User talk:Sca/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{talkarchive]]

Contents 1 Nationality of Günter Grass 2 Boxes 3 WP:NC(GN) 4 My 2 grosze's worth 5 talk:Erika Steinbach 6 No more, please! 7 Orel (Chrudim District) 8 polymath 9 German-Polish reconciliation 10 Autumn 11 Nationalism 12 The Spiegel article 13 Reply 14 PL-D attitudes 15 Expulsion of Germans after World War II 16 Autoblock? 17 Expulsions 18 re:language 19 German knowledge 20 WikiProject Germany 21 I could use your help 22 WP Munich 23 Did you know? 24 Merry Christmas 25 Thanks 26 Michael Wieck 27 Flag 28 WikiProject Idaho 29 Historical Eastern Germany 30 RE:Lake Nipigon 31 Google Books 32 May 2007 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter 33 Reasons for the expulsions of Germans 34 Bohemia a "PROVINCE"? of Austria 35 Wprost 36 Anne Frank

[edit] Nationality of Günter Grass

You said on a different page that "Yes, they use the Kashubian claim to try to make out that Gũnter Grass is not wholly a 'German' writer.". Hasn't it occured to you that Grass may be German and Kashubian at the same time. In my opionion this is not an either-or situation. Yes, both the Nazi German government and the Communist Polish one wanted the Kashubs to be strictly respectively German or Polish. It would seem it's an idea close to your understanding of nationality. Or am I wrong here? My idea of nationality makes it comfortaby easy to be Polish-Kashubian, German-Kashubian or even (a heresy of heresies for most nationalists) German-Polish. Why not? Maybe it's an American understanding of nationality (as in Irish-American,German-American or Polish-American) but I prefer it hands down to the divisive 19th century European idea of clearly divided nations. Please respond here (if you choose to), not on my Talk page. Thank you. ProudPomeranian 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree that nationality and/or ethnicity sometimes is too narrowly defined, as in either-this-or-that. I've expressed that thought in the Copernicus discussion and elsewhere.

In the case of Günter Grass, however, I'm not aware that he ever spoke Kashubian or made any particular claims himself about being Kashubian – although some Kashube characters appear in the Danzig Trilogy. In the over-all context of world literature, Grass is a German writer and is everywhere identified as such.

I freely admit I don't know much about the Kashubians, other than having read that they are a west-Slav group distinct from the Poles proper, perhaps somewhat like the Sorbs of Saxony. I gather their expressions of nationality in the past have been somewhat flexible, depending on poltical winds, like the Upper Silesians. Certainly the area known to the Germans as West Prussia was a fascinating and probably volatile mixture of ethnicities.

Sca 16:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in his new novel, Beim Häuten der Zwiebel, Günter Grass openly admits that the family of Oskar Matzerath from The tin drum is actually his own family. That means his own uncle Franz was shot in 1939 for taking part in the defence of the Polish Post Office building in Danzig. The widow was resettled back to her native Kashubian hamlet (Rębiechowo) which is now the airport of Gdańsk. The runway actually runs over the former field of the aunt of Grass. The family still lives near by, according to the book. He visited them on his first post-war trip to Poland in 1958. I strongly encourage you to read the novel. ProudPomeranian 16:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my own Talk page as you chose to discuss there (ignoring my plea above). No problem. ProudPomeranian 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxes

Check WP:UBX. //Halibutt 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NC(GN)

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 2 grosze's worth

It seems to me that there are two questions to be asked in determining appropriate names:

1. What was the place called by (a majority of) its inhabitants during the time period or historical era in question?

2. How was the place known in English during the time in question?

For places east of the eastern borders of present-day Poland and Slovakia, the first may be difficult to determine with clarity, in which case the second principle should be a guide.

For ex-German places in present-day Poland and the Czech Republic, there would seem to be little confusion, with a few exceptions.

In the case of Gdańsk, it seems clear that the city's inhabitants (or a majority thereof) knew it as Danzig (with early spelling vagaries) from the early 14th century until after WWII, when the surviving/remaining German population was expelled. It's particularly obvious in the case of Danzig due to the city's German-language publications, media and currency that have survived — and particularly important to readers in that "Danzig" appeared in countless publications and newspaper headlines during the interwar period.

The same criteria may be applied with little confusion to other ex-German places in Poland and the Czech Republic. Exceptions or confusion may arise in some areas, however: Poznań / Posen became fundamentally Polish sooner, after the border changes of 1919-20, and I leave it to others to determine when the originally Polish Poznań became fundamentally German (after the First Partition?). Some areas of Upper Silesia evidently were bilingual for a very long time, the Masurians were themselves bilingual, and Klaipėda/Memel was mixed. Such areas may present problems. However, the two principles above apply quite clearly to the most important locales in Silesia, Pomerania, the Gdańsk area and ex-East Prussia.

These principles cancel out any attempt to call a place by a particular name merely because it was politically part of a given country or enfeoffed to a particular royal house. This practice is not logical because the use of an other-than-native name ignores the fundamental nature of the place and its inhabitants. As has been said so many times, Danzig was, ethnically and culturally, fundamentally a German place even when it was part of Royal Prussia and linked politically (and economically) with the Kingdom of Poland.

Okay, it was maybe 50 groszy's worth. It's difficult to express these things succinctly.

Sca 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you managed out of the block already. --Lysy^talk 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Erika Steinbach

We could use your calming input on talk:Erika Steinbach, thanks

Your Friend --Jadger 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't want to get involved in that hornets' nest. I see user names that are all too familiar from previous marathon diatribes. It only serves to reinforce my view that there are people on both sides whose mission in life is to keep the fires of ethnic hatred burning. These people live in, and on, the past.

