Jump to content

Talk:Königsberg/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Another interesting source on Poland-Königsberg relations

Adds much interesting information, showing that not only the role of Poles in Königsberg can be shown, but also the role of Königsberg in Poland: [1] 83.24.106.229 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters

I can support this statement! Who is Edwin Franciszek Kozłowski? Apparently a Polish nationalist who is cited to promote a view that can certainly not be called unbiased and neutral. This article must be cleansed from entries by narrow-minded nationalists who want to promote a certain view of history. What "important Polish element" in Königsberg? I am not aware of any remarkable person of Polish nationality originating from Königsberg. Look at List of people from Königsberg. I finde this primitive nationalism disgusting! --Furfur (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to support the claim that Edwin Franciszek Kozłowski is a "nationalist". If you cannot provide such a source then please remove this attack on this living person, per Wikipedia's biography of living person's policy. As far as I can tell from you comment it looks like you just decided that Kozlowski MUST BE a nationalist because he holds a view which you happen to disagree with.
As far as the 'important Polish element" in Königsberg" - yes there was one. It was a center of Polish Lutheranism. It was a center of Polish printing and culture. The city was briefly part of Poland outright and for several centuries the capital of its fief. In the 16th century a quarter of the city's population was composed of Polish Lutherans (so that's not even counting the Calvinists and Catholics), and that may not even have been the peak. Sources for all these claims HAVE BEEN provided (or can easily be provided). On the other hand your claims have NOT BEEN supported by any sources.
The List of people from Königsberg article does need expansion. But that's a problem with THAT article, not this one.
And I agree that primitive nationalism is disgusting. But it's neither Kozlowski nor the editors who simply want to write an accurate history of this multicultural city that can be seriously accused of this vice.VolunteerMarek 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Editors interested in constructive editing should focus on writing sections on Jews, Germans and Russians in Königsberg rather than attacking the editors interested in Poland for daring to be the first to expand on that aspect of Königsberg's ethnic history. Some people write content. Others try to censor it. I think it is quite clear which group is contributing to this project, and which is not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Rome isn't the a center of Polish Catholicism but of Catholicism, with some Poles holding important positions in the Vatican. Königsberg wasn't a center of Polish Lutheranism but of Lutheranism influencing the Lutheran conversion of Poles, Lithuanians etc..
What we actually face here are the last (I hope) remnants of territorial claims of the Polish far right of the early 1990s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the fate of the Kaliningrad Oblast was ... unclear. German, Lithuanian and Polish nationalists made claims to "recover" the territory e.g. , while German and Lithuanian claims (Lithuania minor) could be reasoned easily, Polish claims were a little more doubtful. Thus the Polish far right started to Polonize Königsberg's history, that's why we find such publications trying to propagate the idea of a Polish Königsberg, overemphasizing the role of every single ethnic Pole in K'berg. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Where in the article is there this "territorial claims of the Polish far right" being made? Nowhere. This is a simple scare tactic. In fact this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. The source given above - as irrelevant as it is to this article - appears to be cherry picked as apparently someone typed "kaliningrad oblast polish nationalists" into gbooks and picked the one single source that suits the matter (ironically enough most of the hits under that search are about Lithuanian and Russian nationalists). One could easily play this game by typing in "kaliningrad oblast xxx nationalists" into gbooks and using that as an argument that this is all about "xxx territorial claims".
It's not. This whole thing about territorial claims is a red herring. There's nothing like that here. Let's not derail the discussion with vacuous irrelevancies.
And anyway, this is the article about Konigsberg, not Kaliningrad, right? So why are searches being made for "kaliningrad oblast"? Unless the argument is that the article should be made to "History of Kaliningrad"?
VolunteerMarek 14:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
And with regard to the Rome analogy, no, Wittemberg (or something) would have been the center of Lutheranism. Konigsberg was the center of Prussian and Polish, Lithuanian Lutheranism (with Duchy of Prussia being a fief of Poland-Lithuania) at the time.VolunteerMarek 14:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In his recent study of the German expulsions Orderly and Humane Ray Douglas mentions secret meetings in mid 1944 between the Lublin Poles and Stalin. The Soviets compelled the Poles to cede the eastern Kresy regions and told them they would be compensated with the German Oder-Neisse region and the port of Settin. Douglas stated on page 82 “but the German seaport of Konigsberg and its hinterland in East Prussia, which both the London and Lublin Poles had long expected would be allocated to their portion, would become a Soviet possession” Ray Douglas cites as his source R.C Raak “Stalin Fixes the Oder-Neisse Line” Journal of Contemporary History October 1990. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Herkus, you know I don't usually involve myself in this areas, but... First, your claim about Konigsberg being a target for far right Polish historigraphy needs a source (I am AGF that you are talking about historiography, and not editors). Second, if there is or was a significant presence of Polonia in Rome, I think they should have an article - and I would same the same if Rome has or had a significant German, Russian or any other kind of minority. Argument that "other stuff exists / does not exist" is not valid. If it has been written about by reliable sources and is encyclopedic, we write about it. It's as simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Polish authors published in the US mention the borders proposed by the London Poles See Poland: A Historical Atlas by Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. On Page 202 there is a map showing the entire territory of East Prussia included in 1942 the postwar Confederation Plan of Gen Sikorski.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
For starters Gen Sikorski wasn't "far right" - the opposite if anything. And the mere existence of various plans for post-war territorial settlements doesn't prove anything, least of all that it was a "target", nor is it relevant to this article. Most of the relevant history here is from the 16th-19th centuries. WWII stuff really belongs more in the Kaliningrad article though really only as a footnote.VolunteerMarek 17:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case should we delete the section Nazi Germany and World War II? Gen Sikorski wasn't "far right" but Pogonowski's published works are written from a Polish POV--Woogie10w (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1) I don't really see the relevance of any of this and 2) you guys really need to start paying attention to WP:BLP when throwing these kinds of accusations against living authors around. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to defame living people and WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles themselves.VolunteerMarek 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to topic: Leszek Moczulski, chairman of the right-wing Confederation of Independent Poland and member of the Sejm in the early 1990's demanded the annexation of the Kaliningrad Oblast on "historic, juridical and military grounds" [2]. Such claims needed a "scientific" proof and that's why it's easy to find all kind of publications pushing the thesis of a Polish Königsberg. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


