This is an archive of past discussions about Polish Corridor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
it could be argued that the PC was a legitimate grievance of Germany no matter who was in power - a democratic Germany would have asked why the notion of self determination could not be applied to them - at least for Danzig - and perhaps Polish pigheadedness over the Corridor was also a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.193.178 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2002
Done quite get your point. Majority of the population was Polish. Why should then it be attached to Germany?! Szopen
Because it's popular recently (especially on the Wiki) to blame Poland and "Polish pigheadedness" for the outbreak of WW II and all of it's consequences. Space Cadet 18:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If Poland were landlocked country, it would have been a satellite of Germany, that occupied her all ports. Why would any of European powers want to strengthen Germany? Wasn't Germany already too powerfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.119.156 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2003
According to this link, German constituted 42% of the Pomorze (And remember, that by "Corridor" some Germans understood also Greater Poland, which has much lower German proportions). They were majority in three districts (in one, 55% majority, and in two, 70%)
Szopen12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
---
this is a post-war source.
according to "meyer's konverstation lexica" from 1878 there has been a 2/3 german majority in "western prussia" which later became the corridor.
to get a near 50:50 proportion some parts of w.prussia were left with germany and dazing/gdansk was cut out (against polish wishes)
however all this sounds too nation-based.
german nationalists used the german minorities in east europe for excuses for the war. however they were "supported" by nationalist eastern europe governments not giving national minorities the rights granted in versailles treaty.
Abdreas, may 1st. 2006
In other words, in total f Western Prussia germans were 2/3 majority. That's right. But in Pomorze, they were not - they were 42%. Szopen09:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Before the First World War the whole Province of West Prussia had a German Majority. The Corridor was carved out of the Province of West Prussia ( and Danzig too)and had a slight Polish Majority, but only if you count the Kashubian as Polish people.
The Royal Prussia ( West Prussia ) was joining Poland because the German their wanted to be polish against the suppression of the catholic Clerical State of the German Order " Deutscher Ordensstaat " But they had cultural autonomy ( where ethnicly not polish german was the official language) till the Unification of Litaunia and Poland and some parts like Elblang became German before the Polish partition.
Before the Polish Partishen Wilhelm the Great offert poland protection against Russia and Austria , he would have liked to overtake the Korridor ( west Prussia ) This probably would have saved the polish state. It was rejekted by the polish.
The Corridor was Artificial but would have not been bad when the polish would not have used it deliberately to punish every German witch wanted to pass it. This polish behaviour between the wars witch is not documented by an available book I know created a lot of hate.
It is no wonder that in this Corridorarea the genocide of Bromberg ( Bromberger Blutsonntag ) was taking place 1939, and shows the plunder of the peacetreatys, after the first world war.
Read the discussion at the Bromberg/Bydgoszcz and stop repeating wartime propaganda. According to most reliable research the number of all dead (both shot as diversants, dying in figths AND victims of lynches) was lower than 500. Szopen11:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
J.
J.
Annexed and re-annexed
I know that phrase "re-annexed" was introduced becaue "annexed" offended some friends of ours. However, the current sentence (corridor, as well as other parts of Western Poland, were re-annexed) is not TOTALLY correct.
Corridor and Greater Poland - ok, but, just let me nitpick for a moment, there were parts which were never part of Germany before (Litzmanstadt aka Lodz or - pre -1919 German name = Lodzsch).
But the real reason why I am talking about it, is because then Polish annexation of Corridor is described not by using "re-annexed" by annexed.
I would be most delighted by explaining this difference to me. If noone however would object in say one week, I will change the phrase to suit my liking (into sometihng like "corridor was then re-annexed into Poland".
Szopen 16:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Proper name: Polish Pomerania
In my opinion, Polish corridor is not NPOV at all. Its a propagandist name given to the area by the Nazi Germans between WWI and WWII. Proper name: Polish Pomerania.
CC, 00:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Polish Corridor is a historical term. It is not in use anymore as a designation of a geographical entity, but only of a historical region. You and I would not call it corridor today, but people in the 1920s did. Therefore the article should stay here. I just changed some sentences added by the anonymous user. Do you agree with these changes? If so, the neutrality disclaimer may be removed. -- Cordyph 17:52, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the map, but what we really need, is the map that shows, Poland, Germany, East Prussia and the corridor, and the sea of course.
Dear Max please not revert, try to help to improve. Corridor was part of Germany 1914, but illegally, since before 1772/1793 partitions it was a part of Poland. When German emperror abdicated, Poles had no reason to obey the rules of German Republic. Why would they?
So question of Provinz Posen, West Preussen and Ost Preussen was open. And Treaty in Wersailles could have made decisions.
AM
I DID NOT revert the page, you did however, revert my changes. I merely removed the incorrect and editorializing information. Please only add correct information. Also, please log in and use a username instead of dozens of ip addresses. Maximus Rex 19:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As long as the middle age 1400 it was called Western Prussia too has nothing to do with the Nazis more with the fact that for 500 years the Geman where a main part of the population -- Johann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk)
Emphasizing the Corridor as Wilson's idea
Okay, I've reverted to my version of the page. Somehow Ruhrjung apparently, in doing an edit marked "copyedit", inadvertently returned to an older version of the page. Then an anon user returned mostly back to my version, but added that long incoherent section on "Before the Polish Corridor". So I'm going back to my version. john 06:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The only thing that wasn't intended was the edit-summary "copyedit", which ought to have been changed before I saved the page. ;-/ My hope is that my disposition and choise of words will turn out to be less divisive and have a longer time of survival than the previous attampts. :-)
The Corridor wasn't Wilson's idea, it was an obvious idea for the Poles since they wanted access to the sea and that part of West Prussia had a mjaority Polish population. Just because Wilson put it in his 14 Points didn't make it "his idea." In any case the article must began with a definition of what the term "Polish Corridor" means, put as plainly as possible. Adam 12:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
He took it up. If this didn't make it "his idea", I'm sorry for my faulty use of your mother tongue. The wording I actually proposed was now:
Removed rather odd account of the start of WWII
Roadrunner 07:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
fresh eye
It is sometimes useful to come an article with a fresh eye. Most of this article was the usual Polish-German-Polish-German historical quibbling, which I have deleted in toto since it had nothing to do with the Polish Corridor. Hands up who else is sick of obsessive minorities of petty European ethnic chauvinisrs wrecking this project? Adam 08:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Adam, I am also sick of this nonsense, but I've reverted back to my version, which I think had a bit more useful detail about Hitler's demands in the Polish Corridor in 1939, which is, I think, relevant to this article. If you want to mess around with it, feel free, but I think my version was almost certainly the best version of the article heretofore, and further edits should be based on that, not based on deleting stuff from weird POV versions. john 08:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...if we're calling it a piece of German territory, it should be said to be part of West Prussia, not Eastern Pomerania (which is the Polish designation of the region). But I'm afraid that putting it that way might cause problems. john 08:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If the WP Poles and Germans could get over their stupid fetishisation of these bits of land and their multiple antique names the world would be a happier place. I will delete the reference. Adam 09:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Let's avoid broad generalizations. It's only a small percentage of both German and Polish contributors who have been making problems on these articles. john 09:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK, I accept that. But in that case the majority ought to be more assertive in preventing the kind of Gdansk-Danzig-Gdansk-Danzig wars we see far too many of. I agree by the way that the article is much better with your material in it. Adam 09:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The so called Corridor was not a artificial linking territory, but a part of before 1772 Poland, restored in 1918. It is obvious that in line with Masovia or Little Poland also former Royal Prussia was included into the Polish state. Yeti 22:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This I contest. The central point here is that great parts of what Poland lost of West Prussia in 1772 remained by the Weimar Republic in 1919. A Poland was restored, but not the Poland of 1772. I've always been led to believe that the Corridor was to be constructed somewhere, and that such considerations as popular referenda would not have been allowed to interfere. But it's what-if history, and hence no suitable ground for wikipedia articles.