Anyhow, I know almost nothing about Erika Steinbach. My general view of the German expellee organizations is that they represent primarily the descendants of displaced people, and that these descendants have a legitimate human interest in exploring their own heritage and family or regional histories; doing so does not amount to "revisionism." But certainly no one is served by any claims at this point upon property lost in the old Heimat 60 years ago. You can't turn back the clock.

As far as place names are concerned, this topic has been well aired elsewhere (see "My 2 grosze's worth" above and on WP:NC(GN).

Sca 14:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has been discussed elsewhere numerous times, but this is going against those previous rulings. All I am asking for is for you to vote, as discussion doesn't seem to work when dealing with these fringe groups. By voting, you help to end this dispute quicker then we possibly can otherwise.

--Jadger 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" at talk:Erika Steinbach is so convoluted and garrulous I can't see where to vote. Besides, the overall character of the "discussion" is sophomoric and acrimonious. I can't believe Erika Steinbach's birthplace is all that important to anyone. However: Why not just say the town of Rumia in present-day Poland, which was known then to the Germans as Rahmel — and move on?

I do agree that the current phraseology about the town and the German occupation of Poland is confusing and decidedly not NPOV. I also agree that the reincorporation of the "Polish Corridor" territory (and other areas) into Germany after 1939 was not internationally recognized, as it was a result of aggression. But there's no point here in explaining the whole history of the area — West Prussia before 1919, the "Corridor," the Nazi "Greater German Reich," the postwar border changes. All that history is not relevant to a sketch of Erika Steinbach, who in my view is a minor political figure who, perhaps unintentionally, serves as a foil for ultra-nationalists. And in my view nationalism, like racism, is a disease. Wir alle sind doch Menschen.

Sca 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

you can vote [[1]] (may have to scroll down) if you vote oppose, it simply means you do not support the current convoluted and POV version, it does not mean you support any other version. I would totally support the version you set forward above, although the wording "known by Germans..." makes me a wee bit ancy, as that may open it up for Balcer to claim that Gdansk/Danzig was "known by Germans as Danzig" when it was internationally called that. I know that they claim Danizg/Gdansk is different, but who knows how their statements will change after this is over.

Also, if you take a look at this, it is the version of the vote I propose, which would be more clear, and we could also add the version you offered above there also.

Also, on your last point, I agree she has become overblown by some as a sort of satanic figure by Polish nationalists. Perhaps you can answer this question I have, why is the Centre Against Expulsions so controversial (seems to me only to Poles who don't like the negative publicity) when the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. only concentrates on the genocide against Jews? why has the Holocaust Museum not received a bad rep for only portraying the suffering of Jews rather then everyone who suffered during the holocaust, and all genocides in history for that matter. I am not trying to minimalize the holocaust and I am not a holocaust denier at all, but it seems to me strange that one museum/exhibition can be attacked for doing exactly what others have done in the past.

--Jadger 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid point, but your comment sounds more like a complaint (which to some extent I agree with) than a request for an explanation.

Those of us who are interested in Germany, and German culture and history, face one incontrovertible fact: The Holocaust was the largest, most pernicious and horrific example of mass murder in recorded history. It was the signature event of the 20th Century, along with the context in which it occurred — i.e., Nazism and WWII. And the central question about the 20th Century always will be: How could it have happened?

Arguably, Stalin may have been responsible for more human misery and deaths than Hitler, but the Soviet oppression did not target one single group so specifically, and so blatantly without any sense of justice or logic, as did the Nazi genocide against the Jews.

Secondly, Nazi Germany was the aggressor in Europe. The reaction of peoples who had been conquered and oppressed by the Germans was, in human terms, more understandable than the actions of the Germans who implemented the Holocaust and other less visible atrocities.

Nevertheless, I do contend that the Germans who died in the war — particularly those who were uprooted from the eastern territories — were just as much victims of war as were the victims of the Nazi atrocities. The question of "collective guilt" for the Germans of that era is a complex one, but I do believe that many, many ordinary Germans were not guilty; one must consider the historical and political context of the times in which they lived.

Generally, I agree that the victimization of German civilians during and after the war, and particularly those of the former Oder-Neisse territories, has been grossly underreported in Western historiography. It should be integrated in due proportion to the whole history of the tragedy of Europe in the first half of the 20th Century.

Sca 18:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas published:

• Nemesis at Potsdam in 1977, updated seventh edition in 2003.
• A Terrible Revenge in 1994, new revised edition in 2006.

2. Norman Naimark has published Fires of Hatred. The above books aren't certainly anti-German. From a Polish point of view they are rather too German, because they say relatively little about the historical and political contex.

The victimization of non-Jewish civilians during and after the war, both by Germans and Soviets, has been grossely underreported in English language texts. The German tragedy is in my opinion better known that the fate of expelled Poles. As far as I know the problem of inflating of the numbers of German victims is totally absent in English languge texts. Xx236 10:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Sca, I could not possibly agree with you more. I understand that Nazi Germany was the aggressor in Europe. There is the problem that misunderstanding people now equate German nationalism with Nazism because the Nazis were the aggressors in Europe (perfect example is das lied der Deutsche. What I think is the biggest question mark of the whole era is what if it had of been another party to have ruled Germany, one that didn't attack Jews or minorities. What if they had of taken German inhabited lands back after their loss at Versailles? would it be considered more acceptable now because it was not a war of conquest like Hitler's war was?

as for your remarks Xx236, we are talking about what happened to Germans here, not Poles, you have made the stereotypical nationalist remarks as seen on talk:expulsion of Germans after WWII and elsewhere. How many times must you be told? Two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't matter here. To you, it is always about the Poles, you always have to insert them when we are not talking about them. from the sentence From a Polish point of view they are rather too German, because they say relatively little about the historical and political contex. we all know you obviously mean that they don't provide the same excuses as the Polish Government has.

