks an adequate policy on usage of controversial illustrations. Every now and then I've seen someone putting up a photo or a map to promote his view, and someone else objecting this. Generally it is hard to discuss with images, and often you can find images, drawings or maps to illustrate quite contradictory theories. In my opinion all pictures should be carefully selected to best illustrate the article, not to promote a POV. To this end it would be best if each controversial illustration gained support of all the involved editors (or consensus if you like). I'm not thinking of any particular image or map now, just thought it would be good if some general rules or guidelines existed that we all would not only respect, but also support. What do you think ? --Lysytalk 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I actually think Jadger is onto something useful when he complains about too many images; I don't think we need historical maps or the long history section, which is commonly abused by editors trying to use it to argue that the territories in question are rightfully German or Polish. The history should be shortened, down to few sentences redirecting users to the relevant articles in the history of Poland and Germany, and I don't think think we need that many historical maps.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally, this map I just removed [[Image:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png]] has nothing to do with the so called "recovered territories" except it shows them almost completely ethnically German. not to mention it is dubious as other, more reputable images differ from it, and according the East Prussia article, 85% of East Prussia was ethnically German which doesn't make sense with that map that shows a good chunk (almost 1/4) of East Prussia being dominantly Polish

[edit] Poland's western border

“ At the Potsdam Conference, Poland's western borders were drawn along the Oder-Neisse line. ”

This sentence is clearly wrong. Stalin and Poles had drawn Poland's western border along the Oder-Neisse line (Lusatian Neisse) quite long before the Potsdam Conference and contrary to the political aims of the western allies which preferred the Glatzer Neisse. A proof is following passage from secretary of state James F. Byrnes who participated at the Potsdam Conference:

“ With regard to Silesia and other eastern German areas, the assignment of this territory to Poland by Russia for administrative purposes had taken place before the Potsdam meeting. The heads of government agreed that, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier, Silesia and other eastern German areas should be under the administration of the Polish state and for such purposes should not be considered as a part of the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany. However, as the Protocol of the Potsdam Conference makes clear, the heads of government did not agree to support at the peace settlement the cession of this particular area. (cf. Speech by J.F. Byrnes, United States Secretary of State Restatement of Policy on Germany, Stuttgart, September 6th 1946) ”

Wikiferdi 03:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikieferdi-that is no proof but rather change of sentence-the area was given to administration of Poland. Territorial changes had many proposals-for exampe Sorb area was proposed to be given to Poland or Czechs as well-if you desire it can be sourced. --Molobo 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


