Talk:Oder–Neisse line/Archive 2

rvt. to the former version of Xx236, see discussion - claims the Caesar

 * my both versions were removed.
 * no discussion by the reverter.
 * Summarizing - please write the truth. Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said
Who cares about Nikita Khrushchev?Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Elementary geography
Oder divides Breslau. Please learn geography.Xx236 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture - The Oder-Neisse line at Usedom
The line ended with a German FKK Strand, so the picture presents only part of the truth.Xx236 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the 14 million ethnic Germans deported
All of them by the Oder-Neisse line ? Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Figure caption: "transfer of territory"
I have problems with the "transfer of territory" after the end of World War II. I think that we should find compromises, so that all can live with what is said there. There exist huge amounts of literature on the subject, where everybody first can inform himself, so that it is not necessary to begin a lengthy discussion here. Stalin's aim was to extend the borders of his Soviet empire as far as possible to the west. This was against the political interests of the westerń Allies and, therefore, they never have agreed to any "transfer" in a final legal form (which, by the way,  in the western world would also not be  possible without the involvement of the United Nations). All relevant agreements, which the western Allies in the past have signed, begin with the phrase "pending on a future peace treaty". What had happened immediately after the war was that the German territories concenerd were put under the administration of the People's Republic of Poland. I have changed the figure caption correspondingly and hope that everybody now can live with it. Regards, -- Kaiser von Europa (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It still seems dreadfully pointy - never mind who agreed to what when and under what conditions, it's simply the case that this territory became part of Poland, while the territory on the other side became part of the USSR. I don't know why this picture needs such a lengthy caption anyway - it practically tells its own story (the details being provided by the text of the article).--Kotniski (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, theres is no need to formulate a figure caption in a lax and misleading way, if it is easy to formulate it precisely and in such a manner that no misunderstandings can occur. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Image captions should not be articles unto themselves. And what exactly are these "misunderstandings" which may occur?  Volunteer Marek   16:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are principally unable to distinguish between the meanings of "territory put under the administration of Poland" and "territory transferred to Poland", then WP might perhaps not be the right place for you. The vague description "transferred" can mean anything, whereas "put under administration" is precise.- - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Please avoid potentially unpleasant personal remarks in this area - there's been a history of this.) "Put under administration" is precise, but misleadingly so, as it implies that there was something genuinely temporary about the arrangement, when in fact there wasn't. This territory was transferred to Poland, became part of Poland, was part of post-war Poland... a concept everyone will understand, and many ways to word it without creating a puzzling impression. --Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it goes on here like this all the time, I can imagine the cause - simply look at the present example. I have no more time in the monent and probably come back tomorrow. -- Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

completely irrelevant junk about nude beaches
Not beaches, but the one in Ahlbeck. The "irrelevant junk" is an example of cultural differences created by the border, described by media in Poland and Germany. The picture starting this article shows a way leading to the beach and the sea, but not the beach. I believe that the context of the picture should be described or the picture removed, because it gives a false impression of Korean-style border.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Weird stuff" - 100 000 Polish-German marriages ?
Germany and Poland were separated by the line till 1989. Since that time more than 100 000 Polish-German marriages were registered. Is is "weird stuff" or rather important information?Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was POV
This article presented mostly tensions between Poland and Germany included into it by Polish and German nationalists. It described also facts only till 1990. I try to change the article, I understand that my English is bad but learn sources before you "correct" by removing everything you don't know.Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oder-Neisse bridges
Many bridges were destroied in 1945 or closed and left without maintenance. It was and still is a problem. And we link to Commons in correct way rather than including a link into "See also". Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

MyMoloboAccount edits
Under Polish Soviet demands section, MyMoloboaccount has made the following change:

"whether Stettin, now Szczecin, the traditional seaport of Berlin[10]and a city with a dominant German population with Polish minority, should remain German or be placed in Poland (with an expulsion of the German population)."

