Talk:History of Gdańsk/Archives/2012/April

General omissions and deletions to consider
what exactly does the phrase return the sword mean here?

Mysterious Gothiscandza land
I have removed the controvercial text, as they do not belong to the Gdansk article: ''The coast was called 'Gothiscandza' by Jordanes; Tacitus also referred to it in his 'Germania'. Both historians believed the area to be populated. ''

Jordanes about the Goths:
Jordanes book is full of legends, an it says the Goths sailed from the island of Scandia/Scandza to the lower coast of the Ocean with 3 ships and their new land was called 'Gothiscandza'. As a next step they attacked the 'Ulmerugii' (Island Rugians).

As you can see the Jordanes says nothing about Gdansk, and gives no clue where the Gohiscandza land was located. Scandia island is usually identified with Scandinavia peninsula or Gotland island, the ocean is usually identified with the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, Ulmerugii are usually identified with the inhabitants of Ruegen island.

The results are:
 * We don't know where the mysterious Gothiscandza land was located
 * Gothiscandza was most probably located in Holstein or Mecklenburg not necessary oposite to Ruegen island
 * Gothiscandza (Gothic End??) could also be the Scania peninsula, southern part of Scandivavia

PolishPoliticians 20:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Polish Politician, see Gothiscandza and Wielbark culture if you have information to add that is unknown to most scholarship.--Wiglaf 08:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Detailed history of Gdansk
"The desire to rescind the Allied Powers' decision on the status of the city's 400,000 citizens, the majority of them local Kashub descents. "

This sentence doesn't make any sense, but I have no idea what it was intended to mean, so I can't correct it. Maybe the author could fix it.

Talk:History of Gdansk/Moved from Gdansk

---

Historical summary
According to the archeologists the Gdańsk stronghold was constructed in the 980s, however the year 997 has in recent years been considered to be the date of the foundation of the city itself, as the year in which Saint Adalbert of Prague (sent by the Polish king Boleslav the Brave) have baptized the Gdansk inhabitants (urbs Gyddanyzc). In the folowing years Gdansk was the main centre of a Polish splinter duchy ruled by the dynasty of Dukes of Pomerania. The most famous of them, Swantipolk II, has granted local autonomy charter in ca. 1235 to the city that had some 2,000 inhabitants. Gdansk has become a flourishing trading city with some 10,000 inhanbitants by the year 1308, when it was occupied and demolished by the Teutonic Knights (''the Gdańsk massacre of November 13, 1308). This lead to the city decline and to a series of wars between the rebelious Knights and the Polish kings, ended with the Peace of Kalisz in 1343 when the Knights acknowleged the Polish sovereignty over Pomerania. This allowed the new foundation of the Gdansk municipality in 1343 and a flourishing development of the grains exports from Poland via the Vistula river trading routes. When a new war broke in 1409 ended with the Battle of Grunwald (1410) Gdańsk accepted direct Polish kings overlordship, but with Peace of Torun (1411) Gdańsk returned to the Teutonic Knights administration again. In 1440 Gdańsk participated in the foundation of the Prussian Union that lead to the Thirteen Years War (1454-1644) and the incorporation of Gdansk Pomerania, directly to the Polish Crown.

Thanks to the Royal charters granted by the king Casimir the Jagiellonian and the free access to all Polish markets, Gdansk has become the largest and richest Polish seaport and city, responsible for 80% of Polish exports. 16th-17th centuries were the Golden Age of Gdansk trade and culture. Gdansk ihabitants from various etnic groups (Poles, Germans, Jews and the Dutch being the largest) contributed to the specific Gdansk identity and richest culture of the period. The city suffered slowly economic decline becauce of the wars in the 18th century, which ended with the Partitions of Poland in 1772-1793. Gdansk citizens fought fiercefully for Polish independence, but they had to accept the city's occupation by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793 and, again in 1815, after a short period of Free City (1806-1815). In contrast to the Polish period, under the Prussian administration Gdansk has become an unimportant city dominated by the military garrison and the administration officials. Despite the enforced Germanisation policies the end of 19th century marked the revival of Polish and Kashubian organizations, publishing and culture.

