Talk:Wrocław/Archive 1: 2004–Nov. 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is an archive of discussion up to November 2006. If you want to revive an old discussion, it would probably be best to move the relevant context back to the main discussion page or to link to it from there.

Archived on 27 March 2007 by Jim_Lockhart

Contents

Old discussions (section title added later)

Who decided alphabetic order had anything to do with order of other language names? Since it was officially "Breslau" for many years in "modern history", the German should be first. Was it ever officially a Czech possession? I would put that last in this English article. Who removed the pronounciation guides? That's useful info. Bwood 01:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The discussion below is interesting, but humor me for a moment and answer this question: Who had offficial possesion of the city before Prussia, and from what date to what date? Bwood 07:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
THe kings of Bohemia, which were first Peremyshilds, then Luxembourgs, then Jagiellons, and finalyl Habsburgs. You are not trying to suggest that it was Austrian posession? I don't knowmuch about the subject, so i will be very interested if you can prove me wrong, by i had always the impression that Habsburgs held the Silesia as part of Bohemian crown, not as separate entity, and their title to Silesia was because they were kings of Boehmia.

Szopen 11:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Czech for over 300 years and German for only 74. Space Cadet 02:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, Space Cadet. The city was part of the Holy Roman Empire from 1335 until 1806, so it was a Roman city for almost 500 years. And Poland once was a globe, wasn't it? I look forward to learn more of your history, my dear!
Right, Sweetheart. If everything included in HRE was Germany then Bohemia was practically always part of Germany? Yes?
Err... you don't know anything about European history, do you, Space Cadet? It is wrong to say that "everything included in HRE was German". The best example against this is Upper Italy, which was part of the HRE, but never German. On the other hand, Bohemia was indeed practically always part of Germany. The king of Bohemia was one out of seven electors who do determine the next king. Note that they do not elect the next emperor, instead they just elect the next German king, who then have to be crowned by the pope to be Roman emperor. It was the highest position in Germany for a noble to be one of the electors of the German king, and the king of Bohemia was one of them from the beginning. Please also note that in English language as in German language there is a difference between the words "Bohemian" and "Czech". If someone is Bohemian, he might be a German or a Czech. If someone is a Czech, he might be from Bohemia or from Moravia. Since 1306, except one single king, no king of Bohemia was an ethnic Czech. The capital of Bohemia, Prague, often was also the capital of the empire, the residence of the German king. The first university within the HRE was Bologna, but the first German university was the university in Prague. Until the 19th century a majority of Prague's citizen were Germans. Since 1626, German was the official language in Bohemia, before that point she has no official language at all..
Breslau and Silesia became property of the Bohemian King in 1335 and were past over to the Austrian Habsburg house in 1526. So you might say that Breslau was under Bohemian crown for about 200 years, but among these ten kings in 200 years only one single was a Czech. Breslau in fact never was Czech, not for over 300 years and not for 200 years. Breslau wasn't Czech for a single day. There is a difference between "Bohemia" and "Czech", and there was never in history a "King of Czech", only a "King of Bohemia". Furthermore, belonging to the crown of Bohemia does not means being Bohemian itself. Breslau of course was always part of Silesia, not part of Bohemia. When the King of Bohemia was a Habsburg, Silesia and Breslau were under rule of the house of Habsburg, that's all.
For clarity we have to remember, that before 1525 kings of Bohemia and some of governors of Silesia were Polish Jagiellons. Szopen 08:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was only being sarcastic and you missed it, though you sound pretty intelligent. Next time I'll just go straight to the point for you.

"What is your point, Space Cadet?"

Oh, my God, you missed that, too!

Space Cadet 01:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet's point usually is that everything between the Elbe and the Dnieper has always been Polish, is now Polish and always will be Polish. Anyone who disagress is a "Nazi." User:sca

I never said that or displayed in any way such ridiculous views. I also never called anybody a Nazi. Grow up, Sca! Space Cadet 04:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, SC, I was only joking. Lighten up!

BTW, I find your "How to deal with Poles" quite amusing.

If I were German I could write something similar for Germans, but I'm not. I'm just an amateur historian who gets tired of people attributing the worst possible motives to all Germans throughout all of their 1,100-year history on the basis of 12 years of Hitlerism. It's both inaccurate and unfair. Also unfair is the attempt by many Poles, misled by decades of Soviet-inspired propaganda, to obscure what really happened in Pomerania, Danzig, East Prussia and Silesia in 1945-49. Everyone knows about the terrible things the Germans did during their Nazi period, but no one wants to talk about what was done to them in revenge when it was over. We're all human beings and we all need to recognize past crimes and mistakes and move on. Can you at least agree to that? User:sca 29sep04


This official Polish website lists several inaccuracies. It states that in 1741 Frederick the Great of Prussia changed the name to Breslau. A 1493 engraving of the city in the [[:Schedelsche Weltchronik|Schedelsche Weltchronik]] shows the city as Bressla .