Moczulski’s demands really don’t belong in the article, IMO we should not give undue weight to a fringe politician who has been discredited in the eyes of Polish public opinion. The WW2 Polish attempt to include Konigsberg in the postwar boundaries is however relevant here. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Moczulski is for sure not relevant for the article, that's not my point. He's just relevant to understand the background of a section called "Poles in Königsberg" and why such a section gives undue weight to a certain nationalist POV. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
OK Herkus, we agree on Pan Moczulski, but I still say both the London and Lublin Poles had long expected Konigsberg would be allocated to their portion and that it is relevant in this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No, not relevant to "Poles in Konigsberg" at all. Look. There are plenty of honest-to-goodness "far right German nationalists" (not some invented ones like here) out there who make irredentist territorial demands for Gdansk, Wroclaw, East Prussia and Szczecin. Does their existence mean we need to remove all mention of historical Germans in those cities? Does that mean that having "Danzig" in there "gives undue weight to a certain nationalist POV"? Does it mean that mentioning Prussia in the context of Szczecin is undue?
That's exactly what your argument implies. If so, by that logic, you can start by reverting all those thousands of German names you've added to Polish villages (some with populations as low as 10 people!).
One more time - is the claim being made in this article ANYWHERE that Kaliningrad should be long to Poland? No? Then why are we discussing it, except as a tactical red herring?
And again, please watch BLP.VolunteerMarek 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
VM I propsed the inclusion of the WW2 claims by the London & Lublin Poles in good faith not as a tactical red herring Peace--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to include a couple sentences about the proposal during WW2 to include Konigsberg/Krolowiec within Poland, although IIRC that was originally a British (and for East Prussia more generally, sans Konigsberg, British and Soviet) proposition, not a Polish one.VolunteerMarek 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I just checked my bookshelfs The Polish Way by Adam Zamoyski on page 117 mentions 16th century publications by Poles in Konigsberg. Here is an reliable source in English to back up the role of Poles in the cultural life of Konigsberg.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Also the Cambridge History of Poland has multiple mentions of 16th century publications by Poles in Konigsberg. This belongs in the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the 16th century Polish language printing WAS a big deal. The German sources added by Skapperod also discuss these at length. That's why this opposition to the inclusion of this information is so... strange.VolunteerMarek 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no opposition against including sourced information, there was opposition against adding an initially completely unsourced section, praising the "merit" to Repolonize the area and there is opposition to condense completely unrelated information in a special section just because of the ethnicity of the involved individuals. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that there is no opposition to including sourced information.
But just to make sure we have things straight here - the reason the section was unsourced initially is because, well, all text starts out unsourced and then people add sources to it. Which is exactly what I was trying to do before all the trouble started. And there is no (nor was there ever) a section "praising the merit to repolonize the area" - all there was, was a clumsy bad-English grammar mention of a priest providing pastoral services in Polish to local people of Polish descent. And that sentence is even not there anymore, and if that was all that all this controversy was about then we sure wasted a whole bunch of time over a pretty trivial issue.VolunteerMarek 08:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
No, we don't add unsourced stuff and wait until someone might find a source for it, and no, we don't call editors who ask for such sources "shithead". At least those of us who are less equal than others. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have three questions: 1) is there anything in particular that anyone thinks is non-neutral in this section 2) can references be added for claims with cite requests? 3) will anyone write sections about Germans and any other ethnicities? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just a note that I don't cinsider Sca's post below to be any serious reply to my question above. Since nobody has provided any replies to my concerns, other then the ongoing occasional IDONTLIKEIT, I still fail to find any evidence that this article is biased. (Now, incomplete it certainly is, but incomplete =/= biased). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


