Jump to content

Talk:Recovered Territories/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


POV

(Note: I have numbered user:Molobo's statements so replies can be adressed without quoting the whole statementSkäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC))
(Note2: I have copied Molobo's replies to the respective places for readability) Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(Note3: I have copied the threads below their respective initial statement)Skäpperöd (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
format remark: Maybe you (Molobo) should create new sections for the points you want to discuss further (just for readability). Skäpperöd (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
format remark 2: I urge you (Molobo) to create new sections for the points you want to discuss further (just for readability) Skäpperöd (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (1): It is true that a narrow, discontinous strip of land along the post-WWI border of Germany became Prussian during the partitions and was not part of interwar Poland. However, these territories did not constitute a significant proportion of the former eastern territories of Germany. If this issue should be introduced into the article, it has to be with a due weight. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 1-narrow is a POV term not sourced by anything. The territories were taken in Partitions of Poland and were recovered only in 1945. There is no reason to ignore them. They should be listed alongside others.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What area are you talking about? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (2): You misunderstand the term propaganda. The term does not necessarily refer to faked facts, but (and I think in most cases) to misrepresenting, ommitting and exaggerating facts. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 2-good that we agree then that the fact of recovery is true. I suggest writing that and only later write that the real fact of recovered lands was used by propaganda.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Where did I agree? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (3) The current version while mentioning Germanisation of those territories, is almost completely focused on their Germanisation period, largely avoiding to describe their time as part of Poland before. --Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (3): In most of the area in question, the "Germanisation period" was in the 13th century. How long does it take in your eyes before you consider this territory "German"? And where does the article "focus" on Germanisation? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 3-that is your personal opinion not sourced by anything. Most of Silesia was not Germanised till XVII century. Warmia and Mazury were never completely Germanised. Most of the area didn't become part of German state untill 1871. Or untill Austro-Prussian wars. Anyway parts were Polish still in XVI century. So this has to be mentioned.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Germanisation period does not mean every single village suddenly turned German. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (4) Since the focus of Recovered Lands was that they were part of Poland before 1945, it should describe how they were named and how they were administrated during that time. Example Ziemia Lubuska, księstwo głogowskie and so on.--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (4): I already thought about introducing a table blotting "Area", "time", "names", "ethnic composition" vs "Polish period (medieval)", "German period", "Polish period (modern)". Any thoughts? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 4-too complicated. Also exact ethnic composition would rely on difficult sources. Although I have a map of advance of Germanisation in Silesia at the cost of native Polish and Czech people throughout the centuries. A short list of territories, their character and when were they lost to Poland would be ok.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
see below Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (5) Several statements that are very dubious-for example there was no need to have anti-German propaganda in 1945. For the past 6 years Poles were exterminated by Nazi Germany while knowing the opression of Prussia(Proces Polskich Patriotów for instance(33 Polish activists killd in 1848 for example), German Empire(Wszesnia schoolstrike, Kulturkampf) there were no warm feelings towards Germany and Germans without the need of any propaganda.--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (5): I agree there was no need to tell anyone about the evil Nazis after the war. There rather was a need to tell people that "all" Germans were Nazis (collective guilt thesis) and that they were still up to invade the East. That was exactly what was done by Communist propaganda. The Prussian discriminations are rather connected to Posen and West Prussia of the pre-WWI period, to single out events of this period in another area does not make sense to me in regard to this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to 5 "I agree there was no need to tell anyone about the evil Nazis after the war"
The Nazis were not a nation. Germans were. And Prussian Kingdom with its discrimination and murder of Poles(for example in 1848), German Empire with its Kulturkampf and so on was also seen as evil, even if lesser. Neither did the Poles narrow on Nazis. Also those territories had the highest support of Nazism which was known, Werwolf performed murder on Polish civilians, and there was experience of German minorities support for Nazi genocide in 1939. "that they were still up to invade the East. That was exactly what was done by Communist propaganda"-the communist propaganda didn't invent that NSDAP and DNVP gained over 50% of votes, the existance of Selbstschutz, Nazi co-led Expelees(Hans Kruger), refusal to reckognise borders, or public support and votes for former mass murderers from Warsaw Uprising among German electorate(Heinz Reinefarth). There was no need for any propaganda against Germans.
"The Prussian discriminations are rather connected to Posen and West Prussia of the pre-WWI period" You already agreed that Poznań and Warmia i Mazury constitute part of recovered lands, the history of Germanisation and thus discrimination of Poles should be related briefly to make know what were the reason for Polish policies regarding this region.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So you believe in collective guilt?
Posen is not part of the "RT" and Warmia-Masuria is not West Prussia. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (6) Several statements that do not connect to the question of Recovered Lands. For instance the March 1968 events, and the claim of "Polish antisemitism".--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (6): It is important to notice that a significant part of the population settled in the Western Territories were Jews who left these territories soon afterwards due to antisemitic violence. I do not see how this is unrelated to the article, as this is within the period and the area covered by the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to 6-a brief demographic section is in order. We can inform readers about forced settlement by Prussia in Silesia to replace the Poles, other ethnic based decisions by German governemnt, and changes in situation. However it needs to be brief.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
How is this related to the settlers and to the Jews in particular? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (7) Incorrect or nationalists-like statments-600 years of German history ? Hardly. Silesia for example wasn't Germanised till XVIII century. Austria and Hungary were multiethnic states, we can start from Prussia in regards to German state history, but for example Opole was within the authority of Polish rulers as late as XVI century. And so on.--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (7): Please confirm incorrectness and nationalist character. How does the presence of Slavic minorities at the edges of the territories interflict with the territories having a 600+ years German history? How does it interflict that parts of these territories were under the rule of a non-German nobility in a time long before there was something like "nations"? Did Lodz not have a Polish history in the times it was not ruled by Poles? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(Btw: The "nationalist" statement ("six to seven hundred years of German history") was made by Norman Davis, who can hardly be called one of the fiercest enemies of the Poles. )Skäpperöd (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply to 7-I already explained that the claim that those territories have 600 years of German history is simply incorrect. Those areas were always multiethnic despite Germanisation, and their beginning are not based in Germany, just like the beginnings of Vilna are not starting in Poland.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So a German history would only start if an area is 100% German by population and statehood? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (8) Several statements that not connected to the term, and seem, well, strange-why so focus on the fact that Poles removed signs of Germanisation of their territories, and the fact that they weren't interested in Germans achievements of Germanising Polish areas ? It seems quite normal that Poles learned about Polish history, and weren't keen on learning German history that involved their attempted genocide. --Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (8): Why should a Pole whose parents were settled in eg Szczecin learn nothing about the history of the place he lives in? Just because Stettin had no Polish residents before 1945? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to 8-Szczecin had Poles before 1945, and it was their history that was learned about mostly. Parts of Germanisation history were learned. But Poles were no Germans and there was no desire to learn a foreign history besides the essentials. Also you do not understand that to many people then, and to some even know, German language and German history was connected to their histories of being in the camps, or having family murdered. I know personally elderly people, who feel ill when hearing German language, because they have bad memories associated with it. --Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
pre-1945 Stettin did not have an indigenous Polish minority, neither did surrounding areas. You can't possibly source that. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (9) Incomplete sentences-for example the text doesn't write why Poles wanted a united national state-mainly due to attempted German eradication of Polish culture under Prussia and later German Empire, and attempted German genocide of Poles during WW2.--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (9): You pointed out already in your other statements that you want to have Nazi war crimes introduced into this article. Maybe you make a proposal where exactly and why. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reply to (9)-oh, throughout most of the article, the demographics section would need explaining about continuation of previous policies of Germanisation by German state in timeframe of 1933-1945-for example explusion of Poles from Silesia, extermination of Poles and Jews left in areas like Wrocław, and so on.--Molobo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You want to add Nazi crimes throughout the article? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that much of the contextual information given is one-sided or incomplete. The "historical basis" section, in particular, needs expanding and clarifying (we need to state clearly what the history of each of the parts of the "Territories" was, so readers can judge to what extent the phrase "Recovered" was justified in respect of each of them).--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