It also fails to mention, that land between the Oder and Warthe river , such as Silesia etc had been given as landlien to Moravia, Bohemia by previous emperors, such as Arnulf of Carinthia .

In AD 995 by a patent of Holy Roman Emperor Otto III Silesia was attached to the see of Meissen under the archbishopric of Magdeburg. Soon after emperor Otto III and Boleslaw I Chrobry founded Breslau bishopric and Breslau city.

Boleslaw I Chrobry , son of Mieszko I , first piast ruler had conquered Silesia from Bohemia ,Moravia ( parts of the empire) and it was conquered back and force several times. For a more detailed history see : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02761a.htm Breslau, also Moravia, Bohemia, Silesia .

Since appr. 1300 Silesia was directly under the emperor .

The name as published on old maps is NOT a reliable guide to the people or the language of a city. For instance, Franconia is not only the Latin but also the English name. If *I* look at most books in my office I'll see Franconia. Does that mean that the residents called it Franconia? Well, actually, yes, since they mainly wrote Latin in the period *I* care about, it does. Does that make them Romans? No. Franks? Actually, no. We in English-speaking history call them Franconians, to distinguish them from the Frankish tribes who set up the Frankish kingdom. All this is to say that Wroclaw/Breslau is not to be solved from old maps. --MichaelTinkler.

What you say is true, but what's also true is that incomplete information (as on the website mentioned) can be misleading. The map shows that there was a German name long before Frederick and all he did was make German Silesia's official language. He did not make up the name (what I think is what many people will take the sentence from the website as suggesting). --89.52.87.219 21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged this for clarity, and English. The former German name isn't the most important thing about a Polish city. Similarly, the entries for New York and Oslo don't start with "Former Dutch colony Nieuw Amsterdam" and "Formerly Christiana." Vicki Rosenzweig

user:H.J. -- you might as well stop removing the word "ethnic", because I'm going to replace it until someone gives me a good reason not to. There was no such thing as Germany in the sense that we know it today -- just Germans. Even your precious HR Emperor was not King of Germany, but King of the Germans. Any attempt by you to say otherwise merely points out your anachronistically nationalist beliefs.HK

Julie, first of all Breslau was not the former German name, Breslau is the German name.

The HR emperors were Kaiser des Heiligen Roemischen Reiches Deutscher Nation, or Holy Roman emperor of German Nation. In 1871 this became : Deutsches Reich, German Empire.

It is incorrect for you to constantly change every German name into a different language. Is this the Polish Wikipedia ? then it would be ok to speak of Wroclaw or Gdansk or whatever the Polish language that the Soviet Union Communists renamed the cities and localities to.

You are one of the ones, that always preach, this is the English language wikipedia, the German names must be changed to English names. Why then do you change them all to Polish (or Czech, or Russian) language names?

And you can keep the name calling to yourself. user:H.J.

user:H.J., I haven't ever called you names, more's the pity -- my psyche would be better off for expressing it. You will note that I left Breslau for most of the pre-1945 references, but since the article is on Wroclaw, it doean't make sense to rename it all to the German. Also, the name of the HRE changed a couple of times over its time -- and the first references were actually not in German, but Latin. And the Empire was originally a way for the Carolingians and later the Ottonians to lay a claim to lots of ITALY, as well as the prestige of the original Roman Empire. The word Nation is a fairly late addition, and even in the middle ages, it meant more a people -- not something geographical. Your understanding of these things is flawed at best, tainted by the 19th century and early 20th century scholarship of von Herder and Ranke. THey were brilliant scholars, but we've come a long way since then. We now know a lot about the various peoples -- and even groups of Germanic peoples -- than they did. also, the HRE didn't rule over everything technically in the empire -- if he had, then we could talk about the world as you imagine it. As it was,the weakest candidate was often elected emperor in order to keep him from interfering with the German princes, dukes, etc. Sorry, but here, as in so many other places, you're just wrong, you clearly don't want to learn anything that doesn't fit into your warped picture of European history, and I actually don't know why we all try to put up with you. HK

Notes

First written mentioning about Wroclaw according to my sources is from 1000, when Boleslav Chrobry founded bishopry there, at least according to www.wiem.pl szopen

Confirmed. N. Davis quotes Thietmar's Chronicles – city called Wrotizla. Przepla 22:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Found exact story about what happened in 1241. The population, according to my sources, was evacuated, city burned and castle prepared to defense. Tatars arrived, take the city, but had no time to siege the castle so they withdrew (and later defeat Poles at battle of Legnica). If nobody would came with sources backing that Wroclaw was decimated, i will correct the seemingly erroneus informations.

granted government positions...