The concrete question ought maybe be formulated: Was there really any distinct territorial unit that prior to WWI was known under one name and after WWI was known as the Polish Corridor.
However, I must say that I currently am startled and somewhat surprised. I've made several attempts to work towards consensus and to include the contributions by different contributors, but this feels pretty much meaningless when these other contributors all the time reverts to their own last versions. Where are your wikispirit, people?
--Ruhrjung 00:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't rvt arbitrarily. I rvt when I think the subsequent editds have added nothing of value to the article other than to promote prsonal POVs. This is my view in this case. Adam 00:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I linked Danzig and Gdansk to try to keep everyone happy, although I know they lead to the same article.
"Various postwar governments" is a meaningless formulation. So far as I know all German governments opposed the eastern borders so it is correct to say "the postwar German government."
I don't have "a side" here. I am trying to write a historically accurate article.
(Disregarding that I don't really see the answer on my question. :-) I don't fully follow your reasoning. Above, you write about "all German governments" and still prefer the singular reference. I don't really understand how long time this first post-war government remained at power, and why it's preferable to refer to it in singular when you agree that they all had the same opinion. (Also disregarding if "government" is understood as synonym to "régime" or to "cabinet".)
--Ruhrjung 01:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Postwar German government" means the German Republic 1919-33, not each individual cabinet. Adam 01:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The key phrase above is: when I think the subsequent edits have added nothing of value. Adam Carr reveals himself as a rather self-loving person. That's maybe good for him. If he isn't blindened by it. I think he should be well served by an other attitude: telling others that they know nothing doesn't really create respect for editor Adam.
/M.L.
I didn't say you knew nothing, I said you didn't understand the text, because your English isn't good enough to do so. Adam 03:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If I didn't understand the text, maybe the text is to blame? One must doubt your seriousness. The disputed issues are not very hard to understand. You shouldn't conclude falacy to comprehend from foreigners' idiomatic faults. It looks rather as if you were frustrated and changed to ad hominem attacks when you had no factual support for your current position. /M.L.
[sigh] I still have no idea what you are objecting to. Adam 12:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you again trying to express the point that my language skills are too limited? Isn't that a rather nasty debate technique - ad hominem in disguise?
My objections are expressed on the "page history" for the article, which you dismiss as if you haven't seen them.
You can however judge them to be expressions of "personal POVs", collectively.
I wonder which.
The not so funny aspect is that until 15:17, 13 Apr 2004, you (and I guess, some kind of a concensus) represented the view I proposed yesterday (at 20:44), when you from 12:15 (14 Apr) had changed position, and explained this with "the article has to be begin by saying what the Corridor was". You haven't explained how you've come to your new conclusion, that the Corridor was a new name for an old territory instead of
"a name used to refer to an area" (your old wording) or
a concept "intended to give Poland an outlet to the Baltic Sea" (my wording) or
a term "for a territory connecting a restored Poland with the Baltic Sea" (Yeti/Ruhrjung).
- Not on this page and not in the article's page history. Space Cadet, Ruhrjung and Yeti explained their ambitions with their edits. John Kenny and you didn't. You seem to think that you stand above such "bickering". But you change back to your faulty version again and again and again, and when you finally improve yourself; and actually heed some of the criticism you've received, it's still God-like and unexplained.
I guess a narrow analysis of other contested points would give a similar picture of your arrogance.
/M.L.
To which I reply:
Until you become a registered User and acquire a User name, no-one will know which comments are yours and which are some other anonymous persons. I and other regular editors here do not like anonymous people and are usually not interested in arguing with them.
I have looked at the article history and I still don't know what your specific objections were or are.
However I suggest you now read the article as I have now amended it and tell me what specific objection to the text you now have. When you come back with a user name and a specific objection we can debate it.
Was POlish corridor a name given to whole formerly German territory given to POland after WWI, or only Pommern? I saw preWar postcards which included also Great Poland in "Polish corridor" Szopen 15:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Corridor vs. Pomerania
Adam Carr apparently reverted my change without giving any reason. What I was trying to say is that this article is an example of double-barreled articles on wikipedia. There are several others that reflect only one side of the story. Such pairs are, for instance:
I'd like this article to have a link to either Pomerania or Pomeranian Voivodship in the header, but I do not want to engage in a revert war with User:Adam Carr. Any ideas as how to handle it? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:22, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
You know quite well that using either a German or a Polish geographical name in that sentence will only start another German-Polish revert war. The only neutral thing to say is that it was a strip of territory. I see no analogy with the other articles you cite. Adam 10:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The very name of this article reflects the German point of view, for Poland it was not a corridor but Pommeranian Voivodship. And the term Pommerania is neither Polish nor German, it is completely neutral as it is a Latin (and English as well) geographical term, while Corridor is not. And the analogy is quite simple:
I'd like this matter to be solved. Also, please explain your reverts, it leaves no place for false accusations of starting a revert war. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:51, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
The matter can be solved by you not reopening silly placename arguments and leaving the article alone. Adam 10:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly reply, but I'd still want to hear what are the arguments behind actually not linking the article on a political phenomenon to its geographical location? Is the term Pomerania POV? Or is it biased in some way? I don't get it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I really don't know what you are talking about. The sentence as it stands is perfectly accurate, so why start arguments by changing it? Go and do something useful. Adam 11:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, let me state it loud and clear:
An article on a political or geo-political phenomenon must have a link to the geographic location.
Because every use of a place name in an article about Poland and/or Germany starts an edit war among nationalists and placename fetishists like you. Adam 08:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Was it supposed to be a joke? Or perhaps you were trying to offend me? You should try harder than that. However, I'm not sure if offending me is a good idea.
Anyway, I'll say it again: discuss with what I say, not with what you think of me. If you'd say that my idea is wrong because you don't think it's relevant or something along this line it would be acceptable. However, you are saying that my ideas are wrong because it's me who proposed them in the first place. This is not fair, this is not right and this is not what I expected of you. Think twice before you say that someone is a nationalist because the term is extremely offensive to some. I'm sure pro personam arguments is not what wikipedia needs. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:22, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
To the Germans, it was part of West Prussia, and Pomerania consisted entirely of German territory. Sigh johnk 18:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But Pomerania, unlike West Prussia or Pomeranian Voivodship, is a geografical region, not a political entity. Also, it is used by Poles (Pomorze), Germans (Pommern) and even Brits and Americans (you guessed it, Pomerania). It's not that only one side considers it to be a distinct region - it's accepted by everyone. Perhaps everyone minus Adam Carr, I don't know because you haven't give a reason for revert, eventhough I asked you to. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:47, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Fake offer?