Continued discussion

I find the 700-word section on the Polish and Lithuanian minorities tendentious and misleading. Prior to 1945, Königsberg was overwhelmingly a German city. Particularly mendacious is the undocumented (and undocumentable) claim that "in the first half of nineteenth century, the Polish language was equivalent to the German language in the city." This is ridiculous, and I removed it.
In deference to human memory and historical integrity, I request that editors espousing a certain ultra-ethnic POV keep their fingers off this article about a city that existed for more than six centuries, which prior to WWII was home to 300,000 Germans — and which was never part of Poland — but which as a result of that war no longer exists. Thank you. Sca (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And prior to the 19th century and extensive Germanization, Konigsberg was actually a multi-ethnic city. Yes, between the second half of the 1800's and 1945 it became "overwhelmingly German", but it wasn't that before. I don't know about the specific claim that Polish was equivalent to German at the start of the 19th century, that's probably an exaggeration, but the use of Polish, up until that time, was pretty extensive. A conservative estimate (conservative because it counts only Lutheran Poles, and because it's from a time before the peak of Polish presence in the town) puts the Polish population at a quarter of city's inhabitants in the sixteenth century. Likewise there were Lithuanian, Jewish and Prussian communities, though not as large.
I think it's fine to remove that one sentence, since it was unreferenced, but otherwise, if anything, the section could use more info.VolunteerMarek 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want to get technical about it the city was directly part of Poland briefly during the Thirteen Years War, and of course indirectly, as part of a Polish fiefdom, for a couple centuries. The city's burgers, whatever language they spoke, tended to be very pro-Polish (this was even true after the partitions, when German speaking intellectuals of the Albertina lend support to Polish insurrectionists and revolutionaries). They even staged a formal protest against the Treaty of Bromberg and wanted to be reincorporated into Poland (somehow that info's missing from that article).VolunteerMarek 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Watching this page?
I realize that Ducal Prussia was enfoeffed to the Polish Crown. This was a political relationship, not an ethnic one.
Königsberg was founded by Germans in the 13th century, and when it was largely destroyed in the 20th century its population, what remained of it, was German. Never was it generally known by its Polish name, Królowiec, in Europe or anywhere else.
I think the Russians, who now own the city, have since the collapse of the Soviet system become much more historically honest about the past, and indeed have in some measure begun to honor the area's German past. I suggest that others follow their example. Sca (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Königsberg was founded by Germans in the 13th century, and when it was largely destroyed in the 20th century its population, what remained of it, was German. - sure (though Poles and Lithuanians arrived fairly soon after it was founded), but how does that justify omitting all the history in between, when the city was multi-ethnic? And of course it was known as Królowiec, it's not like the name was invented after 1945.
I don't understand your comment about Russians becoming "more historically honest" about the past of the city? What exactly is "dishonest" about describing the history of the place? VolunteerMarek 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No doubt some Poles — perhaps predominantly (Protestant) Masurians — and Lithuanians lived there at various times, but based on voluminous reading in English and Gernman about East Prussia I believe you are exaggerating the significance of these minorities in the city's development.
Königsberg would have been known as "Królowiec" only among Poles; the English-speaking world never heard of this name. When the city finally was conquered by the Red Army in 1945, and thereafter when it was discussed at Potsdam, it was referred to exclusively as Königsberg, even by the Russians.
Sca (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
