Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 11

Danzig (Dantzike 1224) with Lübeck City Rights
Vital information is deliberately beeing removed repeatedly, therefore it is posted here: Sigillum Burgensium Dantzike Official City Seal

Culture
''Gdańsk was once an important centre of culture. In the 16th century it hosted Shakespearean theatre on foreign tours…''

I find this difficult to believe. Shakespeare’s earliest plays are thought to have been produced in the 1590s in England. He died in 1616. Would his plays have been produced in Poland, or anywhere else in Europe in his lifetime, the 16th and early 17th century? Shakespeare was big in Europe in the 18th century, true. Bog 00:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks however to be true. You can find some more information about Jerzy Limon's researches on this topic on this site: Shakespeare's Arrival In Poland: Humble Beginnings. --217.153.241.138 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gdansk or Gdańsk
The Amerian Government and the European Union in the main use Gdansk. Google: --Philip Baird Shearer 1 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
 * about 32 English pages for -Gdansk Gdańsk site:gov
 * about 13,900 English pages for Gdansk -Gdańsk site:gov
 * about 122 English pages from eu.int for -Gdansk Gdańsk
 * about 539 English pages from eu.int for Gdansk -Gdańsk

The English alphabet does not have an accented 'ń', therefore, should the title not be "Gdansk"? The article for Munich is not München! Antman 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Munich" is simply the English name for the city that is called "München" in German. There is no English name for the city so we have to use the Polish name, which is "Gdańsk". The fact that there is no "ń" in the regular English alphabet, is irrelevant. The wide usage of "Gdansk" is just because of the lack of "ń" on English keyboards. --Raketooy 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no city called Gdansk. There is either Gdańsk in Polish or Danzig in Germen. If you don't find the letter ń on your keyboard, you should rather use the German name instead of making up a new one. 91.55.86.96 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Pronunciation is provided for Gdańsk (thanks!) but not for Gduńsk, Danzig, or Gedania. If somebody knows how to pronounce these, it would be nice to have a key. &mdash; The Storm Surfer 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * done-tseeg in German -Iopq 08:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, it would be DAWN-tseekh in standard German, with the "kh" representing the "ch" in German ich, a sound that does not exist in English. The final consonants b, d, g, and s are always de-voiced in German, and final g after an i is ordinarily pronounced as if it were a German ch.


 * most likely, gay-DAWN-yah in classical Latin, although it would be tempting to pronounce the "e" as a schwa.--66.231.41.57 02:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh? In a lot of dialects ich is palatal. You can't be saying it's pronounced danzich. Even counting the final devoicing it should be dan-tsik. Dawn to me sounds different from German a probably because of a different English dialect. -Iopq 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kashubian Gduńsk should be pronunciated how it looks, that is very similar to Polish Gdańsk except of vowel u, which is pronunciated like in English room.

--Marqoz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pronunciation of German version depends on the dialect:


 * I was told the most proper i.e. in Standardsprache it is close to DAAN-tseesh', where AA sound like 'a' in 'father', and sh' is more palatalised version of 'sh'.
 * There was however another way to render it, where final 'g' was like Scottish 'ch' in 'Loch Ness'.
 * And of course there was version with final graphem sounding like strong 'k', what was even expressed through more adequate spelling i.e. 'Dantzigk'.

NB: the dialect of German inhabitants of Gdansk was firstly 'Low Saxon' or 'Plattdeutsch' the same as for mother city of the Hansa i.e. 'Lubeck'. Starting from the middle of XV century it was quickly pushed aside by 'High German' or 'Hochdeutsch' version from Meissen Chancellory, supported by newly translated protestant Holy Bible by Martin Luther. --Marqoz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There were two Latin versions of the city name: 'Gedania' based on Polish/Pomeranian name, and another: 'Dantiscum' based on the later German name.

--Marqoz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Government in exile
My ancestors are from The Free City of Danzig. Perhaps someone ought to comment on the fact that TFCD was established by the Treaty of Versailles (as a demilitarized neutral city-state) and under the protection of the League of Nations, and yet after WWII did not revert to its status as established by the Treaty of Versailles, but was effectively "given" to Poland.

There is a government in exile...

The fact is that on 1st September 1939 the TFCD goverment asked the German goverment to incorporate TFCD into Germany. The wish of Danzing citizens was granted and TFCD ceased to exists.

Former English name
Mention should be made somewhere in the article that the city was known for centuries in English as Dantzic or Dantsic. British and American books published before c. 1900 use this form pretty exclusively, and it continued in informal use into the 20th century (see the 1911 Britannica for example) --Mmartins 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Could somebody please explain why the Kashubian and Latin names of the city are included on the Gdansk page? I think the chances of an English speaker coming across them in a non highly specialised context are very close to zero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stonemad GB (talk • contribs).


 * There are many people who use Wikipedia to search for alternate names, whether the names be currently used local names (Kashubian) or historical names (Latin). If someone wants to find out the Latin name of Gdańsk, I doubt they would know to directly go to List of Latin place names in Continental Europe. Rather, I think they would come straight to this article. I fail to understand why the addition of alternate names would detract from an article. Olessi 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies - I phrased that badly. No problem with having the alternative names in the article, but I think they are being given undue prominence by having them in the lead section.  see the 'Provide an accessible overview' bit of the lead section article.  The intro should cover the most important points in a simple way, aimed at the non-specialist.  In this case it means what is Gdansk - a town, where is it, how big is it, what is it famous for etc?  The Kashubian and Latin names are not of overriding interest to general readers, and detract from the lead section by making it difficult to read.--Stonemad GB 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do support User:Mmartins we should not lose old names. It's a part of our cultural legacy. Political correctness is the greatest danger here. We should consider to find a place like some standard subheading 'Older names' to gather all this linguistic treasure. --Marqoz 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

City of Gdańsk
I think the development of Gdańsk article is going into the wrong direction. Almost all valuable information about the modern city is moved into separate articles, and at the same time we have growing historical section in 3 placesL in the header, historical summary (a really BIGGGG sumamry), and a separate article.