Indeed there were Poles living in Stettin/Szczecin but 3,000 people at the start of World War One and 2,000 in 1939- the total population as 380,000 in 1939 so that makes this minority 0.7% of the population. I would imagine some cities in the Ruhr region had much larger historical Polish minority percentages than Stettin/Szczecin. Why does this warrant mentioning? While "exclusively German" may sound strong to him, 99.3% perhaps warrants that kind of description- what should be changed perhaps is the word "exclusively" because it was indeed not 100%. But "dominant population" implies a significant minority population and the statistics don't support that interpretation. His reason for making the change is simple; to provide justification for the incorporation of the region into post-war Poland. While that topic is another whole can of worms I am not interested in addressing here, this is simply another case of his Germanophobia in action. You are entitled to your own personal feelings of hatred to a state which caused great harm to your country over 80 years ago, but your objectivity (which is the whole point of an encyclopedia) has always been the problem and why your account has been revoked many times as you make statements for example in the talk section of the Wilhelm Gustloff that are borderline (you make the insinuation that those civilians deserved to die and that the sinking was not a tragedy because "supposedly submarine crews were being transported to Kiel") We need conscientious Poles AND Germans and people with less personal stake in these topics to work together to achieve an objective consensus on these difficult topics, but your goal is never consensus, but to demonize a nation of people. At the very least, you should have started a talk section before you made the POV change. By the way, I had relatives in Norway killed during the German occupation so don't accuse me of being an apologist for Nazi German crimes just by raising this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikaard (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Polish workers aren't welcome in Germany.
Last paragraph - Polish workers aren't welcome in Germany but the last limitations finish in April 2011. Not sure this is very PC - German tourists aren't welcome in Poland but I don't see any mention of that on the Tourism in Poland page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point on the update. On the other hand I'm pretty sure that Gdansk, Wroclaw, Sopot etc. love their German tourists (or at least their money). Last time I visited Gdansk you even had the sort of funny phenomenon of Poles selling little Teutonic Knight figurines/souvenirs to'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but either way I don't see why German discrimination towards Polish workers is of any relevance to this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing information, other aspects
The position of Polish government is important and largely missing. Also I don't think excessive quoting is needed here, hence I argue for summary of Byrnes speech. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excessive quoting is to be avoided in general. Here, or elsewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised? :-)
 * Byrnes' speech illustrates the view of the US government and explains the background for the West German policy of the 1950s and '60s and legal position until 1990. To summarize it as "United States agreed to revision of borders in favour of Poland in Silesia" is extremely misleading as Byrnes in fact gave large room for interpretation of what might be the result of negotiations in a peace treaty. To understand the US government's view is necessary to understand the importance and role of the German–Polish Border Treaty (1990). I preferred to quote the speech instead of awaiting accusations of "manipulative" editing . Each reader might interpret the speech on his own. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Byrnes in fact gave large room for interpretation of what might be the result of negotiations in a peace treaty. I understand that this might have been position of German expellees, but your claim needs sourcing otherwise it can be treated as Original Research

To understand the US government's view is necessary-the US government was quite clear that Oder Nysa line was final and no changes will be made it to it throughout majority of time during Cold War. Nobody besides Germany contested it. USA certainly didn't--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, your answer clearly shows why it is necessary to quote Byrnes - the reader should read and interpret it on his own. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to excessively quote a simple statement that can be easily summarized.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

''Why am I not surprised? :-) '' - Find a long quote which you don't like in some article, and I will gladly support its removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A comment on caption of File:Vertreibungsgebiet.jpg and others
Please avoid OR in captions. The image is poorly sourced, and has the following description: "Allied map used to determine the number of Germans that would have to be expelled from the eastern German territories using different border scenarios." In our article, the caption is inexplicably expanded to "US Department of State Demographics map from January 10, 1945 Germany - Poland Proposed Territorial Changes, based in part on German pre-war population census. Was used for border discussions at the Potsdam conference later in 1945". Where does the date come from? The claim that is was based on pre-war German census is backed up by what...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That it used 1939 census is mentioned in the map itself. However the claim that it was used during Conference in Poczdam is unsourced and one of the links itself is missing. Unless it is sourced I see no reason for the map to remain unless it is reliably sourced that indeed it was used and indeed had an effect on border as claimed in its current description. We should avoid using Nazi claims where possible.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers : the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference), 1945 HerkusMonte (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Stronnictwo Narodowe and Allies
Since Stronnictwo Narodowe had zero influence on Allied considerations during World War 2(it was a fringe group), why is it included in Allied considerations during World War 2? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

