Talk:Zaolzie/Archive 1

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.

Contents

Old talk

I made minor change about reasons of Czechoslovakia for military operations. This was because "only railway going to Slovakia went throughout this area and access to the railway was critical: newly-formed Czechoslovakia was at war with revolutionary Hungary trying to re-establish control over Slovakia. This set up stage for conflict." (see History of Cieszyn and Těšín (not edited by me) see http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect12.htm This part of article was added only for "synchronisation" of articles and for "balancing" of Czech and Polish view. For conclusion - both republics were in war with bolsheviks and both had some reasons for conflict.

If you wanted to give the arguments of one side of the conflict, you should equally add the arguments of the other side to keep the NPOV. Also it should be clearly explained what the war with Hungary had to do with it ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Czechoslovakian war with Red Hungary is in same context as mentioned Polish war with Red Russia, and for understanding of reasons of Czechoslovakian actions. See above: " only railway going to Slovakia went throughout this area and access to the railway was critical: newly-formed Czechoslovakia was at war with revolutionary Hungary trying to re-establish control over Slovakia." I think, that this is understanding for necessarity and thus is impossible to build new railway. One think (but this is only my personal oponion), that if Red Hungary anexed Slovakia, then Poland was in big problems with bolsheviks froum south, east and nordeast, but because Czechoslovakian army liberated Slovakia, Poland was secure from south. Yopie.
Except for the fact that the railway maps of the epoch show that the main train route from Prague to Bratislava went not through Ostrava (not Cieszyn by any means), but through Brno. Check the map on the right, or here, or here... //Halibutt 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The war with Red Hungary ended and Czechoslovak occupation of Zaolzie lasted until 1938. Czechs and Slovaks decided to build Czechoslovakia together - OK, it's their business, but it doesn't mean, that Poland HAD TO make this project feasible by giving up of Zaolzie only because Czechs and Slovaks needed a piece of railway which accidentally runs through this Polish area.jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.12.217.234 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Polish ultimatum of September 30th, 1938 was given to the Czechoslovak government almost at midnight, not at noon. The airplane with the ultimatum landed at Prague at 22:07 Sept. 30th, 1938. This information is in "Monachium 1938, Polskie dokumenty dyplomatyczne" Z.Landau, J.Tomaszewski. The ultimatum was written after Warsaw obtained the text of the Munich agreement and an information, that Czechs accepted it.jan

Good Article

I find that this article meets the Good Article criteria. It presents an interesting and fairly detailed look at the region and its conflicts. Areas I would recommend further work on, to approach Featured Article status:

  • While it is well-referenced, most of those references are to a single source, Zahradnik. Adding more citations to Długajczyk, Siwek, and Badziak would be a good idea before FA.
  • A copyediting pass to tighten prose further would be in order. While it's well-written, there are some redundancies and one or two unclear sentences. (For instance, "On September 1, 1939 Zaolzie was annexed by Germany after it invaded Poland." -- does "it" refer to Zaolzie? I know, anyone with a basic knowledge of world history will know it's meant to refer to Germany, but the wording could still be clearer.)
  • History prior to the early 1900s is pretty thin. Is there anything more to be said?
  • Similarly, "the area's economic significance grew." Can this be treated in more depth?
  • Make sure everything's in line with the manual of style. It mostly seems to be, but FA can be very detail-oriented. (One thing I did notice in this vein is that "Since 1945" is a full section rather than a subsection under "History.")

On the whole, this is an excellent article, informative and interesting. I would recommend a peer review as the next step. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work. Shimeru 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the article is not objective. I have asked for review. Exact reasons explaining the view are stated. Xixaxu 11 April 2007

Objectivity

Darwinek - you may wish to check what Krzysztof Szelong writes on assimilation of the autochton Poles and immigrants from Galicia (in: Těšínsko, vlastivědný časopis, číslo 1, 2001). In my view, you simply ignore the involvement of germanisation (next to the issue of Silesians, which is not covered by you at all and the only reference added was deleted by you). Why it is not possible to mention this as an alternative view?

In the same source, you may wish to check the contribution against Czech extremist views by Mečislav Borák (the author references to whom you have deleted from the text - the relevant part in Gabal was written by Mečislav Borák).

You may also wish to check "Československé Slezsko mezi světovými válkami 1918-1938" by Marie Gawrecka (Opava 2004). If you do, you will find a source (which quotes many Polish sources) confirming many of the amendments I made and you deleted.