--Jadger 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, would you please not attack me on someone's page?

Which the Polish government? There were two of them. In fact the Polish one was in London and the Soviet puppet one in Warsaw. Xx236 07:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Xx236 07:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more, please!

This is why I didn't want to get involved in the Erika Steinbach discussion. Please air your differences on on your own pages. Dziékuje bardzo / Danke sehr.

PS to Xx236: By "other less visible atrocities" above, I meant the Nazi-German crimes against Poles, Russians, other Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally ill, German socialists, and so on. I fully realize Poland suffered horribly under the German occupation. The challenge to Poles three generations later is to find a way to reconciliation with their western neighbor.

Sca 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The challenge to Germans ...is ...reconcillation with their eastern neighbor. Xx236 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orel (Chrudim District)

I assuming you refer to this village? I'd not think that the name would change; I can't even think of other names for this place. Possibly there is a German name, if somebody brings it up and it is popular enough it then would be included in the lead, I guess, like Sztum (Stuhm), for example. But again this is what we do anyway, so the proposal wouldn't really change anything, I think. I don't really think the proposal would cause any renamings, and relativly few changes in leads - but it is more of a precautionary strike to end long and pointless debates about pros and cons of having alternative names in leads and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the city (pop. 330,000) on the Oka River 200 mi. south of Moscow. My old Times Atlas spells it Orël, which apparently is a derivative of Орёл in Russian. Generally in English I've seen it as Orel with a normal 'e' — however, on Wiki it's "Oryol," evidently a transliteration into English of the Russian Cyrillic characters.Sca 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest you raise the issue first on the article 's talk page, it's lead begins 'Oryol or Orel', which is rather uncommon. It would appear Orel is more popular then Oryol, but Orel likely has some hits with other meanings. If you care about this, analyze this in more detail and try to involve other users at that city's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re "if you care about this" — it's not a burning issue for me. I was just curious because I'd looked up Orel on Wiki and was redirected to "Oryol." Personally, I think that for English speakers it would be best to make it Orel, as that's what we're used to, then explain the other forms in the article. Just as Moscow should be Moscow, not Moskva, for English readers. (BTW, there's a Moscow in Idaho; my daughter lives there.) Sca 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything derogatory by that, it's just I don't know much about that city, and I can only offer a little advise based on my experiences elsewhere.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] polymath

Yeah, around these parts we usually call them "Renaissance men".

Cool pic at Konigsberg!! — goethean ॐ 16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German-Polish reconciliation

German speakers may be interested in this piece at Spiegel online: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,443586,00.html

Sca 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autumn

The Polish term you're looking for is "Złota Polska Jesień" and stop your ridiculous accusations. I am not a nationalist (little more "ultra-nationalist"), I despise nationalists, racists, fascists, bigots etc. and I don't want to be in any way suspected of any even remote association with those groups by some biased, one track minded, pseudohistorian who has nothing better to do, but to judge people he barely knows. Space Cadet 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the wider issue (will try to find time to go through the discussion tommorow), but the translation as given by SC above is correct: 'złota (polska) jesień' is 'golden (Polish) autumn'. The term probably has some deeper meanings, but I'd have to read up on it to be more specific, let me know if you want me to pursue that more (shortly, I think it's a positive term for 'good old days before the disaster', but I may be wrong).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Close, but not: check the interwiki links of the Indian summer (I wasn't sure before I checked myself).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In Polish "Babie lato" and "Złota jesień" are synonymous. Why should we have only a single name for such a nice period ? --Lysy^talk 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Baba" = woman, old woman. "Lato" = summer. Babie lato has also another meaning in Polish, which is the "free flying long spider silk fibres used by spiders for their airborne long distant transport (balooning) in late summer". I don't know if there's a name for this in English. --Lysy^talk 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism

For those interested in the general topic of Polish nationalism, I offer this link to a recent English-language article from Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,444037,00.html

Sca 23:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Spiegel article

Thanks for the link to the Spiegel article. It was an interesting reading. While Spiegel is one of the largest magazines, I've rarely looked at it before and I've naively assumed it was neutral so far. Let me share some comments on the article.

I particularly enjoyed the "chase" part in the intro and that Polish coastguards were unable to stop the tourist steamship. Maybe they ran out of ammo ? ;-) I've not heard about the ship incident before, but after reading about it in Spiegel tried to find some more information about it. Interestingly Erika Steinbach (sic!) commented on this amusing incident as well, saying that the Poles should not get that agitated about the German ship ignoring the orders of the coastguards. According to a "Bild am Sonntag" survey 71% of Poles consider Germans to be good neighbours. The incident has been settled within 3 days and German side acknowledged that Polish coastguards acted correctly and blamed the German captain for the incident. Now, ask yourself, why was the incident not widely covered in Poland ? Has the incident been politically motivated ? If not, then why does Spiegel mention it prominently in the beginning of its article about Polish-German political relations ?

I also liked the "bitter relationship between Germans and Slavs, which stretches back over a thousand years". As far as I know there were military conflicts from time to time but overall Polish-German relationship has been friendly and respectful for most of the 1000 years. Of course both Polish and German nationalists would claim that it was all hatred and wars since Otto II. But does Spiegel support nationalistic propaganda ?

Then "Germany has started to feel a cold wind blowing from the East". Wonder, why not "Poland has started to feel a cold wind blowing from the West" instead ? Isn't it that Germany arranged for building the German-Russian pipeline bypassing Poland without even consulting its EU neighbour ? Wasn't it before the Kaczyński brothers got elected ? The chronology of the events seems to be the key to understanding where the "cold wind" blows from.