In the history part of the article, what does this following sentence mean? (Could somebody explain and/or rephrase it?): "Under direct overlordship of the Holy Roman Empire the emperors granted government positions to members of various ducal and royal dynasties."

I am reading it as the emperors gave the govenment postions to many people, but then immediately I ask myself... where and what positions? What it has to do with the city?! Was that sentence supposed to mean that the emperor gave some dukes and kings the power to govern the city? If so, that quoted sentence does not convey that message.


Hungarian name

I don't really see the need for a Hungarian name since (AFAIK) the city was never under Hungarian control. The Polish and German names are obvious, the Czech name is included because of the Bohemian crown's overlordship of Silesia, and Latin would be useful for historical documents. However, I don't believe that Hungary or Magyars ever really had much of an impact on the city. What if we included a link to "Cities_alternative_names" instead? Olessi 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a mention of the Hungarian name is necessary in the first sentence of the article. In my opinion, a link to List of European cities with alternative names is a bit meagre. I wouldn't object if all cities in that list would have a section at the end listing all names; as Wroclaw already has a section about its name, I'll add the info there. (And remove it from the first line). Eugene van der Pijll 21:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(See also Mainz, a not-completely-random example, where I added such a section). Eugene van der Pijll 21:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The city was under Hungarian control of Matthias Corvinus: "Until his death in 1490, Matthias Corvinus gained control of Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia (these in 1468/1469/1479-1490), and half of Austria (1477/1483-1491); he even ruled from Vienna after 1485."

The Hungarian name-variant is already out of use. Modern Hungarians use the name Wroclaw.

Breslau Forum

An email forum to discuss the city of Breslau prior to it being annexed by the Soviet Union in 1945, and then after the ethnic cleansing of its german population, made a part of communist Poland.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Breslau-Stadt

This is a cultural forum only so poles who hate germans purely because of the 12 years of the hitler dictatorship should not join this forum.

Have a nice day.

Sean

What about the Germans who hate Poles because of the "Vertreibung"? Are they welcome? Xx236 10:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming issue

The article says

the German name Breslau is highly unpopular, and they become quite offended when that name is used. As another example, the warehouse Feniks on the Rynek, built in 1904, showed in November 2004 old pictures of the building.

As another example of what? The sentence doesn't make sense. AxelBoldt 00:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you fix it then? Karol 06:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
No, since I don't know what it is supposed to say. AxelBoldt 16:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Neither do I :) Nevertheless, I tried to make something of it. How do you like it? Karol 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the Czech, Latin and German names from the intro paragraph, and added "formerly known as Breslau". The reason I have done this is that the alternative language names are not very important to English readers, and do not deserve such prominence. They also make the intro very difficult to read. They are also already covered in the etymology section, which is the best place for them. I added "formerly known as Breslau" because this is what the city is called in English books printed before 1945, and also in English books printed today dealing with the history of the city before 1945 (See Armageddon by Max Hastings, for example). For this reason it is important for English readers to know early on in the article that Breslau is the same place as Wroclaw. Using the phrase "formerly known as Breslau" is not to imply necessarily that this name is no longer used in German - it is the English language position that I am referring to.--Stonemad GB 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to participate in the naming discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). A change in standard policy such as you have suggested should not be introduced on a particular article, but should be discussed at the naming conventions page. As the standard for practically all European geographic places is to mention the alternate names in the introduction, I will restore the alternates here and on related articles. If there is consensus to change the listing of alternate names, feel free to change the wording. However, alternate names traditionally have been listed on WP... Olessi 23:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have discussed this before making the changes. I looked at the naming discussion you mentioned. The current proposal (F) says that foreign language names are permitted in the lead, but it doesn't say that they should necessarily be mentioned. It also says that foreign language names can be moved to a names section following the lead, which is effectively what I did. So on my reading of the naming convention proposal my version followed it just as much as yours - but with the additional virtue of being more concise and readable.
I noted your comment that the standard for practically all European geographic places is to mention the alternative names in the introduction - where does it say this? Look at the London entry for an example of a city with no alternative names given. If there is a convention that alternative names should be shown after the lead, please tell me where I can find it: I will then amend the London entry to show the 26 alternative names in the introduction.
If no standard exists, we will have to argue each case on its merits - and I think the merits of having the Latin or Czech names in the intro are rather flimsy.--Stonemad GB 01:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Layout

Wow, this page needs some formatting, badly. Karol 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Breslau - now

"Among the present Polish inhabitants of the city, especially those born some years after World War II, the German name "Breslau" is highly unpopular, and they may become offended when that name is used."