In my opinion this article is (should be) about the MODERN city of Gdańsk, the historical summary should be a real minimum, and if you feel there's something really important in Gdańsk's history, please go and develop a section at History of Gdańsk

Site for Polish propaganda and demented versions of historical fact
Wikipedia's editors need to get to grips with the garbage on this and some other sites. It is akin to reading Polish propaganda sheets. Fortunately for us here in Britain we still have history books going back to the Dark Ages and we have histories of Europe based upon fact rather than gossip and hysterical nationalism. Someone calling himself 'Space Cadet' is clearly a lead player in wiping out the comments of others and keeping this Polish propaganda in place, which, frankly, is insulting to any educated individual. You need to act.

Christchurch

- I second this. Antman 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break. Quite the opposite, the influx of German nationalist propaganda is disgusting. Anything to water down accomplishment of others and bolster the pro-German view by cherry picking facts. It reeks of the centuries-old German ethnic theory tradition. Even this comment of still having history books from the Dark Ages is loaded with condescending inuendo. What's that supposed to mean? Please stop. It is thoroughly irritating to deal with this ignorant garbage. -- 17 February 2006 (UTC)

related category votes
Please see the vote to delete Category:Natives of Danzig and the vote to rename Category:Natives of Gdańsk. -- Reinyday, 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Tourism
The tourism section seems quite small compared to the history. It would be good if people with relevant knowledge could please expand the tourism section. I understand that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, but still a number of visitors to the site would be interested in this aspect. It appears to me that the history section has received a lot of attention (partly no doubt because of all the controversy that this page has received). That is not a bad thing in itself, but it does rather dominate the article. Thanks. Terra Green 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- people predictably concentrate on what was rather than on what is. If someone creates the page stubs (I have no idea how), however, I would be glad to write and edit some material for Gdansk current/tourist information. Eeksypeeksy 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert discussion
I am trying to come to a compromise to resolve this recent edit war. Including "Polish/Baltic seaport" seems to be a major bone of contention, so I have simply removed any adjective there. It is inaccurate to say that Wałęsa broke down the Communist bloc in its entirety, but he certainly was a major factor in bringing down the People's Republic of Poland.

Regarding "The name Danzig is often still used in colloquial English speech", I have changed often to sometimes.

Regarding usage of Gdańsk and Danzig, I have followed "For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945. For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945".

I anglicized "King Jan III Sobieski".

The Schleswig-Holstein is described in its own article as a battleship, while the corresponding German article describes it as a Linienschiff, or ship of the line. However, a ship of the line as described on the English wiki refers to craft from the age of sail, not from the WWII era. I think battleship is the best term to use.

I have also removed the unnecessary Gdańsk/Danzig while referring to the Post Office. The resistance of its defenders, while brave and admirable, should be at History of Gdańsk.

I feel that the History section of this article is much too long and duplicates a lot of information already present at History of Gdańsk. The History section of the main Gdańsk article should be a concise survey of the city's history, while the details are found in the History of Gdańsk article. Olessi 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As to your changes, I noticed that some of them are factually inaccurate, others are against the talk:Gdans compromise and voing, yet others smell of POV, even if you did it uncounciously. So, on to examples:
 * It is never my intention to be POV, although I am sure that in some ways I am, as are all contributors.

1. Historically an important Polish seaport since the 10th century - you deleted the word Polish, so as to suggest that it was not a notable seaport before that (wrong) or that it was not a part of Poland (wrong)
 * 1A. I removed both "Polish" and the "Baltic" alternative because the adjective preceding seaport has been a flashpoint for revert wars on this article in the past.

2. the largest city in Poland. changed to the largest city on the Baltic coast. - again, either you try to delete all mentions of Poland for some reason or... nyah, I don't see any other reason. Anyway, Gdańsk was the biggest city in Poland, but the biggest cities of the Baltic coast were at times Lubeck and Koenigsberg. In early times even Kołobrzeg might've been bigger.
 * 2A. Text added by another user. I will readd the largest city in Poland and clarify that with "medieval".

3. Solidarity movement with its leader Lech Wałęsa, who broke down the Communist bloc. changed to Solidarity movement with its leader Lech Wałęsa, who broke down the Communist rule in Poland. - partially right, but only partially, as the Solidarity also tore down the commies in all Eastern Bloc, not only in Poland, which is what you suggest.
 * 3A.Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that he was only effective in Poland. It is not my understanding of the situation that Solidarity was the sole cause of the fall of the Eastern Bloc, however, which is what the original statement inferred to me. I have changed the text again.

4. The name Danzig is sometimes still used in colloquial English speech. - any proof of that?
 * 4A.Added originally be another user. I have no qualms with removing it.

5. ''1308, it was occupied and demolished by the Teutonic Knights, who referred to the city as Danzig.  - factually inaccurate as the Teutonic Knights referred to the city as Dantzik, Danyzyg or Danzk; the name Danzig'' became widespread long after the secularization of their state
 * 5A. True, but I wanted a way to explain the sudden change in usage from Gdańsk to Danzig in the article. How about "While under the control of the Knights, German influence increased and the city began to be referred to by variations of "Gdańsk", ultimately developing into the Modern Era German name "Danzig."? Please change it if you think of something better.

6. Polish Post Office into Post Office - again, wrong. The official name in Polish was Poczta Polska w Gdańsku, the German was Polnische Post« in Danzig. The reason was that after WWII all post services in the free city were operated by Polish state-owned Post office company.
 * 6A. I had been thinking about "while the city's post office was defended until its capture." It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but I will change it to the correct Polish Post Office. It was another instance of removing a flashpoint ("Polish" vs. "Danzig"). Thank you for offering the official name. Did you mean WWI?

7. You also deleted the mention that the postmen who defended the post office were executed. It seems like whitewashing, doesn't it.
 * 7A.I have no qualms with adding it back in, although I think such details should be mentioned in the History of Gdańsk.