After the World War I (1914-1918) when Poland regained her independence in 1918 the Poles hoped to restore Gdansk as they were promised 'a free access to the sea'' by the Allies. They were very unhappy when it tirned out the Gdansk was not restored to the full Polish sovereignty, but was made a Free City, formally an autonomous part of Poland, under protection of the League of Nations, but in reality dominated by the local Germans. Because the Gdansk authorities has made many obstacle to the Polish trade, and not allowed the Poles to settle in the city, the Polish government decided to invest in construction of the nearby seaport of Gdynia, which in the following years had taken the majority of Polish exports. The quarels beetwen the Nazi Germany and Poland over control of Gda&#324;sk has led the German invasion of Poland on 1st September 1939 and the outbreak of the World War II. Gdansk was occupied by the Nazi Germans, who started a programme of externination of all Poles in the region: thousands were executed in the massacres in Zaspa and Piasnica Forest in 1939, thousands more sentenced to Stuthof concentation camp, others were expelled to the General Gouvernment.

Gda&#324;sk was liberated by the Polish and Soviet forces on March 30, 1945 after a fierce battle with the defending Germans. 90% of the city was put to ruins, it's estimated that 40% of pre-war population was killed during the war. By the decision of the Allies at the Yalta Conference and the Potsdam Conference Gda&#324;sk was ceded to full Polish sovereignty. The city was raised from ruins in the 1950s and 1960s to become a major industrial centre of Poland.

Gdansk was the scene of anti-government demonstrations which led to the downfall of Poland's communist leader Wladyslaw Gomulka in December 1970, and ten years later was the birthplace of the Solidarity trade union movement, whose opposition to the government led to the end of communist party rule (1989) and the election as president of Poland of its leader Lech Walesa. It remains today a major port and industrial city.

Massacre of Gdansk, 13 November 1308
(restored section removed by John http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Gdansk&diff=4317768&oldid=4273676)

Current text seems to be very weird: ''According to traditional Polish historiography all the inhabitants of the city, both Polish and German, were brutally slaughtered. However many historians claim that the massacre never happened. '' The fact of the massacre is well documented, and no serious historian question the fact itself, although historians disagree about the extent of the slaughter. The best Polish historian of the 16th century descibes the Gdansk massacre in these words: ''No person of Polish nationality was spared, whatever his condition, sex or age might be, but they put to death without mercy individuals of age and under age, including childern and infants at the breast, so that the news of this cruelty should spread and break the nerve of others who would fear to offer resistance in other towns and fortified places, and thereby render secure their occupation of the said land. Seldom was the spilling of Polish blood attending the conqest of any place more profuse, seldom the slaughter more inhuman.  --- Published as: Dlugosii Joannis canonici Cracoviensis Historiae Polonicae, libri XII, Cracoviae 1876, III, p. 44'' The massacre is mentioned in the following historical sources:
 * papal bull of Clement V, dated Avignon, 19 June 1310 mentions that the Teutonic Knights are accused of killing of 10.000 Gdansk inhabitants including children
 * Riga trial 1312: witness say about the Gdansk massacre among the other accusations againts the Teutonic Order
 * Inowroclaw and Warsaw trials in 1320s: Poland vs. Teutonic Order - witnesses describe with detail the Teotonic atrocites commited in the conquest of Gdansk and Pomerania: Published as Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordimque Cruciferorum I, Posnania 1890, pp. 423,428
 * yearbooks and chronicles, for example Torun Yearbook (Annalista Thorunensis) and Oliva Chronicle
 * The Teutonic Knights replied that they have executed only 16 'bandits' and the others missing persons wnet in unknown direction: the mentioned citizens destroyed the houses of the town of their own free will and went to live in other parts.

Gdansk1308 14:35, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

World War 2 victims
"World War II (1939–1945)" section of the article mentions 85,000 locals perished in Stutthof and 60,000 urdered in Piaśnica, yet is summarises the number of victims, including those of Soviet "liberation" of the city to 100,000 only. Is there an exas explanation to this phenomenon ? --Lysy (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles for each camp indicate that the numbers listed in the History of Gdańsk indicate total number of victims killed there, not that they all came from the Gdańsk region. I will make the changes in the article. Olessi 19:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

