Talk:German–Polish customs war

Very unclear and/or economically wrong
The sentence "when Poland lost its unilateral status as the most favoured nation in trade with Germany" is at best confusing. It makes it sound like Poland was the only country which enjoyed MFN - but the whole point of MFN is that it applies to several countries at once.

Looking below I see that what is probably meant is that the MFN status wasn't reciprocal. In other words, by the Versailles treaty Germany was required not to impose tariffs/trade barriers on Polish goods which were higher than the most favored nation Germany traded with. So if Germany had 5% tariffs on, say, French goods, it could not impose tariffs higher than 5% on Polish goods. But the Entente countries - not just Poland - where allowed to impose higher tariffs on Germany than they did on each other. What happened here is that German decided to single out Polish good for high tariffs in violation/expiration of the MFN clause of the V-treaty. AFAIR they did not raise tariffs, or drop the MFN towards other Entente powers.  Volunteer Marek  20:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just more generally I think this article could use a more quality source than an article from Wyborcza. I'll try to find some journal articles and dig out a book or too.  Volunteer Marek  20:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The export of Polish goods produced in the former German territories to Germany was (in general) tax free, and this wasn't reciprocal (btw, sorry for my language skills: what's the opposite of reciprocal?). This regulation (defined in the Versailles treaty) lasted until 1925 and Poland wanted to renew its privileges, while Germany wanted to use its economical power (40 % of Polish exports to Germany) to guarantee/strengthen the German minority's rights. Germany didn't "single out" Poland, the treaty's duration expired. Both sides' unability to compromise resulted in a trade war, rather simple.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, "reciprocal" is a better term. As for the rest, not quite. The "tax free" is a bit more complicated, coal was still subject to a quota (which acts an implicit tariff) and even agricultural goods which were relatively untaxed still had a wide variety of restrictions. It's also inaccurate to describe this as "privileges", since like I said, these conditions applied, until 1925, to ALL Entente countries. I can't remember off the top of my head if Germany's MFN clause with other countries was renewed, but at the very least and obviously, there was no customs wars with France, Britain, etc.
 * So Germany very much singled out Poland in order to try and force political goals. The issue of "liquidations" - instituted by treaty of Versailles - was one issue but at the height of the war Stressman DID demand Silesia and the Corridor in exchange for ... the ability to sell Germans goods cheaply. Likewise, some of the other demands were pretty out there. A good chunk of German politicians were in fact betting that Poland would collapse and they saw the trade war as a way of hastening this outcome. Of course, things turned around in Poland and then other markets opened up and basically Germany overplayed its hand.
 * Also, again, off the top of my head, there was no unanimous support for the trade war within Germany. I mean, among politicians, there was. But I believe the unions supported the renegotiation of the agricultural aspects from pre-1925, while German farmers wanted cheap Polish coal. But at the end of the day they also supported the trade war for nationalist reasons.
 * I got a couple books on this but they're at the office and it's the break here so I don't know if i feel like making the trip. There's also a good bit available online if you got access to jstor etc. Yes, political demands played a role in Germany's conduct but they were motivated by revanchism and the desire to politically undermine the Polish state rather than any actual "mistreatment of German minority" which was 90% propaganda, of both the Weimar Republic and the later Nazi state.  Volunteer Marek   08:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a primary source.  Volunteer Marek  08:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Primary: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care,.."
 * The statement is clearly attributed to the German side, there's no reason not to use it. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "but only with care" - it depends whether the statement and source is used in a way which is potentially contentious.  Volunteer Marek   10:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag without clarification. Size of German exports to Poland is only part of the costs of the trade war to Germany. Having to pay higher prices and costs by producing domestically what could be imported cheaply is another. Frankly, a lot of statements cited to this source seem a bit sketchy.  Volunteer Marek  08:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The article also lacks any "conclusion" or any description of what happened after 1925/6. Which was basically that the political situation in Poland stabilized, Polish trade diverted to Scandinavia and Great Britain and the restrictions more or less ceased to matter, while Germany continued to insist on political demands as pre-conditions for political agreement. The impact of the trade war on Poland is probably somewhat exaggerated (at least that's the sense I'm getting from the article) - the political situation in Poland was unstable (as it was in Weimar Germany) but that didn't start with the customs war. Germany tried to further destablize Polish politics through the customs war, but after Pilsduski's coup it really didn't have much of an effect.