No doubt some Poles — perhaps predominantly (Protestant) Masurians — and Lithuanians lived there at various times, but based on voluminous reading in English and Gernman about East Prussia I believe you are exaggerating the significance of these minorities in the city's development. - well, sources contradict your belief. Note that these aren't just Polish sources but English and German as well. As to the name, I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up. The article is under "Königsberg", not "Królewiec" (that's an "e" there, not an "o") so what exactly is the objection? VolunteerMarek 08:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops! I shall remember to spell it "Królewiec" should the occasion ever arise again — or at least I will look it up by checking the article on Königsberg. Sca (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't feel bad, I use Wikipedia to look up the spelling of Bresla, Stetin, Herzberg and any of the other thousands (literally) of German names that some users insist on putting into articles on every damn Polish town, village or manor - even when we're talking about places with like, 7, inhabitants (literally). I think the sanctity of "Konigsberg" will survive even if the Polish, Lithuanian and other relevant names are briefly mentioned in the article.VolunteerMarek 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's Breslau and Stettin, to be honest. Both well-known. --Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh really? VolunteerMarek 21:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Sca's concern. The importance of some Poles has been greatly exaggerated, perhaps in order to pursue once again the 'ancient Polish territory' theory. It should be cut down by non-involved users. One should also consider that there's a special article History of Poles in Königsberg there anyway, that interestingly is quite short.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The information in the section is notable and well sourced. Attempts to remove it boil down to a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's no "ancient Polish territory" theory here, you're just making that up as an excuse. Nowhere in the article or in the section is such a claim made. You're making stuff up. The article on the History of Poles in Konigsberg does need further expansion, but note that it has much more info in it then there is presented here.VolunteerMarek 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Marek, do you have any information regarding the numbers of, or percentages of population constituted by, the Polish residents of Königsberg at any specific points in Early Modern Times? Sca (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I've already given that:
"A conservative estimate (conservative because it counts only Lutheran Poles, and because it's from a time before the peak of Polish presence in the town) puts the Polish population at a quarter of city's inhabitants in the sixteenth century. Likewise there were Lithuanian, Jewish and Prussian communities, though not as large."'
If you're asking for a specific number, I'd have to look it up again but best as I remember, at this time the city had a little more than 30k people, so this would be between 7 and 8k Polish Lutherans.VolunteerMarek 19:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The information I have seen about the Old Prussians indicates they were assimilated (you would use the term "Germanized"; in the U.S. we don't say non-English speakers were "Americanized," we say assimilated or integrated) by the end of the 18th Century.
Regarding what I said above about the Russians, post-1990, becoming "much more historically honest about the past," please see this article online today:
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-island-encircled-europe-kaliningrads-dual-existence-145134115.html
There have been quite a number of similar stories in recent years about these changes in Kaliningrad city and other parts of the Oblast. Also, there are many photos on Flickr, taken by both Russians and Germans, of restored or semi-preserved old German buildings in the enclave which in earlier times the Soviets would have wanted to destroy.
Sca (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is to the article. There's plenty of articles both in Polish and Russian about the German past of Kaliningad. But... what's your point? Also, in America we do actually say "Americanized" quite often, but that's... also irrelevant. ? VolunteerMarek 01:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that you are now instructing me on language usage in the U.S., where I've lived all my life — except for a sojourn in Warsaw in '96-'97 — and worked as a writer and editor. Sca (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
And interesting that you are presuming certain things about me, which may or may not be true, without actually knowing. Why wouldn't I have something to say about language usage in the US? VolunteerMarek 04:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your personal credentials remain mysterious — presumably by design. Sca (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jewish community in Konigsberg