Molobo, how is the German offer "fake"? I do not understand your comment about military presence being takin into account, so I restored that as well.--Hohns317:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The Free State of Danzig played an important role, that cannot be denied. I see you have gone into more detail about the overall diplomatic picture (which is also good). As for the Kashubians being Slavic, why do you object to that? I did some formatting changes, but overall I am happy with our work. Good job. --Hohns319:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Citation Requests
Okay, for the Consequences and the Post-War Erasection, I removed two {fact} requests. 1) Obviously the population was not consulted when the fate of Danzig and what was to become the PC was determined. The 2nd claim, about "being given the opportunity to be German citizens"...or at least that is what I think it is supposed to say, is a largely incoherent sentence and I wish you the best of luck to find and describe exactly how this would have been possible. Cheers. --Hohns305:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Any citizen in Gdańsk could change his citizenship for German one. This was written in treaties.
--Molobo11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
? The city was to either be neutral or attached to Poland, and 97.6% rejected the latter choice. --Hohns323:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Nazi POV
Regarding the wording of what happened to the Corridor in WW2. The Nazi POV would be that it was part of the Reich, the rest of the world would say it was simply occupied by the Nazis. We do not intend to push Nazi POV here, do we ? --Lysytalk06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
your understanding of the wording is incorrect, it was incorporated into the reich and was a part of Nazi Germany (and so subject to conscription and its laws), the General Government was occupied; France was occupied; the Corridor became a part of Germany proper as it had been until the end of WWI.
the corridor was annexed to Germany, whereas lands that were occupied were not e.g France and the General Government.
I'm sorry but what you are presenting above is only a Nazi POV (and I sincerely hope it's not yours). It would be right if the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was legitimate, but it was not, hence the territory was occupied, regardless of what Hitler chose to name it. --Lysytalk02:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, please refrain from your thinly veiled personal attacks upon me here and elsewhere on wikipedia recently. this has been discussed on talk:Erika Steinbach and atleast a dozen nations recognized the annexation in 1939. By your reasoning, the territories taken from Germany after WWII was not legal either, as a number of nations did not recognize it. I would compare this with Taiwan and China, Taiwan still pretends it is still the democratic government of all China, but the Chinese see Taiwan as a part of China not under their control at the moment. It was not recognized by one of the sides, hence it was illegal is your logic, which is obviously flawed.
hey Halibutt? does Poland=failure/lost ring any bells? one could easily compare the werewolves to the Polish Underground and all that of the same time period. just because Poland didn't sign any papers doesn't mean that they didn't lose Halibutt, or else we could also say Hitler never knew about the Holocaust also because no documents have ever been found that have his signature on them that directly deal with the "final solution". Poland never surrendered because she had nothing more to lose, she in essence failed to exist anymore, a couple of old men in an office in London was all that remained of Poland after October 1939. Then in 1945, a totally new state also called Poland was created, there was no continuation from one to the next.
Governments apply the term "failed state" to Afghanistan today, it could quite easily apply to Poland back then.
In other words, if - according to your logic - any occupation is a legitimate reason for territorial changes, then so were the changes in 1945. Let's agree then to change all names in the Russian sector of Germany to Russian and we'll all be fine. //Halibutt06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Jadger, Polish government in London was legitimate heir of 1939 government, which acted according to Polish law and constitution. It had armed force (which in 1945 counted about 200.000 soldiers), recognition by its own citizens, proper structures (just look at the underground state article), and it had _THE RECOGNITION_ from majority of states in the world (and _this_ is what's really important here). The _international recognition_ is a key phrase here. Szopen11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In what way add this information ?
http://www.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect16.htmRibbentrop’s proposal seems quite reasonable. However, we know what Hitler’s real intentions were from information given by the Danzig "Gauleiter" (Party district leader) Albert Forster (1902-1950) to the League of Nations High Commissioner in Danzig, Carl Jakob Burckhardt (1891-1974, in Danzig 1937-39). In November 1938, Forster told him what he had just heard from Hitler: The Fuhrer said he would guarantee Polish frontiers for his own lifetime - but only if the Poles were "reasonable like the Czechs." Burckhardt heard the same phrase from German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsacker when he visited Berlin in December 1938. Thus, it is clear that Hitler’s aim was to make Poland dependent on Germany.
--Molobo23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Molobo, I won't ask you again to stop adding the same POV-heavy statements which from time to time, include a number of grammatical errors; moreover, it was the German press in Danzig (and not necessarily Nazi-controlled organs) which exacerbated tensions...and German rearmament did not force anything. It could be seen as a response to Soviet action and the British, admitting the absurdity of the limits imposed through Versailles, reluctantly found this act to be justified. Interestingly, it was the French who aided Polish militarization, which dated back to the 1920's...one third of Poland's budget was going towards military expenses. German production then inspired further developments in this sort of "arms race" buildup, which even had an affect across the Atlantic (U.S. Navy to Gov't: everyone else is doing it, so why can't we?). On a more positive note, the information above is interesting, and has found its way into the article. I tried to summarize and avoid details, as this article is about the Corridor. --Hohns321:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
and German rearmament did not force anything. It could be seen as a response to Soviet action
What Soviet actions ? Germany and Soviets were gladly helping each other in re-arming their countries since 1919.
--Molobo21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Germany and the USSR were certainly not helping each other rearm since 1919 Molobo. Germany still had all of her weapons in 1919, all she needed to do was hide them for a couple of years if your delusions were realistic or based on actual events. not to mention that Soviet Russia was still in civil war in 1919, so it cannot be called re-armament there either. It is however true that the Soviets helped the Germans test there weapons in the Soviet Union by a secret treaty later on, but not for a long time after 1919. that being said, I dont see the point of hohn's argument either, the USSR and Germany did not border each other at the time so rearming to prevent Soviet attack makes no sense. that being said, what does make sense is that they rearmed so that they could take back the Saarland from French occupation, and prevent Polish border incursions like those that started the Silesian Uprisings because the Freikorps could only do so much in protecting Germany's borders before they became politically unreliable.
Well, all this is obviously beyond the point, but for the sake of discussion, building Germany up wasn't so much for breaking up an Soviet attack as it was discouraging one, which brings into play the anti-Comintern pact to create a front the Soviets would have to consider before making any move. Yes, as you mentioned keeping its borders under control was important, but I think economic production-related factors deserve most of our attention. When it doubt, build weapons.
Germany and the USSR were certainly not helping each other rearm since 1919 Molobo.
Jadger please read history before trying engage in historic discussions, this isn't the first time you express views that contradict historical knowledge:
I suggest reading:
http://www.feldgrau.com/ger-sov.htmlGerman Military in the Soviet Union 1918-1933
--Molobo11:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I must admit, Molobo, this isn't the first time I have come across these claims. However, the blanket statement they were helping each other rearm doesn't genuinely explain the situation. Negotiations and dealings are constantly going on between countries and can play into any number of conspiracy theories (Have you heard of Rakovsky and the "Red Symphony"?) One thing that bothers me about "accounts" of history like Feldgrau's on German-Soviet relations, where the focus is so narrow, is that one completely forgets about the big picture and through its omission, the reader is left with a broad generalization of what was going on a the time. While this shows commitment to a thesis, it deliberately avoids confrontation with information which may negate it - the article does not consider German and RSFSR military dealings outside of this "relationship", nor does it say just how involved their special relationship was: did it produce considerable results? According to the article, no. A lot of governments and people try to do things, even if it doesn't make the front cover of Pravda.
Also, I wonder what kind of historian you are if you take for granted what you find on the net. Worse, not a single source is cited here, and there are no references. No reputable scholar would give this work the time of day, even if it appears to be extensively researched. That ranks up there with pulling quotes from an encyclopedia in a dissertation. --Hohns317:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I wonder what kind of historian you are if you take for granted what you find on the net.
My knowledge about Hitler's goals and desires comes from years of studying history. Can you tell me where from your claims about Hitler's intentions come from ?