Please try to be reasonable. Yes, I am not Pole and I do not live in Zaolzie. But that is not my fault and, after all, why should it matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xixaxu (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

As for Mr. Szelong and Mr. Borák, I know them personally and can discuss that matter with them. You are right Germanisation is not covered in the article. It affected all Slavic nations living in this territory. As for the "Silesians", they were ethnically Poles, although they refused to admit that and even their contemporary neighbours treated them like traitors. I can quote Mr. Dan Gawrecki (relative of Gawrecka you have mentioned), in the matter of "Silesians". P.S. It matters you are not from Cieszyn Silesia, as you can never fully understand the complicated history of this region without feeling it and experiencing it. That's why the best historians dealing with the region's history are from this region. - Darwinek 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Your reply re Silesians is disappointing. Silesians have the right to think of themselves as Silesians and not as Poles or Czechs or Germans. Americans have the right to think of themselves as Americans, despite of being of Polish, Czech, German, Chinese or any other origin. Australians do too, as well as New Zealanders, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Afghans (refusing to admit they are Tajik, Uzbek, Pashto, Hazar, ...?!), etc., etc. No national agenda can take that away from them. If something along the lines of "The so called "Silesians" are Poles, even though they refuse to admit that." is added to the article, it should be deleted.
I think it was Stalin who said never look at what is being said but always look at who is saying it. But that is wrong approach on Wikipedia. Are you biased simply because you are Pole living in Zaolzie? Of course not!
Also, we talk facts here. For example, the agreement between the two national councils in 1918 was interim, no matter how you feel about it. Check its text.
--Xixaxu 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the "Silesians" they were not a nation. It is not the same case as in the Opole and surrounding region. Cieszyn Silesia "Silesians" was an artificially created group by several people who wanted to gain some advantages of it, it was a purely instrumentalist move. And by the way, most of them hailed from the Polish part of Cieszyn Silesia (from today's view). If you have Polish, Czech or Jewish blood, nobody can change that from day to day. Ask thousands of Czech Jews who were murdered by Nazis during the WWII and weren't aware until WWII they are Jews because of their ancestors' choice to accept Czech identity. There are almost no Silesians in Cieszyn Silesia today because their choice was closely related with the German identity and Germans were expelled after WWII. Check the last census. Many people here feel Silesian but this is a regional affiliation, NOT national. As you can feel Prager or Berliner. I consider myself a Silesian, too, regionally. As for the 1918 agreement, I know it and it is already stated it is interim. You have some serious problems. - Darwinek 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop your personal attacks, please. I disagree with your "blood" approach which smells, as you fittingly described, of Auschwitz. I am not alone, by the way. Concept of nationality is different in Central Europe than in Western Europe and elsewhere (including, for example, China). It is not stated in the article that the 1918 agreement was interim as you deleted the amendment saying this and inserted reference to interim councils instead. --Xixaxu 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinand Peroutka

I strongly disagree with Darwinek's assessment of Budování státu as biased work written at the time when national tensions between Poles and Czechs were culminating. The assessment is simply incorrect.

Ferdinand Peroutka (check Wikipedia) was a respectable Czech journalist, who emigrated to the West (England and then further to the United States) after the communist takeover in Czechoslovakia. He was the first head of Czech broadcast of the Radio Free Europe and one of the main figures of Czech anti-communist resistance.

The monumental four volume Budování státu ("Creation of the state") is Peroutka's pivotal work. Its publication started in 1932, more than 10 years after Zaolzie became part of Czechoslovakia.

Budování státu is regularly used, quoted and appreciated by (at least) Czech scholars. Its re-editions are published even in this century and by respectable authorities such as the Czech Academy of Sciences.

If you read the work (and I suggest you do, as it is really interesting), you will find that he is as critical to Czechs as to any other nation and, above all, his conclusions are based on evidence.

Despite of the above, I removed Budování státu as the primary source quoted in this article and replaced it by recent works (who, because the above, use Budování státu as one of their sources). I do not want to start any silly edition war or to tease anyone.

On the other hand, I cannot accept deletion of some of the information I added to the article. In my view, information by non-Polish authors must also be included for the article to be objective (before my editions apparently all sources were works of Polish authors only).

Xixaxu 10 April 2007

To Darwinek: I have read your personal message to me. I will not reply to this message and I will not add any further amendment to the article. It is pointless. Apparently you are too captured in your patriotic feelings to comprehend what my additions tried to achieve. Your article is not objective. Xixaxu 10 April 2007


If it is now part of Czechia, why does it use the Polish name?