External links in German language
This is English language wikipedia. I don't think links to pages in German language are either useful or in place here. We should not assume that users of en.wikipedia have the command of German. I don't want to exercise WP:POINT here, but would you like to see links to Polish language pages on Gdańsk history here as well ? I'm sure that many more could be easily added if this is what we really want. Do we ? --Lysy (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally encourage more links, actually. If it is a relevant, informative link, then I think it should be supported. AFAIK, posting external links in foreign languages is not against Wiki policy, and there are countless articles that have such links. A 5 minute search of just Poland brings up these articles with Polish-language links: Olsztyn, Bydgoszcz, Braniewo, Elbląg, Szczecin, Poznań etc. I unfortunately can only read occasional words in Polish, but I have nothing against contributors including foreign links. Olessi 21:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, we differ here. I think I remember removing links to Polish language pages in Vilnius article as they seemed to upset Lithuanian editors there. The level of sensitivity in Germans might differ, though ;-) (sorry, silly me). But seriously, I respect your opinion, as long as these are the links to informative and respectable sources concerning Danzig history specifically. Are they ? --Lysy (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for Germans, actually, because I'm an American who has learned German in school. I can only speak for myself, and I don't mind external sites. Occasionally, I have found external sites on articles that are basically personal webpages or definitely works in progress- those I remove, but I haven't found many of them. The two German-language pages on this page are relevant, IMO. This first link seems to be more of a cultural site describing different organizations and museums connected with the city's history as "Danzig". This second link seems to be a very useful resource, directly stating on its intro page that it strives to be an informative resource connecting Germans and Poles with each other "Danzig / Gdansk kann und wird eine Schnittstelle zwischen unseren Völkern sein." It has the history of the city, a discussion forum, travel tips, genealogy pages, etc. Its focus is on the city itself and the people who have made it such a great city. Neither are revisionist, although the first link is more boring and "stuffy" than the second. Olessi 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Time for Common Sense to Prevail
I find it difficult to believe the utter tripe that is written up here. Polish nationalist propaganda has always been fairly fanatical and its smears vitriolic. Polish history books have thus virtually totally discredited themselves and their claims and stories are simply dismissed by all leading academics because they are so unbalanced. I see that virtually all the sources mentioned above are Polish books. Worthless. As to the Papal Bull mentioned can we have an English language source for this please (not a Polish book). And is there something we are not being told about this infamous slaughter in Danzig? I mean, did the populance hold out for some time? And how does that differ from the slaughter of the entire male population of Marburg by the Catholic armies because they refused to surrender and so lengthened the seige?

Of course, Polish armies always behaved scrupulously and are beyond reproach? We shall ignore the fact that they have invaded and argued with every single neighbour they ever had right into the 20th century.

I think, all things considered, that the Gadansk pages should be taken down if they are not going to be an accurate representation of history.

Christchurch

On the contrary-it is the germans that have always been invading every one of its neighbours.That's exactly why you germans have always been hated throughout all of Europe through all the ages and are hated now too.Don't judge others by your german standards he he. And yes,Polish armies have always behaved swell not like german sadistic murderers such as the crossmen,the prussians under the frederics of the XVIIIth century,bismarck,hitler,frank

PolskiNarodowiec1985~ —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Sorry, I must have rolled back on an outdated page in my browser, so this is my reversion back to your comments. Would you consider making suggestions as to how render the article neutral? Certainly, the topic is historically important, and removal of it from Wikipedia would result in the loss of a significant article. --HappyCamper 14:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, try to raise specific issues rather than pro personam arguments. If you feel that something is wrong and should be corrected - do state it. Also, if you dispute some specific source or a book - explain why. So far you've suggested that all books in Polish are biased, from cook books to guidebooks and from Kwazulu language handbooks to user manuals. If that's what you mean then perhaps there's nothing to worry about. However, if you have some specific issues then do not hesitate. Halibutt 21:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, you might want to read a tad on meta:How to deal with Poles :) Halibutt 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

St. Adalbert in Gdańsk in 997
I reverted the edit putting in doubt the date of St. Adfalbert visit to Gdańsk. I could use many sources confirming the visit date. However, I cannot skip the opportunity of using the pope as my source. And stright from the Vatican server! During the Papal Mass of 5 June, 1999, John Paul II started his homily with the following words:
 * “I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again” (Phil 1:25-26). Paul tells us this in today’s Liturgy; the words are from the Letter to the Philippians, but they ring out in a splendid way here, in the footsteps of Adalbert. Rather than Paul speaking to the Philippians, it is as if Adalbert were speaking to us Poles.