Interestingly many economic history books/articles on both interwar Germany and Poland only mention this war in passing, mostly as an example of how trade relations deteriorated in the interwar period globally, between all countries.  Volunteer Marek  21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article also presented the info as the issues were connected to Germans without informing that it concerned a specific group that rejected Polish citizenship but took German one and were expected to leave Poland for Germany per agreements(so called Optaten). I read Lippelt and he makes that distinction very clearly. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Coal industry affected by the war
Why is it dubious and needs discussion? Look here: "Dominujące w mieście górnictwo węgla kamiennego po wojnie celnej z Niemcami w latach dwudziestych oraz upływie ważności umowy o bezcłowym eksporcie węgla górnośląskiego do Niemiec przeżywało okres stagnacji. Kopalnia węgla „Nowa Przemsza”, w dzisiejszej dzielnicy Brzezinka, uległa likwidacji." (source: http://www.myslowice.pl/gospodarka.php?t=kier_roz_02) or here: "Dodatkowo sytuację kopalni pogorszyła wojna celna 1925 roku pomiędzy Polska a Niemcami, która spowodowała odcięcie kopalń dąbrowskich od odbiorców węgla w niemieckiej części Górnego Śląska. Kopalnia "REDEN" w 1925 roku pracuje tylko 3 dni w tygodniu. Ilość dni roboczych utrzymywał się na poziomie 3-5 dni aż do zamknięcia kopalni w 1934 r." (source: http://dabrowa.pl/dg_zaklad-kopalnia_reden.htm). Tymek (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The tag was slightly in the wrong place at the end of the sentence, rather than at the end of the specific dubious part. AFAIK Germany didn't just "decided to raise customs duty" on coal. They banned imports of Polish coal altogether - in the negotiations that would follow they were willing to implement a very low quota. The only part I might be wrong on is that this very low quota (100k tons or so) might have been in effect during the period before negotiations started, I'm not 100%, I'll have to look that up.  Volunteer Marek   00:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish-German relations
I have doubts if this chapter is necessary. Or perhaps Molobo should stop adding information about German settlers and Germanization to all articles he encounters. This is not related to the topic in any way. Tymek (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The information was added by user HerkusMonte not me(although he made false impression that measures were directed against all Germans, rather than just optants), the source provided(Lippelt) and others make connections between the war and issue of optaten.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry then, my apologies. Still I do not think it is necessary. Tymek (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that most of this is not necessary. The only relevant part is about the issues of "Optaten" and "Liquidations" which were tied to trade negotiations. Most of the stuff on either side should be cut.
 * I didn't realize this was up for DYK. I keep meaning to make some edits on the economics of it, but have been putting it off. I'll try to get working on it.  Volunteer Marek   23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And sadly this edit here demonstrates HK has removed information that Polish optants were treated in the same way as German ones. I am very disappointed in this behaviour, first we had misleading information suggesting that all Germans were treated in such way, now we have removal of information that shows Germans weren't singled out. This unfortunately suggests attempts to portray the events in non-neutral way. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.It's "Optanten" not "Optaten", please at least try to use the correct term.
 * 2.The fate of Polish nationals in Germany played no role in the tariff war.
 * 3.All German nationals were treated this way (don't mix up "nationals" and ethnicity).HerkusMonte (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

- where do you see this? He says it was partly reaction to German claims and partly response to German nationalism and anti-Polish prejudice ("antipolnischen Vorurteil").