Because it has a major Polish population and Czechs don't even know there is something like Zaolzie. - Darwinek 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Reliability of Ferdinand Peroutka would be best discuss on his discussion page, and with proper references to back up one's claims. Although I am not a specialist of history of that region, it appears to me that refs added by Xixxu are reliable (Kovtun, Peroutka). They would need to be verified, and their claims are rather controversial - for example, 'demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited' seems strange, considering that German minority for example had its own political parties (Blok Mniejszości Narodowych in 1920s, Jungdeutsche Partei in Polen (Partia Młodoniemiecka w Polsce in 1930s)) and a list of other German organizations in Second Polish Republic is pretty long: Związek Niemczyzny dla Ochrony Praw Mniejszości w Polsce (1921-23), Niemiecka Socjaldemokratyczna Partia w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu (1920-33), Zjednoczenie Niemieckie w Sejmie i Senacie dla Poznańskiego, Okręgu Noteci i Pomorza (1924-33), Niemieckie Zjednoczenie w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu (1934-39), Związek Niemców w Polsce (1921-23), Niemiecka Socjalistyczna Partia Pracy w Polsce (1925-39), Niemiecki Związek Ludowy na Polskim Śląsku (1921-39), Partia Niemiecka (1922-34), Niemiecka Chrześcijańska Partia Ludowa (1934-39), Niemiecka Partia Socjaldemokratyczna (1922-25)... I'd strongly suggest discussing each of the additions here, and referencing it with other sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus - let's discuss, be fair and not use ad hominem arguments (yes Darwinek, I do not live in Zaolzie but that does not mean all I say is wrong). Please note that the addition of 'demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited' is not a quote from Kovtun or Peroutka but from Gabal (who, in turn, quotes for example Zahradnik as one of his sources). Also, the addition refers to period after the area was annexed by Poland (i.e. 1938). Xixaxu 11 April 2007

Dont worry Xixaxu, about Darwinek and his "if you aren´t from Zaolzie, you are wrong talk about Zaolzie". For him I´m bad, because I´m from Silesian/Moravian border (and of course, i don´t agree with him about Tešín. Darwinek normally use ad hominem attacks Yopie 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GA status under review at WP:GA/R

The GA status of Zaolzie is under review at WP:GA/R, for possible delisting. --Ling.Nut 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with delisting for NPOV. Yopie 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Watt

Why do some people keep on deleting parts of this article based on a book by Richard Watt? If you claim he is wrong, come up with you own arguments instead of deleting. I see no reason not to believe him, he wrote the book in an objective way, and he is not Polish. Or perhaps some of you are afraid of the truth?

Tymek 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the exact point. For some people (you can guess which) the truth is still uncomfortable. - Darwinek 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. First explain on talk why the text is being removed; than remove it if there is consensus.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with Watt being quoted here, provided other authors who have different view are also quoted. So far, quotations of these authors (including Polish authors such as Chlebowczyk and Kosiński) were deleted. No one bothered to explain why. Check history of this page. What is the problem with Gabal, Kovtun, Mamatey or Gawronská? In another words, you delete views you do not like, I delete your unilateral view. You let other views being quoted, I have no reason to delete any unilateral views.--Xixaxu 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"... P.S. It matters you are not from Cieszyn Silesia, as you can never fully understand the complicated history of this region without feeling it and experiencing it. That's why the best historians dealing with the region's history are from this region. - Darwinek 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"
What is please Watt's connection with Cieszyn Silesia, Darwinek?
--Xixaxu 10:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Review and edits by Piotrus

