Talk:Germany–Poland relations

Problems
This article has several problems. For instance, what it "Germany" meaning in this context? The state formed in 1871? When covering history before 1871, it would be more logical to describe relations between Germans and Poles rather than "Germany" and "Poland", as both the Germans and the Poles lived in a number of different states, none of which were national-states (not the "German" ones and not the Polish Kingdom). Of course Austrians were as much Germans as the Bavarians or the Prussians, so the article would need to include them as well.

Also, if this is not an article exclusively covering state relations between modern Germany and modern Poland, it should really focus a lot more on relations between people. It's really anachronistic to portray 10th century "Kingdom of Poland [...] relations with the Holy Roman Empire" as an example of German-Polish relations. People who lived in the 10th century were neither primarily Germans nor Poles. Herriet Nom (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From the 10th century, the Kingdom of Poland had relations with the Holy Roman Empire, which were however soon overshadowed by the Polish-Teutonic wars.

Could anyone fill in on those HRE-Poland relations? I'm very curious. 77.100.227.20 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"npov" doesn't begin to describe it
This is one of those articles which are so horrible that I'm not even sure what tags to slap it up with. For starters, it's immediately obvious that there's trouble when the lede skips from Polish-Teutonic wars (13-15th centuries) right to the partitions of Poland (18th century). It then tops that by having a section on "Middle Ages" followed right up by a section on "Twentieth Century". Because, you know, nothing happened between the Middle Ages and 20th century, they occurred one right after the other.

And then there are just more ... minor - but only in relative terms (as in really bad, but not compared to the quality of the article as a whole) - issues. For example, the sentence "Like the Kingdom of Germany grew out of the German stem duchies of East Francia ..." manages to suggest that the Polish state of Mieszko also "grew" out of the German stem duchies of East Francia. Or "(Mieszko) for the first time met with the forces of King Otto I of Germany" - nonsense, Mieszko and Otto I were essentially allies. Both against non-Christian Slavs and renegade German barons, like Wichman. The remainder of the section has some roughly-true historical narrative in it but it's mostly a confused and irrelevant jumble.

And then of course we skip from Mieszko I (10th century) right to ... "when in 1918 Poland regained her independence". Come on, at the very least Saxony and the Polish-Saxon kings, deserve a mention. This is a perfect example of why there should be a simple (as opposed to the usual  etc.) tag that one could label these kinds of articles with. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germany–Poland relations. 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/20090625210208/http://www.prezydent.pl:80/x.node?id=44 to http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=44

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) 03:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
- please justify the removal: Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The end of an independent Poland in 1795 in the lede - at present our lede may suggest to the uninformed reader that there was a Poland between 1795 and 1918.
 * 2) The language of "regained its place on the map" in the lede - it is not our place to suggest that such a place in the map belonged to Poland (nor is the statement accurate, as 1918/1921 Poland was situated geographically in a different location than the 1772 Commonwealth.
 * 3) Polish-German discussions on expulsion of the Jews.


 * 1 That's implied.
 * 2 Nothing wrong with that language. Your statement is strange and suggests you believe that it Poland DIDN'T "belong" on the map. Not sure why we should accommodate such extremist and fringe views.
 * 3 WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"at present our lede may suggest to the uninformed reader that there was a Poland between 1795 and 1918" There were Polish states.:
 * Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria or "Austrian Poland" (1772-1918).
 * Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815).
 * Congress Poland (1815–1867/1915). Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To be precise - independent Polish states? Or is this article to explore German relations with the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (Austrian partition) whose foriegn affairs were controlled by Habsburgs/Austria/Austria-Hungary? And what is the NPOV issue with well sourced information on Polish discussions with Germany over the fate of European Jews in 1937-9?Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Marcin 303,

please stop reverts and discuss first instead.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC))


 * Okay, so I'm asking you these same questions here, so you can respond, since you're restoring inaccurate information without responding on your talk page. Could you please answer each of these questions here?
 * Okay, so I'm asking you these same questions here, so you can respond, since you're restoring inaccurate information without responding on your talk page. Could you please answer each of these questions here?