Per comments above I plan on adding a section on the Jewish community in Konigsberg to this article. I would appreciate it if while the content is being expanded in this way editors refrain from adding {cn} tags, removing material or moving material around, or otherwise interfering with the work, until the expansion is relatively complete (which should take a few days). If there are objections concerning WP:UNDUE (but please, no more of this WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff) please use the talk page and/or raise the issue through appropriate DR processes.VolunteerMarek 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit curious why there are no vocal critics of the Jewish section. It is about as long as the Polish one... I guess picking on certain minorities is easier, as it is less politically incorrect, huh? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Being Jewish is a religion just like being Catholic or Lutheran. A section about the role of K'berg for Lutherans (including Poles and Lithuanians) and how K'berg's University influenced the translation of the bible into Polish/Lithuanian would be great.
In contrast to such a "religious" structure you chose a structure based on "nationality", pushing a certain POV and (obviously) giving undue weight on everything Polish in the history of K'berg. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Being Jewish is BOTH a religion and a nationality ethnicity(or one but not the other). Anyway, there's no POV pushing nor undue weight. Both sections are based and organized around reliable, academic sources.VolunteerMarek 14:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no particular article for the Jewish community in K'berg, but there is one already for the Polish community.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
So? VolunteerMarek 17:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The Jews in Königsberg were as German as German Lutherans or Catholics. The Nazis defined being "German" in a different way, but we don't follow the Nuremberg laws at wikipedia. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the German Jews were an ethnic minority. Just like Polish Jews were not exactly Poles, or Russian Jews were not exactly Russians. Not only they had different religion, but they had a different languages and culture (see Jewish culture) and never assimilated fully into the cultures of their respective country hosts. This is not to say that many Jews back then or now did not consider themselves German, but to simply say there was no difference between a German or a Jew in x-th century Königsberg is a folly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about Königsberg, not about the situation in Poland or Russia. Königsberg's native Jews didn't speak a different language and Germany was not their "country host" as Jews were not guests. People like David Friedländer, Johann Jacoby or Eduard von Simson influenced German culture and society and are part of German culture and society. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, Olessi moved (probably appropriately) the section on the anti-Jewish laws in Prussia to a separate dedicated article (History of Jews in Königsberg), but the essence of that is that Jews certainly were not treated as citizens by Prussian authorities. Hell, except for a small number of specifically "privileged Jews" (official term) they were required to leave the Duchy upon adulthood. So it's a bit disingenuous to say that they were "as German as German Lutherans". Volunteer Marek 19:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If German Jews were no different in German we wouldn't need the History of the Jews in Germany article. Tell you what, try AfDing it as unnecessary, and if you succeed, I'll support you here. How about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's a similar article entitled History of Roman Catholicism in Germany, though no-one would dispute Roman Catholics were Germans.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 20:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, there is now a dedicated article on the subject, so your original, already irrelevant, objection, is moot.Volunteer Marek 05:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable residents

This entry should include a list of notable residents of Königsberg, pre-1945, i.e. residents of the former German city — a list covering the nearly 700 years of that city's existence. The list on German Wikipedia at Liste von Söhnen und Töchtern der Stadt Königsberg is much too long and should be winnowed by a knowledgeable editor. Sca (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Spurious reverts

I'm sorry but this revert just doesn't make sense: [3]. Neither does the edit summary. The city was the capital of Ducal, or East Prussia. It was obviously not the capital of Prussia, nor the capital of Royal Prussia nor the capital of Polish Prussia. Why is this being reverted? VolunteerMarek 16:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Germans in Königsberg

I tried starting such a section but it was deleted. I don't have time to research this subject, but I strongly believe this article needs such a section to be comprehensive and neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that the Germans were covered in the bulk of the text and these sections dealt with minority groups.Is that not the case? Rsloch (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to hear others on that. If nobody else thinks it is important to have that section, I am not going to insist on retraining it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. But since we already have a section on Poles in Warsaw ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartz und Weiss (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Where? I don't see it.