From Time Magazine February 21, 1944:
“ The Union of Polish Patriots, speaking with the Kremlin's blessing, told Poles in Poland and the world at large that in recompense for its "backward" eastern provinces postwar Poland must include East Prussia, western Pomerania, perhaps as far as the Oder River, and highly developed, industrial Upper Silesia (see map). ”
From [27] July 14, 1945
“ ...Sir Alexander...Expressed opposition to the Oder Neisse line, which would raise to between 10 and 12 million the number of Germans subject to transfer. (from German territory placed under Polish administration) ”
July 7 1945 ::[28]
“ ..it was my understanding that Silesia formed part of the Soviet zone of occupation of Germany. Zhukov corrected me and stated that Germany did not exist, and that everyone knew that the Crimea conference established the German frontier along the Oder and Neisse rivers. ”
July 12, 1945 [29]
The U.S. and U.K. do not agree with Zhukov, German territory is the territory Germany held in 1937.
The U.S. agrees, but not on Oder Neisse [30]
In 1946 the U.s. gives its support to German demands for the return of the territory.[31]
“ American Secretary of State James Byrnes responded to Molotov's ploy in a speech before an audience of 1,400 German dignitaries in Stuttgart on September 5 (1946) that signified a critical turning point in American policy toward the occupied country. He announced his government's intention to promote the economic rehabilitation of Germany in order to enable it to contribute to the economic recovery of Europe as a whole. He rejected the idea of splitting off the Ruhr from the rest of the country. He called for the prompt formation of a provisional government with authority to administer the entire country so that Germans could once again manage their own affairs. Most important of all, from the standpoint of German public attitudes toward the Soviet Union, Byrnes specifically refused to recognize the Oder-Neisse frontier between Germany and Poland. That boundary, which deprived Germany of a considerable portion of its prewar territory, had been unilaterally established by the Russians in 1945 in order to compensate Poland for the seventy thousand square miles of its own territory that it had been forced to cede to the Soviet Union. By throwing American Support behind the German people's demand for the restoration of that lost land, Byrnes had shrewdly smoked out the Kremlin, forcing it to choose between its client state in Poland and its prospective friends in Germany. ”
The German territory east of the Oder Neisse was temporarily placed under Polish administration, awaiting a peace conference which would decide where the real frontier would be.[32]
“ The territories east of the Oder and Neisse, like the remaining territory of the Reich within the frontiers of 31 December 1937, were not annexed by the victor powers at the end of the war. The Preamble to the "Declaration" of 5 June 1945 given by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the provisional government of the French Republic "Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority with Respect to Germany" states: "The assumption...of the said authorities and powers does not effect the annexation of Germany" (Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, supplementary sheet no.1 p.7). At the Potsdam Conference (July/August 1945), Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States of America agreed to bring the German territories east of the Oder and Neisse under special arrangements, clearly departing from the occupation rule set up in the remaining territory of the Reich. According to Sections VI and IX of the Protocol of 2 August 1945 (often called the Potsdam Agreement) entitled "Communiqué on the three-power Conference in Berlin", the German eastern territories were (subject to final definition of the territorial questions in the peace settlement) placed partly under Soviet and partly under Polish "administration" (Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, supplementary sheet no.1 p.17f.). The temporary nature of this territorial allocation arising from the reservation about the peace settlement was initially respected by the Soviet Union and Poland following the conclusion of the Potsdam Conference. The Soviet-Polish Treaty of 16 August 1945, which describes the course of the Soviet-Polish boundary in East Prussia, explicitly repeats in Article 3 the reservation as to the peace treaty, referring to the Potsdam Conference (United Nations Treaty Series 10 II no.61 p.196). ”
“ The three western powers did not agree to definitive allocation of the German eastern territories to the Soviet Union and Poland. According to Point VI of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Potsdam Conference, Britain and the United States merely stated that they would "support" the "proposal by the Soviet government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the city of Königsberg and the area adjacent to it" "in principle", subject to determination of the "actual frontier" still to be made at the "forthcoming peace settlement".

However, shortly after the end of the war the Soviet Union and Poland took measures aimed at the full incorporation of the German territories east of the Oder and Neisse into their area of sovereignty. In the Polish sphere of influence too, a number of domestic enactments were adopted, directed at the incorporation of the part of the German eastern territories taken over into the Polish State. Among these were in particular the decree of 13 November 1945 on the administration of the regained territories, the orders of the Council of Ministers of 24 May 1946 on the provisional administrative subdivision of the regained territories and the Act of 11 January 1949 on the incorporation of the regained territories (Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej [Gazette of the Republic of Poland], 1945, no.51, Pos.295; 1946, no.28, Pos.177, 178; 1949, no.4, Pos.22). According to these, the German eastern territories, termed regained territories, were first placed under the administration of a ministry especially set up for the purpose. Among its tasks were the carrying out of a planned resettlement campaign and administration of assets left behind by resettled Germans. Once administration in those territories had been rearranged by the orders of 29 May 1946, the Ministry for the regained territories was abolished by the Act of 11 January 1949 and its competences transferred to the general administration of the Republic of Poland. From the viewpoint of the Polish legal system, that meant the elimination of any special arrangements for the German eastern territories taken over by Poland.