 * 1) Much of this territory had been part of Poland in earlier centuries is wrong and misleading, because all of those territories were in the past part of Poland, not just much. Do you disagree?
 * 2) Why do you erase the mentions of the uprisings and instead insist on the usage of vague and confusing phrasing such as Polish and German nationalists fought over the right to the disputed land?
 * 3) Why do you insist that all people who fought on either side during those uprisings had nationalist political views? Why make such generalizations? Such assumptions and generalizations are unjustified and pointless.
 * 4) The total number of Germans that either fled or were expelled from Central and Eastern Europe is estimated at 12 to 15 million, with the West German government putting the total number at 14.6 million, so 16 million in regards to Poland alone is clearly incorrect. Do you disagree?
 * 5) Fleeings and expulsions is a more chronologically correct description than expulsions and fleeings. How can anyone flee after being expelled? Do you agree?
 * 6) You've erased the mention of war destruction of Poland despite the reference. Why?
 * 7) As you said, Germanic tribes are indeed irrelevant to 20th century happenings, but what does this have to do with the fact that Slavic and Baltic people including Poles inhabited Central Europe in the Middle Ages, when Poland already existed, and before the Ostsiedlung even started?
 * 8) If you agree with any of the arguments above, could you please restore the information you deleted, at least the info that you agree with? Marcin 303 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please drop erroneous assertions, I have always answered you in the talk page. Sure, I said I will answer here.
 * - to be precise, please specify for each territories when and where they belonged any of the the entities e.g. listed here Kingdom of Poland
 * - it's not erasing, it's a restoration to the previous versions, it is a fact these territories were disputed between the two
 * - See the previous point, we may rephrase the sentence, present your proposals here
 * - Ok, will be corrected
 * - Ok
 * - Again, just restored per status quo, but will readd it
 * - I consider generally irrelevant to put disputes on the territories or insiting who and when lived there, with implicit assertion of claims. We may mention about the alltogether without classifying, that true history these lands were part of ongoing dispute between them etc.
 * - I do now on that part where we agreed and/or applicable.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Greater Poland, Kuyavia, Gdańsk Pomerania, Chełmno Land and Silesia were all part of Poland since the 10th century, after Poland was established, while Masuria was eventually included within the Kingdom of Poland as a fiefdom per the 1466 treaty. All of these territories were part of Poland until the Partitions of Poland (outside of periods of Teutonic rule/occupation in the late Middle Ages), except for Silesia and Masuria which were lost by Poland earlier. Greater Poland, Kuyavia, Gdańsk Pomerania and Chełmno Land formed the majority of the territories lost to Prussia in the Partitions of Poland, and Greater Poland and Gdańsk Pomerania were regained by Poland in majority, not entirely, hence the concise statement Eventually, Poland regained the majority of the lands lost to Prussia in the Partitions of Poland, and parts of the territories lost even earlier.

11 million is a more accurate number than 14.6 million. 11 million is the estimated German population east of the Oder and Neisse rivers in 1945 (which also includes areas outside of Poland, most notably present-day Kaliningrad), while 14.6 refers to all of Central and Eastern Europe.

After Poland regained independence in 1918, it sought to regain its former western regions, and the Polish Greater Poland uprising of 1918–19 and Silesian Uprisings against Germany broke out in the disputed regions of Greater Poland and Upper Silesia is more accurate, concise and neutral for several reasons:
 * 1) Poland in fact sought to regain its former western regions, as it regained independence (similarly to regaining its other former regions from Austria or Russia).
 * 2) Those were uprisings.
 * 3) Those were Polish uprisings.
 * 4) Those were Polish uprisings against Germany.
 * 5) Those uprisings broke out in Greater Poland and Upper Silesia.
 * 6) Both regions were disputed.
 * 7) Those uprisings should be mentioned by name for clarity and to provide internal links.
 * 8) It doesn't contain any unnecessary assumptions or generalizations about the political views of the people who fought on either side.

In comparison phrasing such as However, particularly in border regions of Upper Silesia and Greater Poland, Polish and German nationalists fought over the right to the disputed land does not provide essential info from points 1-5 and 7. Instead, it is vague and contains unnecessary and unjustified assumptions and generalizations which add no value to the article. Marcin 303 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with this sentence: "After Poland was reestablished in 1918, it sought to regain the disputed regions of Greater Poland and Upper Silesia, thus the Greater Poland uprising of 1918–19 and Silesian Uprisings broke out against Germany."(KIENGIR (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC))

Such phrasing is still inaccurate, as Poland sought to regain not only those two, but also several other regions. It just so happened that uprisings broke out in those two regions.