- while there were some spelling and style problems, the information in this text is well sourced. Restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the main issue is that this was very marginal party during the war, and in conflict with the Polish Government. It certainly had no actual influence over the border issue, even if their views were largely reflected in what happened in the war. So in short this is a very undue information and unbalanced, since it gives too much importance to a fringe movement during the war. I suggest moving the bulk of information to the Stronnictwo Narodowe party while leaving a short sentence on the coincidence of their goals and what actually happened.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * These "fringe group's" theories became reality within a very short time and Zygmunt Wojciechowski is still today the namesake of the Western Institute and, as you stressed just a few days ago, a highly respected historian in modern Poland. The "myśl zachodnia" was certainly the intellectual basis for the new border and the whole recovered territories concept. That's why it needs to be mentioned. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 The "myśl zachodnia" was certainly the intellectual basis for the new border Oh really? You have a source for that? Because it's completely false. Their views were not the basis for the border decision by the Allies. The scholarly sources say that this was ironic turn of history that resulted in this decision similar to their goals. The group was fringe and belonged to opposition in pre-war Poland and was in dispute with Polish government during the war. You are engaging in OR and Synthesis. Provide sources that Allies used ideas by Stronnictwo and Ruch Narodowy or your text will removed since it has no connection to actual Allied plans.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also you manipulated a source twisting what is actually written:

In this edit you manipulation the source by Ingo Haar  You used him as source to claim that Polish historians called for the "return" of territories up to the river

This is a blatant manipulation of what is actually written in the text.

Some of the Polish historians who propagated mysl zachodnia sometimes rattled their sabers by caling-particualarly in journalistic articless-for the "return" of territories up to Elbe

This is an essential difference and completely changes the meaning and information presented. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * These "fringe group's" theories became reality within a very short time - uh, yes, and why exactly was that? Oh yeah, there was a war and a genocide or something. Or did somehow the border just magically move westward because those bad Poles wished it so?
 * The "myśl zachodnia" was certainly the intellectual basis for the new border and the whole recovered territories concept. - oh, bunkum. The basis for the new border, intellectual or otherwise, was simply 1) Hitler's invasion of Poland and the murder of 5 million Poles by Nazi Germany and 2) Stalin's ideas and whatever numerous reasons he had for them. Somehow - and I'm just you know, speculating here - I think Stalin and Hitler had slightly more to do with border changes than anyone named Wojciechowski. Just a hunch, there might be sources out there to support this crazy notion.
 * I think it's fine to mention that the idea of this border was held by a few (seven, I believe is what the source says, sarcastically) people in Poland before the war, but it's important to keep WP:UNDUE in mind and to make it "the intellectual basis" or anything like that is nonsense. WWII, Nazi genocide and Stalin are what made the new border. Not Wojciechowski or "mysl zachodnia". Seriously, this discussion is bordering on the absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As for “The basis for the new border, intellectual or otherwise, was simply 1) Hitler's invasion of Poland and the murder of 5 million Poles by Nazi Germany”, could you give us some sources, preferably in English? Right now, it looks like your personal opinion. My personal opinion would be a bit different, namely that the basis for the new border was simply the defeat in a war initiated by the criminal clique that ruled Germany at that time. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, the basis for the border wasn't Wojciechowski. Are you seriously asking me to provide sources for the contention that it was Hitler's invasion of Poland and Stalin's political goals which resulted in the border? And btw, it might have been a "criminal clique" but like it or not, it did have overwhelming support of the German population of the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maicek's removal
Miacek's edit summary says: ''rv, unencyclopedic text that is too emotional, verbose and partisan. add paragraphs step by step, then let's see''

Ok, I'm guessing the word "unencyclopedic" is just gratuitously thrown in there as a spurious justification for the revert. Likewise, I don't understand what exactly is supposed to be "verbose" - these are some relatively short paragraphs. Now, what exactly is emotional about:


 * Including an image which shows this line as a boundary in the past?
 * Including text which states that this line was a boundary in the past?
 * Including the information that "The proponents of these ideas represented the opposition party Stronnictwo Narodowe in pre-war Poland, opposed to the ruling Sanacja regime. "?

I'm guessing the charge of "partisanship" refers to the claims
 * 1) that "German policies of expansionism, Germanisation and oppression led some to propose restoring this line, in belief that it would provide protection against Germany"
 * 2) that these areas "were used to militarize and build up assets that would allow Germany wage further war"
 * 3) that "Polish population in these territories, faced continued Germansiation"
 * 4) that "Before the World War II genocide of Polish people by Nazi Germany led to acceptance of the need to provide a secure border with Germany, they were often described as "group of fantasists""