I'm going to remove the subsection on Germans in Königsberg since in my opinion it makes about as much sense as "Swedes in Stockholm". As Rsloch rightfully points out, the bulk of the article already talks about the city's German heritage and culture. I will rename the section to "Ethnic minorities in Königsberg". Yekshemesh (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you don't see it, because it was sarcasm. Schwartz und Weiss (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL! You got me there :) Yekshemesh (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reconstruction was definitely NOT finished in 1946

In the current version, it says: "In 1946 the rebuilt city was renamed Kaliningrad (Калинингра́д)."

This is nonsense, as the reconstruction has taken decades so far - and regarding important historic buildings, it has not even been finished yet.

On the other hand, the text is misleading anyway: After massacres and ethnic cleansing as negaociated between the US government and Stalin/ USSR at Yalta, it would be more honest to talk about "the occupied and etnically cleansed city was renamend Kaliningrad by the Stalinists". Please correct the text, as Wikipedia has to stick to the truth. Thanks! --92.228.74.47 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear that rebuilt is redundant in that sentence.5.28.101.56 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This land was empty before Prussians occupied it?

This is the impression the article creates, which seems to echo the description in this article. I have read elsewhere of massacres of the native inhabitants by the knights. This article also gives some information about the university - http://www.academia.edu/1331786/Nazi_Ideology_in_the_Archaeology_of_East_Prussia 5.28.89.25 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Good catch! We certainly need to expand this article to avoid giving off impression(false one!) that it was mono-ethnic city. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Cultures" in the infobox

What exactly is the "Cultures" section in the infobox supposed to say? Currently it's just a list of the different political affiliations throughout history. I don't think "Nazi Germany" is any kind of "Culture", what I would call "Cultures" is mentioned as "associated with" (Sambians, Germans etc.). I suggest to remove the "Cultures" section. HerkusMonte (talk)

Yeah that's weird. Remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Map needed

Geographically a reader would have no clue where this place is based on the article. Compare it to for instance: Murmansk. A map showing the location of the city would be very helpful. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

reclaimed?

the article states: After being largely destroyed in World War II and reclaimed by the Soviet Union thereafter
pray tell, how can the soviet union "reclaim" a city that was never theirs? --84.59.85.3 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the ridiculous Polish propaganda which is unsubstantiated in any books or records other than their own hysterical post-war fanatical propaganda books should also be removed. It is a clear error to allow Poles to edit pages on East Prussia, for obvious reasons. 86.165.190.169 (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Literal Meaning should be "King's Mountain". Barrow would be translated to "Hügel" or "Höhe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmeier82 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Königsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Königsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

King's Mountain?

I'd need to look for some sources, but I bet -berg is an unstressed reduced variant of -burg here. That would be why it was rendered as Królewiec and not, say, Góra Królewska. I've come across such an explanation for Bromberg <== Brahenburg, where Brahe <== Dbra ==> Brda. 37.190.156.25 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the English for German "-berg" is "mountain", "burg" is "castle"! "Unstressed variant of -burg": A castle is usually sitting on top of a mountain, but "Burg" has nothing to do with "Berg" although You English confuse it very often! eg I cannot see what You mean with "Brahenburg" - that does not exist anywhere! But You try to make a connection to "Bromberg". 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime

user:HerkusMonte has twice removed the following section firstly stating that is repetitive and then stating that there is no need to repeat the names of the concentration camps.

The SS sent the first and largest group of Jewish deportees, comprising 465 Jewish men, women and children, from Königsberg and East Prussia to the Maly Trostenets extermination camp near Minsk on 24 June 1942. Almost all were murdered soon after their arrival. Additional transports from Königsberg to the Theresienstadt ghetto and Auschwitz took place until 1945.[1]

However, it is clear that the above paragraph does not repeat the information about the event cited, or provide any of the details in the preceding paragraph and therefore should not be deleted wholesale. I accept that the names of the concentration camps have been mentioned twice and have removed those from the paragraph:

After the Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942, Königsberg's Jews began to be deported to camps such as Maly Trostenets, Theresienstadt, and Auschwitz.[2]