Also, in regards to the 1945 border shift, the present description is inconsistent. The Soviet Union annexed pre-war eastern Poland so in return Poland received the majority of the pre-war eastern territories of Germany, not the other way around. It should also be mentioned that those pre-war areas of Germany were earlier also under Polish rule, because it is of great importance to the subject, as it hints at its complexity. Omitting this information may look like an attempt at appropriating the entire pre-1945 history of those territories to solely Germany. Such appropriation would be inaccurate and misleading, and it would also be eerily in line with old German nationalist and Nazi attempts at presenting all of those areas as solely German, also by erasing traces of Polish (or other non-German) influence and history, even before the Second World War. Marcin 303 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sure we may find a viable solution, please present here first for review what you wish to add and do not edit the article until consensus has been reached. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

I've already stated my points, to which you have not responded, but neither have you denied them, and yet you are restoring inaccurate and misleading statements, despite my input and without presenting any arguments of your own.
 * 1) I've already stated that all of the areas that passed to Poland from Germany after 1918 were in fact regained by Poland, which lost them either in the Partitions of Poland or earlier. Furthermore, wording such as the Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of its territories in West Prussia, East Upper Silesia and Danzig (Gdansk) and transferred them all to Poland is eerily in line with the rhetoric of interwar Germany, which was dismissive of the Polish history of those areas and fueled German revisionist claims that led to the invasion of Poland, World War II, countless atrocities against the Polish people and aggresive Germanization policies towards the remaining Polish inhabitants, such as forcing them to sign the Volksliste. I think it's unreasonable to regurgitate such rhetoric in a supposedly neutral article about 100 years later. This statement also ignores several regions as if they were of minor importance. To keep the beginning of the article relatively short and concise, I propose a short and concise statement: Under the Treaty of Versailles, Poland regained most of the territories lost to Prussia in the Partitions of Poland and parts of territories lost even earlier.
 * 2) "As a result of World War II and the decision of the Big Three, Poland lost the eastern half of its territory, which was annexed by the Soviet Union, and in return received most of the pre-war eastern territories of Germany, which it had previously lost either in the Partitions of Poland or earlier" is chronologically correct, concise, doesn't contain any unnecessary assumptions, hints at the previous Polish rule and specifies that the decision was made by foreign powers (the Big Three). Those last two pieces of information are crucial to the topic and their omission leaves room for misinterpretation, which I would assume is undesirable, especially given the events from the not so distant past.
 * 3) Don't you find it odd that you want to review my edits as if you were appointed a reviewer, while at the same time you are restoring inaccurate and misleading statements without discussing, and despite the points I've made? Don't you find it odd that adding or restoring inaccuracies doesn't require discussing and approval in your eyes, but correcting them does? I would like to point out that you have not presented any arguments in favor of the statements you are restoring, even though I have already discussed their inaccuracy. Could you please present some arguments, because the fact that those statements were previously added by someone else does not make them more accurate. Furthermore, among the restored erroneous statements, you also added your own, both before and after I pointed out why it's incorrect (some of them were part of historical Polish states). You didn't feel the need to discuss it and "reach a consensus". Please present your arguments and do not restore statements which are clearly inaccurate. Thank You and have a great day. Marcin 303 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Marcin 303,
 * you miss the point. Nope, I responded to everything. We have some community rules, until the end of the dispute reslution the the status quo is displayed. I asked you to present here where and what sentences you wish to modify (you may do it in a (former)->(new) format) and after we should gain consensus for the exact wordage - one I aleady proposed etc. Once we reached that, we may update the article accordingly.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC))


 * 1) Please don't be silly. You did not respond to everything. For example, I just presented my suggestions in points 1-2 above and you didn't respond. Could you please respond to each point I've made? Should I copy and paste these points so you know which ones I'm talking about?
 * 2) In addition, under the pretext of maintaining the status quo, you restore your own new inaccurate statements that were not previously in the article, so the status quo clearly does not apply to them. You did not respond to this point either, so please respond, and please present arguments in favor of such phrasing, since you are so eager to restore it without discussing. Should I also copy and paste this phrasing so you know which one I'm talking about? Marcin 303 (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think should avoid non-civil remarks. I responded already overall, not necessarily to your points one-by-one, since I already merged my answer, so you don't have to copy-paste them again. Well, a few minor corrections/copyedit has been made, otherwhise I did not perform any major addition. As well, I already presented my arguments, as well discussing with you. I already indicated in my last answer how to proceed to achieve consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC))