 * The echo of this voice is constantly heard in this land where the Patron of the Church of Gdansk suffered death by martyrdom. "Christ for him was everything, and death a gain" (cf. Phil 1:21). In 997 he reached Gdansk, where he proclaimed the Gospel and administered Holy Baptism. Saint Adalbert glorified Christ by his fervent life and heroic death. During my earlier pilgrimage to Gniezno, at the tomb of Saint Adalbert, I said that he followed Christ “as a faithful and generous servant, bearing witness to him at the cost of his very life. And behold, the Father has honoured him. The people of God surrounded him on earth with the veneration reserved to a saint, in the conviction that a martyr of Christ in heaven is surrounded with glory ... His death by martyrdom ... is at the foundation of the Polish Church and in a certain sense of the Polish State itself (Homily in Gniezno, 3 June 1997). Two years after his death, the Church proclaimed Adalbert a saint and today, in celebrating this Most Holy Sacrifice, I commemorate the millennium of his canonization.

I hope you dare not deny the words of His Holiness. ProudPomeranian 20:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Scots in Gdańsk
Would it be worth mentioning that during 16th/17th Centuries there was massive Scottish migration to Prussia and Poland. Allegedly by the 17th Century around 30% of Gdańsk was of Scottish descent.

According to Th A Fischer Scots in Germany: (1902) http://www.electricscotland.com/history/germany/scotsndx.htm

''The earliest settlement of the Scots took place in Gdańsk, as we have seen; but the exact date of the foundation of the suburb, called ‘Alt-Schottland’ (Old Scotland), so called after a colony of Scottish weavers, is difficult to ascertain. We shall not go wrong, however, if we fix the year of the first arrival of the colonists at about 1380. With this the historian Goldbeck agrees, and adds, that the place must have been tolerably well cultivated in the XIVth Century, for it was burnt to the ground in 1520, when the Poles had engaged upon a war of two years’ duration with Albrecht, the head or ‘Hochmeister’ of the Teutonic Order and afterwards first Duke of Prussia. The Carthusian Prior Schwengel (ca. 1720) relates, that Alt-Schottland was inhabited originally by so-called "gardiners," i.e. small peasant-proprietors, and that not till later on tradespeople, especially Scottish linen-weavers and tanners, had settled there. According to him the place was already known as "Alt-Schottland" in 1433, when it was burned by the Hussites. He further tells us, that on account of the growing prosperity of the place, the people of Danzig procured the privilege, that within a radius of five miles no town was to be built and no trade to be established that was commonly carried on in townships only. But already in 1526 the Bishop takes the part of the linen-weavers. This is to be explained from the fact, that ‘Schottland’ and other small places in the neighbourhood of Danzig belonged to the so-called ‘liberties of the Church,’ that is to say, to the property of the Bishop of Leslau and the Monastery of Pelplin. These ‘liberties’ became Prussian possessions at the first division of Poland in 1772, whilst the town of Danzig itself obtained the dignity of a ‘free City.’''(Trevek (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia entry for William Douglas (his death) has interesting info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Douglas_of_Nithsdale

(83.13.39.98 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Stop using foreign names to this Polish city of mine. PolskiNarodowiec1985PolskiNarodowiec1985 (talk)