--Molobo 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh btw, you want a scan from German-Soviet diplomatic exchange since 1918 on the issue of military cooperation ? Cheers.
--Molobo 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Worse, not a single source is cited here, and there are no references
Seeing how situation developed, indeed this must be changed.
--Molobo18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysy
There is nothing controversial about my edits. You somehow feel it is unnecessary to mention that the Polish corridor consisted of territory transfered from Germany to Poland? That describes each and every inch of land, rather than the current introduction "well, it included some of x, some of y, parts of z, a little bit of q...I that it is also important to mention these details, but get to the point first. Beyond that, I explained everything else. So i guess that leaves me waiting for an explanation of your objection to the (elimination) of (lots) of (difficult to follow) text because of the overuse of parenthesis. Also, I reordered the reasons for the transfer of territory so that the comments about the demographic breakdown, and its agreement/disagreement with the cited reasons for the transfer, follow in a much more logical fashion. Other than that, I provided a few citations, made the order of German-Polish diplomacy chronological (the 1939 quote was part of the resolution), changed the Nazi era heading because the corridor was not part of Germany between 1933-1939, changed the Weimar Germany comment in the intro to show that during Nazi times Germany proper and East Prussia were disconnected. And your objections are?--72.92.120.10618:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly object to advocating that the territory has been German in the first place. If you feel it's important to move back in time and explain that it German until WW1, why stop here and not mention also that it was annexed by Prussia from Poland in the partition only in the end of 18th century ? By mentioning that it was taken from Germany, you are introducing the false impression, that the German rule over the land and the later Nazi claims to the territory had been somehow justified, which is obviously very POV dependent. --Lysytalk20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The lead
OK, let's do the edits slowly, one by one. I've started with the lead. Hopefully it's not controversial but I'll wait for comments on my edits there before proceeding any further. --Lysytalk20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I said it transferred from Germany to Poland. There is no indication as to how long it belonged to Germany or why it was transfered or what the long history was. There is no political language in this whatsoever. That is precisely what it is - land transfered from A to B.--72.92.120.10620:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose: "The Polish Corridor was a name used between the World Wars to refer to the area Germany transferred to a reformed Polish state after World War I. This state of affairs was a result of the Treaty of Versailles...."
it seems misleading as a definition, as would imply that e.g. Poznań belonged to the Polish Corridor, while obviously it did not. --Lysytalk09:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:The Polish Corridor was a name used between the World Wars to refer to the area Germany transferred to a reformed Polish stateafter World War I in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles.
it has the advantage of first describing what the territory was, and the continue with the discussion of its history. --Lysytalk11:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reordered what you did and changed the tense to past.
How about that ? First sentence outlines what we are talking about, then the "history section" followed by a more precise description in geographic terms. --Lysytalk12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No objections. Btw, I gave in and turned in my numbers for letters, as you can see. It eliminates the problem of wandering IP--Sin cloro12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about this here, I totally overlooked the fact that you changed "territory" to "Polish territory". This is loaded with the same sort of language you objected to previously, only not in the transferred from Germany to Poland context, but suggesting that the area was ethnically Polish. I reneg on my approval, with my apology being that it is early in the morning here and I have been up all night.--Sin cloro12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was not aware that it was contested that the Polish Corridor was Polish. Please, check out my latest edit ("the lead: proposal") and see if it addresses your concerns now. --Lysytalk16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The lead currently has a link to Polish Pomerania, which redirects to Pomeranian Voivodeship. Would a link to [[Gdańsk Pomerania|Polish Pomerania]] be better? Also, should Polish Pomerania simply be made into a redirect to Gdańsk Pomerania? Perhaps Polish Pomerania should be changed into a disambiguation page. Olessi20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As for Olessi's suggestions, I do not know how to answer, but I think the lead works as far as addressing the status of the region. Thanks, Lysy. As far as what we are linking to, again, I am not sure how to respond.--Sin cloro10:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think [[Gdańsk Pomerania|Polish Pomerania]] indeed would make more sense here. I'm not sure about changing the redirect of "Polish Pomerania" itself, as the name may be used in different contexts as well, and frankly, I don't really know what "Polish Pomerania" means. I'd change the link as you suggested but leave the lead for now, as everyone seems satisfied with it, and move on to the next section, which is the "Background". I have some other ideas for the lead already, but would leave them for later as well, so that we can see some progress from here (I know Sin cloro is impatient, already). --Lysytalk19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to eliminate the unnecessary brackets, putting "ethnographic" last because the part afterwards looks sort of like an aftercomment. I forgot to put the " " around historical though. It looks like the current version has this. Do we really need a citation for something based loosely on Wilson's 14 points?--Sin chloro
Yes, I think the request for citation is useful there, even if we don't contest any of these points, someone could. And it's always good to have well referenced article. Why would you prefer to have it removed ? --Lysytalk17:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should use Bromberg, Thorn, and Graudenz as the primary names, with the Polish names in parentheses. john k12:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this particular article refers to the period 1919-1939, therefore Polish names should be used, not German. Is this correct ? --Lysytalk17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The particular reference is to the 1910 census. Personally, I'm uncertain how a majority German city in the Polish Republic should be called, although I'm fairly sure that they were called Thorn, Bromberg, and Graudenz in English in the 20s and 30s. john k20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Polish names should come first. It is far too confusing to reference Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) only to later, in the same sentence, refer to it as Bydgoszcz (Bromberg). Besides, the way the sentence is constructed, the 1910 reference is written to show what Bydgozcz had in the past (it once had a German majority) rather than what happened in Bromberg in 1910, when whatever happened in 1910 can be assumed to be an event affecting Bromberg and Brombergers. Make sense?--Sin cloro11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why we want to mention German names for the towns that were in Poland (hope that's not being challenged), but I would reluctantly accept for now, until the more general naming convention is implemented. I'm not sure what is the purpose of mentioning the German name but I also see no harm other than it being awkward. Hope we can move on to other issues now. --Lysytalk22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
"Historical": The area had been part of the Kingdom of Poland and later the Duchy of Pomerania from the end of the 10th century till 1309 [1] when the monastic knights of the Teutonic Order took over control. According to the Peace of Toruń (1466) the area called Royal Prussia became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1466. Over 300 years later it was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia during the first partition of Poland in 1772.
Economic and political: It was argued that if the newly independent Polish state did not have an outlet to the Baltic Sea, it would be economically and therefore politically dependent on Germany. Since Britain and France wanted a strong Polish state as a counter-weight to Germany, they accepted this argument.
Ethnic: Although the Germans constituted a very large minority, the majority population within the area was Polish or, in the case of descendants from the early Pomeranians, considered themselves to be. Out of the 990,000 inhabitants in the Polish Corridor, roughly 421,000 people, 42.5%, were German.‹The templateTalkfact is being considered for merging.›[citation needed]
However, cities like Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), Toruń (Thorn) and Grudziądz (Graudenz) all had German majorities before World War I, in 1910.[2] The former region of West Prussia[3] (German: Westpreußen) consisted of 65% ethnic Germans. At the same time, there was a considerable Kashubian (an early Slavonic tribe of Pomeranians) and Polish minority, constituting the other 35% of the population.[4] Generally speaking, cities and larger towns were mainly German, while rural regions were mainly Polish.