However, ever single one of these claims appears to be backed up by sources. It's also pretty much common knowledge and well established fact. In turn
 * 1) The early proponents of this border DID cite German expansionism, forced Germanization and oppression as justifications for this line. Are you seriously going to argue that Nazi Germany was NOT expansionistic or oppressive? Seriously?
 * 2) In a similar manner, the fact that these areas saw a militarization, concentration of forces, which were in fact used to wage war subsequently is pretty goddamn obvious. Are you seriously challenging the notion that Nazi Germany waged war, launching a good portion of its invasion of Poland from these very territories?
 * 3) Ditto for this point.
 * 4) Likewise it's a fact that what turned what before WWII was a fringe idea advocated by, essentially a "group of fantasists" into an actual border was the Nazi Germany's initiation of WWII, its invasion of Poland and the murder of 5 million Poles by the . Are any of these things being denied? Because obviously verifiability is not at issue since the text is sourced.

This is about as bad faithed edit summary/justification of a IDONTLIKEIT revert as I've seen in some time. And it constitutes the removal of sourced information for apparently POV reasons. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Every source about the group mentions that they were opposed to Polish government. It basically doesn't belong here. They neither formed the official Polish stance in WW2 nor influence Allied decisions. We could add a sentence about this as a trivia, but the article should present the official and main reasons for the border change, not the views of fringe groups that had no influence about the actual decisions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I'd admit my revert had following problems: I also intended to remove the rather poorly written paragraphs from the section entitled Background. “Polish government didn't envisioned” and “the idea of revising German borders was seen necessary by Poland”, “assistance in genocide laid by German minorities” reveal that someone still hasn't taken an English course that is so desperately needed. Garbage like this has no place in an encyclopedia. What I meant by 'too partisan' was the following paragraph: The assistance in genocide laid by German minorities paramilitary organisations and support for Nazism among German society also connected the issue of border changes with population transfers to avoid such events in the future.. Things listed there are factual, but the tone is unencyclopedic; it should be shortened, reworded and the summary on population transfers fixed so that it wouldn't read like an obvious apology/eulogy of the tragic event. We can do without schoolmasterly tone here that only reflects the Polish POV. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok so you intended to remove more than you did. You still have not given any sound reason for why you removed what you did remove in the first place, except basically "name calling it", especially since you admit the text is factual. I don't see anything "unencyclopedic" about it. Since you seem to be admitting that your revert was unjustified, I'm going to restore the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The paragraph you intend to restore is also problematic and was removed with a reason.


 * 1) “The Oder Neisse border had existed previously as border between Holy Roman Empire and Polish state.”  - someone forgot to add, that this 'had existed' = such borders had been there 900 (!) years ago. The (deliberately inexact?) wording as it stood was suggesting the borders had been there perhaps just some decades ago.
 * 2) German policies of expansionism, Germanisation and oppression led some to propose restoring this line, in belief that it would provide protection against Germany; the first ideas representing that line of thought emerged around the time of World War One. - this seems to refer to years before/until World War I, in which case sources are needed for the (relevance of) the supposed German oppression. In any case, this oppression was no more severe than the oppression in the Russian Empire, which however did not entitle Poles to seize Russian territories that they possessed, well, just some 300 years ago (not 900!). Restoring such sentences and wording would only re-introduce POV and arbitrary connections, nothing else. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that that's why the map was added, which provided the relevant historical context. But hey, you removed that too. Anyways, I think it's fine to note that this was a border between HRE and the Piast state(s).
 * What is important here is not whether these policies and oppressions justified or "entitled" anyone to anything, but rather where did the idea originate from. And as far as I can tell, a source is, well, was, already included before you removed it along with everything else.
 * There's no POV here and the text is sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Marek-you forgot the removal of tag for supposed "Polish propaganda map" which is completely unsourced and without any sourced relevance to Allied discussions on the proposed border. As to Miacek personal views on Russian Empire-see Original Research and Synthesis. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Basic issue not resolved, and no sources provided. Synthesis and OR problem remains
What sources claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line? If none are presented, I see no reason to promote a view that gives priority to presenting these views over actual concerns and factors, as this constitutes a Synthesis and Original Research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, regarding the adoption and influence of "Western thought". The whole complex would deserve its own article. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You evaded the issue completely. You failed to provide any sources to support the SYNTH that somehow Allies were inspired by this group. I ask again: What sources claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line?