Then the ironic comments about "Poland, of course, has been partitioned, attacked, cheated and ravaged; it has fought back invaders for centuries. The country has also saved Western Europe frequently from hordes from the East." How is that for a neutral commentary.

I also liked "Polish underground resistance fighters had to crawl through this pipe while they tried to reclaim their city in 1944". Actually, Poles used to crawl kilometres of sewers to run for their lives in Warsaw Uprising, not to reclaim their city.

"The revelations [of Lech Rywin affair] damaged almost all of Warsaw's political elite, including the editor and former dissident Adam Michnik". This is an interesting hypothesis again, as Michnik was in fact the one who disclosed the affair first. How was his reputation damaged by the fact that he fought the corruption is beyond me. Or what was the supposed "defeat of the Gazeta camp" ?

"The new Polish right has dealt a blow to German-Polish relations". What blow ? Doesn't "Poland's old inferiority complexes haven't vanished" sound a bit patronizing to you ? "Warsaw would do well to improve relations with Berlin". Have you noticed that the article keeps silent about what Berlin could do to improve relations with Warsaw, after they spoiled it with e.g. their gas pipeline business.

Overall a very poor, tendentious and misinforming article.

--Lysy^talk 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I think you're reading too much into it from your POV, and taking some things too cynically. For instance, the bit about the pipe just means that it was this type of pipe they had to crawl through. Everyone knows the Poles, particularly Varsovians, suffered horribly under the Nazi-German occupation, and Germans know it too. That includes the resistance fighters who used Warsaw's sewers during the courageous but tragic uprising in '44. (Tragic, because Stalin let them die before moving the Red Army across the river.)

Certainly I've been reading it from the Polish perspective, therefore I was able to see how biased the text was. I expect that most of the readers without the more intimate knowledge of the details would not see it and would consider it to be neutral. This is why I allowed myself to comment it in your talk page. I've lived in a communist country long enough to be able to read between the lines of the papers, and to see things that in the past we have always consider to be invisible for the readers in the West: to see the true intentions of an author, not just the face value that he attempts to present. As for the sewage pipe: why is it mentioned in the article ? Is it the most important thing about the '44 rising, that the poor Poles had to crawl in fæces ? Is it all that the author found in the museum about Warsaw Rising and found it so important to devote 3 sentences of the short article to the pipe (which he also calls a "drain"). Have you asked yourself what is the purpose of these 3 sentences ?

From my perspective, the fact remains that it is Polish politicians (some of them) who keep raising anti-German themes and fears, not the other way around. Yes, I know there are right-wingers and nationalistic dolts in Germany, too (as there are in the U.S.). But they’re on the fringe, even more than they are in the U.S. (unfortunately).

How do you know this ? Is it what you are reading in the magazines or hearing in the news ? You have used the word "fact". How do you know it's not the other way round. Are you aware of any serious anti-German actions of Poland in recent 2-3 years ? Are you aware of any anti-Polish German actions ? By actions I mean no declarations of course, but something that has implications on the other country's economy or welfare.

I haven't followed the pipeline story closely, but I suspect the Germans agreed to the Baltic route because they were worried about Polish attitudes toward Germany given the character of Polish populist politics these days.

I wonder what makes you think so. Do you consider yourself prejudiced ? As I told you before, the Baltic pipe affair happened earlier, before the Kaczyński twins got to power. It was one of the major eye-openers for the Poles and reasons for raising the anti-German sentiments. Poles felt betrayed in all aspects, including national security and economy but also emotionally. I can explain more on these if the importance of this move is not obvious to you.

I have to wonder how many Poles remember not only Germany's support for Polish entry into the EU, but also West German aid to Poland two decades ago during the martial law period. I remember seeing on the news lines of West German semi-trucks heading across East Germany to Poland with food and other kinds of aid at Christmas time — this, to a country that, though not of its own volition, had annexed nearly a fourth of Germany's prewar territory only 40 years before. If the tables had been turned economically and geopoltically, would the Polish people have come to Germany's aid?

I expect so. As I've written before, according to a very recent (October) survey, a vast majority of Poles is very sympathetic towards Germans. (BTW: I wonder how many Germans would say that Poles are good neighbours). Are you aware that Poles are welcome to work e.g. in Britain or in Sweden but not in Germany ? Do you know what happened in Gdańsk, after Guenther Grass revealed his SS past ?

We could debate these themes for pages. My POV, when all is said & done, is that the Germans by and large recognize their huge burden of collective shame over the Nazi atrocities, and have in the last half-century have done much toward reconciliation with Poland — first and foremost, by renouncing all claims to the Oder-Neisse territories. Certainly, some prejudices remain; every society has its bigots and fanatics. But Germans in general would like to achieve reconciliation with the Polish people — just as they have with the French, long seen as their "ancestral enemy."

Both sides have done much towards reconciliation. But "renouncing all claims to the Oder-Neisse territories" as an example of good will is rather astonishing. I believe you know why Germany did this only in 1990. BTW: do you know that Germany paid war reparations to France, but never to Poland ? Anyway, most of the official German gestures are not followed by actions. Even the Spiegel article shows that the (maybe hidden) prejudices on the German side are alive. I only believe in ordinary people in Poland and in Germany. However on the government level, I find the modern German lack of sensitivity and the modern German anti-Polish actions really disappointing.

I would like to see some official gesture from Poland, backed by grass-roots support among the Polish people, to work not just toward "normal" relations with Germany, but toward friendship and mutual forgiveness. I'm not saying that nothing's been done along these lines, but one does get the overall impression that many Polish people, including some prominent politicians, cling to outmoded attitudes toward their western neighbors based on the horrors of a past vastly different from the present.