Yes, I have problems with the proposed changes. First, why is "Historical" quoted ? Then, why do we need the last passage now, that we have the table with sourced data ? Finally, should the last argument be Ethnographic or Ethnic ?--Lysytalk22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
First, historical was written as "Historical" before I even touched the article. I had to think about this one for a minute, too. However, my conclusion was that, unlike the other two arguments, you cannot prove that the transfer was justified by the region's historical conditions. I think that is what the article was trying to indicate. The economic/political situation is self-explanatory and can be proven as can the fact that the Poles made up a larger demographic. Yes, the Germans were once a majority in certain parts and yes, they constituted a large minority at the time of the transfer. However, you can't argue with a conclusion that a majority rule at the time of the transfer could be seen as a condition. I'm not sure what you can prove historically. That it belonged to Poland once before and that the Poles were there before the Germans? Both of these might be factors in rendering a conclusion, but they do not prove anything because history can be approached from many different angles.--Sin cloro00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly this can be approached from different angles, but it's not our task to discuss this in the article. We are only presenting the arguments that were used to support the decision to transfer the territory to Poland. The quotation mark would indicate that the editors of the encyclopedia are trying to present their opinion on the validity of the argument, and of course we should not be doing this. --Lysytalk23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The last passage is neccessary because the chart, though it looks nice and is an excellent addition, is an incomplete picture. I think it is important that three cities were of a German majority in 1910. I think it is also interesting that one particular region in what became in the corridor (providing a geographic overview rather than a city sampling) constituted 65% - a majority. Of course, this means that the Poles made up a large minority just the same. All in all, the chart is a great addition but it is not a replacement, with the previous content having stood until just recently.--Sin cloro00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
But how the fact that there was German majority in the cities was used to support the transfer of the territory to Poland ? In fact it seems to contradict the ethnic argument, not support it. It seems not to belong to this article, but maybe to Historical Eastern Germany instead. --Lysytalk23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Most towns of the Kingdom of Hungary have names in multiple languages- Hungarian, German, Romanian, Slovak, Croatian, Serbian etc. If the article's subject is from an ethnicity/country different from the present-day locality name, I personally think it is good to include the historical name. For example, when editing an article about a Hungarian Transylvanian, I would support "In 1567 Kovács went to Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca)", or with a Saxon, "In 1835 Schmidt went to Kronstadt (Braşov)". For instances where the individual is from the same ethnicity/country, I see less of a need, ala "In 1739 Ionescu went to Alba Iulia". The above is, of course, in the absence of an officially established naming convention. Olessi20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd add that we should certainly do this for central and eastern Europe more generally - the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Bohemia, Carniola and other Slovene areas, Dalmatia, Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Livonia, and Estonia, Finland, at least. Probably also for cities in Alsace (or at least some cities in Alsace. We certainly don't refer to the "Saverne Incident" in Alsace in 1913.) john k19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Then the right place to suggest this would be WP:NC(GN) indeed. Given the amount of time wasted on the name-wars, we badly need the policy on this. --Lysytalk19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Map?
I see that Halibutt has some really nice maps of the Eastern/Central European situation during the interwar period. Since the Polish Corridor map is a little fuzzy, perhaps we could work with Halibutt's map and circle/highlight the area that consisted of the Polish Corridor. The interwar map is already on the Español [2] page, but I think we should at least highlight the Corridor region.--Sin cloro18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Are we able to precisely mark the corridor on the map ? What would be its southern border then ?
H.G. Wells, who was strongly opposed to the creation of the Polish Corridor, presented in his wrtings detailed counter-arguments to the above.
H.G. Wells, in his 1933The Shape of Things to Come, strongly condemned the creation of the Polish Corridor by the victorious WWI Allies, placed on it a large portion of the blame for the rise of Hitler, and correctly predicted that it will turn out to be the issue toucing off a new Europe-wide war (the date given in the future history included in the book was January1940 - just three months off).
The relevant part (in Chapter 10 of Wells' book) reads:
(...)Let us note a point or so about this latter tangle to illustrate the mental quality of the [Versailles] Conference at its worst. Here more than anywhere else did the simple romantic idea that the Germans were Bad, and that anyone opposed to the Germans was without qualification Good, rule the situation. The Poles were Good, and they were the chosen of the Allies, the particular protégés of the sentimental historian from America [Wilson].
He had come to put down the mighty from their seats and to exalt the humble and the meek. The hungry and eager were to be filled with good things and the rich, the erstwhile rich, were to be sent empty away. Germany, like Dives in hell, was to look up and see Poland like Lazarus in Woodrow Wilson’s bosom. Not only were the Good Poles to be given dominion over Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Jews (whom particularly they detested), Lithuanians, White Russians and Germans, they were to have also something of profound economic importance — “access to the sea”.
On that President Wilson had been very insistent. Switzerland had done very well in pre-war Europe without access to the sea, but that was another story. The difficulty was that by no stretch of ethnic map-colouring could Poland be shown to border on the sea. A belt of Pomeranians and Germans stretched across the mouth of the Vistula, and the only possibility of a reasonable trading outlet to the sea, so far as Poland needed such an outlet —for most of its trade was with its immediate neighbours — was through an understanding with that belt of people.
That would have been easy enough to arrange. At the mouth of the Vistula stood the entirely German city of Danzig. It lived mainly as an outlet for Polish trade, and it could prosper in no other way. There was no reason to suppose it would put any difficulties in the way of Polish imports and exports. It was an ancient, honest, clean and prosperous German city. Ninety-six per cent of its inhabitants were German.
This was the situation to which the Conference of Versailles, under the inspiration of that magic phrase “access to the sea”, turned its attention. Even the profound belief of the Conquerors that there were no Germans but bad Germans could not justify their turning over Danzig itself to Polish rule. But they separated it from Germany and made it into a “free city”, and to the west of it they achieved that “access to the sea” of Wilson’s, by annexing a broad band of Pomeranian territory to Poland. (This was the actual “Corridor” of the controversies.) It had no port to compare with Danzig, but the Poles set themselves to create a rival in Gdynia, which should be purely Polish, and which should ultimately starve the trading Germans out of Danzig.
And to keep the waters of the Vistula as pure and sweet for Poland as the existence of Danzig at the estuary allowed, the peace-makers ran the Vistula boundary between Poland and east Prussia, not in the usual fashion midway along the stream, but at a little distance on the east Prussian side (Jacques Kayser, La Paix en Péril, 1931). So that the east German population, the peasant cultivator, the erstwhile fisherman, the shepherd with his flocks to water, was pulled up by a line of frontier posts and a Polish rifle within sight of the stream. Moreover, that eastward country was flat and low-lying and had hitherto been protected from floods and a relapse to marsh conditions by a line of dykes. The frontier cut that line five times, and since the Poles had no interest whatever in these defences, they fell rapidly out of repair. Further along the boundary cut off the great towns of Garnsee and Bischofswerder from their railway station.
But we must not lose ourselves in the details of this exasperating settlement. The maximum of irritation developed in the absurd Corridor itself. The current of traffic had hitherto run to and fro between east and west, the trend of the railways was in that direction; the traffic in the north and south direction had come to Danzig along the great river. Now the Poles set themselves to obstruct both these currents and to wrench round all the communications into a north and south direction avoiding Danzig. Every German going east or west found himself subjected to a series of frontier examinations, to tariff payments, to elaborate delays, to such petty but memorable vexations as that all the windows of an express train passing across the Corridor should be closed, and so forth, and the city of Danzig, cut off from German trade, found its Polish business being steadily diverted to Gdynia. French capital was poured into Gdynia and into its new railway to the south, so that French financial interests were speedily entangled in the dispute.
