Talk:Gdańsk
First: I removed the line about Danzig being taken from Prussia Germany and given to Poland. If it was a free city it was not part of Poland.
Second: What were they complaining about? - "Many complaints by Danzigers to the League of Nations for 20 years were completely ignored." --rmhermen
Several functions , like collecting customs, postal deliveries etc were 'given' to Poland, who tried to 'Polonionize' everything.
While Danzig was called a free state , it was in reality not free anymore. H. Jonat
Don't really understand the relevance of the links -- they don't add any substantive information to the article. JHK
Which links are those? --DavidSaff
,,Emperor gave Danzig to Teutons Hah! Emperor gave POLISH city to Teutons. (!) "Poland imediately began to build military installations. Danzigers objected to Poland's military use of now severed German lands for ammunition depots etc during Poland's war of conquest against Soviet Union in 1922. These offensive measures along what became known as the Polish Corridor, included Danzig harbor and Danzig surroundings , Westerplatte, and Gdynia (German Gdingen). They served as a mobilization sites for the Polish military. For nearly 20 years Danziger burgers filed repeated protests with the League of Nations. They were continously dismissed. " Jezus Christ, why i feel like reading nationalist German propaganda? When i will read here that it was Poland which caused WWII? szopen
I always thought that Danzig, that is Gdansk, was build by first Piasts in order to secure their conquests in Pomerania. Founding a city in 1240 was merely giving new set of rights to already existing city. I think i will add, soon, when i'll have some time for searching in library, some data about abusing rights of Polish minority in Free State of Danzig, constant antiPolish attitude of government, custom war... Plus, of course, some data from earlier history- massacre of Danzig population by Teutons, history of Gdansk in Poland in XV- XVIII century e That article isn't quite NPOV. It is in fact written from almost exclusively German point of view. szopen
It would be worth mention that most probably Danzig was founded by Polish Piasts as military outpost. Or that it was part of Poland and was conquered by Teutons (when they were asked for help, they came, helped, and refuse to leave) who massacred majority of earlier inhabitabts (althoiugh number of 10.000 is exaggeration)
Danzig was not in Prussia, but in Pomorze. Emperor couldn't gave Teutons something he wasn't in his posession. This was christian, Polish city, belonging to Poland. Pope in few sentences ordered giving back Danzig to Poland.
- This created a continous stretch of land under one government, able to withstand the various onslaughts of Mongols, Tatars, and Turks. The forces of [Ghengis Khan]? came all the way to Liegnitz in Silesia and to Brandenburg, the area of the modern city of Berlin, where they were finally repelled by Gotthardt von Brandis.
Teutons where far away from Turks, Mongols or Tatars and their funding had nothing to do with them. Genghis Khan was already dead when battle of Liegnitz took place. I've first time heard that Tatars came to Berlin, i've always read that after battle of Liegnitz they returned (since this weren't really big or important army, this was only diversion, since main Mongol goal was Hungary)
Nothing is mentioned about rights of Polish minority in Danzig, about killing and maltreting of Poles.
War against Soviet Union was war of independence, not of conquest.
And the rest is... sounds like if i heard again Hitler accusation in 1939. szopen
To szopen, I have been gone for several days. Will try to catch up on the questions accumulated in the meanwhile. First of all. Danzig is located in the territory of Old Prussian Land. The church however "christianized" Danzig from the West by the Cistercians. Oliva (at Danzig) was founded ca 1178 and christianized from Pomerania- Pomerellia (little Pomerania). Monk Christian of Oliva, was designated the Apostle of Prussia by the pope. Brandenburg margraves had inheritance right to Danzig, but pope gave Danzig and Pomerellia to Teutonic Order together with Prussia, Livonia etc. (Earlier history was recorded as part of Magna Germania).
Prussia was "christianized' from the east. (First Poland tried, was repelled several times by Prussians). Then Baltic Crusades or Northern Crusades against Prussia, Livonia, Lithuania. Archbishop of Riga was then head over the four bishoprics of Prussia (by order of William of Modena, papal legate). Riga was under Visby, Gotland. Posen or Poznan was til circa 1250 under Magdeburg. Before the Polanen received ducal title from emperor , they were part of Czech .(Czech and Lech)Czech and Polish dukes, kings all pledged allegiance to emperors for the land they held in lien (on loan)
Mieszko and Boleslaw were margraves of the empire ( married to Saxons).
Later Polish kings all were married to Habsburgs, Vasas ( Austria, Sweden were part of empire) Archbishop of Krakow (a Hanseatic League city was a prince of the empire. And "Polish " kings continued pledging allegiance to emperors, either by pledge, marriage or as members of the order of the "Golden Fleece". (Catholic Counter-reformation). From circa 1695 to 1768 ? Electors of Holy Roman Empire , Saxony were also kings of Poland.