what about a table (reply to (4) below) ? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Historical basis section

Above, user:Kotniski made the following proposal: "We need to state clearly what the history of each of the parts of the "Territories" was, so readers can judge to what extent the phrase "Recovered" was justified in respect of each of them.". I suggested to introduce a table for the following reasons: The territories in question never were an entity before 1945, and they lost their status as an entity already because of regional differentiation. If we want to tell all the different histories of these territories, and the time period in question is roughly 1000 years, we boost this article to a monstrous size. If we focus on the Polish history and omit the German one, we do exactly what the Communist propagandists did, which I do not think is desirable here.

So what scope should the section have? I think it is sufficient that most of these territories were indeed subdued by Piast dukes in the Middle Ages, but that the Piasts lost grip sooner (Pomerania) or later (Silesia) and that the German period started in the 12th to 13th century with massive German settlement. Maybe one could also state that in most of the areas there were indeed West Slavs, but no Poles during the Polish period. Skäpperöd, 17:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a table would work (the facts are a bit too complex, and I'm not sure we have all the required sourced data), but give it a go if you think you can do it. We don't need all the history (we can link to the detailed history articles), but should stick to the relevant points, i.e. basically the changes of administration between "Poles" and "Germans". That would still be quite complex though - maybe Silesia is already covered, but the history of mid-Pomerania and the Gdańśk area remains complicated for long after the Piast era, and things get tricky in Warmia/Mazury as well (Mazury seems never to have been Polish territory, but Warmia in some sense was). I'd rather not try and write it myself, as I'm no historian, but I'd like to see all this information covered instead of stopping at the Piasts.--Kotniski (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well the focus on the Piasts was done because (a) the bulk of the "RT" were Polish-ruled only in some periods of the Piast times, and (b) the post-war propaganda, of which the "RT" slogan is a part, had this Piast focus. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
After a first try, I have to admit that a for a table listing all tiny regions I need a widescreen monitor. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no focus on Poland during the Polish dynasty of Piasts rule in your version, there is focus to present those territories only in aspect of German history. Also there was already a portion about Prussian Partitions which you simply deleted. Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood the context: Focus on Piast was meant in relation to the partitions. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
While the fact those were old territories of Poland during Piast dynasty was important, one shouldn't forget that also they included Polish fiefs and territories taken in partitions. So they will be listed also as part of Recovered Territories.Indeed we should expand the Piast section and shorten the Germanisation one to essentials since this is the focus of the article and the term.--Molobo (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I created an empty list of the regions. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Very confusing and reflecting only history of Germanisation, not the Polish history the term refers to. The territories can be divided into three types.

Former areas of Poland during Piast dynasty. Areas taken over by Prussia during Partitions of Poland. Former fiefs of Poland. --Molobo (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If a table doesn't work, how about a graphic like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Graphical_timeline_templates ? Karasek (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I already thought about something like that, yet we won't get all regions into one graphic/table whatever for simple space reasons. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? A timeline and colorcoded, stacked bars for each region should work fine? I can try it, but I'm pretty busy in the next few days and I don't know the dates for each region. 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Karasek (talk)
Have a look: http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3792/testnh4.gif Karasek (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the graphic. The table should be editable. Graphic is too complex for certain users. Also your table includes questionablebe statements like Silesia independent. An editable table divided into Medieval Polish losses, Partition of Poland losses and lost fiefs where date and circumstances to the loss would be better. --Molobo (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the use of the slogan "Recovered territories" justified

(Note: Split Molobo's comment for better readability)

Also how come the term is propaganda ? Were or were not those territories part of Poland before ?--Molobo (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by user:Skäpperöd: If we focus on the Polish history and omit the German one, we do exactly what the Communist propagandists did, which I do not think is desirable here.