Chefallen (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to keep the facts: I rewrote a sentence to avoid a senseless repetition of camp names, nothing was "deleted wholesale". [4] A pretty obvious misrepresentation of my edit. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Memorial Plaque to the Victims of the First Deportation from Königsberg". Information Portal to European Sites of Remembrance. Berlin, Germany: Stiftung Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ost.net was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The Page

There is a clear need to remove all the usual Polish nationalist propaganda and fantasies from this page, which is essentially about Koenigsberg the city. It is self-evident to any western historian that Poles simply do not understand what "homage" means. Numerous kings of Scotland paid homage to the Kings of England. It did not mean Scotland became English. Calais and other places fell to English force of Arms and subsequent treaties gave us cities like Calais which in some cases we held for centuries. But no-one ever suggested they were actually "English". 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:7456:EFD4:BC66:C544 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Rather clear consensus against the proposed move. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


Königsberg → History of Kaliningrad – Konigsburg is one historical name for the Russian city of Kaliningrad. If this deserves a separate article, History of Kalinigrad is a better name. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Königsberg has been the name of the city since it was founded by the Teutonic Order and named in honor of Ottokar II in 1225. This proposal is thus based on a faulty premise, and also would violate wp:GDANSK. The wording of this proposal as well as edit] suggest that the purpose of the move is to efface the German history of the city. The population of the Russian city of Kalingrad has no connection to the history of Königsberg except that it happens to occupy the same territory. The population was entirely replaced in 1945.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Support The existence of this page as "Königsberg" seems to fulfil the desires of certain to deny history, and claim that Kaliningrad is not the same city. I am not sure how much this is motivated by German nationalism, but I think it plays a large role. The repeated denial that Kaliningrad was part of the Russian Empire in the C18 confuses me as it is a historical fact, and I hope that changing the name will help to move the article towards a more neutral point of view. Danzig now redirects to Gdansk. I would add that the Encylopaedia Britannica has one article for the city - https://www.britannica.com/place/Kaliningrad .♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥
That's not the point of the Gdansk decision - as far as I know Danzig has always redirected to Gdansk. The point is on using historical names. Should Constantinople be redirected to History of Istanbul? Of course not. That's essentially what you're proposing here: the Soviets cleared out all the people who lived in Königsberg and replaced them with people from elsewhere in the USSR. And they gave the city a new name, in a deliberate historical caesura with the past. The idea that Königsberg is just "one historical name" is a fallacy: it's the only historical name in English, certainly. And it was used in Russian too until the annexation and expulsion of the German population.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand your reference to Gdansk in this context of maintaining seperate article with an historical name for part of the history of a city. Gdansk's historical name in English was Danzig, the Poles also cleared out all the Germans who lived in the city after the war and repopulated it with people from other areas, and the decision you refer to clearly states that "For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945. For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945".♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥
User:L'Origine du monde, you do not need to support your own move request. Support is implied by making the request in the first place. JIP | Talk 13:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unconvinced The name Kaliningrad didn’t exist before 1945, so renaming the separate article and committing back-dating use of the Soviet name requires some strong rationale related directly to Wikipedia guidelines. Speculations about some undefined group’s “German nationalism” and its effect on the article title are inappropriate. If the content is not neutral or lacking sources, renaming the article is not a step towards correcting that. —Michael Z. 14:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Ermenrich. The city spent the vast majority of its history as Königsberg and had a great influence on European history. It only became known as Kaliningrad when it was ceded over to the USSR in 1945. JIP | Talk 16:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unconvinced Thinking in WP:CRITERIA terms, I don't see any advantage over the current title, and some disadvantage especially as regards to naturalness and consistency. Granted moving other pages could remedy the latter, but that would bring it's own set issues. The Constantinople comparison is a fairly solid one, and often an older name is the natural and recognizable term that readers will search for when seeking information on it's history. Now, we don't always use historic names for articles regarding the history of areas, many places have undergone multiple name-changes after-all, and barring WP:SIZESPLITs that give each historic name a separate article for that period of time "History of ModernName" is logical. There's also cases where a former name has just never caught on in English Language historiography. But neither of those considerations applies here. The topic is well-developed enough for a separate article, and Königsberg is recognizable and natural. However, with further development History of Kaliningrad could potentially serve as a broad overview article with Königsberg being the main article for one of it's sections rather comfortably. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Ermenrich. --Andrei (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