They probably did not put too much emphasis on all these facts in your country during the communist regime.
With your last statement about Hitler, perhaps you can explain to me the Polish leader Rydz Smygly( can't remember exact spelling) , who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin taking over Germany. What explanation do you have for that ?
What is your explanation of the expulsion of hundereds of thousands of Germans from Polish Corridor starting after 1919 and of the 50 thousand of these (ethnic) Germans from the Polish Corridor in summer 1939, herded on a death march by Polish neighbors( recorded as Bromberger Blut Sonntag (Bromberg Bloody Sunday)?
Old History section. Even dates are bogus here. See http://www.gdansk.gda.pl/um_green/hg_historia_gdanska/hg_us_historia_gdanska.htm --Taw
Medieval Danzig
In 997 AD, a group of soldiers sent by Boleslaw I Chrobry, duke of the newly created Poland, accompanied by St Adalbert of Prague, ventured north to the Baltic Sea coast near Gdansk. One of the goals of this mission was to convert the heathen; another was most likely to bring the area under the control of the Duchy of Poland.
As "Gdansk" proper, the city was founded in 1240 when the Hanseatic League was granted the right to build a city by the Emperor. The wider area was at the time under the control of the dukes of Pomerelia. When their line died out, the territories around Gdansk passed into the hands of the Margraves of Brandenburg.
In 1308, the emperor gave Gdansk to the Teutonic Knights to govern, along with their other territories in Prussia, Livonia, Kurland and Estonia. This created a continous stretch of land under one government, able to withstand the various onslaughts of Mongols, Tatars, and Turks. The forces of Ghengis Khan came all the way to Legnica in Silesia and to Brandenburg, the area of the modern city of Berlin, where they were finally repelled by Gotthardt von Brandis.
In 1440, Gdansk joined the Hanseatic Cities of Elblag and Torun to form the Prussian Confederation. The Prussion Confederation (Preussische Bund) had to appear before the emperor Frederick III Habsburg in behalf of their case against the Teutonic Knights.
More info needed here.
Taw -- if the names and dates are wrong, please FIX them, not delete... The article needs to be more than just modern Gdansk, and Danzig was a major city. There's no need to escalate the Polish-Prussian conflict ;-)
The last editor changed Gdansk to Danzig, but also inserted an unnecessary gentive. Gedaunum is the Latin name of the city. The second form given was the genitive case form; it is sometimes (rarely!) interesting to known the genitive, but in an encyclopedia it is never necessary. Gedaunum, the nominative case, is enough.
I give up. Taw is willing to deface the page forever to support his view that the name of the city in 1944 was "Gdansk" even though the rulers called it something different. How he thinks this is NPOV is a mystery to me. GregLindahl
City was Gdansk up to 1939, when it was conquered by Nazis. --Taw
Proposal: $history_of_city =~ s/Gdansk|Danzig/the city/g --Taw
- Taw -- i don't get the script, so I can't comment on that. But to an English speaker, the city wasn't Gdansk up till 1939. When we read English language history books dealing with that particular city up till 1945, they most often call the city Danzig. It doesn't mean anything as to who the city belonged to -- Most English speakers don't know or care (in the sense that they don't say to themselves "Danzig -- must be German"). Could you just quit for a while and maybe listen to people who know what they're talking about (i.e., native speakers with an education). This is not about Prussia/Poland -- it's about what title works best in an English language encyclopedia.
Just ran a simple copyedit--things like "its," "burghers," and the use of articles. I don't think I touched any of the controversial matters here.
Having done that--"came under Polish administration by Stalin" is weird enough English that I'm not sure what it's trying to say, let alone whether it's accurate or NPOV. Can whoever wrote that sentence please clarify? --Vicki Rosenzweig
To Vicki Rosenzweig Your simple copyedit is fine (with me, that is). Never know what flack you could be getting yourself into, judging by yesterday and previously.
To the Under Polish administration" by Stalin see : Potsdam Agreement,..all land east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (Oder/Neisse Line) was taken over military by Soviet Union and allied communists. The Soviets "gave" a part of Germany (Deutsche Reich) to Poland and this was officially called : "Under Polish administration , until a peace treaty."
The most northern part of Germany (Deutsche Reich) was taken and kept by Soviet Union and is now known as "Oblast Kaliningrad" ( The area of northern East Prussia including Koenigsberg .
Stalin kept the Ukraine to the Curzon line, which was proposed to be Russia after WW I. Poland however did not adhere to this Curzon line and instead attacked Soviet Union after WW I and conquered part of Ukraine. Poland kept part of Ukraine until Stalin took it back.