Ridden with POV issues, just like the main Gdansk/Danzig/Gdansk/Danzig/Gdansk/Danzig article
This article simply does not meet NPOV standards. It is ridden with superfluous phrases such as "under its original Polish name Gdańsk," "returned to Poland," etc. Obvious POV aside, these are sprinkled in even when the context isn't really appropriate - it is simply poor writing. The section about the Free City of Danzig that "not surprisingly" wanted nothing to do with Nazi Germany is, shall we say, not up to linguistic standards for an encyclopedia. Moreover, it is ironic that the POV in that statement contradicts the later POV that comes through (in both this and in the main Danzig/Gdansk article) that Danzig's 98% German population was nothing but a bunch of Nazi collaborators who deserved to be expelled, dispossessed, replaced, and have their history erased.Udibi (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reminder
Quoted content or titles are not subject to Gdańsk vote-only content entered by Wikipedians. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source that Isaak van dem Blocke used the term "Gdańsk" for his painting. That modern Polish sources use this name isn't surprising but irrelevant for the Gdańsk vote. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. And you know perfectly well that it's not "modern Polish sources", but rather that it is the ENGLISH name of the painting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also can you point out where the Gdansk/Danzig vote says anything about the names "Gyddanzyc", "Stetinum", or "Dantzike"? Cuz I'm not seeing it. And all of these are already listed in the article, don't over do with the German name pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gdansk population in 1308
Regarding this sentence "Polish reports spread by Władysław claimed that 10,000 inhabitants were slain in the city,[5] although that number has also been considered greater than the city's population at the time". There is a problem with the second part, about "considered greater than the city's population at the time"

First, this is cherry picking sources. You have one sources which makes this claim. You have several other sources which take the claim at more or less face value. This is clearly undue pov pushing of a particular view ("the massacre didn't really happen")

Second, obviously the exact number killed was not the nice round number of 10,000. Obviously such a number is an approximation. And even perhaps a somewhat of an exaggeration. But would it really matter if 8,000 got killed rather than 10,000? The point is that the occurrence of the massacre itself, whatever the precise number of victims, is widely accepted by historians (of all nationalities). Yet, including this snippet comment makes it appear as if the massacre didn't happen. Again, this is undue pov pushing of a particular view.

Third, can we get the precise quote from Urban for this statement?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That sentence was added by User:Olessi in 2006, the source should be easily accessible in any US library. Per WP:AGF, I don't believe Olessi wrote anything not backed by the source. The sentence does not at all imply "the massacre never happened", it explains why 10,000 is an extremely unlikely exaggeration and this is widely accepted by modern historians (e.g. Boockmann). It's neither undue nor POVish to mention critical views, rather a matter of NPOV. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with including "critical views" and I think it would be fine to mention that the precise number of 10,000 has been questioned. The problem is with doing that in a way which suggests that the massacre didn't happen at all. How about having "although the exact number has not been established by historians" or something like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to change the current version, which does not at all claim "the massacre didn't happen", and replace it with a nebulous comment. 10,000 is an exaggeration, higher than the number of inhabitants at that time (mediaval towns were much smaller than modern towns), that's what Urban says and that's what we should describe. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Urban is just one of the many sources we could cite here. And the current wording does suggest that "it didn't happen, because there weren't that many people". So why not say "the actual number is disputed". If you'd like we could say "and probably lower". Btw, 10000 is definitely on the high side for a medieval town but not wholly implausible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

False claim not supported by source.
Poles, Kashubians, leading members of the Jewish community[26] and oppositional Germans[27] were sent to concentration camps, The source doesn't contain that claim as far as I can see. It says that Germans were in there but makes no claim about their political background. Other available scholarly sources actually say that these were normal criminals transferred from Reich-not members of any resistance.I will add that soon--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Add-it is important to note that only a small number of Germans were actually political prisoners. In fact a large number were violent criminals sent to administrate other prisoners by terror-it was actually the Nazi modus operandi. Also the previous sentence gave a feeling of equality between those people targetted for extermination as untermenschen and German prisoners. Since they were of different nature and small part of the camp's population they need to be seperated in text. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to comment your attempt to portray German victims of the Nazi-terror as criminals, while only Poles are "real" vitims. I’m also not going to follow your attempt to categorize victims of Nazi suppression according to their "importance". HerkusMonte (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? That common or violent criminals were sent to camps and used by Nazis to oversee other inmates that were sent due to them being classified as untermenschen is quite known. Are you saying this is untrue. Also are you saying that Jews who were targeted for extermination should be covered in the same manner as say German criminals?