 ”
And finally a quote from Norman Naimarks book "The Russians in Germany"
“ More often than not, the incoming Polish authorities were even less concerned about the safety of German women than were the Russian officers, to whom the German population turned for protection. After all the Silesian territories had been turned over by the Allies to Polish occupation, but not yet to incorporation into the new Poland. Orders went out from the Polish communists to expel Germans by whatever means necessary, to ensure incorporation as well as occupation.(31) As a result, the Polish administration of the new territories made little effort to protect local Germans from the deprivations of Polish or Russian rapists and thieves.(32) In a city like Breslau, the Germans fear of the Russians was quickly replaced by fear of the Poles. In fact, it was almost too much for the Germans to survive the Russian attacks only to have the Poles persecute them once again. "The Germans in Breslau," wrote the city’s antifascist group, "are steadily being spiritually being driven into the ground [gehen langsam seelisch zu Grunde]."(33) Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behaviour. Polish soldiers, stated one report, "relate to German women as to free booty."(34) Note 31: Se, for example, Wladyslaw Gomulka’s speech to the plenum of the Central Committee of the Polish Workers’ party, May 20-21, 1945, in which he notes: "We must expel all the Germans because countries are built on national lines and not on multi-national ones." ”
--Stor stark7 Talk 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, it would be worth to check how many sources are contradictory. But overall this only shows that Western Allies might not have agreed completely with Stalin - but where Red Army went, it stayed, and Western weak protests were all that was ever heard. PS. For some reason, this song comes to mind... and of course Prussian Nights (shame I couldn't find a full version anywhere on the net :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I found a short part from Prussian nights[33]. "Twenty-two Hoeringstrasse. It's not been burned, just looted, rifled. A moaning by the walls, half muffled: the mother's wounded, half alive. The little daughter's on the mattress, dead. How many have been on it? A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl's been turned into a woman, a woman turned into a corpse. . . . The mother begs, "Soldier, kill me!" Although, this newspaper-article only uses the first line [34]--Stor stark7 Talk 09:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But overall this only shows that Western Allies might not have agreed completely with Stalin - but where Red Army went, it stayed...

Well, thus Poland of today is a product of one of the most horrible criminals the world ever has seen. Aren't Poles ashamed of this?

Wikiferdi 01:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike some other nations in its neighborhood, Poland was a victim, and had little choice in what others did to it. Your point being?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"Unlike some other nations in its neighborhood, Poland was a victim"? Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918) was a victim? Second Polish Republic was a victim and had little choice in what others did to it? Treaty of Versailles, Polish-Ukrainian War, Polish-Soviet War, Polish-Lithuanian War, Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia, Silesian Uprisings were events in which Poland was the victim? And this list covers only the early 1920s. Was the new Polish port at Gdingen operational by the late 1920s, and did Poles thus consider to finally grant Free City of Danzig the right of self-determination? Was the Polish ammo depot on Danzig's Westerplatte still needed for a war against Soviet Union in the 1930s? Polish Third Republic is about to celebrate 18th anniversary, yet still childish attempts are made to portray the country as a victim that never ever did any wrong. Better start to acknowledge that there are skeletons in Polish closets. -- Matthead discuß!     O       12:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let us assume that you are right, so there would anyway be the fact that the act of creating the western Polish border was a criminal act... I would like to compare it with somebody gives a stolen car to me and I would say: well, now it's mine and because I haven't stolen it others are to blame for it...

Wikiferdi 04:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, that is possession of stolen property and is still a criminal offence.