Did you just change "anti-Polish nationalism" to "anti-German nationalism", completely changing the meaning?  Volunteer Marek  07:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * page 328: "In ihr setzte sich ebenso der auf Ausschluß des Deutschtums drängende Nationalismus der ersten Stunde fort." HerkusMonte (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that say that the aim was to prevent/counteract German nationalism? It doesn't talk about "Anti-Deutsch Nationalismus". The (German) source most certainly talks about German anti-Polish prejudice. Not about "anti-German nationalism".  Volunteer Marek   07:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "exclusion of Germans" is hardly part of German nationalism. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing in there about "anti-German nationalism". Plenty of stuff about German "anti-Polish prejudice". Your edit is simply not supported by the source and in fact goes against of much of what it says.  Volunteer Marek   07:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You might rather ask a German-speaker about what Lippelt writes instead of making bad faith assumptions. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not making any assumptions, it's pretty clear what the source is saying. One more time, nothing in there about "anti-German nationalism".  Volunteer Marek   08:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the previous paragraph states "The persistent refusal to accept the Eastern border remained a maxim of Germany's Eastern policy". This paragraph describes Sikorski's speech as stating that the issue of Optanten and Liquidations should be settled quickly so that German nationalists and statesman are forced to accept the existence of the Polish state, rather than keep trying to destroy it. This attitude, of trying to settle the question quickly, was a response to German irredentism and to anti-Polish prejudice on the part of German statesmen. The next page I believe, talks about how the issue of "minority rights" was essentially an excuse/stand-in for trying to revise the border and destabilize Poland, since German diplomats could not explicitly talk about grabbing Polish land (though, eventually they even went as far as to make these "fantastic" demands explicit). And all this from a German author.  Volunteer Marek   08:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the past you used WP:Copyvio several times to remove stuff you rated as "literal translation". You are right, Lippelt doesn't use the term "anti-German", he talks about the "Auschluß des Deutschtums" for nationalistic reasons, "Ausschluß" means exclusion, expulsion or elimination . I hope you are not going to remove the "new" version because of WP:copyvio. BTW: "All this from a German author" - you should think about your own prejudices. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past I removed Copyvios when there were copyvios. What in the world does that have to do with this situation? Avoiding copyvios is not a license to engage in original research or misrepresent sources. I know what Aussluss (or Auschluss) means. The point is nowhere does he talk about "anti-German nationalism". He talks about "anti-Polish prejudice", yes, but that's a different thing, right?
 * And my comment about "All this from a German author" refers simply to the fact that the usual argument in these situations is that because some source is Polish it must obviously be wrong. Here, you don't get to make that argument. So please lay off the personal attacks.  Volunteer Marek   09:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to stick to the facts: Lippelt does mention two different reasons for Sikorski's speech a) the German territorial claims and b) the nationalistic motivated desire to exclude (expell, eliminate) Germans from Poland, which is what I summarized as "anti-German nationalism". Talking about personal attacks: to call this a "egregerious misrepresentation" (sic!) is at least close to it. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look. The whole section of Lippelt's article is all about how German policy was motivated by revanchist desires for Polish territory, how it tried to exploit the issue of minorities to push this agenda, how it saw trade negotiations as a leverage to destablize Poland which it saw as a temporary state and how it was motivated in large measure by "anti-Polish prejudice". YOU cherry picked one small part of that whole section about Sikorski's speech and spun it into something that is AT BEST Original Research. And in your defense you then pick on spelling of words ("Optaten" and "egregerious"). However mis-spelled, I think my characterization was correct.  Volunteer Marek   11:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, the evil character of Nobel-laureate Gustav Stresemann and the Weimar German policy in general is presented at length, just that single sentence about a "not that pleasant" facet of Polish policy seems to be intolerable. In fact it's a matter of NPOV to present both aspects. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the evil character of Nobel-laureate Gustav Stresemann - you realize that Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat got the Nobel peace prize too, right? Why is this suppose to impress anyone? Oh yeah, and that guy that actually helped to put those articles in the Versailles treaty which stipulated the "liquidations" of the "Optanten" property and mandated that Germany extend the "most favored nation" clause, he got one too.  Volunteer Marek   08:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to make the meaning of that passage from Lippelt clear: HerkusMonte's rendering is correct; he is clearly speaking (also) of Polish nationalism at that point. Here's a translation in context: "Under the perspective of German revisionism, the protection of the interests of the German minority in Poland took on the character of a policy for "strengthening the German ethnicity", and was bound to provoke Polish repressive measures against this minority. A speech by prime minister Sikorski of April 1923 is illustrative of this connection. He stated that the process of de-germanization must be pushed ahead through decisive steps on the issue of liquidations and through the expulsion of the optants, so that German nationalists and politicians should be taught the lesson that their view of the preliminary nature of the Polish western border was erroneous. It has to be said that this stance was not purely a reaction to German revisionism. It was also a continuation of the nationalism of the early days, which had been intent on excluding the German element, and this in turn was interconnected to anti-Polish sentiment on the other side." – Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters, "Vorurteil" is clearly not "sentiment", it's "prejudice". So it's "anti-Polish prejudice" not "anti-Polish sentiment".  Volunteer Marek   22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

shortening the article
As mentioned above, this article strays off topic and some stuff should be cut. Here is some passages that I think should be removed so that the article can properly focus on the economic conflict rather than side issues (while at the same time making sure that the relevant parts are mentioned).

So remove: "In addition, the collapse of Austria-Hungary destroyed the 19th century economic ties of Galicia with Austria and Bohemia." - not directly pertinent.

"The Polish government sought to keep the granting of citizenship in tight limits, e.g. people who had left the area in the post-war turmoils were regarded "tacit Optants".[6] According to the Minorities Treaty (also called the "Little Versailles Treaty") signed by Poland, all former citizens of partitioning powers who rejected Polish citizenship had to leave the country by 10 January 1923. This concerned citizens of Russia, Hungary, Austria and Germany, though in the case of Germans opting for German citizenship, there was no precise date established for them to leave." - not directly pertinent.

"but refused to grant most favoured nation status to German goods" - based on an interpretation of a primary source. If a secondary source can be found to corroborate this interpretation, can be put back in.

"Mass unemployment followed, inflation returned, and Warsaw had to print extra quantities of money, which resulted in a budget deficit. In November 1925, the government of Władysław Grabski collapsed." - unsourced and inaccurate. It completely flips the causality. Warsaw ran a budget deficit, it printed money ro cover it then inflation returned. The budget deficit was the cause of inflation not a result (and it certainly wasn't a result of printing money - that makes no sense what so ever). But like I said before, inflation, unemployment, all those things were there before the customs war started. The customs war did not cause any of this. The only thing that happened is that German politicians thought they could use the customs war to FURTHER destabilize the Polish economy - which didn't happen.

 Volunteer Marek  23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German–Polish customs war. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140729024023/http://biznes.pwn.pl/haslo/3883929/celna-wojna.html to http://biznes.pwn.pl/haslo/3883929/celna-wojna.html

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) 03:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)