 * 1) Old/partly yours inaccurate phrasing: "In 1918, Poland regained its place on the map. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of its territories in West Prussia, East Upper Silesia and Danzig (Gdansk) and transferred them all to Poland (some of them were part of historical Polish states)" -> More accurate phrasing: "After World War I, in 1918, Poland regained independence and its place on the map. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Poland regained most of the territories lost to Prussia in the Partitions of Poland and parts of territories lost even earlier". The proposed desription is more accurate, because all of the areas that passed to Poland from Germany after 1918 were in fact regained by Poland, which lost them either in the Partitions of Poland or earlier, not just "some of them were part of historical Polish states", as you wrongly stated in your edit. It is also more neutral, as the old/partly yours phrasing is eerily in line with the rhetoric of interwar Germany, which was dismissive of the Polish history of those areas and fueled German revisionist claims that led to the invasion of Poland, World War II, countless atrocities against the Polish people and aggresive Germanization policies towards the remaining Polish inhabitants, such as forcing them to sign the Volksliste. I think it's unreasonable to regurgitate such rhetoric in a supposedly neutral article about 100 years later. This old/partly yours statement also ignores several regions as if they were of minor importance. My proposed edit is neutral, accurate, and keeps the beginning of the article relatively short and concise.
 * 2) Old/partly yours misleading phrasing: "After World War II, Germany lost its former eastern territories to Poland and the Soviet Union, while Poland lost the eastern half of its territory, which was annexed by the Soviet Union, and in return received most of the pre-war eastern territories of Germany" -> More accurate phrasing: "As a result of World War II and the decision of the Big Three, Poland lost the eastern half of its territory, which was annexed by the Soviet Union, and in return received most of the pre-war eastern territories of Germany, which it had previously lost either in the Partitions of Poland or earlier". The proposed phrasing is chronologically correct, as the Soviet Union annexed pre-war eastern Poland so in return Poland received the majority of the pre-war eastern territories of Germany, not the other way around. The proposed phrasing is also concise, doesn't contain any unnecessary assumptions, hints at the previous Polish rule and specifies that the decision was made by foreign powers (the Big Three). Those last two pieces of information are crucial to the topic and their omission leaves room for misinterpretation, which I would assume is undesirable, especially given the events from the not so distant past. Omitting the mention of previous Polish rule in those areas may look like an attempt at appropriating the entire pre-1945 history of those territories to solely Germany, which is inaccurate and misleading, and would also be eerily in line with old German nationalist and Nazi attempts at presenting all of those areas as solely German, also by erasing traces of Polish (or other non-German) influence and history, even before the Second World War.
 * 3) Thank you for admitting that you have made a few minor corrections/copyedits, however, as I've pointed out, those corrections/copyedits are inaccurate and misleading and added on top of already existing inaccurate and misleading statements, which you still ignore despite my arguments.

I have presented my arguments in a clear and comprehensive manner. Please reply in a similar manner, and answer each point. Marcin 303 (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) - without entering into a long discussion I accept you proposal here
 * (2) - here I agree with recent phrasing, no need to repeat what have been already told once in the article
 * (3) - disagree(KIENGIR (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC))


 * (1) Thank you.
 * (2) Why do you insist on omitting those two crucial pieces of information in the beginning of the article? Do you dispute my arguments? And why do you insist on preserving chronologically incorrect phrasing, even though it's easy to fix, as I have shown? Could you please offer a more comprehensive answer to my arguments?
 * (3) I am not going to argue this point, as I've already provided enough information to back it. Marcin 303 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (2) There is no omit because we don't have to repeat something twice, yes, and I don't see any chronologically incorrect phrasing.
 * (3) That is your opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC))

Allow me to point out two inconsistencies in your logic:
 * (1) You are suggesting that there is no reason to repeat something twice in the same article, yet you are defending wording which repeats the same information twice in one sentence. So which is it?
 * (2) According to your logic, any mention of nearly anything in the beginning of the article is pointless, if it is also mentioned later in the article. Following such logic, we should delete the entire (or almost entire) three paragraphs in the beginning of the article. In my opinion, this would be counterproductive, as the opening paragraphs serve as a synopsis of the topic that should include the essential and most relevant information, which is eventually covered more in depth in the relevant subsections. Do you agree? By disagreeing, you would suggest that introductory paragraphs in various articles throught Wikipedia are useless, and should be removed. Marcin 303 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)