I asked that question several times. In all honesty I do not expect any sources to come up, since this fringe group had no influence on Allied decision making and was in conflict with Polish government. Either show these sources, or information will be trimmed as it has no connection to the actual origins of border.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Map of Piast Poland
Currently we use two maps of Piast Poland, one in the "background" section and one in the "Recovered territories" section. I think one map would be sufficient as both show actually the same period of time. For "layout" reasons I would prefer to use the second map only. Any thoughts? HerkusMonte (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Herkus, I am still waiting for your reponse to vital issue, what sources claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line? This is important because otherwise the information needs to be removed. Since you have time to edit wikipedia, I am urgently waiting for your reponse on that issue. Once we deal with that very important issue, we can go over smaller ones, like which map showing that these territories were part of Poland should be used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Polish Communists adopted the pre-war "Western thought" concept, which "shaped the political culture of the People’s Republic of Poland". To me, that's a good reason to mention this concept in a background section. However, you might use a source for the claimed influence of the Selbstschutz on the Oder-Neisse line. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

❌Once again you evade the question. I am not asking about post-war Communists I am asking about what sources claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line? Please show these sources, otherwise information has no connection to the actual origins of border proposal --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Genocide of Poles
- ''There was no genocide of the Polish population. The term must be used with more care''

See Generalplan Ost and Operation Tannenberg. 5 million murdered for racial reasons? Starting with the best educated and successful? Yeah, I think that qualifies as a genocide. If it doesn't then pretty much nothing does. Sources:, , , , , etc. If you think that saying that the Nazis committed genocide is "very partisan", then take it up with the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As an example:the kidnapping and murder of Polish children by Germany has been ruled by International Tribunal in Nuremberg as a crime of genocide, so it perfectly valid term.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I allowed to give the section a less judgmental, more descriptive title.
 * To me, the term genocide is justified for cases where there was the intent to kill all members of a group, making no difference whether they were men or women, children or old, resistant or influential. While this certainly applies to the Polish Jews, I do not think it applies to the Poles all together. The Polish state was a target, their leadership, their culture, but there was no attempt to kill all citizens.
 * I looked at the first of the sources you provided, and the score given therein finds my full acknowledgment. If you read it carefully, you will see that the author distinguishes very well between the atrocities committed on the Poles and what is commonly understood as plain genocide. "We can term this cultural genocide" or "something approaching genocide".
 * I do not want that we use buzzwords here, diluting their true meaning, just to raise the effect that some may want to achieve. There shall be no discussion how brutal, wrong, and lethal the German occupation was - all true - but the way you are editing this article impedes its credibility. T om ea s y T C 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's just the first source. The other sources discuss genocide directly. One of the sources refers to "Holocaust and genocide occurring simultaneously", the first referring to the murder of Jews, while the second referring to the murder of Poles (and of course Polish Jews were still Poles). As to what shall or shall not be in the article - well, we follow the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Western border more secure?
A little less strange, but misplaced: why is a border more westward more secure/proper - I don't know (though one reason I've seen given is that it was the "shortest possible border between Poland and Germany"), but it doesn't matter. The article text doesn't say that a westward moved border was more secure. It says that it was perceived that way by some politicians. Two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To me this claim is dubious. It does not make sense by itself.The readers will start scratching their heads and either question the logic of our text or the people whose thoughts we assume noteworthy. Both does not appear wise to me. T om ea s y T C 22:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What claim is dubious? The fact that some Polish politician and activists believed it? Why? Anyway - it's sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Map
Re. The map does in fact use the 1939 Nazi census. I'm not seeing where "Polish percentage" is actually in the map so I don't quite see as how the statement that where source is given for polish percentage it refers to the census of 1914,1923,1925 can be accurate or relevant. In some cases, it does have "Percentage of Germans" which is sourced to censuses from 1923/1925 (East Prussia and Pomerania) and Upper Silesia is from 1914 but that doesn't invalidate the point that most of the numbers are from the Nazi census.

While we're on the topic, what's the scholarly opinion like on the reliability of the 1914, 1923, 1925 censuses?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fragment
I removed a fragment: "President Harry S. Truman and British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said that they could not tolerate Polish administration of part of one of the occupation zones (effectively making Poland a fifth occupying power after the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union) and the expulsion of millions of German people from it into other areas.Stalin responded that the Poles were taking revenge for the injuries which the Germans had caused them in the course of centuries"