The majority of recent books printed for German tourists use the name Breslau. The Municipality of Wroclaw uses "Wrocław/Breslau" on German pages of its site www.wroclaw.pl . Xx236 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the German name of that place still is Breslau. Which does not mean that it's the English or Polish name. Halibutt 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Among the present Polish inhabitants of the city, especially those born some years after World War II, the German name "Breslau" is highly unpopular, and they may become offended when that name is used." Is there any research proving that the German name is "highly unpopular"? If not - why to include the above statement? Xx236 13:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There's probably no serious research cencerning this issue, but it's very true. I live in Wrocław, and alot of people here consider the name Breslau offensive even if a German-speaking person uses it (which I find unreasonable), and these people would never call themselves Breslauers. Anyway, I don't think that's a justification for that sentence, because it's not an encyclopedic statement. The German name is Breslau and that's that. Karol 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Just an addition: Renowned Polish historian Wlodzimierz Borodziej said on TV last year [1]
"To be honest, I'm observing that with a certain ..., well, it is ironic that many Germans still believe, that if they say Wroclaw rather than Breslau that they underline, as it were, their friendliness towards Poles. Back in the eighties it still had a certain significance which name you used for the city. These days it doesn't have any at all, and I think if/when (either translation possible) you speak German you simply say Breslau or Stettin and no Pole will take exception to that." --89.52.87.219 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I've witnessed a case when a German journalist, in order to bragg with his Political Correctness, tried to use the Polish name for Breslau, but struggled with the spelling and pronounciation (that was before Google and Wiki, and well before Unicode etc.). He got "offended" when someone responded "oh, you mean Breslau?", and called the other a Nazi. --Matthead 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Bah, I think this is behind us already. I've recently stayed in a hotel in Wroclaw which seemed to be proud that Hitler used to stay in one of their rooms. I think people start to recognize history there, good and bad. --Lysytalk 07:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Renowned Polish historian Wlodzimierz Borodziej
...with pension and awards provided by German institutions you forgot to add, which I am sure expands his boundries of tolerance :)
--Molobo 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Molobo always sees yesterdays ghosts. --Lucius1976 07:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "Breslau" irritates some older people in Poland, or those still under the influence of anti-German propaganda. It would be interesting to hear more from people actually living in Wrocław (Karol?) about this. --Lysytalk 09:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Lysy-I live in Wrocław. What do you want to know ? If about attitude towards Germans they are mostly seen irritating nuisance to locals, with their laud tourist trips the typical sight of corpulent elderly guy with beer spilling on his belly, saying loudly "ja, ja Franz, Heinz etc"(I am sorry but this is a typical sight). But it is true that on the rare occasions when I encountered Germans travelling in public transport some people started complaining that they shouldn't speak so loud in German(but maybe because Germans speak so loud in public, I don't know why they do that abroad). As to former monuments of German nationalists like Bismarck or Hitler, they fortunetely remain in ruins, and I didn't hear anything about plans to restore them. Of course any such attempt will be blocked by the secretary-general of the Council for the Protection of Memory, Struggle and Martyrdom,Andrzej Przewożnik, who stated clearly that there is no place in Poland for monuments of those who persecuted Polish nation. All in all I would say that indeed people (and not only nationalists) could feel slightly insulted when faced with German version of the Polish name. Every guest to another country should use local names if they are connected to sensitive matters-for example I wouldn't brag about Lviv being Lwów when visiting there, out of respect to Ukrainian people.
--Molobo 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Maybe "Breslau" irritates some older people in Poland, or those still under the influence of anti-German propaganda." Well, if Molobo is anything to go by, this does not just apply to older people. It is also interesting to see that Molobo denounces one of the most renowned and internationally respected Polish historians as corruptible; quite apart from that, it is ridiculous to believe that any "German institutions" would actually want to bribe Polish historians to "expand their boundaries of tolerance" regarding German place names. --Thorsten1 09:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Who said anything about bribes ? As he constantly lives in Germany and earns his living thanks to German state, receives awards from Germany its understandable that his POV is more acceptable to German POV.
or those still under the influence of anti-German propaganda
Define "anti-German propaganda" the word is abused as much as it can be by German media. For example when Poland wanted justice and some reperations for German destruction of our country it was defined as "anti-German" propaganda by German press. Similiar accusations were directed against Vaclav Klaus in recent Spiegel interview when analysis of German minorities help in Czechoslovakia towards Nazi regime in pre-war time was described as "anti-German".
--Molobo 12:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say it's pretty fair to call demands for repirations from modern Germany anti-german propaganda. Anyone calling for reperations of deeds which took place over two generations ago is obviously just trying to stir up nationalist rivalry to absolutely no good end. Most likely they secretly yearn to start another war. Anyway, if you're going to take up issue with the damage caused by Germany during the second world war then it would only be fair to allow Germans who were forced out of their homes by the Soviets and Poles to demand their rightful land back. Remember, these Germans never voted for Adolph Hitler and many of them did not support or actively hindered the Nazi War effort. So go ahead and demand repirations from Germany, but unless you're willing to return former east german provinces back to German possession then you are a biased anti-German.
I serionsly must ask though, why do people like you persist in generalizing other nationalities with false stereotypes and pick at old wounds at a time when Europe is trying to move past all of that? Hopefully nationalist sentimates such as yours will fall by the wayside so Europe can move forward in the next thousand years instead of picking over the same old fights of the last thousand.
--Hvatum 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