--Jadger 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Allies and the Russians had a bunch of plans for the annexation and partitioning of Germany. The Dutch Wikipedia has an article called nl:Opdeling_van_Duitsland, where you can see maps of which type of division into independent countries that Roosevelt and Churchill favored. (Note, the maps should be taken with a grain of salt, I know for a fact that the map that the author had made to depict the Morgenthau plan had the borders drawn incorrectly, so I had to create a new one. This site, which unfortunately only seems to be available intermittently [35] has a bunch of original maps showing the planned borders for Germany, i.e. doodle maps made by President Roosevelt and Prime minister Churchill. Another version of the maps[36], cant vouch for their accuracy though.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then If you are so inclined you can read the notes taken at the British war cabinet meetings. [37], [38], [39]

It is unfortunately in shorthand, so its sometimes hard to decipher, and sometimes the person who transfered the notes to the PDF document has completely misread it, but nevertheless. For example from: W.M.(43) 53rd Meeting. 13th April, 1943.


II. Foreign Secretary’s Account of his Mission to Washington.

  • A.E.

Politial ques. Main point U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. President troubled - feels Litvinov’s posn in Moscow less influential than Maisky: also troubled about his Amb. in Moscow: wants send Davies back when well enough to go. They don’t tell R. as much as we do abt. day-to-day dipl. events. I suggested eg. U.S. Amb. Moscow shd. give them full a/c our talks.

USSR. Terr. claims. Reconciled to Baltic States - fait accompli. Wd. like plebiscite as conscience clause.

(My comment: so as early as April 1943, while Germany still would hold the Baltic states for at least a year more, the British had abandoned them to Soviet annexation)

Polish frontier. If P. got E. Russia & something in E. Siberia, P. wd. well to accept the Curzon Line. Tactics: we, U.S. & R. shd. agree fair solution & get P. to accept it: better than letting negotns between R. & P to get into mess.

(My comment: that sentence is probably wrongly transcribed. What they probably meant was that "If Poland got East Prussia and something in Eastern Silesia, Poland would do well to accept the Curzon line. Tactics: we, U.S. and Russia should agree on a fair solution and get Poland to accept it: better than letting negotiations between Russia and Poland get into a mess.")

Finland: no anxiety: thought terms reasonable. But Welles nervous re want assistce. pact ? Protectorate. I said take this up with R.

.

.

.

Germany. V. tough attitude. Welles vehemently in favour of dismemberment. They’ve gone into it v. carefully. (P.M. “Liberation of minor components”!) In our mil. occupn we shd. proceed jointly in each area (BA.R.). G. wd. be broken up in mil. occupn into areas approx. to eventual break-down into parts. Pres. agreed, less vehemently. Hull hadn’t made up his mind. I agreed tht. this solution shdn’t be excluded & we wd. consider details. Argument (Welles) - G. bound to have a grievance: therefore give her a good one. “Don’t maltreat your enemy by halves.” (P.M.)

Barvaria: N.Western: Prussia (less E. Prussia etc.): Ruler under internatt. supervision.

Austria sep. at first, tho’ later with Bavaria: Saxony.

  • P.M.

Centripetal tendency of G. will be strong. Poss. ??? in time to implement other ideas. E.g. Confedn. of Danube, as central European bloc. If Wurtemburg joined, it wd. be poss. To go easier with G. states wh. close to Vienna via Berlin. Czechs. wd. like to join with Poland, if they made proper arrangement with R. If not, they wd. turn twds. Vienna

(If you read the files there are some other discussions amongst the Allies on how the new divided Germany(ies) should look, what parts should be annexed etc, if you have the time and are interested the files are there for reading.)

Note that since these discussions were taking place already early 1943, when German troops were still strong and deep in Russia, and Russia was dependent on Allied help to win the war, the Western allies had quite some leverage in discussions on how the future borders should look. But since even the West favored (at least then) a smaller and divided Germany... --Stor stark7 Talk 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, but does not directly fit to this article, which is about the Polish use of the "Recovered Territories" justification. The western allied plans, Morgenthau and such, deserve an article of their own. Also, I miss an overview about who offered when what kind of peace conditions, either in secret negotiation, or public propaganda like radio and dropped leaflets. All I know is that Churchill considered nothing but "unconditional surrender". -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I do tend to go on. Yes, we do need an article that summarizes the various Allied plans for post-war Germany. And I believe it was president Roosevelt that invented the "unconditional surrender" and stuck with it. As regards the terminology "recovered territories", perhaps one of these two articles can have some info, I can't remember which now.
--Stor stark7 Talk 00:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly of interest? Imagining Their Lands as Ours: Place Name Changes on Ex-German Territories in Poland after World War II --Stor stark7 Talk 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No comments on economic state or other current affairs?