This is largely a synthesis and manipulation, the pages do not state this in such manner and not in that order. Some of it actually is nowhere to be found-only Stalins remark about injuries is present,but it is in completely different context and situation. The whole Truman claim is nowhere. There is only a statement that there will be no additional occupation zone, and if Poles want to "occupy" something than they will do it on agreement with Soviets.Since territories Poland received weren't occupation zone this does not apply.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fiction by Rummel
The text is so dumb, that I don't know how to oppose. The subject of Rummel has been discussed several times. Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Herkus
Re: with edit summary: ''not in cit. given; requ. cit.; map doesn't illustrate "pre-war" border, similar map already used''

First, what exactly is "not in citation given"? I'm having trouble making out what you're referring to. Second, of course the map doesn't illustrate the "pre-war" border, that's why it's caption says "Piast Poland during the rule of Bolesław III Wrymouth". It illustrates the text "The Oder Neisse border had existed previously as border between Holy Roman Empire and the Polish Piast state from 10th through 13th century." If you want to suggest a change to the caption that's fine but don't just remove it.

Re: with edit summary: img illustrates "myśl zachodnia"

What do you base the claim that it illustrates MZ on? Do you have a source? Even if, obviously the caption is misleading - this was NOT a "Polish propaganda poster", rather it was some strange map that didn't have anything to do with official Polish government, its stance or anything of the kind. There's no obvious connection between that map and the text of the article - its inclusion is gratuitous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) To quote the Historical Dictionary of Poland: "Duríng the tenth through thirteenth centuries, lower Odra formed the Western border of Poland."
 * that sentence was used as a source for:"The Oder Neisse border had existed previously as border between Holy Roman Empire and the Polish Piast state from 10th through 13th century"
 * In fact the source says nothing at all about the Oder-Neisse border. "Lower Odra" is hardly identical with the modern border, the Neisse is hardly close to the area of the "lower Odra" and the Pomeranian Oder wasn't a border at all. Other user might call such a "simplification" manipulative.
 * 2) The section is named "Pre-war German-Polish border", a map showing the 10th century border is a) rather confusing under that headline and b) there is a very similar map already included in the "recovered territories" section. One map should be enough.
 * 3) A propaganda poster is not necessarily governmental, that the "myśl zachodnia" wasn't an official position of the pre-war government is clearly depicted. The map shows however so obviously the aims of "myśl zachodnia", that I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't use it. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Herkus, I am still waiting for your reponse to the essential issue,mainly what sources claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line? Unless such information will be provided this entry seems largely synthesis and needs to be trimmed.  A propaganda poster is not necessarily governmental-source please that this a propaganda poster. The map shows however so obviously the aims of "myśl zachodnia"-I see no source confirming your claim. Is that your unsourced opinion? If so than it is purely a Original Research. No source claims this is a propaganda poster, nor any source claims that this part of myśl zachodnia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1)The same source does discuss the Oder-Neisse border - it says "the great powers sharply disagreed on the location of the new border. According to the Soviets, it should be along the lower Odra river, and then along its left tributary".
 * Obviously, the O-N line WAS pretty much the same as the border between HRE and Piast Poland between 10-13th century. It sounds like you're trying to use the fact that it wasn't "precisely" exactly the same as an excuse to remove the fact that it was essentially the same. There are multiple sources which discuss the connection between the boundaries of Poland during the Piast period and those instituted after World War II.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)Which section a particular image is included in has less to do with the appropriate section but rather with HOW IT LOOKS in the article. The reason why this map was put in the "Pre-war German-Polish border" section was not because that's what it showed (obviously) but because putting it in that place in the raw text made the map APPEAR in the appropriate section. I'm gonna put it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, scratch that. It's pretty obvious that the image is supposed to illustrate the sentence given above. Hence it very clearly belongs in there. I might retitle the section though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Well, the first problem is that this wasn't even a poster - where did that come from? Second, I don't think it is at all "clearly depicted" that MZ wasn't official. In fact text which sought to clarify this was removed (by either you or Miacek, I can't remember).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that myśl zachodnia is very varied, there are numerous scholars and numerous theories and proposition, it never was clearly defined. It's just basically the study of Western Poland. You would have to be clear about who specific you are writing about. Plus they didn't lay claims on Czech Republic. The map is basically unsourced, and allegation that it is "propaganda poster" dubious and unsourced as well. Not to mention that its introduction is pure Synth.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually was the term "Mysl Zachodnia" even used in interwar Poland? Or was it a later application of the term? Anyway, "Mysl Zachodnia" basically involved the "academic study of Western Slavic territories from a non-German-centric perspective" or something like that. It is somewhat related to this topic but really, only tangentially.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1)Lerski does not say, the Oder-Neisse line formed the Polish-HRE border, he refers to the "lower Odra". A source should support the claim, not just something similar.
 * Unfortunately Google shows only a snippet view of page 4 of Lukowski/Zawadzki, however to quote them:"In the forty or so years after the Second World War, Polish historiography was want to depict a "Piast Poland" whose boundaries were curiously congruent...."
 * Maybe somebody could quote the rest of that sentence. Their emphasizing of the "forty years after WW II" indicates something has changed meanwhile. There's no doubt that the traditional post-war Polish historiography adopted "Mysl Zachodnia" and propagated a "Piast concept" of Poland. However, we are not here to propagate an outdated Polish POV (at least, I'm not). HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't quite get what your objection is. The fact that the present Polish-German border is pretty close to the border from the 10th-13th centuries Piast Poland and HRE is true. Isn't it? You seem to be objecting to the inclusion of this fact based that no source states this in precisely those words. But the sources do allude to this fact (quite frequently actually). So again, I'm not seeing what the problem is.
 * And let me back up the request to establish some kind of link between Mysl Zachodnie and the Allied decision at Potsdam.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to provide a source for a non-existent claim. The adoption of "mysl zachodnia" "shaped the political culture of the People’s Republic of Poland" and the "Piast concept" provided the intellectual justification of the Oder-Neisse line. That’s why it needs to be mentioned. How Wojciechowki's (he was head of the Western bureau of the underground government) views influenced the Polish government in Exile or the Lublin Committee would be too detailed, though "mysl zachodnia" would deserve its own article.
 * Could you please outline, which part of that section is exactly synthesis? I don’t see anything like that, except what you might guess what a reader might think about it. But the reader’s ability to think on his own is not WP:SYNTH. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, the fact that the info is in a section entitled "Allied considerations during the war" - but there is zero evidence or sources to indicate that the pre-war views of this fringe group had any bearing what so ever on "Allied considerations during the war".Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a point - was the Polish exile/underground government member of the "Allies"? However I changed the headline as Wojchiechowski was active in the underground state. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a little better but not much. Now the section starts with "During the interwar period..." but is entitled "Considerations during the war". That's obviously self-contradictory.
 * Also, the fact that Wojciechowski was part of anti-Nazi resistance is not all that significant here. Who wasn't? (Rhetorical question). Lots of Poles of all kinds of political views and persuasions were. Yes, he was part of it and worked for them but so did many others. I think you're really trying to stretch here to make this connection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Herkus you still haven't provided sources that would claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line. And I guess you don't have them since a lot of time passed since that issue was brought up. You are engaing in WP:UNDUE,WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH.