Certainly I will not defend Polish politicians. But Polish society in whole is very open and in favour of Germans (again, the reaction to Guenther Grass SS past might be a good example of this). Still, a friendly official gesture from Poland might be guaranteeing the seats for German minority in Polish Parliament. Nobody required that, and it was a Polish initiative. How about some official friendly gesture from Germany for a change ?

PS: From an Associated Press story on Eastern European politics filed Oct. 22 in Warsaw:

"... in Poland, twin brothers with prickly nationalist views — President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski — lead a country bogged down in frequent Cabinet reshuffles and convoluted political maneuverings" (my italics).

Sca 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you'll be disappointed if you expected me to defend the twin brothers. In response I can tell you that Gerhard Schröder is now employed by the Russian company that is building the Baltic pipeline, for which he arranged during his chancellor term. German government does not seem to object that.

I'm not saying that Poles are guiltless and Germans are "bad". I only said that the Spiegel article, while cleverly written, has been tendentious and biased in its sneaky way. Yet you considered to be objective enough to advertise it (for which I'm thankful as I said). --Lysy^talk 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

° First, I'm pleased that you yourself seem to express a conciliatory attitude toward the Germans.

° Second, I'm sure you know much more about the details of Polish political life than I. For my part, I was speaking of impressions based on things noticed from afar. The Kaczysnkis, you must admit, are currently the two top officials of Poland.

° Third, I do think it was a very major step for the Germans to renounce claims to the territories — which, as I suspect you know, they did in principle in 1971. The reiteration of that renunciation in 1990 in my view was a formality to reassure the Poles and Russians. (I don't view the 1950 'treaty' between the GDR and Poland as valid.) And while they were to some extent forced to do so by the realities of power politics in postwar Europe, that was not the only reason and probably not the main reason: The Germans had learned from the horrors of WWII, and Brandt was able to lead them in this regard, though not without generating domestic controversy — particularly and predictably among the expellees.

I remember reading at the time (in 1971, when I was a young reporter for the AP) about the liberal (SPD/FDP) Germans arguing that the Heimatsrecht of the Polish inhabitants of the territories was just as valid as the Heimatsrecht of the old German inhabitants formerly had been, and that therefore the territories could not be regained by Germany without violating a basic human right; in other words, that two wrongs (or three) wouldn't make a right. This was a very progressive position for German opinion leaders to take at that time, only 25 years after the war.

A small example of changing German attitudes: In 1983, I asked a German foreign-exchange student living with us whether he thought the territories should rightly belong to Germany. This boy, then a rather serious-minded 17-year-old, replied no, because "the people living there now are longing not to be German, but to be free."

° Fourth, I did note that the city of Gdaņsk declined to take up the anti-German cudgels against Grass, but I'm not entirely clear why and would be interested to know more about Polish attitudes toward Grass and his "Danzig Triology" (also, his "Call of the Toad" [Unkenrufe], 1992).

° Finally, I never said I thought the Spiegel article was "objective." Not much is. I only offered it to those interested in the topic. For myself, I didn't find its tone to be anti-Polish, but rather as voicing concern about Polish attitudes.

Sca 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Germany's recognition of the border, I think it was not that simple. You noted that you don't consider the treaty between DDR and Poland to be valid. But, on the other hand Poland had no border with West Germany, so how could they sign the treaty ? It would only make sense with the neighbouring country, which was DDR. On the other hand the West Germany could unilaterally confirm the Polish western border which it did not do. Of course Soviets could press on the border recognition immediately after WW2, but according to one conspiracy theory they did not want, as they preferred the Poles to feel insecure. It might have seem that the Soviet army in Poland then provided that security, and otherwise the bad Germans might come and claim Polish "Recovered Territories" once more. Also that might be one of the reasons why the Polish enmity towards Germans has been so cherished and cultivated by the communists. Still, despite all these, partially successful, efforts, most Poles considered Soviet Union, not Germany to be the problematic neighbour. Germany recognized the border in 1990 as this was a prerequisite of German reunification. They simply had no option not to recognize it. But they had the opportunity to do it much, much earlier, which they missed. So it's rather strange to mention it as a "friendly gesture" when they were finally forced to do what they could have done already before without the pression. (the 1971 recognition was is still is not considered as such by many Germans). --Lysy^talk 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

About Kaczynskis, I of course cannot deny that they are the two top government officials, and cannot deny that Poles elected them one way or another. This reminds me of George Bush: I know many Americans, but none of them seems to have supported or voted for Bush. Yet, someone elected him, miraculously. The same here. --Lysy^talk 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Grass, he is a very popular writer in Poland, probably because he was a symbol of reconciliation or maybe because he wrote about those who used to live in currently Polish places before the Poles came. Anyway, he was awarded the honorary citizenship of Gdańsk one day. Then when he disclosed his SS past, some politicians of the "Law and Justice" (the Kaczynskis party) demanded that he gives it up and asked the mayor of Gdańsk to revoke it. The mayor ordered a quick poll among the Gdańsk population, and the overwhelming result was "no way, we want the former SS Günther Grass a honorary citizen of Gdańsk". So much for what Poles think about the troubled Nazi times. I have to admit I was quite proud of it, especially that Grass' expiation was not so much welcome in Germany itself. --Lysy^talk 21:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, to beat a dying horse:

1) The 1950 treaty was meaningless because the DDR was a Soviet satellite and certainly in foreign policy had to do whatever Moscow directed. Their boss in 1950 was, of course, Iosif Vissarionovich.

2) The very thing that was striking about the 1971 renunciation was the West Germany did not have a border with Poland. The fact that it was taken seriously by West and East reflected that West Germany, while not yet fully sovereign, was considered the legitimate representative of the German people.

3) While recognition of borders was required in '90 as a formality, it was not seen as internationally signficant because the Frederal Republic already had recognized them 20 years before.