Reply: Wikipedians personal views are not important to the articles. Since the term refers to lost territories that were Germanised the history to which they connect is the Polish one. And should be described before the fall of Germanisation. Mind you, it was never completed and for example Wrocław remained a multiethnic city with Polish population being part of it till they were recovered.--Molobo (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say, although I feared from your edit history that you would have such a POV. Maybe I should add the term "recovered" to all articles concerning German gains in the east that in the tribal era were under some kind of Germanic control? How would you like this term to be used in wiki articles about Nazi annexations of Polish, pardon me recovered old German territories? I admit such views were present in some periods and some circles of the far-right still have views like that, but in general this is a long overcome view that is not taken seriously by scholars and anyone with common sense. A 20st/21st century state is something different from a warlord's mercenary horde of the tribal era. A modern state cannot recover a territory that just how many generations ago was subdued and lost by some dynasty, even if the modern state -rightfully- sees this dynasty to be part of its historical basis. Just as Germany cannot go ahead and recover Napoli, and France cannot go and recover Norfolk. And for the Poles in early 20th cty Breslau - do you have any proof they were the descendants of Poles that lived there before the German settlement? Or rather migrants like in any other larger town? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to the subject at hand, and avoid offtopic as well as original research. If you believe data indicating the fact that Germanisation was not complete is falsified-provide proper sources. Please remember that tribe is not a state, and all German annexations were regarding territories that were initially part of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall any data I ORish believe to be falsified. Where did I say that? Do you in turn think that the presence of a minority in a hypothetical area justifies its annexation by the "motherland"? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, if you need to contact me personally you can do it through email. Please stick to the subject.Regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also how come the term is propaganda ? Were or were not those territories part of Poland before ? UserMolobo above
The term Propaganda is well referenced in the article. Are there reliable scholars raising your questions in English publications? (This is not a forum) --ThePiedCow (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the territory taken in 1945 by Communist Soviets- claimed by Poland as Regained Territory"

Reminder of History:

All territory ever conquered and held by Polans, Poland for a few short years is situated in Magna Germania of 2000 years ago Magna Germania, Germania and a thousand years later Poland for a short time Tacitus 98 AD Germania to Vistula River, Aesti east of Vistula No Poles Polanes, Poland for many centuries First Polans (eastern) appeared in eastern European as a group who lived around Kiew at the Dniestr river from about 600- 900s AD (this was earlier the Borithenes River and at times Danapirstadir (later called Kiew), a city of the Goths Eastern Polans are last mentioned in a chronicle of 944 AD . Since then they are known as Rus, First Polans (western appear in 960s AD around lower Oder river in territory already on loan to Moravians, Bohemians from earlier Emperors, such as Arnold of Carinthia, Frankish Emperor before 900 AD First Polans 963 AD, Duke Mieszko I receives Ducal Title and lien from Holy Roman Empire]]- for land around Gniezno, Poznan- later Poland . Mieszko I , sons And son’s sons get busy with attacks and attempts of conquering neighboring peoples.

(Note: the above comment was made by 71.137.197.97) (Note: the above comment was formated for readability by Skäpperöd. Dear 71.137.197.97, would you please start to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to your posts?! It is extremely annoying if talk pages get spammed with unsigned and unformated stuff. In case you do not know how to type a tilde (~) you just need to simultaneously press the Alt Gr and the ~ button.) Skäpperöd (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Magna Germania was a geographical term that does not (or very remotely) relate to Germany. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
That was interesting but frankly not supported by anything and seems to be a viewpoint perhaps reflected in time of German Empire or Nazi Germany. Poland was never a fief of HRE, even if the latter tried to achieve that. Polish rulers succesfully defended their independence and manipulated HRE rulers into accepting Poland as equal, either by force or diplomacy. This can be sourced with ease. The claims are not based on tribal movements(since then Germany would be limited to North Germany and Scandinavia, where Germanic tribes came from), but on original beginnings of states.--Molobo (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion

1)Mty dear fellow Wikipedians, especially those from Germany, do you egzactly know what are you doing here? This article was created to describe the Polish approach to the former Polish territories that were lost from XII to XVIII century to various German (i.e. Brandenburg) and Slavic (Czech Kingdom) states, or became independent states as the West Pommerania duchy (divided between Sweden and Brandenburg in 1648).Opole.pl (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some problems with the term "Polish approach", that is a generalisation I would not approve of. If we substitute "Polish" with "post-war Polish Communist officials", it fits much better, and because this group created, propagated and finally even dropped the term their motivation and tactics should be given room here rather then repeating the propaganda and telling "why they were right". (Btw Pomeranian independence ended in 1164). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is about the Polish legal and propaganda term. So it schould focus on how and in what sense it was used and what was the justification for it. If we wont write her all historical facts that were used by Polish authorities (the fact that they were communist authorities does not make them non Polish) we wont understand why most of the Poles "boght them". The article is mainly about the term "recovered" so we schould focus on that. Repeating the whole history of those lands makes the main aim of the article (describing why were those territories considered as recovered) hard to find. Besides if the reader wont know all the arguments used by the Polish afterwar authorities how can he make a full opinion about the whole situation? Opole.pl (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well look at the article's edit history. I had reduced the "History" section to a point were the Piast gains and losses and the onset of German settlement was described, yet there were objections from other editors that this would not be sufficient. It was endorsed to have the partitions of Poland included, because some (smaller) regions of the RT had been in some relation to Poland until then, which is certainly true. I did not go into much detail with these smaller regions because the post-war propaganda focussed on the (early) Piast era and the bulk of the RT did not see some sort of Polish administration after they seperated from the Piast state. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2)I can easily imagine that for you the main problem concerning this article is to show to the English readers the harm that was made to Germans by throwing them away from their homes in 1945-1947. That is of course a horrible event but it was not such a big punishment for sloughtering 6 milion Polish citizens during the WWII as well as 20 milion Soviet citizens and many others.

It is understandable that you are trying to prove that this act was a kind of unjustified collective guilt. Even though the NSDAP was elected in democratic elections, and most of Germans, especially those living in the former east Gemany, were NSDAP and Fuhrer fanatic supporters.Opole.pl (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If that would have been the main concern, this article would look a lot different, the expulsion is covered in other places. I cannot see a focus on the expulsions here. In fact, they are just mentioned without in any way going into depth. What the population part of this article coveres is instead the repopulation and Polonization of the area - what better (or even other) place than this article would there be? Also, you generalize again ("the Germans"), and this article for sure is the wrong place to debate the collective guilt thesis.Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I truly generalise German guilt. But have not found any data on a, supported by most of German, antiNazi organization in the 1933-1945 period. But you are right its not a place to discuss about that. I am just a bit annoyed when some German circles consider as the biggest crime that resulted from WWII, the expulsion of Germans from central Europe. My friend who won some years ago an English contest on a state level as a reward went to the USA togeather with winners from other European countries. The've met i.e. Colin Powell and a German Ambasador who was trying to convince them that the most horrible thing that happened during the WWII and after it was the expulsion of Germans. If noone is claiming that in the article than it is OK. Opole.pl (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
From a philosophy POV it is even debatable if the torture or killing of one human can at all be compared or put in a moral relation to the torture or killings of let's say a thousand others. In (modern) Germany for example, the Supreme Court does not allow the army to shoot a hijacked civilian airplane that is about to crush into a densely populated region in order to kill as many as possible. But it is afaik debated by noone important that the Nazi crimes in WWII (and before) can hardly be topped. I also know of noone who would wage the expulsions vs the Nazi deeds. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you are of course right I've read the Crime and Punishment and naturally crimes cannot be compared or weight in any way. Nevertheless the thing I was talking about was concerning treating by some German circles the 1945-47 expulsion of Germans as the worst crime that was commited during the WWII and afterwards, those thesis were, as I said even propagated by a German Ambasador in USA during his meeting with young people from around the world. I simply object telling about the expulsion of Germans without its 1939-1945 historical kontext. Especially in wikipedia which is globally accesable. If the proper balance is created in this article than it is OK with me Opole.pl (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC) By the way two days ago Polish Constitution Tribunal also denied Polish army its right, granted after WTC attack, to shoot down planes.

