Talk:Bytów

City population
source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, G&#322;ówny Urz&#261;d Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI 1960: 8.600 inhabitants 1970: 10.700 inhabitants 1975: 12.500 inhabitants 1980: 13.300 inhabitants

CC: 30 October 2003

Gd vote abuse
Oy, come on this is a bit too much. Yes, this is a place which "shares history between Poland and Germany" but at the time Bytów was pretty clearly a part of Poland, not any kind of German state - you'd might have something there if this was post 1657, but this is 1627. Warsaw also "shares history between Poland and Germany" since it was briefly part of Kingdom of Prussia and occupied by Nazi Germany. But it makes no sense what so ever to go into the Warsaw article and change every occurrence of the word "Warsaw" in the section Warsaw to "Warschau" on the basis of the Gdansk/Danzig vote - doing so would be obviously bad faithed, contrary to the purpose of the vote, and disruptive. Hell, Meissen "shares history between Poland and Germany" but you don't see me going in there and changing every instance of "Meissen" to "Miśnia" for the pre-1308 period (despite the fact that that is actually the name most often used by English language sources when referring to this period).

It's fine to include the German name for places in Poland that have some German history. It is NOT fine to abuse the Gdansk/Danzig vote to arbitrarily change the names of places to German just because ... well, I'm not sure exactly why.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely common practise to use the contemporary German names for places in modern Poland (see Szczecin, Kolobrzeg etc.) in historical context as defined by the Gdansk vote, there’s nothing "abusive" about that.
 * Gdansk was part of Poland until 1793, however we call it Danzig between 1308 and 1945. The Lauenburg and Bütow land was a ("nearly unconditional") fief of the Polish crown, part of the Duchy of Pomerania-Stettin since 1466 and later Prussia. It wasn’t "clearly part of Poland", in fact the Polish influence was much smaller here compared to Danzig. It’s rather comparable to the Duchy of Prussia after 1525. Do you claim the Gdansk vote requires the usage of "Krolewiec" instead of Königsberg because of that kind of legal situation? I don’t think so.
 * Regarding Warsaw: you are absolutely right. Just because the region was part of South Prussia for a short period of time, nobody would ever use German names in that region (and vice versa the same is true for Meissen). Just, the situation in Bütow is the exact opposite. The fief of  Bütow "returned" to the Polish crown after the death of the last Duke of Pomerania in 1637 for a period of 20 years, only throughout these years the area was a "normal" part of Poland. However, such a short-time intermezzo doesn’t influence the usage of contemporary names (following your logic, we would use "Warschau" at least until 1807). HerkusMonte (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't use German names when they have no historical context regarding particular timeframe. For example we don't write that they were strikes in "Danzig" by Solidarity, although Gdańsk shares history with Germany and sometimes we use its germanized name. As to the rest-read on Original Research and Synthesis.

however we call it Danzig between 1308 and 1945. Only due to flawed vote count conducted by user who expressed pro-German opinion...The original vote count actually suggested different time period and usage of Germanised version of Gdańsk name only after Partition.But that is outside the topic here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Being part of Poland and being Polish are completely different things. During medieval times many entities that are now countries were duchies. E.g. Netherland was part of Germany, Scotland and Ireland were part England, Norway was part of Denmark etc. The Lithuanian-Polish kingdom wasn't either a true Polish state. It was dependent of Russia and had a German monarch, as such it was a kind of buffer zone and the so called Polish partitions were self-administered because the parts split up according to German and Russian wishes. Prussia and Danzig, even while it was dependent of Poland, was always German speaking and the so called Polish partitions were to their favor. If Poles regard Pomerania as Polish, then what about the population. My family with a slavic name can be traced back at least to 1520 the oldest records available. Pomeranians never regarded them as pure germanic. The true Polish partition happened at the congress of Vienna after the defeat of Napoleon. Prussia and Russia wanted an independent Poland in its ethnic boundaries but England and France opposed. Prussia wanted Saxony but instead it became the Western German Rhineland territories which are historically more French as punishment for France. It was then that Poland actually disappeared, blame that on England. From then on Poles were forcefully integrated into Germany, but no one denies that. After WWI everyone agreed to re-establish Poland, the question was about its ethnic boundaries. Pomerania was never Poland as much as Norway is not Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.15.17.242 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Polish Propaganda
The article is simply wrong and propaganda, the only intention is to make it "Polish" even before 1945. The "castrum nomine Bitom" does not refer to Bütow but to another location. The city was part of Pomerania, and as such Pomerania is not Poland, whether it was a fief or not. Scotland or Ireland isn't England either. The population who lived there was expelled by Poles and they lived their before as a native population of Pomerania. Poland is not Pomerania, in fact Poland was aggressive towards Pomerania and that's why it joined the German Empire in a federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.15.17.242 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Some more grotesque Polish logic: Stettin was renamed Szczecin and similarily many other places after the war apparently because Poles believed it would be the original name. But it is a modern retro name, it was never used like this before. The city of Danzig was not destroyed during the war, it was burned down by Poles because it was a German build city. Mr. Walesa actually is Mr. Kohne, there were 2 millions of Poles who changed their names to fancy neo Polish names. Mazurians, who are of Slavic origin did not want to belong to Poland, they voted 96% against Polish. Early Polish propaganda stated that the Nazis had killed the Slavic populations of Pomerania and Silesia so apparently that's why the land was empty and would belong to Poland. The Teutonic knights were in union with the early Polish kingdom, the Teutonic knights did not belong to the German empire but were a crusader order dependent on the church in Rome. That's basically why Poles are Roman-Catholic because they had a connection with Germany and battled against Pagan Pomerania, Prussia and Lithuania. Danzig was a free city because it was not feudalistic, i.e. it was an independent jurisdiction, as such it was member of the Hanseatic League and opposed Poland and the German Empire and the Teutonic Knights. If it were Polish, then can someone show me any historical Polish buildings in the city? The first cities in Poland were build by Germans, Dutch and other western Europeans, that's why Krakow and Poznan had a large German population and were culturally strongly German influenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.15.17.242 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bytów. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130503184838/http://www.bytow.com.pl/articles/90 to http://www.bytow.com.pl/articles/90

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)