As I've traveled through these parts of Poland a few times, I am surprised that this article makes no attempt to comment on the poor economic state of this region. It is particularly evident when one leaves Voivodeship Lubuskie (leaving the post-World War II territories) and enters Voivodeship Wielkopolskie as Wielkopolskie is visibly better off. The article puts a fair amount of effort into discussing Polish history but seems to have little to say about the state of the territories themselves today. W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is related to the so-called Poland A and Poland B concepts; briefly: eastern territories of the former Russian partition were much poorer and less developed than western territories of the former German partition. There is more to that, alas, we still don't have article on economic history of Poland (we do have a [[:Category:Economic history of Poland]|related category]], at least). I will add this article to my 'to do' list :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
W.B. Wilson, this is a very good remark and the answer (at least part of it) is quite simple. I know people who live in the Recovered Territories, they were forced to leave their native Podolia, to settle in Lower Silesia. This area, as well as Lubuskie and Western Pomerania, looks very poor and neglected, as settlers from the east basically for decades lived with their belognings packed in suitcases (my friend from Twardogora told me that his grandparents kept all stuff packed until 1980s). They were convinced that there would be another war, after which they would move back to the east. Hence, they were not interested in development of the area, even in fixing fences around their houses, as those houses, in their opinion, were German. Now this has changed, the new generation is convinced that Lower Silesia, not Podolia, is their homeland. But differences remain huge. Also - Greater Poland has for years been the cleanest part of the country. Tymek (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do remember this mentioned in IPN bulletin issue focusing on Recovered Territories, I will try to find and we will source this situation in the article. --Molobo (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea: article merger with Former eastern territories of Germany

Invitation to the discussion here. Anorak2 (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Recovered Territories refers to to specific term regarding areas returned after 1945 which have very special history, conditions and their development goes forward in time after 1945.--Molobo (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not what I would expect