3)What is worth mentionnig you are trying to do egzactly the same what were German historians doing in the late XIX and early XX century, that is to justify German egsistance on the former Polish territories in any way possible. You are even using the same arguments i.e. that Silesia became the part of th HRE in 1163, in the period of 100 or 200 years Germans became a vast majority on those territories and every connection to the Polish Kingdom has been cut. The history of those territories before their germanisation you reduce to an insignificant Tribal era. Opole.pl (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how "German egsistance on the former Polish territories" would in any way be something that could be justified or not. The Germans were invited to settle these lands in the Middle Ages (!) and they and their descendants had lived there for multiple generations.
I also cant understand it but that was the way german historians wrote their books. They were ommiting or bagatelising the Slavic Period by writting about the Germanic tribes that were living there for centuries and so on. The times of that kind of historiography is over, and schould not be brought back to life on wikipedia. Opole.pl (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Against the argument of the history before Germanisation being "reduced to an unsignificant tribal era", I must protest. Of course it was the tribal era, but noone "reduced" this era to something. "Unsignificant" is of course not a word to adress this era in general, but how much more significance do you want? The topic is "Recovered Territories", and while I personally oppose a vast history section here, I would have thought that if we create one, we should focus on the Polish/German impact. I could write pages about the Slavic tribes here, too, but what for? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Polish/German impact is of course crucial but again one of the arguments used by the authorities after the war was Slavic origin of those territories in the historical times. We are writting here about the justification of the word "recovered" and that was one of them Opole.pl (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Summarizing all the above thoughts about the "Slavic tribes" period, I will change the first "Piast realm" sentence:
The Piast duke Mieszko I subdued various neighboring West Slavic tribes in the second half of the 10th century.
into
Numerous West Slavic tribes had dwelled in the area since the 6th century. Mieszko I of the Polanes from his stronghold in the Poznan area subdued various neighboring tribes in the second half of the 10th century, creating the first Polish state. Mieszko would become the first non-legendary Piast duke'
Would that be sufficient, or do you want to go into more detail about the West Slavs in this article? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Its better now. As you can read from this guys posts 71.137.197.97 the knowleage about the Slavic tribes living on the RT and even further West (I saw that you come from German Part of Pommerania which also had its Slavic period) is rather poor. :) Opole.pl (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am a Pomeranian, <sarcasm>and I guess that makes me some kind of an invader that Germanises Polish soil</sarcasm>. I do not want to personally discuss IP's here, but overall knowledge of the Slavic period and conservation of the Slavic heritage is not that bad. I know quite something about that poorly documented period that ended 800 years ago. But I am also aware of the well documented 800yr-period that followed and in Poland only ended 60 years ago. Cheers Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

4)What is even worse you quite freely operate with the term "germanisation" as if it was something positive. But we must clearly say that any actions of that sort no difference if they are made by Russians, Poles, Hungarians or Germans are something evil and lead to a cultural genocide.Opole.pl (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Germanisation per se is nothing bad or wrong, only if forced upon someone. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It can be of course seen differently from different points of view. Nevertheless even an unforced Germa., Roma., Polo. or Russification leads to extinction of other languages and cultures and there is nothing good in that. Opole.pl (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

5)To make a long story short the main aim of this article is to desribe the word "recovered". So the main part of it schould describe the connections of those territories to the kingdom of Poland. That is when they were part of Poland and when and how they were lost. The later history of those territories is described in the articles about history of Silesia etc. and there is no need to write it again here, as it has nothing to do with the term "recovered". The other thing is to write about the things that were still connecting those territories to Poland after their lose. Taht i.e. the Gnesden Metropoly, the Polish population living in those territories untill its "recovery" and etc.