The indignity and menace of Danzig burnt into the German imagination. That Corridor fretted it as nothing else in the peace settlement had fretted it. It became a dominant political issue. There was an open sore of a similar character in Upper Silesia; there was a sore in the Saar Valley; there was the sore of an enforced detachment from Austria; there were many other bitter memories and grievances, but this was so intimate, so close to Berlin, that it obsessed all German life.
Within a dozen years of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles the Polish Corridor was plainly the most dangerous factor in the European situation. It mocked every projection of disarmament. It pointed the hypnotized and impotent statescraft of Europe straight towards a resumption of war.
One Reason for the II WW
The Korridor was basicly the reason for the II WW because without the Prussian dominated army Hitler would have been a Postmaster in Upper Austria to the end of his live and Prussian officers followed him, because they felt betrayed because of the loss of Western Prussia (Pomerania ore Pomerellen) and the Frensh occopation of the Rheinland witch they sah as broken peace treaty by the Frensh.( At trick by the british to back of the Frensh from the oil in the middle east )
The Polish did not make the things better by dilivertly making the connections between the two German parts tricky. More ore less often Germans where herassed delivertly by the polish autority, when they wanted to pass with car or in other way from German Pommerania via the Corridor to East Prussia.
In August 1939 the Polish started to shoot at German civilian planes ( propper marked) when they where flying out of the 3 Mile zone on the Coast to Eastern Prussia. -- Johann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk)
H.G. Wells revisited
I have put in the above quote from the Wells book (which is by the way in the public domain, no copyright problems) becuase the article as it stood gave in detail the arguments why creation of the Polish Corridor was justified, but not one word of the opposing arguments - which is certainly not NPOV. I felt that Wells presented in a logical and cogent way the case against the Polish Corridor, and that he could not be accused of pro-Nazi bias (the Nazis burned his books and placed him on the list of people to be immediately liquidated in the event of a succesful invasion of Britain). Perhaps I was too lazy in just copying and pasting the text which is available online (and which I think is well-written). So, now I have extracted the main counter-arguments and placed them in the same format as the arguments in favor of the Polish Corridor. I hope this is acceptable. Adam keller19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I did not succeed in finding the Polish names of Garnsee and Bischofswerder, I hope somebody can fill them in.
Balcer has removed the following from the Wells' arguments against the Corridor: "The Vistula Estuary area was not ethnically Polish, its inhabitants being mainly Germans and Pomeranians. Pomeranians were Slavs but not Poles". His reasons were "this point contradicts what is said directly above [i.e.in the arguments in favor of the Corridor]. Anyway, most Kashubians (that is actually the correct name) consider themselves Polish by nationality." Now, I did not assert that this argument was factually true, I did assert that this was an argument against the Corridor made at the time - as evident from Wells' book. As such, it belongs in this section. The ethnic question was one of the main arguments which both sides to the debate played with and each tried to turn it in its favor. Wells did not assert that the whole corridor was not ethnically Polish, only that its northern part near the sea shore (Vistula estuary) was not ethnically Polish, and therefore any Polish corridor leading to the sea had to incorporate a non-Polish area. Re the national identity of the Kashubians: in the Kashubians Wikipedia page, the first name on the list of "Famous Kashubians" is Günter Grass, who certianly considers himself to be of German nationality. In Garss' book The Tin Drum which takes place exactly in this area and time, he makes very much the point of the ambiguity of Kashubian identity, that many of them felt not quite Polish and not quite German, or a bit of both, and how it differed from one Kashubian to another and even for the same person in different times and situations. I don't think anyone at the time made an exact statistics of where the Kashubians placed themselves and which percentage were on each side. Of course, after 1945 they had to make a very clear choice and had no room left for ambiguity, but this is irrelevant for the earlier period. Anyway, I think this argument belongs in the article and should go back in.Adam keller17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if you put it this way, I am fine with it, but it has to be formulated better. Simply saying "Corridor was ethnically Polish" in one sentence and then "Corridor was not ethnically Polish" just a few sentences down without much explanation only confuses the reader. Could not the "for" and "against" sections be combined somehow, to avoid this problem? Anyway, if any of the arguments against the corridor are wrong in light of the facts known now and even at the time, that should be clearly indicated as well. Balcer17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest keeping the opposing ethnic arguments separately in the two sections, as follows:
In the pro-Corridor section: "Ethnic: As argued by supporters of the corridor, most of the population of the region was either Polish (in the area on the west bank of the Vistula, between Gdańsk (Danzig) and Bydgoszcz (Bromberg)), or Kashubian (the direct descendants of an early Polish tribe of Pomeranians) in the coastal area north-west of Danzig."
In the anti-Corridor section: "As argued by opponents of the corridor, while there was considerable Polish population in the southern parts of the corridor, the sea shore/Vistula Estuary area was not ethnically Polish, its inhabitants being mainly Germans and Kashubians/Pomeranians. The Kashubians were Slavs but not Poles, and the allegiance of many of them as between Poland and Germany was at the time ambiguous. Thus, running a corridor of soverign Polish teritory up to the sea was unjustified".
I could almost live with this, but saying categorically that Kashubians were not Poles is much too strong. Per our Kashubians article, according to the latest census the number of Kashubians who actually claim Kashubian (and not Polish) nationality is about 5000, while the number of people claiming Kashubian as their native language is about 50,000 (but they still indicate their nationality as Polish). It follows from this that the vast majority of Kashubians consider themselves to be both Poles and Kashubians. Was this situation totally reversed in the early 1920s? I don't have the data on hand, but I find that hard to believe.
Anyway, if Kashubians were not 90% Poles at the time, they were certainly not 90% Germans, so using their share of the population as an argument for leaving the Corridor in German hands does not seem very logical to me. Balcer18:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is a very big difference between the situation before 1945 and after. In 1945 everybody who was German was thrown out, so any Kashubians who wanted to stay on in this area had to state that they were of Polish nationality, and continue to say that to any govenment offical. Probably most of them were sincere about it, since there were no longer any Germans around and there were a lot more Poles around than there had been before 1945, so they tended to increasingly assimilate in the Polish environment. Anybody who declared themselves German found themselves immediately as refugees in Germany, and in the following decades were largely assimilated there. That was not the situation in the 1920's and 1930's, I get the feeling that many Kashubinas then did not want to make such a shrap choice. But anyway, I suggest the following amendment which should solve the problem:
In the anti-Corridor section: "As argued by opponents of the corridor, while there was considerable Polish population in the southern parts of the corridor, the sea shore/Vistula Estuary area was not ethnically Polish, its inhabitants being mainly Germans and Kashubians/Pomeranians. The Kashubians were a Slavic ethnic group with a strong distinct identity, and the allegiance of many of them as between Poland and Germany was at the time ambiguous. Thus, running a corridor of soverign Polish teritory up to the sea was considered unjustified".