* Oppose, the place has a long history as Königsberg.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned users - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC about Königsberg's history as part of the Russian Empire in the Lede.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Except for the OP, the consensus here is even clearer than in the RM: editors agree that the mentioned period was one of military occupation, not of ownership, by the Russians. Therefore there is consensus against the proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


The lede lists a number of different states to which Königsberg belonged - "the Duchy of Prussia, the Kingdom of Prussia, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany. " . From 1758 to 1762 it was formally part of the Russian Empire, the seat of the Russian Governors of East Prussia. I added this to the lede, but have been reverted twice so I have created this RFC. I think this fact is relevant, especially given that the city is now again part of Russia, and omitting it creates a false impression of continuous Prussian occupation. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it should be "the Duchy of Prussia, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia again, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany". ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥
  • Oppose change. I'm not sure if this is a proper RfC, and really you should have just started a discussion on the talk page before jumping directly to an RfC. The Russian Empire occupied Königsberg during the Seven Years War and left when it exited the war. That hardly seems to justify including Königsberg as belonging to the Russian Empire, any more than Moscow should include in its lead that it belonged to Poland because Sigismund III Vasa invaded and occupied it during the Times of Troubles, or Luxembourg should include in its lead that it was part of Germany because Nazi Germany annexed it as part of the "Westmark".--Ermenrich (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    I do not understand your parallels. Moscow was never formally part of the Polish kingdom, and was not occupied for 4 years. Luxembourg makes no mention in its lede that it was ever occupied by Germany, which I find strange.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥
    Generally, exchanges of territory are confirmed at the end of conflicts, not unilaterally proclaimed by one side before hostilities are concluded. Anyone claiming such an annexation does so in the full knowledge that they might not continue to claim the territory at the peace. In this case, Russia didn't even bother to claim East Prussia in the peace treaty. It's the same reason why Poznan isn't a German city for having been annexed to Nazi Germany, its page merely lists it as "occupied", even though Germany claimed to have annexed it. The idea of Königsberg having been in any way Russian is currently a talking point in some Russian nationalist circles because of some perceived need to justify having Kaliningrad as an exclave - it's part of the typical Eastern European history wars, it has nothing to do with historical reality.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moskwa was occupied by the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth from 1610 to 1612 it did not belong to the commonwealth during that time in the same way that the russian empire occupied Königsberg from 1758 to 1762 it was not part of the russian empire during that time—blindlynx (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was occupied by russia, it did not belong to russia—blindlynx (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The city was part of Russia for four years, until the Miracle_of_the_House_of_Brandenburg#Second_Miracle_of_the_House_of_Brandenburg. It belonged to the Russian Empire.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥
  • Comment: do maps of Europe in 1762, or maps of Russian-empire expansion, show Königsberg and other territories as “Russia”? —Michael Z. 09:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Blindlynx. As I recall, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to award the territory to Stalin. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Despite being occupied by Russia, it did not belong there, as pointed out by Blindlynx. Idealigic (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per arguments brought forward by Ermenrich. Wartime occupation is not the same as a city belonging to a state. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Historical wartime occupations, barring perhaps a few highly exceptional cases, should not be referenced in this way. On a case-by-case basis footnoting may be appropriate where further explanation can be provided, especially if the occupation was of unusual length, but the case thus far, even for that, is weak. This article should, and does, discuss the event, but dropping it in the lead as you did here is confusing. We don't do this for other locations in general and insufficient case has been made for making this article an exception to that general practice. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was a wartime occupation that lasted for short period of time.Sea Ane (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would oppose the suggested change. From my general knowledge of the history of Königsberg, it was a distinct place for a long time. A (regrettably) limited amount of the place is now identifiable in Kaliningrad. The strength of this difference support using different names for different timesin Wiki. I also find the arguments from User:Ermenrich more persuasive than those of User:L'Origine du mondeArbieP (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ermenrich. Wartime occupation shouldn't count here. Mellk (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose, because this is a wartime occupation that ended before the end of the war.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)socks puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Königsberg/Archive_3&oldid=1132457222"