These are the arguments that were used to justify Polish egsistence on the recovered territories after WWII. And the article is in fact about those arguments.Opole.pl (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To some extend (of course without boosting the article) it is of course important to state the German period. Also, you seem to believe that the population of the "RT" was Polish before they "got lost". That was only true for some areas close to the Polish frontier. In many areas, the Polish settlers of post-1945 were the first Poles who ever came to settle there. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The German period cannot in any way explain the justification of the term "recovered" which is the main aim of the article. It schould be of course stated weather the arguments used by Poles after the war were reasonable or were not but it schould be done after all the arguments of PRL authorities are stated in the article. Than a reader can see both points of view: the subjective (the one that was given by Polish authorities), and the objective and decide what to think about the term "Recovered Territories".
Of course the German period "cannot in any way explain the justification of the term "recovered"", because the term recovered was coined in denial of any "German" rights to the area. And if we would cover the "German period" here, which began in the 12th and 13th cty and ended in 1945, we would run out of space in the midst of the 13th century already I am afraid. But we must at least state that there was a German period, when and how the Germans came how long they were dwelling there.
I think we should also inform - in short - about the major administrative and demographic changes within the German period, I think this is important to not leave the reader with an impression that the "RT" were "recovered" in about the same state they were in when they were "lost". If you look at the history section now, the Poland-related events are clearly given more weight with respect to the article's title, but in general of course the German history by far outweights the Polish one. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine with me. But again we cannot make it to big becouse the article is about the justification of the term "recovered". So it schould only be most important data. I.E. Silesia: German colonists first came in the early XIII and in larger groups after Tatar attacks in 1241 becouse of which big part of population was exterminated. Then the state from 1945: Lover Silesia was mostly germanised except for regions of Syców, Milicz and Namysłów even though it is reported that in early XVIII century Polish Language still dominated north of the Odra river(Moorhouse, Davis, Microcosmos). Upper Silesia remained Polish and those German colonists that came there in the Midle ages were mostly Polonised. Though Germans dominated in large cities and Poles mostly in rural areas.
I think how the matter is covered in the current Pomerania and Lubusz land paragraphs is sufficient, we can add some more on Silesia (and former East Prussia). I agree with your above proposal about what should be added in the Silesia paragraph, they are factually accurate, I would just mention that only a part of Upper Silesia was part of the "RT" and that it was mostly about Lower Silesia. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-->I integrated your proposal (condensed version) in the Silesia section, have a look. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tham the same about Masurs, Pommeranians (Slovinians), Lubusz inhabitants thogh I dont posses any data on Slavs from Lubusz Land so I will have to trust your reasonable sense on that. By the way I dont agree that in all cases "'we would run out of space in the midst of the 13th century already". Especially that for most of the teriitory was permanently lost in the second half of 13th century (Lubusz Land) or in early 14th (Silesia). Cheers Opole.pl (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Germanized Slavs" or "Autochtones" as they were called are already covered in other parts of the article, but we can of course integrate them in the history section, too, if we make it short. The Masurs have a somewhat different standing then the other groups because their ancestors were immigrated "real" Poles (vs "claimed" Poles like the Slovincians). That you don't have data concerning the medieval tribes of the Lubusz Land does not surprise me, I don't know if anyone has actually. I am not even sure if there was a distinct tribe at all, for most of the medieval Lubusz Land was a huge swampy forest. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. you didm't write what do you think about adding other arguments used by afterwar Polish authorities. For instance the Gnesden church Metropoly that consisted of Lubus Land to XV century and of Silesia to XIX century. The connections between Jagiellonians and Silesia (two of them were grand dukes of Silesia under Bohemian crown). The fact of possesion of Upper Silesia by Vasas that ruled in Poland in the XVII century and so onOpole.pl (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
We can of course add (and evaluate) this, you just need to add your source.
  • "Gnesden archdiocese": "Gnesden" is an old, rarely used spelling variant of "Gnesen" (Gniezno, we should rather use that term), and of course it is not surprising that the archdiocese did for centuries not change its medieval borders, as the other archdioceses didn't do that either, it was only in the Modern Age archdiocesial borders were adapted somehow to political ones. But I can imagine the post-WWII propaganda using this for making up territorial claims, I just have not yet heard that they actually used this as an argument.
  • ""Polish" dynasties in Silesia": Same about that. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if the whole population of the "RT" was Polish or not. It propably would be if those lands were not lost. For instance Polonia Minor was conquered in 992 and in 1039 its capital - Kraków became the capital of whole Poland. That may show a trend. Pommeranians were from a different West Slavic familly but in Pomerelia, which was Polish for most of its history, Kaszubs consider themselves as Poles even thoug their speach is still far more less Polish then the Silesian one. The creation of modern nations was in its origins then, but despite that the differences between the speaches used in Polonia Minor and Silesia were in those days untracable. And it would propably stay that way if there was not a border created between Silesia and the rest of Poland. Opole.pl (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical basis section

I've had a go at expanding this section (based on information I could find; I'm not an expert on this history). I hope others can correct any mistakes and fill in some of the gaps.--Kotniski (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Skap for the improvements - can you fill us in about Posen-West Prussia? At what time did these areas cease to be Polish-ruled? Were they part of pre-partitions Poland or were they lost earlier?--Kotniski (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Map

One of these two maps is superfluous and should be deleted (in my opinion, at least):

Poland around 1000 AD
Poland around 1020
I don't know - the first one shows Poland's present borders, which the other one doesn't, but the second one contains more historical detail. It's a long enough article and a geographically complex subject - there's plenty of room for multiple maps.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think the blue map is right. Looks like someone merged the red map with a map of modern Poland, but while doing so made a "best of" version of the Polish gains of different years. Pomerania was AFAIK not conquered by Mieszko as a whole and got lost between 1005 and 1007 (red map states 1007). The Lusatian and Sorbian marches Boleslaw received in the 1018 Peace of Bautzen also got lost within the next ~20 years and Moravia, which Boleslaw received in 999, was taken by the Premyslides in 1019. The eastern "extensions" of the Piast realm were the areas annexed on the army's way to Kiev in 1018. I do not want a debate about one year or two, exact dates from that period are sometimes hard to get, but to me it seem quite obvios that the territories depicted in the blue map were not at the same time part of the Piast realm. I would therefore prefer the red one, also I would add a note to the map that this "best of medieval Poland map" depicts a situation that had been there for only one year (1018-1019, yet I would not argue for some +/-) and that the whole Piast state broke down completely only a couple of years thereafter (in the 1030s). Skäpperöd (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless the map shows the comparison of modern and Piast borders of Poland at the same time and therefore is a good example of the justification of the term "recovered". The Western Pomerania was actually separated some ten yers earlier but that can be mentioned in the description of the map as well as changing the date to 1018 - the date of the Budziszyn (Bautzen) peace treaty between Bolesław I and HRE Henry II. Opole.pl (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The map(s) used do not show Poland alone, they show Poland and a whole lot of neighboring states, which as some point were conquered by some of the Polish rulers. That does not make them Poland.

Can we work some of these maps in ? Top one shows lots of details when you click on it 2x.

Those are maps from the early 2oth century. Modern historical reaserch, based on archeological evidence made them mostly inactual.77.253.65.5 (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of Piast Poland

(moved here from talk)

What do you think about my changes in the description? Opole.pl (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another solution (this desription is actually to long for me). We can give this map as first

and write that it was Poland between 992 - 1002 and than, without Pommerania, sice 1033 - 1120s when east Pommerania was recaptured and West became Polisch fief.