As far as I understand the concept of the "recovered territories" was an ideological attempt of the communist rulers to explain the new borders and also an instrument to consolidate their power. Therefore I would expect that this article tells me WHY they did it, HOW they did it, WHEN they did it. I would also expect something about the causes and consequences of this idea. Was the Polish nationalism of the 19th century the ideological base? Does this concept live on in the Polish consciousness?
Currently this article reads more like an excuse for this revisionist concept. The retelling of the history of this region is largely unnecessary, whereas the analytical examination of the concept is more or less nonexistent. Karasek (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Communist rulers ? When did Mikołajczyk became communist ?--Molobo (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither the article mentions him nor do I. Karasek (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, only Molobo (talk · contribs) mentions him. He seem to do this in an attempt to show that there was a non-communist in the government, the Provisional Government of National Unity, thus possibly attempting to show that it was not a communist government. That is Original Research by the way, and a no-no.
But lets look at it anyway, what does the article on the government state? It states. "In fact, the Communists had little intention of giving any opposition any real power, or carrying out the promised 'free and fair' elections. The members of the opposition that received any positions were kept in check by their deputies and staff, always loyal to the communists, so they had little real power."
That it was a communist government is also clearly demonstrated by the source which states the following:
Secondly, indoctrination commenced with the purpose of forging Polish settlers and repatriates arriving in the region into a coherent community, loyal to the new regime in Warsaw. Wroclaw was to be turned into what Kenney has called a frontier of Communism. On a more general level this involved creating a picture of the new territories as integral parts of historical Poland (hence the expression 'Recovered Territories'). Istitut Slaski ('Silesian Institute') set up in Wroclaw in 1945 and the Instytut Zachodni ('Institute of the West') established in Poznan two years later played important roles in this process. So did ideological manifestations such as the large Exhibition of the Recovered Territories, opened in Wroclaw in July 1948. The exhibition was an elaborate celebration of the post-war successes of the Communist party and its effort in the newly-won territories.[40]--Stor stark7 Talk 20:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"That is Original Research by the way, and a no-no." Except of course that a simple gaze into that article shows that there were non-communists in the Government. Sorry.--Molobo (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think you got my point, so, so sorry. Article says there were non-communists in the government, but that they had no power. Ergo these individuals were irrelevant for the politics of the government. But far more important than that, there is an on-topic source that completely disregards them. Can you provide any source saying the government was not communist?--Stor stark7 Talk 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The article itselfs says the government was made of non-communists.--Molobo (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean when it says this: The members of the opposition that received any positions were kept in check by their deputies and staff, always loyal to the communists, so they had little real power.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you corrected your statements and now changed to claim that non-communists didn't have no power as you claimed earlier, but some power. As to the issue of territorial changes in the West I recall no serious conflict in National Unity Government. The conflicts regarded internal Polish issues mostly--Molobo (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, then you see in error. I see that you still don't understand; the government was communist, a symbolic member from another party stripped of power and used as figurehead does not make it non-communist. I have the book to rest my case on, you have the name of this politician? In Wikipedia the one with the most books usually "wins". Do you have any books to back up your claim? I.e. some book that does not state that for all intents and purposes the government was Communist?--Stor stark7 Talk 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Stork, I don't need a book. I can just give the list of government members and their parties. As to your amazement, well I suggest you read more on Polish history after 1945. There was a transition period during which the shape of Polish political system was yet to be determined. But anyway this is outside the scope of this article.--Molobo (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Moloba, listing government members is OR, is it so difficult to find a book that clearly states that the government was not communist, just as the book we have here state that it was communist? I guess it must be.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Moloba ? The list is widely available, how is it OR. Really... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molobo (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OR is drawing your own conclusions from the list, as I'm sure you well know, since as far as I can tell you've used the OR slogan often enough when making edits...Find a secondary source and we can end this discussion--Stor stark7 Talk 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My own conclusions ? Their party affiliations are quite openly written, not results of my research :)--Molobo (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes Molobo (talk · contribs), and nevertheless the secondary source couldn't care less about them, meaning either the source is worthless, or your argument based on the party affiliations is worthless. You need a source to back you up. You can try using the party affiliation in articles, but my guess is that it would get reverted every time as OR. For your own sake I suggest you try to find a source if you truly believe in your arguments and wish to avoid a bunch of frustration. --Stor stark7 Talk 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Really ? You claim Mikołajczyk and others were secret communists ? Source please. This indeed is interesting.--Molobo (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Molobo, wont work this time :-) --Stor stark7 Talk 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So you have no source claiming that Mikolajczyk was a secret communist. Ok.--Molobo (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No I don't, but since it would be as relevant to the issue as a source stating he was really a protestant woman, it is a moot point. All you are doing is Straw man arguments, which should be evident to anyone bothering to check. Cheers--Stor stark7 Talk 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well since he was a member of the government it is relevant.--Molobo (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion is no answer to my question. It doesn't matter if someone was a communist or not, what matters is the analytical examination of the concept "recovered territories". The concept itself is clearly revanchist, while it's practical implementation was revisionist. Wether it was implemented by communists or martians is clearly not the biggest problem of this article.
I know that modern Polish historical research (after 1989) covers this topic pretty well, but not much is translated. Karasek (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Karasek the notion that is is some revisionism is in itself revisionism, don't you agree ? I mean it suggests that those territories were never part of Polish state, which suggests the whole known history is made up. Frankly that would be bizarre.--Molobo (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I never denied that some of these territories were part of Poland for some time. And if you want to discuss revanchism and revisionism please check the talk pages of the corresponding articles. Right now the descriptions fit perfectly. Karasek (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda ties