I have reread the article. Quite a few facts need references; otherwise they can be disputed by either side. I restored several facts by Xixaxu that seem uncontroversial, but many of his changes are either unreferences (really, inserting claims that Polish authorities behaved bad w/out refs everywhere there are mentioned is just lame) or highly controversial and need to be properly discussed here. Some stuff may be split to Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (which is not very well linked from this article, btw).; actually splitting a good part of the article into History of Zaolzie - particulary the controversial bits - and leaving uncontroversial summary-compromise is probably a good idea. Finally, this article seems to be concentrated on demographic/ethnographic history of Zaolzie, but it sais nothing or little about infrastructure, economics, culture and other issues that would make it comprehensive. There is much work to be done to make it really fullproof GA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent amendments to the article. They are helpful. Note that controversial statements I have inserted were always supported by reference. I have added the controversial statements as a reaction to controversial statements already existing in the article and which I was unable to delete or amend (as all such attempts for amendment or deletion were, without explanation, reverted). If strong views are presented, plurality of views must be established.--Xixaxu 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If plurality of views is to be established, provide your version of the 1919-1920 events, instead of deleting what's been added. I would be more than happy to get to know a factual, truthful Czech version of how they gained control over Zaolzie. Tymek 19:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you do not like Czechs, Tymek. Was that the reason for adding Watt and his "insight into methods used by Czechs"?--Xixaxu 09:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason for adding him was simple - no other historian I know has described these events so accurately. About liking Czechs - well, what makes you think so? I meet them on a daily basis, know a lot of them and they are OK. There is no other nation as close to Poles as the Czechs. Tymek 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. Presumably you, together with Watt, also took part on the dinner with Beneš, where he, between having the main course and the desert "triumphantly succeeded to dupe the Poles". :) --Xixaxu 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir! If you disagree with Watt's description of these events, please come up with a documented version of what happened then. Please stop making a fool of yourself, I thought I was talking to an intelligent person. Tymek 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how documented Watt's version is. For example:
1. Watt simply ignores the interim nature of the agreement between the two national councils, which was expressed even in the text of the agreement and is clearly supported by the two declarations preceding the agreement. Instead, he writes that "Nobody objected to this friendly agreement.".
2. Judging from your quotations, Watt is silent on the main reason of Czech invasion (which were the polls to Sejm organised in the area by Poles - this fact is acknowledged by Polish sources also). Instead, he writes that "... the Czechs cooked up a tale of that the Teschen area was becoming Bolshevik ...". (By the way, do you know how the social structure of Poles living in Cieszyn Silesia looked like and for which political parties Poles in Zaolzie voted in Czechoslovak polls after 1920?)
3. Watt does not mention that it was the Polish side who came up with the plebiscit idea first. The Czech side accepted the idea only after being convinced that Silesians and Germans will support the whole Cieszyn Silesia becoming part of Czechoslovakia instead of Poland.
At any event, thanks for encouraging me to quote different documented accounts of the events. Did not feel like it after having most of my additions reverted by Darwinek. Thanks to you now I do now feel like it and will do it. Hopefully you will then defend any attempts to revert these amendments.
--Xixaxu 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not read Watt myself, but he is not contradicting other facts, just the parts quoted by him are describing different aspects. Czechs real motive may have been to disrupt the polls, but what they officially said was that they were acting to prevent Bolsheviks from taking over. Watt doesn't deny that the agreement was interim or that the Poles wanted the plebiscite. does he?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think the quotation "Nobody objected to this friendly agreement." is not in contradiction to the interim nature of the agreement and the friction existing at that time? Also, in my reading of what is quoted Watt says it was Beneš who came up with the plebiscite idea ("Then something unusual happened - Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite."), which is not true. In relation to "what they officially said", do you have any specific declaration or any other instrument in mind pls?--Xixaxu 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No chance Xixaxu :). Peroutka and other persons from interwar period (even quoted) won't be allowed in this article. Same attitude should be taken in the case of Armenian Genocide article and many others and there will be no problems (lasting several years) with that articles. - Darwinek 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. So you will delete the Dąbrowski quotation, right?--Xixaxu 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Auschwitz, Armenian Genocide, what will you come up with next? War against terrorism, Greenhouse Effect?)
Why person from interwar period are not allowed? And who are you Darwinek, that you "allow" and "not allow" some serious sources. Are you owner of Wikipedia, or "Lord of True History"? Yopie 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I added some more info from Watt's book. I hope that Xixaxu now changed his mind. Watt is not a partisan, pro-Polish historian. This is why it is worth mentioning him in the article, as the question of Zaolzie seems to have been missed by other Western historians Tymek 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of Zaolzie was not missed by other Western historians. However, not all write in such an exciting style. Maybe that is because the other Western historians are university professors and not businessmen and bestseller writers. (Richard M. Watt urodził się w 1930 roku. W 1952 ukończył studia na Dartmouth College, a następnie przez trzy lata służył w marynarce wojennej Stanów Zjednoczonych jako oficer artylerii na niszczycielu. Po zakończeniu służby związał się z firmą z branży chemicznej, a obecnie jest jej prezesem.)Bitter Glory Polish web page--Xixaxu 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If other Western historians wrote about it, please find sources and put them down. Tymek 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mamatey is not a Western historian? Is that because his father was Slovak? At any event, Norman Davies (who himself is accused of being a Polonophile in presenting conflicts of Poles with their neighbours) writes about the book of Richard M. Watt you quote that "Książka ta wielce się przysłużyła sprawie reputacji Polski, a dla wszystkich Polaków będzie bardzo potrzebnym lekarstwem na zranioną dumę.". Also, Norman Davies writes that Richard M. Watt "... jest biznesmenem, nie zaś historykiem ....". So, is Richard M. Watt really a respected, unbiased and well educated Western historian? Judging from some of your quotations "Nobody objected to this friendly arrangement." or "Then something unusual happened - Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite. The Allies were shocked ...", "Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields." or "By giving the impression that the Czechs would accept a settlement favorable to the Poles without a plebiscite, Beneš got the Poles to sign an agreement that Poland would abide by any Allied decision regarding Teschen.", I do not think so.--Xixaxu 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not know anything about Mamatey, it doesn't matter if his father was Slovak or Tibetan. Anyway, I am feeling like I am talking to a brick wall. Since you do not like Watt, please DENY his words using referenced sources. If things about Benes and his involvement in Spa looked different that Watt claims, please come up. I did not even want to search for Davies, since I had justly taken for granted what you wrote above. If you do not think so, find sources that deny these words. Tymek 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for a rewritting

