Talk:Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II

Merge
According to the large German minority in Poland, I just don´t get this sentence: "The expulsion of Germans was much more thorough than that of Poles in Poland's former eastern territories; today Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine still have significant Polish minorities.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.85.193 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See also an analogous proposal ate Talk:Territorial changes of Germany after World War II.

Territorial changes of Poland after World War II should be merged into the straight, Territorial changes of Poland. All the information in the WWII article is just copied from the Territorial changes of Poland article and the Territorial changes of Poland article goes into greater detail. Also, the article isn't really about Territorial changes of Poland after World War II its more Territorial changes of Poland after World War II to a few months after World War II as it does not go into the border adjustments of the 70s or those with Slovakia.


 * MERGE -- For simplicity sake -- Esemono (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - seems like a useful subarticle, but the content indeed is currently mergeable. Suggest announcing the discussion at WP:PWNB for more input. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom's rationale. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - of course the article needs work but i think we do need a separate article about the border changes after WWII. Loosmark (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Compromise. Instead of merging an article that people have strong feeling about just changing the name to reflect the subjects discussed. -- Esemono (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
I've removed some trivia and marked the article NPoV - the final three paragraphs seem to be editorialising, and are uncited. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Potsdam 1943?
That's wrong, right? It shouldn't be 1943, right? Calle Widmann (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

changes of
This phrase isn't English. The English version is changes to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

math
Did the area of Polan decrease or increase after the west-shift?--Baruch ben Alexander - [ [User_Talk:borisbaran|☠☢☣]] 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

About the same but they changed areas witch where mainly russin ( Ukrainian, Bielorussian)and should not habe been under Polish rule at first, for areas witch where 100 % German with some Polish in upper slesia and the Mazurs. And it looks like that there was a coverd genocide there is missing the account for some hunderttausend German civilians witch now seen as Russian victims witch are more likley polish victims but that is sorrowly coverd up. JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.84.178 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't misinform - Poland lost 77 000 km2, more than twice more than the area of Belgium.
 * Noone asked people in Eastern Poland what they wanted.
 * Many "Germans" were bilingual Slavs. Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

propaganda
"It's important to note that these regions were previously Polish and had been forcibly occupied by surrounding nations while Poland had been partitioned three times and lost 733,500 km2 of its territory between 1772 - 1775 to Austria, Prussia and Russia. " (1) The sentence sounds like Polish propaganda: "Its' important ...". why the stress needed that it is important? Sounds fishy. (2) It is wrong. Look at the map in Partitions_of_Poland. The Polish state that was partitioned had a similar territory as Poland of 1919 regarding the Western border, after Polish annexion of terrotory east of the Curzon line in 1921 also with respect to the eastern border. Former German eastern territories had been slowly settled by Germans since the 12th century, Silesia, Pomerania, have nothing to do with the partitions. They were settled by Slavic tribes in the 10th century, one could only refer to this fact for claiming the territories, as indeed Polish authorities do.

"The "Free City of Danzig" was the German occupied name, of Gdansk, which since has been renamed to the original." Same as above, this is plain propaganda. A careless reader might think that the name Danzig was only created by Nazi occupation, where in fact it was the name of a German city for 800 years.

Polish ?

Sorry but what Polen gained 1945 /1990 was never realy polish. Only a short while for 30 ore so years in the middle age it was belongig to Poland as fifedoms, that means the lokal governers paid some money to Warschau. Bacause Polen agressivly tried to integrate areas like Pommern ( Pomerania) they volotarely joint the holy empire and became slowly german, not only by settlers  by change of the language too. Slesia ( Schlesien)  is an other story because it mostly belong to the kingdom of Bohemia and Prussia was not polish at all in the beginning it was setteld polish under German rule probably the readen was the plage witch changed their the ethnikal strukture a lot  JB