Waiting for you to reply - or to correct your mistakes yourself. Halibutt 05:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear your thoughts on drastically shortening the History section, as much of it is duplicating the History of Gdańsk article. I think the ideal length would be something similar to that of Britannica or Columbia. Olessi 07:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"Danzig" easier than "Gdańsk"?
English speakers are more likely to have familiarity (if flawed) with German pronunciation than with Polish pronunciation. It is far easier for almost all English speakers to to try to pronounce the old German name for the city than to make any attempt at the Polish name for the city. --66.231.41.57 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you substantiate that claim? Because when the whole Solidarity thing was going down back in the 80s, all we ever heard about on the news were the "V.I. Lenin shipyard in Gdansk" -- not Danzig. I only ever heard the name Danzig in terms of the free city thereof, and the lead singer of the Misfits. SigPig 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

that claim is easily backed up, German is the second easiest language for an English speaking person to learn, just look at its WP article to verify that. I had never heard the term gdansk until I was atleast 15-16, but I had always heard the term Danzig in the few times anyone ever talked about something involving the city or was in the news(I am from Canada, so it wasnt often, but I never heard Gdansk until I read it online or in a book on the history of Prussia, where the name was interchangeable). And Glenn Danzig also started a now defunct band named Danzig, so it not only applied to him and the city in English, but his band (I know i'm going off-topic, just wanted to point it out, lol).

--Jadger 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And I am Canadian, too. You state, "...German is the second easiest language for an English speaking person to learn, just Ilook at its WP article to verify that...." Can you give me a specific place to look? I cannot find that statement anywhere in the article on German language. I checked my family atlases: - Orbis pocket atlas, 1981: Gdańsk - Canadian Metric World Atlas, 1976: Gdańsk (Danzig) - Hammond Headline World Atlas, c. 1977: Gdańsk (Danzig) - Hammond Family Reference Atlas, 1959: Gdańsk Again, as a city name, I only ever encountered the name "Danzig" in reference to the Freie Stadt. I only ever heard CBC talk about "Gdańsk" --- never Danzig. I'd say Gdańsk has sufficient exposure in English (thanks to Messrs Wałęsa and Jaruzelski). Besides, Gdańsk isn't that much harder to say than "G'day" -- in English. SigPig 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SigPig, English speakers are familiar with the name Danzig due to history books, not modern atlases. Yes, references to Solidarity call it Gdańsk, but discussions about WWI and WWII will call it Danzig. Why? Because English history books don't care about this whole German name/Polish name argument, but instead refer to cities by the name used by the rulers at the time the history article is discussing. Which is exactly like the Wikipedia policy stated at the top of this article.


 * I'd also bet that lots of school-children don't know the 2 names are for the same city, but such is life. Greg 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

SigPig says: thanks to Messrs Wałęsa and Jaruzelski. that's the first time myself, and most english speakers have ever heard those names, perhaps you could provide a link to them so that we could know who or what they are. I would like to repeat we are not talking about official uses, we are talking about the vernacular here, what everyday common usage is. and because of the fact that most english speaking people cannot speak a word of Polish, or read anything with accents above them or sympbols striking through the letters. It is common sense as well that German is much easier then Polish for an english speaker, the word english comes from the name of a german tribe that settled britain, and the english language is based upon older German.

--Jadger 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jadger, check out Lech Wałęsa and Wojciech Jaruzelski, two figures vital in the history of the Cold War. Olessi 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was making the point that hardly anyone in the west has ever heard of these people, so SigPig pretending that they made the term popular inadvertedly through there own popularity is wrong. thanks for the links tho, interesting read, I didnt have much time to post at that last post time so i kept it short and didnt elaborate. Anyways, I think this discussion is over, because its not going to change anything on the article, we are not going to change the name unless Angela Merkel decides to cross the Oder-Neise line and take back the lands taken in 1918/1945.

P.S. I dont see the importance of those two men, so they were two Polish politicians, big deal, what did they do that was groundbreaking? a union in a communist state, wow big whoopee, thats not what brought down the warsaw pact and the communist states. from what I can see in those articles, they were two power hungry socialists that ran poland for a few years, perhaps you could quote what they are important for, from those articles.

--Jadger 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"I dont see the importance of those two men"

Huh, try saying it in Poland:)

"what did they do that was groundbreaking?"

hmm let's think.. Solidarity STARTED the chain reaction of comunist states falling down. That was the first opposition in the comunist block that (largely thanks to good circumstances) managed to succeed in any way. "From what I can see in those articles, they were two power hungry socialists that ran poland for a few years" I wouldn't say Wałęsa was "power hungry", and even if he was, this was surely not what motivated him. He couldn't expect to get what he finally got ( the presidents power etc), he was just an electician from a shipyard who didn't want to be taken in by the government any longer. Solidarity didn't start out with a view to turning the state upside down and becoming the ruling power, they just wanted to be given by the state what they were supposed to be given. 213.192.67.6 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not in Poland, and Poland is a relatively minor and insignificant nation. to tell you the truth, no one I have ever met has ever cared about current events in Poland, or the left wing politics of Poland, it simply isn't important as a international event. maybe a Polish internal event is important to Poles, but not significant anywhere west of the Oder-Neise line. When Poland gains some internationally prominent position (i.e. G8 membership, leading nation of EU or NATO, etc. etc.) then people may become concerned about the leftists in Poland or Poland in general, but so far it has proven insignificant and most people forget about Poland.  Can you verify any of your last paragraph with reliable sources 213.192.67.6? because otherwise it is pure conjecture.  Not to mention the extreme importance you place on the Solidarity movement, which no one else ever has.


 * --Jadger 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How can someone say such things? Poland "minor and insignificant" nation? Poland has more population than Canada! Then, someone considers here Solidarnosc only as "a Polish internal event"? Wałęsa and Jaruzelski unimportant persons? Where do you live? On Mars? How many years do you have? 8? Every European knows who Wałęsa and Jaruzelski are. Especially towards east. But I don't know how many of them knows the names of Canadian politicians? Try to walk on streets of Canadian, USA, Argentinian, French cities... or German cities and speak and speak those things about Poland and Poles, than you'll see how "unimportant and unsignificant" Poles are. In fact, whole Earth is turning around two Poles.Kubura 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * population is not the only factor one needs to be an important nation. Canada is a member of the G8, the group of the 8 biggest and strongest economies in the World, Where's Poland? nowhere near the group. Canada is a leader in NATO and UN missions, Canadian troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, where are the Poles? nowhere near.
 * Actually, Polish soldiers are in Afganistan, though in rather small numbers (and the strangest thing is you KNOW it, and yet still are able to claim within two sentences that Polish soldiers are and aren't in Afganistan). Those are usually from GROM and they are in afganistan for quite a long time. Also Poland is increasing its contingent there. Also, Polish soldiers participate in dozens and dozens of international missions. Kosovo, Liban just name it. As for not knowing who the Walesa is, well, without him probably Berlin wall would still stand. Szopen 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Poland's higher population but worse economy means that Poles are in general poorer (per capita, our GDP is 3 times that of Poland). I would rather live in a small nation of people who can support themselves well than live in a land of paupers.  Since Poland's population is bigger, don't you think Poland should contribute more troops to the NATO mission in Afghanistan?  roughly 15,000 Canadian servicemen and women have served in Afghanistan, only 100 Poles have served at any one time in Afghanistan. Now what is wrong with Poland? why isn't it pulling its political weight? surely the solidarity movement made Poland a worldwide leader (as you claim).