Copy of some articles of the "Potsdam Agreement"
B. WESTERN FRONTIER OF POLAND. In conformity with the agreement on Poland reached at the Crimea Conference the three Heads of Government have sought the opinion of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity in regard to the accession of territory in the north 'end west which Poland should receive. The President of the National Council of Poland and members of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity have been received at the Conference and have fully presented their views. The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement.
The three Heads of Government agree that, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier, the former German territories cast of a line running from the Baltic Sea immediately west of Swinamunde, and thence along the Oder River to the confluence of the western Neisse River and along the Western Neisse to the Czechoslovak frontier, including that portion of East Prussia not placed under the administration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in accordance with the understanding reached at this conference and including the area of the former free city of Danzig, shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany.B.
Much as I dislike Stalin and all his influence on the 20th century, I don't think it is a good idea to characterize all eastern bloc actions as Stalin + verb. If it was under the Potsdam Agreement is was mutually agreeable (however agreed upon) by the Allies, not just Stalin dictating terms.
The Soviets overran the area and kept it. The Potsdam agreement states, that the Soviet Union is to satisfy Poland( to this effect) The Allied Control Council that was the responsible agency ,stopped functioning and the Cold War ensued. No peace treaty. Just limbo.
- no, the Soviets overran it. Stalin was, of course, in control of the Soviet Union. But to imagine that Stalin was everywhere and did everything is not realistic. Churchill and Roosevelt weren't personally responsible for the Western Theatre, and Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the Eastern front (though Soviet political propaganda liked to depict him as such). Lots of Soviet officers and officials helped him. Call it the Soviets. It'll be more accurate. --MichaelTinkler.
- in fact, what 'under Polish adminstration by Stalin' says in English is that Stalin was administering Poland. Directly. 'By' in terms of 'under adminstration by' means is 'directly adminstered by'. What HJ means, I suppose is 'under Polish (that is to say, Soviet-dominated) administration)'. It's poor English, and not terribly clear history. --MichaelTinkler
And who knows what the Russian version actually says. It would be interesting to find that out. Not that it makes any difference, because Stalin read it the way it best suited him .
(He did offer to Germany all of Germany back ( that is the Eastern Provinces under Polish administration ) but only if all Western Germany would have gone under the Soviet sphere. Adenauer and the Western occupation Forces declined that. At least that is what I gather now.)
I will change it to Soviets. H. Jonat
Note to Non- English speakers: Whenever you use the words since or not yet, you are obliged to use the present perfect (or occasionally, the pluperfect) form of the verb. For example, NOT "since 1945, it IS not used", but rather, "since 1945, it HAS NOT BEEN used." Thank you for correcting this error in future.
Once again HJ has been at this entry, beginning with the 'currently a city in Poland' alteration. I don't care enough to do the editing, but it does bother me that she continues to get away with this. Her edits are neither in English or German, she has no sense of overall composition, her punctuation and spacing are atrocious, and her POV is, shall we say, not Neutral. --MichaelTinkler
MichaelTinkler, is Gdansk n o t 'currently a city in Poland' ?? H. Jonat
- No, HJ, Gdansk is a city in Poland. It is a city in Poland which once or formerly was a free city and was other things. You changed it to currently for the implication that it either shouldn't be part of Poland or wouldn't be part of Poland for long. The history of Gdansk (as something other than part of Poland) belongs here, too, but if you start off the first sentence the way you have you are simply being inflammatory. --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler Gdansk is a city in Poland since 1945 ,(as the handmade sign there showed in 1995 ,it is understood at the Rote Rathaus (red city hall) -Polish ref. Ratusz by the current Gdansk inhabitants).
Before that there was a city named Danzig .
Whichever way you want to formulate that, is fine with me .
My earlier references to several different ways of spelling ( common for all German language cities and names) was inserted with the purpose to clear the strange references). That can also be edited. H. Jonat
To MichaelTinkler in reference to the legal name and status please read my text I inserted in Gdansk starting with 1965 letter by Polish bishops. HJ
- Why, HJ, would I think that bishops have some valid control over the nationality of one city or another? Please don't try to involve me in your irredentist argument. Gdansk is a city in Poland. If the world had listened to the Pope Pius IX on international affairs there would be no Italy. --MichaelTinkler
Now there's a scientific answer. HJ
Sarcasm aside, HJ, He's right. Have you bothered to even look at the articles I suggested? Let me ask you something -- When you are ill, do you go to a doctor? Most people do. When you go to the doctor, you go because you know he has had a lot more training than you on things that go wrong with the human body. He has studied for years. You know that, even if a doctor is a specialist in one area, he has probably (because of all that study), a lot more knowledge about the human body and its workings than somebody who hasn't studied medicine.