  • Copy the article to History of Zaolzie. Summarize here without unncessary controversial details.
  • Merge to off 1918-1920 conflict to Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts, leave only a summarized version in History of Zaolzie
  • Expand this article with sections on geography, economy, politics, culture, etc.

What do you say?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems interesting but I would propose that in the future, when the article itself will be more complex with info about culture, geography etc. Nowadays it is de facto only a historical account, so it is no need to split it, for now. - Darwinek 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all the above suggestions of Piotrus. In my view, they make sense.--Xixaxu 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review

The GA review period for this article expired after no comments other than a keep and watch result leading 3-0, minus the nominator. The result was no consensus, thusly kept by default. Just FYI. IvoShandor 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Only today I was able to read the summary presented by Piotrus on the GA review page. (My mistake I did not do that earlier.) The summary is wrong. Here is why:
- First of all, I tried to discuss all of the issues on talk page of the article. However, the other side (Darwinek) responded only on my talk page and only in Czech. If you speak Czech, check the responses and the accusations of polonophobia and claims that it is high time I leave Wikipedia. Following that, I naively replied to him on his talk page (you can check that also, and, by the way, the replies are in English).
- It is not true that I have inserted highly controversial, anti-Polish remarks supported by sources reliability of which was disputed on talk page of the article. If anyone disagrees, I would very much like to read one single example of any such remark. (Perhaps Piotrus means "[The behaviour of the new Polish authorities was similar] (but obviously worse, as all demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited)[1]"? Or maybe "However, the approach of Czechoslovak authorities cannot be described as systematic persecution aimed at liquidation of the Polish minority, as described in Polish propaganda at that time.[2]"? All of these were added to counterbalance what was written in the article and reliability of their source was never disputed.)
- What is controversial on and why was deleted "Other Polish sources (Chlebowczyk or Kozeński) are less resolute and claim that Czech authorities exerted pressure to speed up the assimilation processes rather than enforced Czechisation.[3] However, there can be no doubt that local Poles assimilated into the Czech population at that time."?
- Reliability of one source I used (Ferdinand Peroutka and his Budování státu) was disputed on the grounds that it was written in the period of heightened nationalism and that the author is biased. I have started discussion on this (see talk page of the article) as I believe these grounds are wrong. The only thing which happened was that I was told by Piotrus that the discussion does not belong here but to the Ferdinand Peroutka talk page. No one bothered to discuss with me whether Peroutka is or is not biased.
- By the way, with respect to using Peroutka, what is controversial on and why was deleted "Czechs tried to revert the [population] decline [in the area before 1918] but were not successful. Reflecting the change of ethnic boundaries, in 1908 Czech national organisation Matice osvěty lidové moved from Těšín to Ostrava and Czech newspapers moved from Těšín to Frýdek. The decline is also reflected in works of Petr Bezruč, local Czech poet."?
I would strongly recommend everyone to check the history of this article and the talk page to it and to make their own judgement.--Xixaxu 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)