 * "Every European knows who Wałęsa and Jaruzelski are." really? you've polled every European? geez, you go the extra mile don't you Kubura? All of your claims are totally unfounded. I find this claim especially doubtful as I have been told countless times on this Wikipedia how no one in Germany or anywhere West of Poland knows anything of Polish history, and how Polish history is not taught in schools outside of Poland (solidarity movement is history after all).
 * That's the problem with your teaching of history. And if in Germany you know nothing about history of Poland, your closest neighbour, then it speaks a lot about quality of German education system. Szopen 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Try to walk on streets of Canadian, USA, Argentinian, French cities... or German cities and speak and speak those things about Poland and Poles, than you'll see how "unimportant and unsignificant" Poles are." I've had no problems so far :)


 * but please, you have taken this off-topic


 * --Jadger 12:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"English speakers are more likely to have familiarity (if flawed) with German pronunciation than with Polish pronunciation. " "...German is the second easiest language for an English speaking person to learn...". If someone is more familiar with German pronunciation (and German is second easiest language for English-speaking person to learn), why don't you try to call Mulhouse - Mülhausen, Strasbourg - Straßburg etc.. If someone has a problem with pronunciating Polish names and words, that's his problem. Because Gdansk is a Polish city, so in Wiki-articles, this city has to be called Gdansk. You had no problems so far? (because of your attitudes towards Polish people) What, you never got out of your room? Try to be such a bigmouth in a first neighbourhood in Canada where you encounter persons with surnames -wski or -icz. "Canada is a leader in NATO and UN missions, Canadian troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, where are the Poles? nowhere near. " Why would they be there anyway? Poles and Poland are not warmongers, they had enough wars in their history that caught their country; they had it enough of fighting of super-powers over their back. So, why would they fight somebody elses' wars? They had enough of German warmongering over their country in last centuries; why should they be like their occupators? If you think that the importance of certain country is measured by presence of their military in NATO missions, you're wrong. Canada is maybe important for the USA, but in Europe (especially as you move towards east) your story "doesn't hold the water." In Europe you can always find a person that can name 10 Poles (from Poland), but I don't know which person'll know to name 10 Canadians. Kubura 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * you said: Why would they be there anyway? Poles and Poland are not warmongers, they had enough wars in their history that caught their country; they had it enough of fighting of super-powers over their back. So, why would they fight somebody elses' wars? They should be there because it is a part of being in the NATO alliance, or do you just expect all your allies to come to your rescue, and you don't have to do anything for them? seems like it has been this way so far in history. friendships/alliances are two way streets Kubura, you cant expect to get something without giving a little also.


 * I would also like to ask you to stop personally attacking me as per WP:NPA


 * --Jadger 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, earlier you said something about untergang. I've heard about that movie, but neither me or anyone I know saw it or really cared about it. The publicity it got was purely because it was German movie about Hitler, that's all. The only other German movie I can think about is some terrible, awful piece about Nibelungen. If you are basing your opinions about "German importance in the world" on this one movie, well, what can I say. BTW, does names like Wajda, Kieslowski, Polanski ring a bell? Szopen 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * it's popularity was not based on the fact that it was about Hitler, its popularity is based on the fact that it is a great movie (btw, it was Kubura who mentioned it, not me). It won prestigious awards, which also boosted its popularity. what also boosted its popularity is that it has many big name actors who have also starred in English-language movies (think Thomas Kretschmann or Bruno Ganz). Or what might be why more people have heard of it is because it is #44 in IMDB's ranking of all time best movies, did you like der Untergang?.  Polanski, yeah I've heard of him, but he is more known for being a child rapist, I would not say Poles would like to be known the world over for being child-rapists, but maybe I'm wrong?  As for the other two, I have never heard of them, of course you could then claim I am ignorant, but then again so could I for you having never heard of other great German movies such as Stalingrad or das Boot or Run Lola Run(note: I do not speak German so I have about as much reason to watch a German film as any other foreign language film).  Also, I bet you have heard of this German language film: triump of the will.


 * --Jadger 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Jadger couldn't stop himself to express to the whole community his own (maybe White Saxon, maybe German, but first of all - his personal) superiority complex.

Poland is not so important to him. I'm so sorry. Maybe he is watching CNN only. But hey, stop for a moment - there were some interesting accidents, torpid but still funny politicians and colourful scandals the same like in Canada and States and 'Old Europe' (with German ex-Kanzler Schröder's shame on the top) - there are however some less important things about this remote and obscure place. There live above 8% of EU population, they produce 4% of UE GDP (more than Norway, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the 24th in the World), they have well-founded culture with written language continuity from the mediaeval period, they have not so small number of persons important to the whole mankind, they had greater army than France during the WWII, they gave a pope. Wait a moment, do you want something more to be important.

'Solidarity' is small event in world history to him. Sometimes people are repeating stupid things because they haven't any opportunity to learn about facts. There is of course a big part of blame on the Polish side because they didn't disseminate facts about events which took place in 1980 and once again in 1989, they didn't protect it from forgetfulness. But prudent, polite and well-educated man should not stop his apetite for sources on TV headlines (journalism is in decline) before he even utter his statement. --Marqoz 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanitizing history
In the interest of historical veracity, I ask the Polish "editors" of this article on the English-language Wikipedia site to please desist from "sanitizing" the section about what happened to the ethnic-German inhabitants of Danzig toward the end of WWII and afterwards.