I wonder how to best tie this article with the newly created propaganda in the People's Republic of Poland. Comments? PS. What about usage in German propaganda, Western and Eastern? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the term was used by German propaganda, too ? --Lysytalk 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that this or something similar was used, and it should be discussed as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In this or in the other article ? Or maybe they should be merged ? But then, a merged article would create a dream battleground for all the Polish and German nationalists, claiming that their propaganda version was the right one. --Lysytalk 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
East German propaganda was on the Polish side, they even went so far as to label the expelled "resettlers" so as not to antagonize their Communist brethren on the other side of the river. I think you can still see some old/neo communists using the old terminology today. As to claim that the only democracy involved in this discussion would have used propaganda terms... quite scary. The Bundesrepublic used for a long time the legal definition, "German territories under temporary Polish administration" or something quite similar, since this was what they were according to international law as the result of Potsdam. The defacto ethnic cleansing of the territory does not automatically grant the cleanser title to the territory. Especially since the Allies Potsdam statement included "does not effect the annexation of Germany". Also, maybe 10 million disgruntled "resetled" voters grumbling in the background could have hindered any official name change in the early years.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
East German propaganda ([41]) is as notable as West German propaganda ([42]). All countries, democratic or not, used propaganda - see for example propaganda in United States.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Great link on the U.s., thanks. As regards the others, from what I could gain in from the very few books that could be read (13) most were refering to Anti-West German propaganda, or to east Germans discussing western "propaganda". The limited view on East Germany search and particularly Poland (239) propaganda gave way more useful hits, although some also refer to Anti-Polish propaganda. Let us just say that if there was WG propaganda, then it was dwarfed from the east.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western and Northern Territories?

Is this term really more popular and correct? 58 books use this term since 2000 in Polish context ([43]).52 use Recovered ([44]), 28 use regained ([45]). Now in the period 1945-2000, 933 use WaNT ([46]), 439 use Recovered ([47]), 322 use Regained ([48]). While it would be useful if somebody could spend few minutes and present calculations per decade, this count does not support the claim that the usage of WaNT is replacing the usage of RT in English works.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the main title of the article should be changed to Western and Northern Territories. There is the issue that they often are used separately, i.e. "Western territories" and "northern territories" yielding 600, and 900 hits respectively over the span since 1945. but using for example WT alone in the years 2000-2008 yields 192 hits. and 127 for the northern equivalent. Clearly this more useful phrasing is winning ground. --Stor stark7 Talk 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Western and Northern Territories is also quite unclear; it may include for example interwar Polish Corridor, Polish Silesia or even Greater Poland itself. Hardly a useful term and count.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just that it may be difficult to count, may require evaluating each hit, does not mean that your original critique against the source is right. It just means that it is difficult for us to prove either way by googling, so perhaps we should trust the scholar in his secondary source. A brief survey of the WT hits indicates that most are legitimate and refer to the so called "new territories". Add the term 1945 to discriminate and it still comes out way on top.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1.3 million Poles in 1939

It´s absurd to claim an "existing Polish Population of 1.3 million in 1939". It means a Polish minority in Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania counting in millions. I´d really like to know where this number comes from. Off course there was a minority in Upper Silesia and a small minority in Masuria, but 1.3 millions ?? Absurd.

Or are we talking about POW and deported Persons AFTER September 1939? IF so, we should write it like that.(217.184.150.121 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

1.3 million isn't millions. According to the text it's Polish POV. Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC) The quoted German book gives 1.2, according to the Union of Poles in Germany. The 676 875 doesn't include probably some people using a dialect of Polish nor other Slavic languages, eg. Kashubian one. Quite many Kashubians opted for Poland in 1945, other Slavic minorities left Poland. Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)