The eastern border was set in Teheran and Yalta
Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The article in Polish could be probably replaced by an English one.
 * The page misinforms, the Eastern border was defined in Teheran and Yalta.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅.  Poeticbent  talk 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger Discussion November 2021
Request to merge articles: Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II; dated November 2021. Rationale: While the Recovered Territories article is larger, it refers to specific changes of Poland's territory after WWII, as there were others. I beleive the Recovered Territories article would have a better fit under this name, as the requested name is much more descriptive of the article and one that English speakers might search for. "Recovered Territories" is a translation from Polish and is too generic of an article title in English to be specific. Additonally, the Recovered Terriotories name for the lands was intentionally chosen to be inflammatory, and may still push a POV to some. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * quote from above --> name for the lands was intentionally chosen to be inflammatory says who? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See this article.Invinciblewalnut (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not base Wikipedia around tourist guides.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me go dig through their sources and use them instead. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose You unsuccessfully tried to make the article Recovered Territories disappear by merging it into Former East Germany article which was opposed overwhelmingly by a vote that ended a couple of days ago. This seems like a second attempt to carry out this action and to circumvent around that vote result.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MyMoloboaccount I didn't try to make the article "disappear," I'm just trying to improve this website by consolidating information. I also didn't go ahead and merge the articles as you claim; instead, I'm following well-established rules and procedures for merging articles. I also wouldn't call three votes "overwhelming." If you didn't notice, I'm the one that closed the discussion. The article I was trying to merge to isn't East Germany/DDR, it's the former eastern territories of Germany. I am only reproposing the merger because of what PBS said on the original discussion page about how this is a better target article. Given your strong activity with the Poland WikiProject and hobby of creating articles documenting Nazi war crimes and other horrible atrocites, I'd hardly say you're viewing this proposed merger with a neutral POV. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @MyMoloboaccount Considering that the principal motives behind repeated merger proposals published by Invinciblewalnut are to improve this website by consolidating information, let's go ahead and merge Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II into Recovered Territories instead. Are you okay with that merger Invinciblewalnut? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella No, as there were other territorial changes done to Poland after World War II not included in the Recovered Territories (land east of the Curzon Line from decisions made at Tehran). Invinciblewalnut (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Invinciblewalnut - Let's see what others have to say. If nobody else comments and @MyMoloboaccount agrees, we might just somehow merge Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II into Recovered Territories to address your concerns of consolidation. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella Again, I would object to that. I don’t think you understand that the merger can only go in one direction (my proposal) since there were other changes not included in the Recovered Territories. Including those in an article about the recovered territories would be improper and quite unencyclopedic. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry, consolidation can go either direction ultimately. We'll additionally adjust the title to Recovered Territories and other territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II to make sure it is proper and encyclopedic. Would that please you? GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You know that's not a solution. Quite frankly, you are acting quite chidlish about the whole matter right now and haven't even given a proper explanation of your merger proposal opposition. If I need to, I will get higher-ups involved. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look @Invinciblewalnut - You favour merging an extensive article into the short article - I'm opposing that. Okay? Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II is a tiny article as opposed to the long Recovered Territories article. However, I attempted to accommodate your concerns about article consolidation by proposing the new title, and possible merger. Your response to my proposal is troubling. I left you a message on your talk page regarding WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS to which you responded with a revert . This is also troubling. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you are offended by my statements; but, the replies to my posts (at least my interpretation of them) appeared to intentionally contradict what I had said multiple times and sounded like I was being treated as a toddler. Additionally, the new proposed merger title is unnecessarily long, clunky, and not at all WP:PRECISE. I read what you had to say on my talk page, noted it, and discarded it as I keep my talk page as I wish. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, let’s leave that behind us then.
 * Coming back to the issue at hand, if the new title is going to be too clunky, then I think we will have to leave the article Recovered Territories intact. The article illustrates explicitly the term recovered territories and where that official name originated from. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - that again as the last time around - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "Recovered Territories" is not a good article title in English because as a translational of a Polish phrase it misses out the implied state that gained the recovered territories. Without "of Poland" postsctipt, or "Polish" prescript, the title is unlikely to be one English monoglots will search for, because many states have recovered territories at one time or another. Also no doubt Poland has lost and recovered teritories many times, so why capitalise in the English language article this post WWII recovery of territories? PBS (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge at better title I see that the two articles represent unnecessary forking and "largely" cover the same matters. One only has to look at the first image to see the overlap (though that image isn't as clear as it might be). I agree with that Recovered Territories isn't a good title for en WP. However, I am not convinced that we can't find a more WP:CONCISE title than Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support They clearly overlap and should be covered under a single, neutral title that avoids supporting the historical or political claims of any one state. Recovered territories very much reflects a Polish national perspective. That perspective should still be included after the merger as a separate section. Like I would also support a shorter title e.g. Territorial changes of Poland after World War 2. Bermicourt (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, though perhaps it should be "to" instead of "of"? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That also sounds good. Bermicourt (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I was hoping to close this, since I see it has been open for 6 months and I was uninvolved until a few minutes ago. But while reading up on this topic, I came to form an opinion. There is a complex interplay here between this article, Recovered Territories, and Western Borderlands. I don't think it makes sense to merge RT into this but not WB. They are both chunks of territory that changed hands during the formation of Poland's post-WW2 borders. And I oppose merging them both, especially since RT is so big. I think a reasonable path forward might be merging this article into another article that isn't RT or WB. But that should be a topic for a future discussion. For now, I think we should leave everything alone and close this merge request as no consensus. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)