Dziekuje bardzo.

Sca 18:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there really needs to be an RfC. I've had the same problem with Molobo, who feels his mission is to emphasise German war crimes, in a large number of other articles and with the annexion of Space Cadet, who feels his mission is connected to striking out Prussian helmets as his user and talk page show, their propagandizing of Wikipedia becomes unbearable. NightBeAsT 20:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing NB I am adding are historical facts.The only problem you have is that you don't like them. --Molobo 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Kłamcy! It is a blatant and outrageous distortion of history to say that Danzig "was liberated from Nazi occupation by Polish and Soviet forces" in 1945. This is pure commie propaganda, which somehow is living on despite the bankrupty of communism and all it entailed. I thought communism ended in Poland in the '80s. It's now the 21st century. Wake up!

The then-German city of Danzig, which overwhelmingly welcomed reincorporation in Germany in 1939, was no more "liberated" (don't make me puke!) by the Soviets in '45 than Warsaw was "liberated" by the Nazis in '39. In both cases, the conquest meant misery, death and destruction for the inhabitants. In the case of Danzig, it also meant expulsion from their homeland – for those, that is, who survived.

No place in what then constituted Germany was "liberated" by the Soviets. Eastern Germany was conquered. Millions were killed, millions of women raped, millions deported to the Gulag, and everyone else expelled! This is liberation? Give me a break!

Give up trying to make it sound as if Gdańsk/Danzig doesn't have a strange, violent and tragic recent history. You can't change history, and when it's this recent, the details are thoroughly recorded. Quit trying to hoodwink the world.

Grow up!

Sca 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The then-German city of Danzig, which overwhelmingly welcomed reincorporation in Germany in 1939 The citizens welcomed Nazi rule and aggression you say ? --Molobo 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Pan Molobo, they didn't welcome Nazi "aggression," and I'm sure there were many Danzigers who had misgivings about the Nazis or who, like the Social Democrats, had been reduced to political silence by the Nazi Party's takeover of the Danzig city government some years earlier. What they welcomed was being part of Germany again after being forcibly separated from Germany for 19 years. The city, as has been said countless times, was 96 or, according to some sources, 97 percent German. Read the history and get your head out of the sand piled up by half a century of Communist propaganda about "reclaimed territories." Try telling the families of those German Danzigers who survived the cataclysm of WWII that Danzig as it existed in modern times had been Polish in some essential cultural or political way.

Again, as has been said so many times, this is not to excuse or exonerate Hitler and the Nazis by one iota! What many Poles seemingly refuse to understand is that Hitler and the Nazis' whole political appeal was based mainly on a pan-German nationalist program of altering the decisions of the Versailles Treaty. Those provisions included the separation of Danzig and their nearby area from Germany supposedly in order to give Poland a "free and secure outlet to the sea." (There was never any suggestion at Versailles that the Germans be expelled and replaced by Poles.) The Versailles changes left German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and it was primarily these minorities that Hitler and the Nazis used as a PRETEXT (look it up in your English-Polish dictionary) for aggression against Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Thank goodness the period of extreme nationalism in MOST of Europe is over. Unfortunately, the scourge of ethnocentrism and nationalism lives on in some backward countries, and I fear Poland is one of them due to its tragic history -- and to all those years of propaganda.

In the U.S. we have many people who are nationalistic in some political way, unfortunately, and others who still are racists, but at least we have a hugely variegated mix of ethnic origins and a basic commitment to human rights for people of all ethnicities.

Hey PL, how about joining the 21st century?

Sca 18:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Many Germans accept the view that in 1945 Germany was liberated from the Nazi regime, see Victory in Europe Day. Let me quote the key sentences of that article:


 * In the years after, V-E day was predominantly perceived as the day of defeat. But over the decades, this perception changed, culminating in the speech by West German President Richard von Weizsäcker on the 40th anniversary of V-E day in 1985, in which he called 8 May "the day of liberation" from the Nazi government. Balcer 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, many if not most Germans were very glad to be rid of the Nazis, glad that the war finally was over, and glad that the future (in the West) promised political and individual liberty. But it is a serious distortion to say that the Red Army "liberated" the Germans, when in fact conquest by the Red Army meant more misery and hardship. This is particularly true of the pre-1945 parts of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line, where Soviet occupation meant, if not rape, starvation and death, at least expropriation and expulsion.

In what became the DDR, 12 years of Nazi tyranny were followed by 40-plus years of Communism, which, while certainly not as savage as the Hitler regime, suppressed all political opposition and meted out stern retribution to any who deviated from the offically accepted norms of "socialist" thought and behavior. This, of course, all was at the behest of the Soviets themselves, who installed the likes of Ulbricht and Honneker to do execute their will.

The issue here, however, is not the comparative evils of Nazism and Communism, but the spurious suggestion that what happened to the Germans of the Oder-Neisse territories in 1945 and thereafter was liberating in any normal sense of the word.

Sca 20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User Molobo
I formally accuse the User Molobo of the attempt to falsify history. The User Molobo tries to play down the expulsion of the Germans from Gdanks/Danzig while in contrast exaggerates the ethnic Polish nature of the city throughout history. As the basis of my allegation I use his last edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gda%C5%84sk&diff=26972049&oldid=26944005) with short explanations and examples for it.

1. Molobo deletes the words "formerly English "Danzig"" that an uneducated person may think that the city has always been known by its Polish name Gdansk in the English speaking world. Wrong!

- Is it really? Personnaly, I know a lot of "educated" english speaking people who do know Danzig to be a german word (name) - which makes it only applicable in german.

2. He goes on with deleting "a predominantly German-speaking" [seaport] and adding "an important Polish" [seaport]. False! In reality, Danzig/Gdansk was predominantly German speaking before WW2 (up to 95%).

- Before WW2, huh? And when exactly did this "before WW2" begin?

3. Furthermore, he deletes the German name of the river "Mottlau" in order to minimize the German "wording" of a "Polish" area.

- The german wording has no relevance in an article about a polish city.