However I changed the headline as Wojchiechowski was active in the underground state. You are wrong. Wojciechowski was a member of the the Polish undeground, but it consisted of many groups with many ideological beliefs and goals. The one he belonged to was opposed to Polish Government in Exile.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact the whole article is missing information about Allied reasons for establishing the line, position of Polish Government in Exile, instead focusing on a fringe group that had nothing to do with the actual establishment of the border. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC) ~ No Pole had any impact on Joseph Stalin. Prove that Mikołajczyk or Bierut were able to inflouence him.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Oder–Neisse line
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Oder–Neisse line's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bialecki": From Province of Pomerania (1815–1945): Tadeusz Białecki, "Historia Szczecina" Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992 Wrocław. From Szczecin: Tadeusz Białecki, "Historia Szczecina" Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992 Wrocław. Pages 9,20-55, 92-95, 258-260, 300-306 From History of Szczecin: Tadeusz Białecki, "Historia Szczecina" Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992 Wrocław; pgs. 9, 20-55, 92-95, 258-260, 300-306 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

“It was also decided that all Germans remaining in the new and old Polish territory should be expelled.”
EXACTLY WHO? decided that all Germans east of the Oder-Neisse Line and west of the 1937 Polish border line "should be expelled". . . What is the name of the International Law Expert who made such a pronouncement? . . . or maybe there was no pronouncement. . . maybe everything was handled on a case by case basis. . . maybe that was the interpretation of the word "Unconditional" in "Unconditional Surrender" -- the "Unconditionals" have no rights. . . Did the International Red Cross report to the Allied Control Commission on the treatment of those particular "Unconditionals"? Does International Law cover the "inspection" of what's going on in "Temporarily Administered Areas"? (The "Temporary" reference is to "pending the Final World War Two Peace Treaty for the Germans" . . . So, in International Law, the "Temporary" nature of those Administered Areas lasted from 1945 to 1990, namely 45 years.)     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.218.248 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the Potsdam Agreement states that Germans in the Polish Administered areas were to be expelled:

Item 12 of the Potsdam Agreement states in part,
 * “Orderly transfer of German Populations
 * The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner.”