I notice that you (and a lot of other people -- I'm not saying you are the only person) don't go onto the articles on philosophy or math, or the sciences and argue your opinion, and I ask myself, "why not?" The self-evident answer is that most people don't feel comfortable arguing with "experts" in those areas -- and we have people who are experts! So what is it that changes this rule when we talk about history? Just as a trained doctor may not know all the latest stuff on every specialization, but he still has the training to make generally sound medical judgements. Some of us have the training in history and how to approach it equivalent to a doctor's training in medicine. You wouldn't argue with a doctor -- so why do you feel that you have any grounds to argue when a trained historian says that your approach is invalid as far as writing history (which is what you are attempting to do) is concerned? Think about it, please. Your continued arguments against and willful ignorance of historic method is not resulting in good articles -- just generating a lot of debate. JHK
I really didn't think this could get worse, but it has: non-latin names being passed off as 'Latin', distilleries, incomplete sentences about Lech Walesa. Urbs Gyddanzyc is made of a word in Latin + another word. It is NOT a Latin name. Contributors here are putting in sentences that are NOT English. MichaelTinkler
Who knows WHAT this said before revision:
- Other Slavic none Polish settlers had arrived in Germania already around 600 AD.
It's not English. It goes. And why do the Goths only temporarily displace the Borussians? Do we have any proof? Or is this folk-memory and 14th century chroniclers? This stupidity is why I have drastically reduced my Wikipedia presence. MichaelTinkler
In fact, I think that you don't really understand the philosophy of the wiki world. All contributions are welcome. there is no rule except the will to do something together (and not only with experts or graduate people).
fred
- Fred, I happen to agree with Michael Tinkler. It is not a question of who knows more or less or who has more academic credentials. It is a question of whether people should have the right to use Wikipedia to promote their own views on a subject, and that has certainly been happening here. I think that if there is one rule, it should be that the articles be NPOV. Unfortunately, that has been violated too many times. As for academics, the way I understand it is that everyone is welcome to write, but with writing comes the responsibility of accepting editing by people who happen to know the subject-matter better. Personally, I have seen some of my work changed. If I asked why, I received an explanation. In those cases, it was not meant as an attack on me. I actually feel thankful that I had a chance to learn more from people who are authorities in their fields. Finally, for the Wikipedia to really be effective, we do have to reach some consensus about issues like nomenclature, since this will make it possible to link related articles. Unfortunately, a seemingly simple issue like nomenclature can also be used to promote certain non-NPOV positions. When that happens again and again, it can be frustrating. Danny
- Fred, I've been here since August, 2001. The wiki-way is fun and intriguing, but it's no no way to make a reference work. A few cranks keep those famous 'many eyeballs' too busy to do much new work. MichaelTinkler
- Fred -- where does it say that the wiki way is to allow any crap that gets posted to remain? I thought the wiki way was for everybody to strive for the best articles possible, realizing that one doesn't necessarily need a degree to produce good, informative articles. One does, however, need to be able to write lucidly and defer to people (with or without degrees) who know more. The wiki way is not a license to ignore evidence and the properly written presentation thereof. J Hofmann Kemp
During the rulership of Stefan Bathory, Gdansk was part of Poland, so the king didn't have to conquer it, rather to quell an uprising. Anyway, I deleted the whole comment as misleading and un-NPOV. Iskra!
- Local dukes were not descendants of Piasts, nor were they Gryfici, although during their lives there was such a belief among common people. Gryfici were believed to descend from some Polish noble family.
- Batory had to quell uprising of Gdansk, but this was uprising not against Poland, but against him, because Gdansk recognized Maximilian as king, not him. Gdansk then was _defeated_ (Although not decisively - one could argue, that in fact, it was a stalemate) and had to recognize Batory as king, and in exchange Batory recognized it's rights and abandoned some rights introduced by statut of Laski. Batory wanted to calm down things quickly and secure his position as king, that's why he didn't listen to some hawks, and thanks to that few years later he was able to use artillery from Gdansk in war with Muscovy.
cite from here:
- The port of Gdansk, which supported the Emperor's candidature, sought the protection of the King of Denmark, rather than swear allegiance to Batory, but Batory was not a man to be trifled with. In September 1576 he stopped all commerce with the city, moving all trade to Elbing, and declared the leaders rebels. Gdansk retaliated by plundering the Abbey of Oliwa and the Poles sent Jan Zborowski to deal with them. On 17th April 1577 Zborowski with 1,350 cavalry, 1,050 infantry and a few cannon crushed rebel mercenaries, comprising 3,100 landsknechts, 800 cavalry, 6-8,000 town militia and 7 cannon, at Lubieszow. However further attacks and the blockade failed. It looked like developing into a war of attrition, which suited neither side, and the Peace of Malbork was negotiated in December, where Batory received a hefty subsidy and Gdansk retained much of its freedom.