4. He goes on with the deletion of "After its German majority population was expulsed in 1945, it became part of Communist Poland". This shows that Molobo wants to sanitize the expulsion from the history of the city. Bad faith!

- This article goes to hysterical extents trying to expose the "rape", "murder", etc. of german citizens at the end of the second world war. However, no objective references are provided that would allow a reader to assess the veracity of these statements. In fact, the way these paragraphs are written make them look like a lame attempt to blame "someone" for "something" - you can almost hear the screaming in the head of the person who wrote them. Not very professional.

5. At the end he reverts Sca contribution by writing [the city was] "liberated from Nazi occupation" by Polish [...] forces. He did this although he did not and could not challenge Sca's reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gda%C5%84sk#Sanitizing_history) for his version: [the city was] "occupied" by Polish [..] forces. He changed the content without challening Sca's arguments. Bad habit!

If you look at Molobo's contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Molobo) you may see that this edit was not a "mistake". He routinely edits pages in favour of Polish history by often changing some few words in order to give the page a "pro-Polish" sometimes "anti-German" face. After the given examples it is fair to say that Molobo is a Polish nationalist who wants to rewrite history in favour of Poland. Therefore, I ask the community and all the other people who are having problems with Molobo's edits: What are the next steps to avoid such bad faith edits in the future? Quak 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

- History isn't pro-Polish or pro-German (or Prussian rather). History is history. Gdansk was historically a polish-founded city and then occupied by german-related peoples/communities (in the case of teutonic knights, it was quite a brutal occupation). From this perspective, it was definitely liberated.

1. Molobo deletes it because it's not the format accepted on Wiki. Your accusation is childish and ridiculous, because any reader (educated or uneducated) can find out what the city name was, with respect to historical period, in the history section.

2. You're false! The city belonged to Germany only from 1871 to 1919.

3. The German name of this small river belongs in the article Motlawa, where it's always been and nobody is trying to delete it from there to minimize anything.

- What is this hysteria about "minimizing"? Just state the facts. The name is what it is.

4. This paragraph belongs further down in the city history.

5. He already not only challenged but won the discussion, see Molobo's talk page.

Molobo is not a nationalist, but simply enlightens us about the aspects of Polish history, that are generally unknown to the English speaking world. You, on the other hand, are clearly prejudiced against the Poles, their culture and history. Tirid Tirid 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Early History
- I agree...the same issue of "Polish influence in Danzig" has come up on the "Prussian Peoples" page. I made the same point. There needs to be some clarification with this sentence as to what actually happened in order to ENLIGHTEN the Polish visitors to this page. We deal with the same issue when examining Native Americans here in the States, but we don't completely ignore the subject of conquest and expansion!

"the date of the foundation of the city itself, as the year in which Saint Adalbert of Prague (sent by the Polish king Boleslaus the Brave) baptized the inhabitants of Gdańsk (urbs Gyddanyzc). In the following years Gdańsk was the main centre of a Polish splinter duchy ruled by the dynasty of Dukes of Pomerania."

I chose this example randomly, but here is an article about [| Chicago]. Notice the introductory passage about the natives, even though they have little to do with the city but are still referenced in terms of the "city area".

If this could be done on the Gdansk page, only then would it be acceptable to use the language of conquest when speaking of the Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries. Neither the Poloni or any Germanic tribes were anywhere near where Gdańsk would rise up - in fact, if anything, the Germans were closer. It needs to be stated that the land wasn't Polish either, since this plays well in the anti-German, pro-Polish rhetoric that is common in basic education.

Postcard of Danzig
Maybe this picture would be of use, feel free to use it.

Yellowmellow45 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories
See my comment at Template talk:Gdańsk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo's Explanation
Please, Molobo, could you explain why you insist on making this revert even though other editors are telling you it's POV. "Forced" is POV, esp. when you only apply it to German control in the area, rather than all takeovers. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a scholary sources confirming that Partitions of Poland weren't met with any resistance at all. --Molobo 02:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

when you only apply it to German control in the area, rather than all takeovers. The German control of the area was resulf of forcefull takeover of the city from Poland. --Molobo 02:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And current Polish control was also the result of forceful takeover, if only indirectly through the forces of the Soviet Union; but encyclopedia articles aren't the places to moralize about it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And current Polish control was also the result of forceful takeover Since it was regaining what was taken by force, then writing returned is competely ok. --Molobo 02:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a totally POV assertion. The people of Danzig did not want to leave Germany in 1945, but were, in your terms, forced to. It hardly matters that the Kingdom of Poland had held overlordship of the city in the early modern era. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Overlordship ? Where did you find a word like that :) Care to enter the information about Polish Overlords of Gdansk ? :) --Molobo 02:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) The people of Danzig did not want to leave Germany in 1945 Free City of Gdansk was occupied by Nazi's in 1939 ? Are you trying to say the German inhabitants of Gdansk supported Nazi occupation and rule ? --Molobo 02:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a scholary resource claimin Gdansk wasn't part of Poland before or giving a different number of years under the Partitions. --Molobo 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the list of Polish kings. I won't say anything about what the people of Danzig wanted, but article Free City of Danzig says that the Nazi Party received 57% of the city's electoral vote in 1933, and later the government voted to join Germany.90% of the city was in ruins when the Russians took it, so that kinda suggests the native Germans of the city weren't too keen on changing the status quo. Are you suggesting the people of Danzig in 1945 wanted to join Poland? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they would like Poles ruling over them if they supported Nazis.Anyway I am not writing anything about the attitude of German inhabitants so that isn't really the point. --Molobo 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw:Poles and Jews couldn't vote. --Molobo 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, so were they or weren't they forced? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry, so were they or weren't they forced?" I don't know how many escaped on their own. --Molobo 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah Molobo, you see the problem with your edits now? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? I am not writing on political attitudes of German population.You must have confused my edits with something else. --Molobo 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. You're talking about the use of the word "forced", which you insist on using for the incorporation of the German-speaking city Danzig into German-speaking state of Prussia, but somehow object to when applied to the Soviet (gift to Poland) conquest of the city in 1945. Do you understand yet? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh ? I am not writing on linguisitcs. --Molobo 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting on scholary source claiming Gdansk wasn't part of Poland before-no matter how absurd this is. --Molobo 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You may wait a long time my friend, as I never made that claim ... must have confused my edits with something else. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I have to go to bed now. So this will be the end of it for the night. I wish you the loveliest of nights. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Skubiszewski, Krzysztof: Granica na Odrze i Nysie i powrót Gdańska do Polski. Aspekty prawnomiędzynarodowe [Die Grenze an Oder und Neiße und die Rückkehr von Danzing nach Polen. Internationale Rechtsaspekte], in: Komunikaty Instytutu Bałtyckiego 5/1966, --Molobo 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 131.173.252.9
1. Line 46: Also common was the german name Freie Hansestadt Danzig (Free hanseatic city of Danzig) Gdansk was never named Freie Hansestadt Danzig. It's already mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gda%C5%84sk 2. Line 61: Zuraw was build 1442-1444, when Gdansk was a Polish city by that time. Krantor is just crane in english. You don't need to translate every word to German, it's English wiki. 3. You removed: and the free access to all Polish markets and changed "ethnic groups (Germans, Poles, Jews, and Dutch being the largest)" to "predomiantly Germans but also minorities of Poles, Jews, and Dutch)" Why? Any sources for that? 5. "But this subject is disputed by historians, it maily contains the view of polnish historians during the communsit time" No, it isn't. 6. You removed " After the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, Gdańsk was returned to Poland after 152 years of rule by Prussia and Germany that was the result of forcefull Second Partition of Poland in 1793." This is vandalism. Don't try to change the history.