4) Of course I realize Poland has a parliamentary system and that the Kaczynskis don't represent all views in the country, but they are on top at the moment. George W. Bush is truly a minority president, due to the stupid Electoral College (an 18th Century anachronism) — but don't get me started on him!

Sca 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"All views in the country" is an euphemism in this case. According to recent (October 2006) surveys, "Law and Justice" party has about 20% population support.

And one more comment on the Baltic pipe. Poles and the Baltics felt betrayed by Germany mostly because bypassing them means that Russia can now cut off supplies to these countries, without cutting off Western Europe. As I'm sure you know Russia has often exercised this on other countries. The symbolics of Russia and Germany shaking hands over the head of Poland and jeopardizing her security is all too obvious to anyone with minimal historical sensitivity. It's really unbelievable that German government would not realise the implications of this. --Lysy^talk 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Sca 02:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks. Hopefully Polish government will wake up and make it easier for people from Ukraine to work legally. --Lysy^talk 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PL-D attitudes

Lysy, according to an AFP story, a recent poll commissioned by the German tabloid Bild am Sonntag found that "despite tense poltical relations, a large majority of Poles have positive thoughts about Germany. Seventy-one percent of Poles view the Germans as good neighbors ... only 14 percent do not, and 15 percent have no opinion" (my translation).

This confirms some things you said to me earlier.

Sca 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for researching it and for letting me know. Yes, I think these numbers are pretty high. I'm glad the poll was made by a large conservative German paper, otherwise someone could claim the results were biased etc. I wonder what would be the outcome if a similar question would be asked to Germans. Anyway, this seems to confirm that below the top-level political rhetorics, it is not only wrong to claim that Poles are anti-German, but in fact it is the opposite. Of course if for the next five years we keep repeating that Poles are anti-German, they will eventually believe it. That's why I find it so annoying and harmful. --Lysy^talk 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Germans after World War II

I think there is an interesting and potentially positive development going on at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Since you are an expert on this, I wonder if you'd spare some time to take a look at it before the discussion gets too long and difficult to follow. If you could, try to read starting from the "Thoughts about future directions for this article" section to see what's it about. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your comments concerning the above mentioned article. I do not know how good your German is but there exists a collection of various essays concerning "flight and expulsions in an European perspective" issued by the Journal of Contemporary History ("Zeitschrift für Zeitgeschichte") you might be intersted in. http://www.zeitgeschichte-online.de/zol/_rainbow/documents/pdf/zfg_01_2003.pdf (194.9.5.12 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. Yes, I can read it, with some vocabulary delays. This seems a trenchant thought about the whole issue: "Wie spricht man über ein Großverbrechen im Schatten eines anderen, noch größeren Großverbrechens?" (Karl Schlögel). Good question. How does one hold two apparently contradictory moral judgments in balance? Human beings much prefer to see all such issues in black and white. Sca 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock?

Re your mail. I can't see any autoblock... if it persists, try a helpme tag. Sorry for any inconvenience William M. Connolley 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Still can't see one. And the original block has now expired William M. Connolley 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsions

You are welcome. I do think that a couple of non-German, non-Polish editors with your experience would surely help a lot to increase the quality of controversial articles like this one. The discussion is very emotional. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:language

are you referring to my "discussion" with Xx about the education systems in the two respective countries? I did not mean any insult or to belittle anyone, he stated that Polish education was somehow superior, I mentioned that two differing systems cannot be fairly compared, but mentioned that German schools are more recognized for their outstanding work. One cannot deny German is an important language to learn, I was simply pointing that out, unfortunately that fight will probably go on forever as he will just change the angle once I prove my point, as he has done already there.

I did not mean to offend, one of my best friends is a fiercely nationalistic Polish Canadian (his parent immigrated to Canada). In fact, in a joking manner he calls me Germany and I call him Poland, and when drunk we tend to sing each other's respective national anthems (quite badly as we don't know the words to each others, just our own, lol).

I live in Southwestern Ontario, in a small town you've never heard of on Lake Huron, Goderich

--Jadger 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I meant at all, I assure you. I'm personally not a great fan of Beck's, I prefer Paulaner or Loewenbrau, but that sure sounds like a plan, perhaps it could be sometime this summer at a Toronto FC home game, do you like soccer?

--Jadger 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't stated that the Polish education was superior. I have stated that Poles learn much more about Germany than Germans about Poland. It's partially understandable, but the result is that average German's knowledge about Poland is limited. BTW - German media are very critical toward German schools, they quote Pisa studies. I haven't studied the subject, but aren't Polish schools better than the German ones according to Pisa? Xx236 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German knowledge

I'm just reading A concise history of the III Reich by Wolfgang Benz in Polish. It's an average, anti-Nazi, good book. You may check how many pages are about non-Jewish Poles there - not many of them. I know that there are many German academic texts about Poland, but they aren't adressed to a common reader. Only few German historians are however interested in real numbers of victims of Vertreibung. The German government refuses to investigate mass graves found in former Germany, now Poland. I remeber two such cases of mass executions committed by NKVD or Red Army.

An example of German knowledge - during and after the Warsaw Uprising 1944 Germans killed more than 150 000, at least half of them civilians murdered in mass executions, more than 500 000 were expelled (Vertreibung), the city was destroied. Only recently German media inform that there was such uprising, because Warsaw Uprising meant for many the 1943 Jewish uprising. One of German presidents (Rau ?) invited to 1944 anniversary was happy to be invited to 1943 anniversary.