later Polish forces (mainly Hungarians under Bekiesz) defeated Gdansk forces close to Elblag. However Polish army was unable to take Gdansk, Russia attacked from east, so king and Gdansk agreed to compromise (Gdask paid 200.000 zlotych plus 20.000 for rebuilding monastery in Oliva, apologised king, agreed to still paid "palowe", Batory confirmed Gdansk's privileges).
"Before the Polanen received ducal title from emperor , they were part of Czech"
The country of Polanie was never the part of Czech. It was independent since about 2nd half of 9th century. But the country of another Polish tribe, Wislanie, had been conquered by Czechs in the end of 9th century. Polanen dukes haven't received ducal title from emperor, or anybody. Also every Polish king was crowned with the agreement of pope, not emperor.
"...who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin taking over Germany. What explanation do you have for that ?"
Have you ever heard about propaganda??? Polish government have known about German "proposal" of giving Germany Polish Corridor since 1938.
"Stalin kept the Ukraine to the Curzon line, which was proposed to be Russia after WW I. Poland however did not adhere to this Curzon line and instead attacked Soviet Union after WW I and conquered part of Ukraine. Poland kept part of Ukraine until Stalin took it back."
Yes, Poland attacked first, becouse the Polish army couldn't wait and give Soviet Army chance to be strengthen. Polish Chief of State Jozef Pilsudski wanted to create independent Ukraine and maybe Belarus and Lithuania, becouse he belived that this countries would protect Poland from Soviets and would be good allies. He had made an agreement with Ukrainian chief Semen Petlura. Polish and Ukrainian troops attacked together and conquered Kiev, but after Soviet offensive Pilsudski had to sign a peace treaty in Riga without possibility of creating Ukraine. --swPawel
Pawle,
keep in mind that talk pages are for _making encyclopedia articles better_. Although sometimes it is hard to resist to some statements, it's not really helping improvement of articles of arguing with old comments (how old are they? some half of year now?)
moreover, it is not true that all Polish kings crowned with approval of pope, not emperor. Two Polish kings at least were crowned with approval of emperor, namely Waclaw (someone, i can't remember his number) and his son. Usually in our tradition they are either omitted or treated like occupiers, but they were Polish kings, who BTW did much to reform Polish administration (e.g they introduced office of starosta into Little Poland, which proved later so useful that later it was also introduced into other parts of Poland) szopen
Don't really get the usefulness or point of all the links at the bottom...J Hofmann Kemp
What's the Rosicrucian stuff doing here? If anything, it belongs in an article on Rosicrucianismn. Vicki Rosenzweig
- I'm guessing that HJ found information and couldn't let it go to waste, no matter how irrelevant...J Hofmann Kemp
And, as we should know by now, all roads lead to Danzig ;-) Danny
Still arguing about this, I see. The Germans and the Slavs have been fighting over Gdansk/Danzig for a thousand years, I don't think we'll solve it here. ;-) John
I believe, it has been solved already.
Space Cadet
Well, HJ has been at it again on this one. I went through the introduction and simply deleted any NPOV comments (i.e., Polish claim vs. a true and accurate date) tried to create some English, and deleted everything that did not have to do with the subject matter--DANZIG/GDANSK. This is not an article about German claims to Prussia. It is not an article about the Borussians, lousy etymologies, folklore passed off as history, nationalist ranting, etc. Frau Jonat, contrary to what you like to believe, Danzig was populated by members of different, often competing ethnic groups. Yes, it was under Prussian hegemony at some point, but it was also under Polish hegemony at other times. The Poles did not make their first claims to the city in the 16th century. In fact, the Prussian nationalism you are promoting here is completely anachronistic. Ethnic nationalism did not exist through much of the period about which this article is concerned. Nor is the first printing press in Danzig really worthwhile information, nor is the forming of the local chapter of Rosicrucians, et al. Or will we soon be treated to tidbits like Danzig's first pay toilet and the founding of the local K4 club. Enough already. Tomorrow I deal with Rudolf Hess, as now portrayed as a "great peacemaker." Danny
I'm glad to see that some things never change! HJ up to her usual stuff - though the Rosicrucians ARE a new interest for her. Well, my term from hell is over and I'm back to help until June. MichaelTinkler