This is German propaganda (you used polnish instead of polish, so I'm sure you're from Germany). 85.219.173.251 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just about every contrib by 131.173.252.9 is editorializing. 71.97.37.127

Only problem with the Polish is that the city was German despite who ruled the city. Just like the revolt against the Teutonic Knights. Most of the revolters were GERMANS who aligned with the Polish king purely out of political need. Cities like Breslau, Danzig, Königsberg, Elbing etc all made their history as GERMAN cities. Those are the undeniable facts.

You mean "their history" as you know it, right? You happen to have an opinion and that's the only "undeniable fact". Tirid Tirid 12:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will post some scans of historical documents from the Middle Ages from my Catholic University Library, if some want this. Danzig (rather then: Dantzige or Denzike) was ethnic German from at latest 1200 AD. It was never an ethnic Polish city before, not counting the numerous germanized Kashubian minority as a Polish majority then. This article used to be full of Pan-Slavic Polish nationalism. It's preposterous. On those grounds, we could also call Berlin a "Polish" city, because it happened to be in the hands of Slavic tribes for some years. Or we could say Lwow was German(ic), because ca. 300 AD Goths lived there! Smith2006 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most Polish cities had German majorities in the middle ages, including Cracow, then the capital city (its town council debated in German). Does it make Cracow a German city? At the time German settlers, who were welcomed by Polish kings and dukes comprised up to 20% of population of the lands who were later indisputably ethnically Polish (and much more in the cities), possibly even more in lands which soon afterwards became germanized such as Lower Silesia. The linguistic influence of the middle age German on Polish language is still discernable (large linguistic borrowings, even some grammatical and phonetical influence - why do you think Polish language sounds so Germanic to English speakers, unlike other "softer pronounced" Slavic languages?). So what? Does it make Poland a German land? Gdańsk was no less a Polish city until 1308 than Cracow. And remember its inhabitants (including the German speaking ones) chose Poland in 1466 by asking the Polish king to take over the city. It the meaning of the word as it was understood then, this choice made them Poles. The language defined national states are an invention of 19th, not 15th century. Even some Polish kings (including such great ones as the Lithuanian Jagiełło or Transylvanian Batory) spoke no Polish language. No one would not call them Poles then. Similarly the language majority of a city wasn't so important before even the national languages were codified from many local dialects! So please do not use nationalistic criteria of 19th or 20th century to the medieval times. ProudPomeranian 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This Polish/German mini-war is becoming ridiculous
This "discussion" is completely pointless. We Germans call this city Danzig, Polish call it Gdańsk and others call it whatever they like or whatever historical period they are referring to. The official website does the same. Click on black-red-gold et voilà Danzig.

The problem is that some people do not realize the fact that the time the city belonged to the Kingdom of Poland predates any conception of a nation state in that region. Poland at that time was about as much a nation state as Prussia. The city's population has been mainly German from the golden era of the Hanseatic League until the end of WW2, no matter what state it belonged to. Claiming that pre-WW2 Danzig was Polish is like claiming that Venice is Austrian, or that Amsterdam is Spanish. 19th-century Prussia did, in fact, incorporate some regions of mainly Polish ethnicity (e.g. Posen/Poznan), but Danzig was never part of those. Prussia was a multi-ethnic state which was dominantly German but allowed the use of minority languages in the respective regions and used Old Prussian (an extinct Baltic language) for ceremonial reasons as far as into the 19th century. Prussia even had a cathedral built in the centre of Berlin for the growing Catholic minority, which was then consecrated by a Polish bishop. Contrary to popular belief, Royal Prussia had nothing to do with Nazi Germany, or at least no more than democracy and human rights have with Robespierre.

I live in a city that is called Köln in German, Cologne in English and French, Colonia Agrippina in Latin, and Kölle in Kölsch. No one here fears that the French, the English or the Swissguard will come to seize the city in the near future.