Note: International Law does not recognize "Temporarily Administered" areas as constituting a de facto/de jure permanent area of the administering power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.218.248 (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

International Law doesn't allow also extermination of millions, which was a German hobby during the WWII. Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

East Prussia's strategic position that allegedly undermined the defense of Poland
Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

involving 14 million people all together from the whole of Eastern Europe
An how many from the region East of the O-N ?Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

U.S. General Lucius D. Clay on Expulsions of Germans
On page 313 of his 1950 book "Decision in Germany" (Garden City, NY: Doubleday), General Clay states in part, "When the Allied Control Council proceeded to implement the Yalta and Potsdam agreements to receive the citizens of German origin from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Austria, it was estimated that these expellees would exceed 3,000,000.[Endnote #13] It was not contemplated that this number would be greatly increased by the expulsion of the Germans in the Polish-administered territories.  However, it soon became clear that Poland did intend to expel them and regardless of agreement they soon began to arrive by the thousands and hundreds of thousands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.218.248 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor Americans, they didn't understand what were the rules of cooperation with Joseph Stalin. Or they pretend only to be so naive? Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Roosevelt actually *was* that naive. ("I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man.") 76.31.37.107 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did new Polish settlers come from
" In addition to this, the Polish population originating from the eastern half of the former Second Polish Republic, now annexed by the Soviet Union, was mostly expelled and transferred to the newly acquired territories." Most of the new settlers came from Polish mainlans, not from the now Soviet terrotories. This is clear by looking at the numbers: Approx 9 Mio Germans lost their homes, but only 2 Mio Poles in the now Soviet territores lost their homes and needed to resettle.

One should also add, that in this way the teritorial gains from the Soviet Polish war of 1920-21 werre reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C50:100:5:816E:12B3:536:73C (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There where not only Polish given to live in the former German terretories mainly Ukrainians, Mazedonians but even Greeks till now Ukrainian Schoolclasses are existing JB

Adenauer
I think these recent additions focus way too much on the individual position of Konrad Adenauer. It wasn't Adenauer only who didn't recognize the Oder-Neisse-line but the whole political spectrum of West Germany (except Communists) until the late 1960s. This kind of giving undue weight on Adenauer is not surprising as the section is largely based on biographies of Adenauer. While it is completely adequate to focus on Adenauer's view in an Adenauer-biography, it is not a good idea to reduce the whole topic just to what Adenauer thougt or did. The section needs some balance. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A minor point: Usually the decisive date to define all of Germany (West German definition) is the 31 December 1937, not the 1 January 1937. Do the sources really use that date? HerkusMonte (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To fully describe Adenauer's position regarding Poland his inclusion of former Nazis in the German government(who advocated extermination of Poles like Oberlander) should be added alongside his amnesty for over 700,000 Nazi war criminals, including several thousands involved in murder.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that German parties actually demanded border of 1914 not 1937
For example this poster by SPD demanded German borders from 1914 --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

German reunification and the Oder-Neisse-line
I think this section needs work. The narrative presented here at the moment is that Helmut Kohl refused to accept the Oder-Neisse-line before unification and even hinted at a change of borders after unification, maybe even by use of force.

Now, I think there is a broad consensus that Kohl caused much avoidable irritation, both domestically and internationally, when he wasn't as outspoken about confirming the border as he could have been (aparently trying to postpone alienating the expellee federations as late as possible). But he never hinted at a change of borders, maybe even by force. I know that he said the exact opposite, verbatim. He said "Nobody in Europe wants a change of borders, I don't know how to clarify this any further". The actual core of the issue between Warsaw and Bonn back then isn't covered in the present article section: Warsaw wanted a confirmation of Poland's land gains before a unification of the two German rest-states was to occur. Bonn insisted that only a unified German sovereign could make such a binding comitment, therefore this would have to wait until after unification. The international irritation was, however, big enough for Kohl and many other political leaders to state publicly from February 1990 onwards that a confirmation of the border was the only thing that was going to happen after unification. And that's exactly what was done in November 1990. Not such a change of tracks on the German side as the article suggests at present.Lookoo (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)