New York professor Ewa Thompson describes Poland as a post-colonial state, using Said's orientalizm. The same is true for all nations between Germany and Russia, Germans and Russian historians describe hundreds of years of occupations, cultural, economical and religious discrimination from their point of view, the West accepts tbheir version, not the one of the discriminated nations. Xx236 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have answered you on my page, (I haven't realized it was my page). Xx236 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany

The project is still very new, so you're certainly not "too late". Basically we haven't done anything much yet besides starting the "Wikipedia 1.0" assessment process to find out what articles about Germany we have and how many of them are not quite up to standard. But if you are looking for things to do related to Germany, I can offer you my template that I put wherever I can to advertise some of the things that need to be done:

Here are some tasks you can do:

• Requests: University Church of Marburg, Prussian semaphore system
• Copyedit: Die Räuber, Heinrich Himmler
• Wikify: Friedrich Kapp, Privatelektro, 1936 Summer Olympics, Heraeus
• Merge: German Autobahns,
• Unreferenced: Franz Josef Jung, Limburger Dom, High German languages, Jacob Bidermann, President of Germany, 1954 FIFA World Cup Final, Erika Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Amelie Beese
• Cleanup: Johann Fischart, Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens, Düsseldorf-Volmerswerth, Fußball-Bundesliga 1985-86
• Expand: Palatinate Forest, Hitler's rise to power
• Disambiguation: Elector, German, Rothschild, Reichstag
• Stubs: Federal Ministry of Justice (Germany), Greeks_in_Germany, Tegernsee (lake), Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Democratic Awakening
• NPOV: Erich von Manstein, Anti-German sentiment, Willy Brandt, German Visa Affair 2005, Germanisation, German-American relations, Hitler's rise to power
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
• Other: Help categorise Germany-related articles and assess the quality of 3,000 unassessed articles

There is also a huge amount of organisatorial work that can be done if anyone feels like it. For example, it would probably be a good idea to start a subproject or task force concentrating on Nazi Germany with a good shared worklist and NPOV watch etc. And any improvement to our organisatorial structure would be good, or comments on the project talk page.

If you want to formally "join" the project (which doesn't mean anything but makes us feel good about having many members), just add your name to the Members subpage. But any help with the Germany articles is appreciated no matter what you think of "official" Project activities. If you feel like translating a new article, our (well, basically my) list of articles that I think should be created is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article requests. Thank you for your interest in the project and please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions, Kusma (討論) 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for slavishly translating the German Wikipedia articles. If you can improve the article for English-language audiences (for example, by leaving out trivia or by adding English-language references), by all means do so. My own "translations" are often more like a rewrite of the article in English that uses the content of the German article for as a source of inspiration than a direct translation (especially when I try to translate articles in areas where my English language skills are insufficient for a real translation). Just be bold and try to write a good article :-) Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

About the images: Some of them are already at Commons:, and can be directly used here (just replace "Bild" by "Image"). If you need help transferring the other images, I can do that for you. Note that galleries like the one on the Kyffhaeuser monument page are less popular in the English Wikipedia than in the German one. For an article of this length, two images (one of the whole monument, one of Barbarossa or something like that) should be enough. I hope to see your translation soon :-) Kusma (討論) 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, very nice! I have added some of the images (those that I liked best) to the article (I transferred them to the commons using the amazing CommonsHelper tool) and did some minor edits (mostly removing explanation that would be necessary in a printed article but seems redundant to me on a webpage where it is available by following a link). I have also announced the article at the announcement page and on the portal. My only question is what to do with the "Sources" section, which I have retitled "Further reading", assuming for the moment that you don't have the book (correct me if I'm wrong). If you say that the source of the article is the German article, you should acknowledge that using the {{German}} template. If you say you basically wrote a new article, the sources of the German article are not so relevant here and we should try to find English sources if possible. Kusma (討論) 09:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I used the Move button to rename the article Kyffhäuser Monument; for more info see WP:MOVE. Also, have you considered mentioning the monument at Wikipedia:Did you know? Cheers, Olessi 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I could use your help

I'm having troubles getting my message clear to this user, and they don't understand my arguments as I mean them. something is "lost in translation" I guess you could say. you are better with words than I am so I am pleading for your help. here is the discussion I am referring to User_talk:131.104.218.46

--Jadger 11:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to the topic in General as you are, I was referring to how I told him multiple times that I do not want the border changed but he kept beleiving I did. Since you have been to Poland and I believe you have an understanding of Polish I thought u mite have been able to get that point accrossed, but it seems he/she mite understand now.

--Jadger 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you Sca. your help is very much appreciated. Unfortunately I will not be active for the next week or so as it is deer hunting season here, and I will be busy enjoying the outdoors. wish me luck, I have always enjoyed the hunter's prayer I have seen since childhood on the mantle at my father's house.

Dear Lord, please give me

Hunter's Luck,

To shoot a mighty

Eight Point Buck

When luck like this is in the bag,

I'll have reason then to brag

--Jadger 19:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Munich

---

Hello Sca Hello Jadger, I also came across this 131. person and what seems to be a twin , named Serafin, in the German wiki (Johann Dzierzon) listed as Aserafin. There the person(s) are doing the same exact aggressive POV and personal attacks as on EN wiki. They/he were stopped. Since then this twin team 131. and Serafin continue at En wiki, such as at Jan Dzierzon. I possible, please take a look at the discussions too. Thanks. Labbas

---

[edit] Did you know?

On 7 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kyffhäuser Monument, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Sca, and Happy New Year, try not to drink too much eggnog you hear!

--Jadger 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry XMAS to you to, and have this nice template for the awards everybody gets sooner or later! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Salad'o'meter™
	put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Hi, just letting you know the correct Lithuanian version of "Merry Christmas" should be "Linksmų šv. Kalėdų." Hope you enjoyed yours. Renata 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in advance, it's "Laimingų Naujųjų Metų" :) Renata 05:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, and Happy New Year to you ! --Lysy^talk 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Wieck

Sorry for answering so late (holidays...). I have added a request for this article to the requests page, he seems worthy of an article. I'll probably get him on the Todo template once I get to updating that... which might take a while, I am not yet back to my editing levels of last year. Best wishes, Kusma (討論) 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

Is that supposed to support the "Lithuania - bannana republic" hypothesis? :P Renata 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, this situation, as you stated on my talk page, could be easily fixed - just print the this flag pattern and next year on Jeb16 come to LT (90th years anniversary of reestablishment) and happy flag waving. Btw, did you enjoyed Švyturys mug? M.K.