The only people complaining here are some Polish chauvinists who think that mocking Prussian symbols on their user pages (see User: Space_Cadet) is a sign of patriotism and not of exceedingly bad taste and ignorance. --MasterLycidas 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, the tolerant and benevolent Germans/Prussians! How thoughtless of everyone! No one is denying the large German population that accumulated in Gdansk over the centuries, particularly under Prussian rule, just as no one is denying the large populations of "others" in other cities in Europe, particularly ports. Why this double standard againt Gdansk, I don't know. It was not only founded and under the administration and control of the Crown prior to the partitions (and yes, "ethnic Poles"), but all inhabitants were Polish *citizens*. This "German this, German that" is really irritating, and declaring allegiance to the Crown as just a matter of convinience is not consistent with history. Do you Germans think you have some gene that distinguishes you from the rest of the human race? Sounds an awful lot like ethnic theory to me. Also, you don't seem very well educated about things like Kulturkampf, which was a forceful suppression of Polish culture, or Frederick the Great's comments about Poles, or the Partitions in general. You think it was just some dandy little excersize in "unification"? What about the large population of non-Germans in the areas annexed by Prussia? And you talk about Prussia being multiethnic, but then switch to focusing on some bogus concept of relative ethnic purity of Prussia. Poland was likewise a multiethnic state, and quite multiethnic indeed, and yet you cannot understand that this 19-20th century fiction of an ethnically pure state is, was and always will be bogus, and you cannot understand that Polish was not the only language in use in Poland over the course of history. Look at the United States or Australia and you see what? A "nation state" by your fictional and vapid definition of "nation"? Or do we refer to citizens of these countries "Americans" or "Australians" per their allegience? By your logic, we should declare America English based on the criteria that many are decendant of Englishmen and that they are English-speaking persons. I sometimes wonder whether those forcing this ludicrous bias on Wikipedia articles are aware of their bias and intentionally forcing their POV with clever, categorically erroneous comparisons to some end, or have simply been trained from birth to believe this fiction as it was told to them by mommy and daddy or by their government-funded school textbooks. If there's something worse than someone pushing known BS it's someone actually believing it, and then spreading it around. Again, I repeat. Gdansk/Danzig, whatever you want to call it, was for most of its history a Polish city, which steadily acquired a German majority culminating before WW2. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.145.78 (talk • contribs).


 * Please remember (and this means all of you on both sides of the "conflict") that there was already a vote on the Gdańsk/Danzig name problem and a consensus decision has been reached (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote). The compromise is not ideal. At present we should use Danzig (Gdańsk) for the time the city was part of the Commenwealth (Rzeczpospiolita), namely 1466-1792. I would prefer using Danzig (Gdańsk) only for years where the city belonged to German speaking states (1308-1466, 1792-1945) and Gdańsk (Danzig) for the rest. But it is a compromise and I would propose sticking to it. ProudPomeranian 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gdansk/Danzig, whatever you want to call it, was for most of its history a Polish city
 * Polish was not the only language in use in Poland over the course of history.
 * Poland was likewise a multiethnic state, and quite multiethnic indeed
 * but all inhabitants were Polish *citizens*
 * Or do we refer to citizens of these countries "Americans" or "Australians" per their allegience? By your logic, we should declare America English based on the criteria that many are decendant of Englishmen and that they are English-speaking persons.


 * What a contradiction, unregistered user! If, by your own admittance, "Polish" is nothing more than an adminstrative term of sorts when associated with the early Kingdom of Poland, how can you defend that the regions within the dynasty's protectable boundaries were Polish in character more than they were anything else? The moment we began to refer to those of a certain ethnic descent (Polish, German) as the same thing as those who were residences/citizens within the State (Polish, Germans), we were headed for trouble.--Hohns3 11:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a contradiction. That was an example of why looking at ethnicity is a very recent consideration in these matters. You call Polish an "administrative" term. Certainly not. You make the assumption that ethnicity is something "deeper" which is utter unscientific nonsense. Your point of view has been shaped by the nationalist phenomenon that is all too recent, and had nothing to do with who you would call a "Pole" for centuries. Should we look at New York and determine that it is some X city with a major population of X? No. Therefore, I am pointing out certain flaws in this point of view, not contradicting. And what I'm saying is that even from that point of view, the claims being made cannot stand up. Things like assimilation and intermarriage was not even considered, which certainly voids the "ethnic" argument. And the "trouble" you mention, as I said, is a recent problem in relation to the history of the city (the conflict only arrises when there is a difference in allegience). Emphasis in this article seems to be made on the prewar (II) (vast) population under the partitions or German activity during the Nazi regime. It seems to minimize things like the population in centuries prior to the 19th century.


 * Polish was an ethnic term. Polish was also an adminstrative term. Historically, they do not always refer to the same territory (no pun intended) covered. Therein lies the problem of using them interchangeably, or more specifically, the implication of such an act. I'm sure you know what it is and you and I both know that there are tremendous political considerations on the line. To say that ethnicity does not matter and subjects to the "Polish" state, regardless of ethnicity, should be considered "Polish" is hogwash. You are borrowing a page from America when the difference between the two examples are painfully obvious. Nevertheless, I will point them out for you:


 * The only reason New York is not dominated by ethnic politics (it once was) is because of the push in fashioning a new "American" identity that reached its peak in the early 20th centry with the advent of, surprise, a war that required unifying force. Even before that, however, ethnicity was - at least to a degree - already subverted to an ideological identity based on Enlightenment principles. Poland, on the other hand, was trying to be - and is now - a reflection of Polish identity; its minorities were not welcome in previous decades, to say the least, and there was no ideological principle to united anyone. The Ukranians wanted out, the Germans wanted out. Assimilation works best along ideological lines like Sovietism or Americanism, not those already pre-defined by ethnicity. The fact that some Germanic regions were within the realm of an empire called Poland centuries ago does not change anything; are you suggesting that simply because the German population accepted foreign rule at some point in time it was obligated to allow for the same to occur once more, in the name of restoring "rightful" boundaries? Migration changed demographic figures, certainly, but the ethnicity of Danzig's population was never in doubt never in doubt...well, at least after it grew too large for a head count to suffice.


 * I also find it interesting that you dismiss the importance of ethnicity on the principle of its baselessness in science. Ethnicity has little to do with science, correct, but the tendencies of man - especially in regards to banding together with like-minded persons - are as old as time itself, and indeed reflect on the psychological conditions of man...science. Cultural identification is a powerful force, regardless as to whether race itself is "something deeper" or not. In your refusal to acknowledge ethnicity as anything other than nationalist bruhaha, you've failed to adequately explain 1)why the soviet union did not hold together for more than 2 seconds after it collapsed and national/ethnic communities were reestablished 2)the mess in "yugoslavia".


 * Again, look no further to America, where there were still issues with "mixed loyalties" despite the fact that we are talking about a situation across a great ocean, not across a few rivers.--72.92.6.229 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)