Again, I want to emaphsize that putting this passage in does not imply that this was an objectively justified argument, just that this was an argument actually used by opponents of the corridor at the time and as such it is a useful piece of data for a person looking into Wikipedia for information on the subject.Adam keller19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this formulation sounds ok to me, though I might change my view if I dig up the relevant census data from the interwar period. On the whole, I am a little uncomfortable with relying on just one writer, eminent though he may be, to present the anti-corridor arguments of the time, but I can live with it for now. Balcer20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
THe Kashubian consider tham Polish today no wonder but did they consider themselve as Polish 1918 ? That is the Question and when I see on the Mazurian area witch is near by I would say by vote the POlish would have never got this Corridor. -- Johann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2007
It has to be pointed out that "the usual suspects" loath the facts which Wells reported in 1933, and even correctly predicted, and try to impose their POV on Wikipedia.-- Mattheaddiscuß! O 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
"area called Royal Prussia became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1466." That's wrong statement. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was established only in 1569. --81.7.98.25008:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Shape of Things to Come
The Shape of Things to Come is a science fiction book. Information about its contents should be in the article about the book, not about a real life situation.Arguments against giving back to Poland the area should be from notable publications about real life history. Also mind that Well's radical ideology was at conflict with existance of Poland--MarceChi14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Good catch, I was going to ask about it myself. When and where German planes and buses were shot? Examples? Anyway,this sentence, unless verified, should be deleted. Tymek (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Polish Corridor - German POV
The title is a German propaganda term. The Polish name was Województwo pomorskie.Xx236 08:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
XX236 - is this artcile about German propaganda term, how it appeared and how it was used, or is it article about "województwo pomorskie"? Maybe we should clarify if you have the doubts? Szopen12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As I have written - Polish: Korytarz gdański misinforms. The Polish name is Województwo pomorskie.
This article is part of the series: Territorial changes of Poland - it shouldn't be.
I see. Well., I think the case is simple. If someone can provide a quote which uses Polish name, it should stay. If not, remove this "korytarz gdanski" thing. Szopen07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the source of those data? It seems impossible that German population would fell from 60% in 1911 to 20% in 1921 (In Torun area, for example). It also contradicts the census data for POmerania I saw earlier, Is it just some falsification, or maybe it's just for cities, not for the areas? Szopen (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For Kulm the data is true: 51% Poles, 47% Germans. I am seeking the data for other disctricts. It seems to me that this is including areas which were not finally passed into Poland, but that's just firstimpression...Szopen (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Checked. The anonymous editor gave only numbers for "stadtkreis", without "landkreis". In Landkreis Poles were majority, that's why he oimitted them, probably.Szopen (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, please check the percentages. The %%s do add over 100% in some cases. Szopen (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny, You are adding some unsourced numbers of Polish populace in 1911, afterwards calling it falsification (maybe) and someone else removes the whole section because the percentages are sometimes more than 100. That´s perfect teamwork!!(89.50.54.59 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
Search for yourself and you will see the given percentages of Poles even in other wiki articles. Anyway, the data given for German percentage was manipulated: e.g. as I wrote before, unknown anonymous editor gave only data for the cities, and ommitted the data for the countryside, where Poles were majority... Thus giving false impression of far greater German percentage than it was.
Szopen (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thorn and Graudenz had large garrisons. E.g. in 1910 in Graudenz there was 35th Division of infantry. According to our wikipedia article it was 15.000 strong, with "significant percentage of pOles". Was the garrison counted in censues? My sources are positive about that. One internet site even claims that one/third of working males in Graudenz wore uniforms. This might skew census dataSzopen (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Reservations about using Blanke
I have reservations about using Blanke-he blames Poland for Second World War on the first pages of his book, by saying that its causes were 'Polish resentment to Germanisation'. I must confess such particular revisionist statement is something new to me. I guess Blanke believes Poles should accept Germanisation ?
Oh and not to mention his book has not a single word on Kulturkampf era which influences much on status and numeric position of Germans in Polish territory.Very POV. Also surprised that being German historian didn't hear about Kulturkampf and settlement of thousands of Germans in Poland by German Empire.
[7]
Richard Blanke, "Upper Silesia, 1921; The Case for Subjective Nationality, " Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, 2, 2, spring 1975 (pp. 241-260)
by an American historian of German descent; sympathetic to German views.
Other book where Blanke is co-author:
"For example, this volume is very good at describing the suffering of German minorities in individual (national) cases, but does not ask why so many Eastern and Central European countries expelled and persecuted their German minorities after the Second World War. Only very slight mention is made of the collaboration of these German minorities with the Third Reich in war crimes and other exactions against the non-German populations, and no analysis of them is made. The reader is left with a string of often heart-rending stories of suffering and injustice, but little or no analysis of why such injustice might have occurred, except to evoke communist thugs, venal neighbors or the evil ethnic nationalism of President Benes. But the problem runs even deeper. Many of the contributions are implicit or even explicit pleas for the acknowledgment of the suffering of the ethnic group with which the author identifies, and the book skates very close at times to a frankly revisionist exercise in comparative ethnic suffering. This impression is only accentuated by the fact that a majority of contributions are based mainly on secondary sources, and many are superficial. The quality of contributions varies greatly."
"The omission of the Holocaust, the special pleading of many contributions, and the revisionist tendencies of some, also leaves a faint and unpleasant odor of sulphur, which is unfortunate and perhaps unintended by the editors, but difficult to dispel."
[8]
Seems a very biased author.
Rohan Butler writes in his Book "The Plebiscites in Allenstein and Marienwerder January 21 - September 29, 1920" about a letter written by the British representative. This letter is cited in the article:
Throughout the East Prussian plebiscite in July 1920 Polish authorities tried to prevent traffic through the Corridor, interrupting any postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication. On March 10, 1920, the British representative on the Marienwerder Plebiscite Commission, H.D. Beaumont, wrote of numerous continuing difficulties being made by Polish officials and added "as a result, the ill-will between Polish and German nationalities and the irritation due to Polish intolerance towards the German inhabitants in the Corridor (now under their rule), far worse than any former German intolerance of the Poles, are growing to such an extent that it is impossible to believe the present settlement (borders) can have any chance of being permanent.... It can confidently be asserted that not even the most attractive economic advantages would induce any German to vote Polish. If the frontier is unsatisfactory now it will be far more so when it has to be drawn on this side (of the river) with no natural line to follow, cutting off Germany from the river bank and within a mile or so of Marienwerder, which is certain to vote German. I know of no similar frontier created by any treaty."
Throughout the East Prussian plebiscite in July 1920 Polish authorities tried to ensure that according to international agreements the plebiscite area will not be subject to movement of German forces.
still using Butler as a source, which is wrong and in fact falsifying the content of Rohan´s book. Please stop using sources you never read just to claim something you like to read. (Pommerland (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC))
Germanisation of the region
German Settlement Commission] according to its own reports settled around 135,000-150,000 Germans in Polish areas held by Prussia before Poland regained independence[5] during Germanisation campaign. During this attempt Germans took over 590 estates with overall area of 305 986 hectares, and 398 rural holdings covering 20 007 hectares[6]
Settlement Commission article states: However the Commission in the end bought 613 estates from German owners and 214 from Poles, functioning to bail-out German debtors as often as fulfilling its declared mission. Up to 1914 only 22,000 German peasants had actually settled in the bought up land. The statement is referenced by Volker Rolf Berghahn, Imperial Germany, 1871-1918: Economy, Society, Culture, and Politics, p. 106, 2004, ISBN:1845450116. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The number above is only for peasents and doesn't include their families they brought with them.
The precise numbers are 21.866 families, 154,000 settlers altogether.
Andrzej Chwalba - Historia Polski 1795-1918 page 461
Is the section on "Drastic" neutral or supported by sources ?
First the word drastic doesn't seem to be neutral or encyclopedic.
Second most of the sources seem to be gathered bits of information without any connection to general reduction of German population.