The description under the second map woul just say that in light red are Polish conquests from year 1003 - 1018/31. What do you think?Opole.pl (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That the current description of the map is too long were my thoughts, too, it's sometimes hard to find a short description that does not oversimplify. The new map you propose would be fine with me, I even think it is a better map than the other red one because it pretty good shows the "Piast heartland". That the short-time conquest of Moravia is not shown there is imho ok because that area is not of interest here. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I object to adding two maps to the article which cherrypick greatest extends of the relatively short early Piast era (992 Mieszko map and 1000/1018 Boleslaw map). This suggests the maps represent a whole era instead of only presenting the military success of two or three decades. I find that to equal a situation of only eg a 930s (no Poland at all) and a 1030s map (Poland's rump in fragments and aflame) presented here. One map of such a short period should be sufficient, we should rather decide which one we use instead of putting in both. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We have enough space for both maps. They both show important facts (the second one shows the lost of western Pomerania in early 11th century). The article talks about the term "recovered" and the first map shows the formation of the state and its typical borders in that period. The second one shows the loss of Pomerania and conquests of the first Polish king Bolesław I whose permanent wars with Henry II from HRE were most favorite arguments of the afterwar Polish authorities. Besides it was you who suggested concerning on Piast period. So additional data about it wont harm anyone. The situation on both maps is carefuly described in the tekst next to it so there is no confusion. And argument that the area conquered by Polan Tribe was smaller in 930 has nothing to do with the main aim of the article, which is to show Polish arguments for the term "recovered". Cheers Opole.pl (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Map distribution

Looking at it on my browser the maps worked better when they were all listed together, not assigned to particular sections (they are not generally relevant to particular sections anyway, except perhaps the first one). At the moment I'm seeing white space before some sections of the article. Was there any reason for changing this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On Firefox there was a little confusion. Pictures were crossing "borders" of the sections of article. And the [edit] signs were all in one place (one after another) even though they were concerning different paragraphs. Opole.pl (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I,ve put the second picture a bit down. Is it better now in Microsoft explorer?Opole.pl (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK to me now on Explorer. I noticed the [edit] problem yesterday when I was on Firefox - I guess it must be some bug somewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides the techinical problems on Mozilla Firefox the maps are, in a way, coonected to most of the sections. Pomerania map next to "Gdańsk part". "Border map" next to legal issues (international trieties). Map of Poland from around 1100, showing independent Pomerania is next to section about Pomerania. And about the Piast map you said yourself that it is in its place. Cheers Opole.pl (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collapse

The early Piast realm collapsed in the 1030s, see History of Poland. A smaller version of the realm was established later, and Boleslaw III even managed to expand this (later) realm before this got fragmented again in 1138. I think this is important to state, because otherwise the map of the early Piast realm could easily be mistaken as "the" territorial extend of the whole period, which it was certainly not. It was the greatest territorial extend after some successful military campaigns, not more - the post-war propaganda tried to create a picture these areas that were militarily subdued for one or two decades were integral parts of Poland. That was certainly not the case, and should be stated loud and clear because the idea of some sort of a stable unified Poland that in the Middle Ages comprised the "Recovered Territories" seems to be still in many people's mind, and if we at all add maps to this article which resemble the propaganda maps drawn up to underlay the "recoverance" claim, we should do what the Communists did not - state the precise facts so the reader will be able to evaluate the map as what it is. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The early Piast state did not "collapse" in the 1030s. It was invaded in 1031, during the reign of the second Polish king Mieszko II, by both: Kievan Rus' and Kaiser Konrad II from the HRE. Both states supported Mieszkos' brother Bezprym. After gaining power by Bezprym there is a revolt in Poland (1031-1032) in which pogan faith is restored. In this period Poland loses Slovakia and other territories conquered by Bolesław I.

In 1032 Mieszko II is back in Poland. He resigns from his kings title and becomes a vassal of Konrad II. Poland becomes divided between Mieszko, his brother Otto and his cousin Dytryk. In 1033 they are both dead and Poland is reunited again. Mieszko dies in 1034 and his son Casimir I of Poland becomes duke of Poland. In 1037 there is a revolt of the nobles and Casimir has to run away to Hungary. A year later Bohemian duke Bretislaus I of Bohemia invades Poland, pillages Gniezno and on his way back he takes Silesia which is now formaly for 16 years, de facto for 12, part of Bohemia.

In 1039 Casimir is back in Poland and begins to reunite the country: in 1040 he regains Polonia Minor and Polonia Maior, in 1044 Pomerania begins to pay him tribute, in 1047 Masovia is recaptured and finally in 1050 he regais Silesia which is than accepted by the empror Henry III in 1054.

Writting that Poland colapsed in the 1030' and nothing else, suggests that it did not recover shortly after, and that is not true.Opole.pl (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did not want to suggest that Poland did not recover after the collapse. I will change the sentence accordingly. Yet the Piasts' territory after the recovery would never become the same as in 1018. Actually the term "collapse" fits pretty well what you described: The ruler fled, the people revolted, a foreign army loots all the country (except Cracow), the newly gained possessions are lost. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet everything is back to "normal" in 1033. It stays that way till 1038, and after two years of exile Casimir I regains power in Kraków (a capital of one of the "West Slavic territories that were conquered by Mieszko I") in 1040 and begins to rebuild the country. After his reign most of the future Recovered Lands that were in Mieszkos' I state are united once again. Of course Bolesławs' I conquests were lost but again Moravia, Slovakia, Łużyce are not part of the Recovered Territories. :)

I think that word "collapse" is not proper. We can say that Byzantine Empire collapsed in 1453 or that British Empire collapsed in the second half of the 20th century. But when there is change of power between brothers due to foreign intervention and afterwards a short term revolt we cannot say that the country collapsed especially if it is permanently reunited in 1050 and again a sovereign kingdom in 1076. Opole.pl (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Polans (later Poland) dukes paid tribute, were vassals of the empire

User:Opole.pl writes, that Mieszko II became a vassal of the emperor Konrad II.

Seems to me that pretty much all of the later socalled Piasts, starting with the first duke of the Polans Mieszko I, who ruled the Polans- Poland Duchy, paid tribute, were vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. A few tried circumventing, but had to retroactively pledge allegiance to the emperor, such as the case of Boleslaw III.

First actual Kingdom of Poland was created in 1294, when the Premisl? King of Bohemia became King of Poland as well. As king of Bohemia he already ruled an integral part of the Holy Roman Empire.

If anyone of the Polans/Polish dukes, who ruled the Polans/Polish territory, never pledged allegiance to the empire, please post the name(s) and reliable references here. Thanks you.