The fact that German criminals were sent to camps to oversee others is well known, examples: ''But with people dying at an accelerating rate, the composition of the camp population had been changing rapidly; the kapos were now our chief tormentors. The most vicious were the German criminals'' Shlomo Venezia, Béatrice Prasquier, Jean Mouttapa ''But some kapos enjoyed the privilege of being personally able to kill prisoners in their charge. The SS often chose German criminals, who all at once took themselves for the masters of the world.'' ''He advised me not to talk with him again, for it could result in severe beatings by the Kapo. He knew our Kapo and told ... The inmates who worked in these barracks were privileged, and were mostly German criminals who were non-Jewish''
 * How dark the heavens: 1400 days in the grip of Nazi terror
 * Inside the gas chambers: eight months in the Sonderkommando
 * Condemned Without Judgement

John Wiernicki "I was told by Major that at the very beginning of the camp's existence, in 1940, Hoss asked Palitzsch to bring from the concentration camp in Sachsenhausen thirty professional German criminals. They were appointed to the highest administrative inmate positions"
 * War in the shadow of Auschwitz: memoirs of a Polish resistance

And for Stutthof itself:

Stasys Yla The kapos (the sergeant-supervisors) came chiefly from former German criminals
 * A priest in Stutthof: human experiences in the world of subhuman

So you see, that this was a common practice by the Nazis to use German criminals to oversee Polish and Jewish and other prisoners. I do not doubt that there was a sparkling of some Germans who fought with Nazis for power and were sent to camps, but I understand that they were very small minority, as the German resistance was very small.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly another verification shows that a false claim was provided not supported by source
While others estimate that about 10 percent of the 130,000 Catholics were Polish I checked this is source supposedly confirming this information. It doesn't speak that at all. It only says that 10% of them were people who used Polish as language. Due to Germanization that German Empire inflicted on Polish population not all ethnic Poles used Polish as their language. This information needs to be corrected--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absurd. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Polonocentric view evident
Large parts of the article seem to have been written by Polish-speakers with a poor command of standard written English, as evident from frequent errors in the use of articles and bizarre words such as "seabord" (for "coast"). A revision of the language would be in order, as well as a revision of the tone of the article, which is clearly biased in order to falsely portray this German city as having been Polish. 85.76.218.97 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Seaboard' is an AmericanismRsloch (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion, and status of Danzig in 1772
First of all, this is a DISCUSSION page. If you disagree with something that has been suggested here, Marek, then you should discuss it, not simply delete the contributions of those with whom you disagree.

Secondly, the suggestion that the inhabitants of Danzig "fought fiercely for it to remain part of Poland" is patently absurd. At the time Danzig was a free German city subject to the authority of the Polish King. This means, in effect, that the city council (Rat) was forced to pay yearly tributes to the Polish King. There is absolutely no evidence that the inhabitants of Danzig felt any allegiance whatsoever to the Polish King - Danziger troops never fought in the various wars of the Saxon and Polish kings. Danzig was plundered by the Polish troops of August the Strong, for example, in 1702. The Danzigers of 1772 wanted to preserve their autonomy and not be incorporated into Prussia. Here's an online-available source that details the situation in Danzig in 1772 (Gotthilf Löschin, Geschichte Danzigs von der ältesten bis zur neuesten Zeit, Volume 2. Danzig: Ewert, 1828). http://books.google.com/books?id=yP8AAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:plKBYxiY5uMC&hl=en&ei=RUOgTvrcFtDDtAbB85WfAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

The discussion of the events of 1772 make it entirely clear that the Danzigers had nothing to do with Poland - They were on their own to deal with the King of Prussia and his demands. Take a look at, for example, page 238ff. The King of Poland demands 8,000 ducats from Danzig before he will even consider interfering in the dispute between Danzig and Prussia. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the Lutheran, German, autonomous Danzigers would fight to "remain part of Poland". In fact, there was no fighting between Prussians and Danzigers at all in 1772 - only the taking of some hostages, who had to be bought back by the Rat. Citing some nationalistic Polish historian does nothing to change this. This article continues to need some serious revision - as it stands now the standard of English is extremely poor, and the Polish POV is one-sided and inaccurate.

Timelines
In the 'Timeline' section it is stated that the city (up to 2010) experienced 706 years of Polish rule plus the 318 years of non Polish rule. That is a combined total of 1,024 years. The city was founded in 997. 997 to 2010 is 1,013 years. Unless I've messed up the maths the figures look to be wrong.Rsloch (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Date corrected above Rsloch (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 2010-977=1033. Volunteer Marek 21:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be 723 under Polish rule and 310 under "other", including Free City, war, disputed, etc. Volunteer Marek 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)