There are two pictures of the city hall in the article - how about removing the second one?

By the way, the pictures in the article seem to be placed quite randomly - it would be a good idea to reorder them.

Pako 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrocław constituency

Wrocław constituency

I removed the following list:

Members of Parliament (Sejm) elected from Wrocław constituency:

Władysław Frasyniuk, PD is definitely not in Sejm. PD didn't get in at all. I can't say anything about others, but the list should be fixed before reinsertion. Taw 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture etc.

The picture is justified to illustrate Breslau life under Nazist rule. Please note, that the German population was forcibly expulsed and not allowed to return. The Polish constantly deported Germans from Wroclaw, until all functions (railway station, post) could be taken over by ethnic Polish. ALl those who had been Nazi members (virtually all of the population) were directly expulsed from 1945 to 1947. If you have a source, that Germans were supposed to leave voluntarily, provide it. The Potsdam Conference said they were to be "evacuated humanely". And I don't think Poland, with its nationalism and demolishing of German street signs, grave yards and monuments, was interested in contravening Stalin's demands of driving ethnic Germans beyond the Oder to the west.Smith2006 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the picture really illustrated anything specific for Breslau. Nazi rule was not only in Breslau, and the same picture could then illustrate Berlin or any other German or occupied town or village. Also, should we then use pictures of random people to illustrate other town articles as well ? How about Wrocław during Stalin rule ? Or Berlin during Nazi rule ?
As for your other comment, you are generally right, but specifically the railway in Breslau was operated by Poles, not Germans. Due to the terrible conditions in Wrocław, most of the remaining German population wanted to leave, but initially it was not possible because of the lact of available transport infrastructure. The first Germans that were allowed to leave were anti-fascists and then the others followed. Since you've asked about my source, it is primarily "Microcosm" by Norman Davies and Roger Moorhouse (BTW, I recommend this book). --Lysytalk 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lysy. While some images from the propaganda video (such as Image:Sudetendeutsche kratzau bohemia.JPG) arguably could be included (within Wikipedia), the picture depicting people in Breslau does not seem to add much to the article. Olessi 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No further comments, then I'm removing the picture. --Lysytalk 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. BTW: Wroclaw was never under "Stalin" rule, but under Communist rule. I think the picture clearly illustrates Breslau life in the early 1940s, as it featured in a known and famous (for color 16 mm film) movie.Smith2006 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, will you spam articles about other cities with pictures "clearly illustrating life" in early 1930s, early 1940s, late 1940s, early 1950s, late 1960s etc ? What the point ? --Lysytalk 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is, that it's very important to illustrate city life in German cities and represents a particularly important point of life in the National Socialist state. It fits into the article. I don't see how you did convince me. Sorry. Smith2006 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture is perfectly acceptable for German Labour Front, but has no relevance here. There is no guarantee that the people in the picture are even Breslauers. The description of the picture says is that they are in Breslau, but the image does not even show the city at all. Are you trying to say that "a particularly important point of life in the National Socialist state" was a smiling man wearing glasses and laughing women? How is that relevant to Breslau/Wrocław? Olessi 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Prominent residents

I find it rather silly to have the "prominent residents" divided by their ethnic origin. What is the purpose of this ? --Lysytalk 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for it either. Olessi 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, if nobody explains the purpose of maintaining the separate lists, I'm going to merge and sort them in a couple of days. --Lysytalk 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Good call. Merge them. - Evv 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Känsterle 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Lysytalk 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

świerzów