An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)) 30 September 2008:

Question is, which of the rulers (dukes/kings) of Poland before 1300 n e v e r pledged allegiance( tributary or fief, vassal) to the empire ?

I looked at the List of Polish monarchs and for about 350 years they were all dukes.

1. duke Mieszko I was a vassal, held fief 2. duke Boleslaw I same, in 1025 declared himself king = king 1 yr 3. Mieszko II king ?, not recognized by empire, pledged as duke in 1031 = king 6 yrs ?

Boleslaw II duke 1058 - 1076 King 1076-79 = king 3 yrs

Przemysl II duke 1290-95 King 1295-96 = king 2 yrs

Before 1300 there were 4 dukes of Poland with at the most 12 combined years of kingship.

About the message below by 77.253.67.41

Thanks so much for your detailed info. My question was however, which of the early rulers of Poland before 1300 n e v e r pledged allegiance to the emperor ?

Something you answered, that puzzles me. You write Before Poland was christianised it was a fully independent tribal state . Do you mean by that the eastern Polans lived in eastern Europe around the Dniestr river near Kiew until 950s and this state became the Kingdom of Rus and the Polans disappeared ?

Then western Polans appear for the first time in about 963, when they pledge allegiance via Margrave Gero to the Holy Roman Empire. So you base your statement that Poland before christianisation was the Kievan Rus ?

Your also quoted "this is the name used in enwiki so dont press your luck with this "Kingdom of Polans "-. That is also puzzling, because I did not write anywhere about a "Kingdom of Polans". I don't think there were any kings of Polans, or were there? An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC))

I dont know from what sources are you reading that the tribe of Polans was around the Dniestr river in the 950s, it was 300 years earlier. The West Slavs were in the region long befor that. There aere three tribal dukes, about which writes Gall Anonimus, before Mieszkos christianisation: Siemowit, Lestko and Siemomysł.

As I said early Kingdom of Poland was never part of the ERE the way Bohemians were. Sometimes they became vassals of the Kaiser from some of thei territories (usually refered as those to the river Warta), but were mostly trated as a state outside the HRE. Notice that when Bohemia was transformed into Kingdom (many years later) it was still part of the HRE and noone discussed about that. Notice also that when Poland was partly reunited in 1295 and a coronation took place noone was claiming that this kingdom was part of HRE. After the 1320 and 1333 coronation also noone had that kind of idea. The theory than Kingdom of Poland was before 1300s part of HRE the way Bohemia was, was invented by the Chauvinistic German historians in the late XIX and early XX century to justify German egzistence on former Polish territories. Those theories were globaly criticised and you wont find them in modern, even German , history books. 77.253.65.5 (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what are you trying to prove here. Nevertheless I can give you some facts that schould help you understand early history of Poland. The first thing is that in 1295 not in 1294 duke Przemysł II, a Piast, who was not a king of Bohemia :), became a first king of Poland since 1079.

The second thing is about the relationship between the HRE and the early Kingdom Of Poland (this is the name used in enwiki so dont press your luck with this "Kingdom of Polans" name :) ). Before Poland was christianised it was a fully independent tribal state. In 965 duke Mieszko I via Geroon of Ostmark accepted to pay tribute to HRE from part of his lands (Propably from Lubusz Land).

Afterwards Poland becames a christian state and untill the end of 10th cenury several times released itself from the imperial supremacy. Duke and later king Bolesław I wass considered as equal by empror Otto III on the Congress of Gniezno, and after years of war with Henry II he was crown as a soverign king of Poland.

After his death his oldest son was crowned and therefore he was also a sovereign monarch. As I wrote before, afterwards he had to resign from the title in order to regain power in Poland which was taken away from him by his brother Bezprym.

His son Casimir I failed to achieve the crown but Casimirs son Bolesław II the Bold managed to do that becouse in the conflict between HRE and Pope he supported papacy. In 1079 he executed Krakows bishop Stanisław for insubordination and tahat was the reason of a noble revolt, becouse of which he lost his power. His brother Władysław Herman took control and he began to support the HRE against the papacy due to that he resigned from the title of king.

In the years to come HRE many times intervened in Polish affairs, sometimes with succes and sometimes without. Nevertheless Early Polish State was never part of the HRE in a way Bohemia was which is well documented in Polish as well as in German history books. Cheers 77.253.67.41 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Article contradicts the lead

Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was the official term used by the Polish post-war authorities to denote those territories which were transferred from Germany to Poland after the Second World War.[1] Yet the article makes it clear that those territories were initially transfered during their history from Poland to Germany, and then from Germany to Poland.--Molobo (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They were not "initially transfered" (neither of the words) from PL to GE. The history section should make that clear. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
However we need to introduce in the lead the fact that they were initially part of Poland before becoming part of German state. It is in article and should be reflected in the lead.--Molobo (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I specified the lead: Emphasis was put on periods the territories were Piast ruled, which was the case with the Western Territories during some periods of the High Middle Ages, or Polish fiefs, as were the Northern Territories during some periods of the Early Modern Age. This should do. This article is about a long discarded propaganda thesis and shall not redraw the historical picture of post-war spin doctors. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Activist from nationalist fringe movement as source ?

Tomasz Kamusella is being used as source ? The person is an activist of Siesian Autonomy Movement that has strong views regarding Poland. Please find a better, more neutral source. And what is communist-cum-nationalist propaganda ? --Molobo (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please specify and source the non-reliability of Tomasz Kamusella. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct terminology

Since those territories were Polish initialy, shouldn't the correct form be repolonisation and degermanisation ? --Molobo (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Except for areas very close to Central Poland, there never was a Polish culture/language/heritage etc pp that could have been "re"activated. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry the article contradicts your claim. All those territories were Polish before according to the article.--Molobo (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your view is based on the false assumption that a Polish conquest/rule/legal overlordship requires a territory to turn Polish regarding culture/language/heritage etc pp. That was only the case with the post-war Polish rule this article is about. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Akward statement

Official maps were drawn up to show that the Polish frontiers under the first known Piast princes matched the new ones,[35] and the post-war generation was instructed to assume the Polish nation had evolved on that territory since time immemorial.[36]

The sentence might be believed to assume that it is incorrect. However 1-Maps of Poland within present borders were made well before, for example: From 1917 [1] 2-The first Polish state was dated on those territories.