--Molobo (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Why should a drastic decline from 42,5% to 9,6% within a few years not neutrally be called a drastic decline? Your proposed wording general reduction surely does not match the issue. Which of the sourced statements do you think are not related to the drastic decline? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Since we don't know the exact number without colonists, military and administration. The 9 % could just as well be natural level. Anyway none of the sources link those incidents with reversal of Germanisation of the Polish region as far as I can see and thus makes up a synthesis and OR.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Rather it is a synthesis and OR to implement that of an overall population of not even a million more than 300.000 Germans should just have been some kind of "visitors", all based on no more than there was some military and activity of the ill-working Settlement Commission in that area.Skäpperöd (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much of the German population was part of military, colonists and administration. Those exact numbers are not known to me. However the fact is that the area was subject to German colonisation and colonists and military were counted as local population in census.--Molobo (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference between real numbers, i.e. not relative percentage of Poles and Germans, but between total population in 1910 and in 1921? Szopen (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The answer is already in the article, that in section Polish Corridor#Background#Ethnic composition states: Yet, after its creation in 1919, the percentage of the German population in the corridor had dropped from 42,5% (421,029 Germans) in 1910 to 18,8% (175,771) in 1921. Over the next decade, the German population decreased by another 70,000 to a share of 9,6%.Skäpperöd (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, because this is still about relative size. I mean, what was OVERALL population in 1910 and 1920? How much of German population drop could be related to emigration, and how much to people with fluid identities, who simply declared themselves German in 1910 and Polish in 1920? Szopen (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just very rough count: since Germans in 1910 were 42% and were about 421 thousand, then whole population was about 1.050.000. In 1921 population was 935.000. 1050-935-115.000 (population drop). 421-175=246.000 (drop in German population). Of course, we have to count natural increase, Polish immigration, etc - but I think this may suggest part of reason of population drop was the cases of fluid identities (aaand Poles counted as Germans by Prussian authorities). Szopen (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Szopen didn't also German government issue a call to Germans to leave Poland so that it would lack adminstrative officials, doctors, workers and so on ?--Molobo (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Now what is your point, that a 75% decline (400,000 --> 100,000) is not drastic enough to be called so (or sth similar), or that this drastic decline was not within Polish responsibility (if you are really trying to prove the latter, open a new section for this POV)? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I am wondering aloud how much of that change (from 421000 to 175000, not from 400 to 100, so its not 75%), can really be attributed to Germans leaving province, and how many to people with a) fluid identities, who simply declared themselves Poles b) Poles who were counted as Germans in 1910, and as Poles in 1920. Szopen (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The 175,000 is only from 1921, another 70,000 left the following years (see article). So the 75% do well as a proximate number. For your points a) and b), I do not have records, but I would be interested if someone provides any. Yet, right now it is only speculation whether or not and if, to what extend this would influence the statistics. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is not drastic-we already know that population was actually smaller since a portion considered of administrative officials with no ties to area(thanks Szopen for providing info they were 10% of German population),there were also colonists and military. Drastic is emotional word and in face of available knowledge not justified. It's a natural and common event that when an occupying colonialist power is faced with indepedence of formely conquered territories, its colonists and administration, as well as non-native inhabitants move back to their state. I think the same happened to English in India and French in Algeria(of course I wouldn't want our French and English members to believe I am comparing their democratic countries with the racist policies of German Empire towards non-German-my comparision was only towards how those situations look like in terms of population changes). Anyway the bottom line is that the census includes colonists, administrative officials(10%) and military. As to reversal of Germanisation-I have no doubt that Poles wanted that and encouraged return of Germans to Germany, but I also read, and actually can source the fact that Germans left on their, fearing the reaction of people that were second class citizens and repressed by Germans. Especially those who belonged from Pan-German League, German settlers, German officials. As to the call-indeed it was once read by me, but I want to confirm it.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you say the population drop was not drastic because a) 10% of the Germans were officials, b) military was included, c) colonists were included. You conclude that the German population within the corridor was about the same as the German population of West Prussia, just without a), b) and c). Is that right?
to a): even if 10% of the Germans held some office, why should they not be included in the statistics of the German population?
to b): see below talk section. Military was not there in high numbers and consisted of both Germans and Poles. What would that change?
to c): You did not provide information on how many of the West Prussian Germans were settled there just before WP became the Polish Corridor. If you do, and this number would be significant, we can talk about whether they should be counted or not. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
a:Indeed if 10% of Germans were sent to administrate Polish territories we can note that. Classifing administration of taken over territories as local population would produce though distorted results.
b:"Military was not there in high numbers" Source ? I haven't seen any sourced figures for military ? "and consisted of both Germans and Poles" Source ? My source says Poles were sent away from Polish territories in hope they would be Germanised. Anyway you are right-so far sourced information on;y consists of the fact that German military sent to the area was classified as local population.
C: If you do, and this number would be significant, we can talk about whether they should be counted or not We are not here to make a census, just inform people. So far the only sourced information is that the region from which an area was restored to Poland was subject to that colonisation effort.--Molobo (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The demographic data from 1910 includes stationed military
All the above is unfortunetly unsourced. We don't have any source on the exact number of German troops stationed there. As to Polish recruits-they would be counted as local population, and also Poles were sent away from Polish regions in the army, so that they would be Germanised(again Andrzej Chalba Historia Polski). We don't have exact numbers, but what we do have is the fact that Germans counted military as part of the population.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don´t know wether the military is included or not, just wanted to give some information about it. The source is: Hein , "Das kleine Buch vom Deutschen Heere" (The small book of the German Army) Kiel 1901, unfortunately there are no exact numbers given. I don´t understand your sentence "Polish recruits would be counted as local population" - off course, that´s why ít would be wrong to count every soldier as German. A lot of them were ethnic Poles. so if we´re talking about (just as a number) 30,000 men, many of them were not part of the German populace. (HerkusMonte (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC))
Yes Herkus-that's the point-German soldiers stationed in Polish territories were counted as local population.
"I don´t know wether the military is included or not" -it is, Blanke himself mentions it in the census data he gives for 1910 in the book.--Molobo (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Were German workers and administration evacuated to interior of German Empire due to Russian army's advance in early stages of WW1? Did some members of the minority population decide to move to dominant German ethnic territories fearing revange of previously discriminated Polish majority ? Are there any sources on that ? --Molobo (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Russian Army did not occupy the later Corridor (only very small parts around Soldau and this only for a few days in August 1914), so I don´t understand the question.
It's fairly standard practice in war to move production and labourers to safer and more defensible areas.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The territories involved were very scarcely populated and there was not much of hardware to evacuate from the Mazurian Marshes. Look at the map, it's lakes and bogs and sands. Also take into account the very short time frame of Russian scare and the fact that the railways and rolling stock were employed to their max by the military. NVO (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
does anyone know where I can find an 'ethnic makeup' map of the German Empire from 1914. The 'Origins of WW1' has an ethnic makeup map of Austria-Hungary from 1914. It shows that the treaty dealing with Austria-Hungary actually divided the country up mostly along ethnic lines except that it gave the Sudetenland to Chechoslovakia. Probably this area should have been joined to Germany but I believe the thinking was that the mountain ranges of the Sudetenland made for ideal defensive obstacles and would protect Chechoslovakia from Germany.75.84.227.196 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Exodus
As the phrase "drastic decline of the German population" seems to stimulate some editors to engage in wearisome discussions (above sections), and I do not have unlimited amounts of time on my hands, I changed and sourced the title of the section into "Exodus of the German population". Skäpperöd (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I added
On the fact that the area was subject to enforced Germanisation and soldiers stationed were counted as local population.--Molobo (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