You at least can look here with relish :P M.K. 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Idaho

There is a new Wikiproject for Idaho. Hopefully the project will coordinate the creation and editing of articles related to the US State Idaho, its cities, sites, history, etc. It aims primarily to expand Wikipedia's resources on Idaho and present the state in a fair and accurate manner. Check it out. You can leave a message on the WPIDAHO talk page or on my talk page --Robbie Giles 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Lake Nipigon

I guess not so close to Pickle Lake, but I'm sure it is still beautiful country. kind of weird that we're thinking of cotagging and all the mosquitoes at this time of year. That's one thing I love about winter, no Mosquitoes.

--Jadger 07:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Books

You can find some neat period publications through Google Books. You might be interested in [2] (Preussens Städte: Denkschrift zum 100 jährigen Jubiläum der Städteordnung vom 19. November 1808). Olessi 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - May 2007
From the editor This is the first issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts.	Other areas where you can help Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page. More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics: Transportation in Germany German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians) German Democratic Republic Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it). Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news Criteria for B-Class status: The assessment criteria for B-Class have been changed. {{WikiProject Germany}} template now has 5 switches, B-Class-1 through B-Class-5 that correspond to 5 easily checked criteria that an article should meet to be assessed as B-Class. The advantage of this system is that now there is a clear boundary between Start-Class and B-Class articles. Authors of articles that were assessed as Start-Class now get more direct feedback what they should improve to attain a B-Class rating. All of our B-Class, Start-Class and Stub-Class articles now need to be checked whether they meet any of the B-Class criteria. This is a major effort, and we need your help! If you want to help, but don't know how, please post at the project talkpage. Cities and municipalities task force A task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities has been started and is looking for help.

This newsletter was delivered by Kusma using AWB to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kusma 12:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for the expulsions of Germans

I have written some new thoughts about the treatment of reasons for the expulsions in the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII article. Please read my comments on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII and provide your feedback. If you can help with sources for the reasons, it would be a great help.

--Richard 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard, in addition to the reply I posted on your talk page, here's a thoughtful German comment on the expulsions, etc., from Christian von Krockow, a German writer from a Pomeranian noble family who grew up in the former German town of Stolp, now the Polish Słupsk, near the Baltic Sea. I give first the original German and then my translation.

Was also 1945 über den deutschen Osten hereinbrach – und dann, wie immer, in erster Linie die Unschuldigen traf and kaum die Schuldigen, die sich durch feige Flucht oder durch den Selbstmord ihrer Verantwortung entzogen – was über die Menschen in Ostpreußen, Schlesien, Pommern hereinbrach und sie die Heimat kostete, das kam von weiter her. Das war die Konsequenz des eigenen, des deutschen Wahns.

Im übrigen muß man daran erinnern, daß Polens neuer Westen zum großen Teil von Menschen besiedelt worden ist, die selber vertrieben waren, nämlich aus den östlichen Gebieten, die Stalin den Polen abforderte. Sieht man die Landkarte an, so stellt man fest, daß Warschau heute beinahe so weit an den östlichen Rand Polens verschoben ist – wie Berlin and den Rand Deutschlands.

That which stormed over the German East in 1945 – and then, as always, descended on the innocent while leaving largely untouched the guilty, who by running away or by committing suicide avoided responsibility – what broke forth over the people of East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania and cost them their homeland, was set in motion long before: It was the result of our own German madness.

Furthermore, one must remember that Poland’s new western region has been for the most part settled by people who themselves were expelled, that is, from the eastern territories that Stalin took (literal translation: "demanded") from Poland. When one looks at the map, one realizes that today Warsaw has been pushed almost as far toward the eastern edge of Poland as Berlin has been pushed to the edge of Germany.

— Christian Graf von Krockow: Die Reise nach Pommern: Bericht aus einem verschwiegenen Land.

Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1985. ISBN 3-421-06251-x. Page 215.

Sca 15:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemia a "PROVINCE"? of Austria

On 29 January 2007 in the talk of F.Kaffka you wrote:

"Was Bohemia (Böhmen) a "kingdom" at this point, or a province of Austria? As far as I know, there was no king of Bohemia at the time."

Bohemia was NEVER a "province" of Austria,but the Bohemian King,ruled by the Habsburg dynasty and a part of a multinational absolutistic "confederacy" ,Austria-Hungary. It is an insult (albeit unintendet) to many peoples to hear that the kingdom you cherished so much and iwtch existed since the midle ages all up to 1918 is labelled as a "province" with denied kingship by someone,its like if i claim say that Barbarossa was emperor of germany (like some historians like to saay),although "germany" did not exist until 1871.You could have found out a simple answer to your question if youd just search for "Bohemia" and look up its history.

New Babylon 2 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wprost

All those who think the Wprost cover for the week of June 25, showing Angela Merkel breast-feeding the Kaczynski twins, is in really, really poor taste, raise your hands....

Sca 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Frank

Hello. Thanks for your recent addition of information to Anne Frank. Could you please provide a source for this information? You can take a look at WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for information on citing sources. Also, I'm not sure this addition is in the right location in the article: the section you added to is "Denials and Legal Action". Does this really fit? Cheers, Doctormatt 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference. Feel free to check it out. Doctormatt 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

{{talkarchive]]