So the sentence must be changed in clear way not to confuse the readers that the maps were made only after the war, or that Piast territory was not the similiar one. Also we shouldn't confuse the reader that the Polish state started somewhere else.--Molobo (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to change with this sourced statement. The first sentence does not say "only" after the war, yet after the war these maps became officially used in large numbers, and that's what counts here and what the first sentence correctly states as close to the source as possible. Also, the first sentence does not stand isolated, but explains the basis on which the actions explained in the second sentence become more comprehensable: this sentence does not say the maps were incorrect (some of course were), but the use as described was. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Were does it say that some were incorrect ? And of course I never said the sentence says 'only after the war'-it can imply so and we should be precise. And where the use was "incorrect" ? I can't see anything incorrect in stating that borders of post-1945 Poland are similiar to its earlier ones ? Netiher do I see the text saying so. --Molobo (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes a big difference in what context those maps are drawn and used. Eg "largest extent ever of the medieval Piast state" maps only make sense if you use those maps showing an exceptional long ago state, while the communists used those maps presenting them as the basis of the modern state. Which is incorrect. That's why the article perfectly sourced states for which contextual purpose the maps were drawn up and used. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"Official propaganda spread all-round anti-German sentiment, which was shared by many of the opposition as well as many in the Catholic church."

This is questionable. For the past several years Poles were classified by German state as being lowered then dogs and exterminated. Before the war, there was experience of harsh Germanisation made by Kingdom of Prussia and German Empire and discrimination of Poles. It's highly dubious if there was need for anti-German feeling as result of those events. If the sentence is to be included-it should be explained why Catholic Church and opposition shared the sentiment.--Molobo (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not questionable and sourced. There might have been no need to push sentiments against the Nazis. But there certainly was a need to push sentiments against everything German (which is much more than Nazi aggression) and everyone German (especially with the expelled being mostly women, children and elderly and post-war Germany was not in a position to really become a threat to anyone). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There might have been no need to push sentiments against the Nazis. History of discrimination of Poles wasn't limited to Nazis in Germany, even certain anti-Nazis like Stauffenberg despised the Poles and wanted them as slaves. There was nothing positive in overall German attitude to Poland at the time so the seperation wasn't needed. From Kingdom of Prussia through Weimar Republic there was hostility towards Poles and Poland, so as you can guess Poles had nothing to do with state that tried to eliminate them as nationality one way as the other. As to the rest of your claim-that is complete OR. After all even after their defeat in 1945 majority of Germans asked supported Nazism and over one third extermination of Poles. And 'not a threat' argument was used quite often after 1945 as reason for those measures-since it was the same belief in 1918(when it also was supposed to be "no threat" and it led to Germany exterminating nations just 21 years later. --Molobo (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with your OR-accusation, I regard this incivil. The statement is sourced, bring a source that contradicts the sentence and we can continue discussing it. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Area section

It will be easier to classify the area accoring to Medieval Polish losses, Partition losses, and former fiefs. Also their names before Germanisation should be given as well. --Molobo (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All synonyms are given and the specific history is pointed out in the "History" section. The reader needs to know which areas are covered by this article without being an expert for Middle Ages, this is done as an overview with the modern, well-known names and the mostly used synonyms. The details come in the specific section. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually names of Polish locations lost are missing, only those from Germanisation are present and sometimes modern ones. If reader needs expert knowledge he can always read more in relevant link.

--Molobo (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What names are missing? Please specify. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of scope of the topic

Much of the information is outside of the scope of the topic. The population transfers of Germans to Germany, removal of Germanisation should be covered in seperate articles while informing here about their existance.--Molobo (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be utterly unencyclopedic to not describe the measures taken by the "recoverers" during the "recovery" of territories christened "Recovered Territories" during the time this image was upheld in an article called "Recovered Territories". Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Since we already included history, demographics should also present to the reader the spread of Germanisation of those territories at the expense of native Polish and Slavic populations.--Molobo (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ostsiedlung and the pre- and post-WWII state are already mentioned, what kind of demographics do you want to include? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect quote from source

Stefan Wolff, Germany's Foreign Policy Towards Poland and the Czech Republic: Ostpolitik Revisited.

Does not write debunked but discarded. Also it writes that only in some circles. It doesn't write anything about Western or Northern territories. In fact it writes about much later period, post 1989. The term Western and Northern territories was used earlier. I moved it to the proper place and corrected the language per source. --Molobo (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of your multiple accusations of "misquoting sources". I provided full quote in the article, I see nothing wrong with the way I put it. Which is not true with the way you altered it: The "recovered territories" thesis is not discarded by "some circles". It is in general discarded. "Some circles" still are not aware of the wholly German character these territories had had before, and those are specified as not belonging to the social and political engaged. I will post the full quote of the source here again:

"In addition [...] it has been relatively easy for Polish historians and others to attempt to debunk communist historiography and present a more balanced analysis of the past - and not only with respect to Germany. It has been controversial, and often painful, but nevertheless it has been done. For example, Poland's aquisition in 1945 of eastern German territories is increasingly presented as the price Germany paid for launching a total war, and then having lost it totally. The 'recovered territories' thesis previously applied in almost equal measures by the communists and Catholic Church has been discarded. It is freely admitted in some circles that on the whole 'the recovered territorries' in fact had a wholly German character. The extent to which this fact is transmitted to other groups than the socially and politically engaged is a matter for some debate." (Cordell 2005:139)

  • I (Skäpperöd) put it: "...and the debunkment of the "recovery" thesis,..."
  • You (Molobo) put it: "In some circles the recovered territories thesis has been discarded."

Shall we reach for a third opinion who is misquoting or do you see the difference now? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing section?

Right now "Polonization of the "Recovered Territories"" offers the sections "Removal of German population and heritage" and "Resettlement". Expulsion and Resettlement are obviously related, but the removal of German heritage was also followed by several measures to prove the Polishness of these regions. Some of them were of practical nature, like the erection of Polish monuments or the reconstruction of Gothic structures, some of them were of theoretical nature (partly covered in "Origin and use of the term"), like the hunt of researchers of local history for Polish traces, like travellers of the 18th and 19th century (and give each of them his own commemorating plate). Karasek (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recovered_Territories/Archive_2&oldid=1188642130"