Talk:Pomerania

Contents

1 Claim to Pomerania as supposedly inherited by Mieszko I 2 Pomeranian cultural and ethnic mix 3 land, area or region? 4 Reasons for 1939 war 5 A personal reflection 5.1 Pomeranian perspective 6 Some editing 7 Baltic Pomerania (Pamarė) 8 Where did dissapeare Baltic Pomerania chapter from History of Pomerania?

Claim to Pomerania as supposedly inherited by Mieszko I

• moved to Talk:Pomerania/archive_1

Pomeranian cultural and ethnic mix

• moved to Talk:Pomerania/archive_2

land, area or region?

Just out of curiousity: how would the readers and contributors of this article relate to the wordings:

• Pomerania is the land on the south coasts of the Baltic Sea centered around the mouth of River Oder on the present-day border between Poland and Germany, reaching from River Reknitz in the west to River Vistula in the east.
  • Social, cultural and economic links have been disrupted. "Land" implies these links being intact. So no to this one.
• Pomerania is the historical region on the south coasts of the Baltic Sea centered around the mouth of River Oder on the present-day border between Poland and Germany, reaching from River Reknitz in the west to River Vistula in the east.
  • This one seems to be the closest to the current situation
• Pomerania is the geographical area on the south coasts of the Baltic Sea centered around the mouth of River Oder on the present-day border between Poland and Germany, reaching from River Reknitz in the west to River Vistula in the east.
  • This one neglects the historical background of the historical region

--Ruhrjung 07:31, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pomerania is certainly NOT centered around the mouth of the Odra/Oder river. Pomerania is the land between Odra and Vistula. Pomerania also covers some lands west of Odra, called Vorpommern in Germany, and also some lans east of Vistula river, including Chelmno Land with Torun and Powisle including Kwidzyn, Malbork and Elblag. Mestwin of Gdansk 16:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So? Is this another example of how Polish historians out of pure national proudness must define concepts differently than in the West?
--Ruhrjung 17:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article says correctly that Pomerania (in wider sense) consists of voivodships/regions of Pomerania proper (Gdansk), Kuyavia-Pomerania, (Bydgoszcz+Torun), West Pomerania and Fore Pomerania, part of German land of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. Although the boundaries of Pomerania were changing slightly this area was called Pomerania for the last 1000 years' - Mestwin of Gdansk 23:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From historical point of view neighter Chelmno Land nor Bydgoszcz could be placed in Pomerania. Historical Pomerania comprised territories north of Notec river. Later(12-14th centuries) its border was moved more north. The Pomeranian Voivodship after 1919 has nothing to do with historical Pomeranian borders. Yeti 00:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Gdansk become the capital for the Solidarity trade union. In 1989 there were found that the border treaty with East Germany had one mistake, concerning naval border. Subsequently, new treaty was signed, but one of the 3 ways out of Szczecin harbour were seized by Germany. - i would hardly call the wording "seized by Germany" NPOV. PMA 11:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) The waterway was used before 1989 by Poland. Afterwards it was sedded to Germany. Cautious 12:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for 1939 war

(User:Ruhrjung's) currently proposed wording:

The dispute over German rights to land transit through the Polish Corridor to the Free City of Danzig and the exclave of East Prussia, came to ignite Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, commenced on September 1, 1939.

The problem with this fragment is that this is not true. Nazis were completely immune to nationalistic feelings as long as it fitted in their program. South Tirol is one example. Non-Nazi Germans diputed Polish rule over Pomerania, until Hitler in 1934 closed the case with the signing of Polish-German pact. In 1939 they wanted to conquer Poland, not Pomerania and Pomerania dispute was only a pretext. Please state it. Cautious 12:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any good source for your claim that the Wehrmacht would have invaded the rest of Poland in 1939 in case France and England had given in, like they did in Munich? I do not hold it for totally impossible, but it does not fit with anything I've seen in serious historical works. (With the qualification, that there of course existed a "point of no return" in the process, which was achieved no later than, but maybe before, the brokering of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.)
--Ruhrjung 13:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any good source proving it wrong? But come on, wikipedia is not about "what-ifs". War was not only about Pomerania just as Hitler's claims were not only about Danzig. He wanted much more (Silesia, parts of Grand Poland). Anyway, we should not discuss it as it has no sense at all. War broke out - so we should assume that it was inevitable. That's what happened.Halibutt 14:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I have not. Only the cautions from the Wehrmacht, and the records of Hitler's foreign politics up til then. Claiming the dispute being a pretext to invasion of Poland is in my view more of a speculation than holding on to the more factual the conflict ignited the world war (in my opinion factual), particulary if we regard that this is not the article on WWII or the september campaign.--Ruhrjung 14:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RuhrJung, so do you consider the minutes posted below fake?

No, not at all. But we all know that Hitler said quite a few things which he couldn't (or didn't intend to) make real immediately. And the conflict over the polish corridor is much older than so. The claim I removed was that the conflict was a pretext for the september campaign, i.e. that the campaign would have been launched also if Hitler's demands were met, which I find doubtful and anti-intuitive, although not impossible. In my view does the statement from May 1939 not support the claim that the dispute should be a pretext for invasion of Poland.

The key phrase from the May conference is:

To attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity.

"We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war.

If it is not certain that a German-Polish conflict will not (sic?) lead to war in the West, then the fight must be primarily against England and France.

...and further down at the same nizkor page, but from a speech after the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:

It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in Spring. But I thought I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East.

This shows to me, that (according to Hitler's thoughts in May) if France and Britain had backed down once again, and repeated the Munich failure, it is not at all impossible that the first suitable opportunity would come first at a later time – probably after attack against France.

--Ruhrjung 15:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Weeeeeell there are minutes from 1939 (or was it 1938) meeting where Hitler stated that something to the effect that war is inevitable and this is not question of territories... http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/hitler-and-poland.html

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problem. Food supplies can be expected only from thinly populated areas. Over and above the natural fertility, thorough- going German exploitation will enormously increase the surplus" Szopen

Well, there were much more pretexts (like the Gliwice provocation, alleged maltreatment of German minority and so on), so perhaps we could simply agree to "the conflict ignited the world war" and go on with the article. Maybe just add a see also: History of Poland (1939-1945) line at the end of the paragraph.Halibutt 15:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A personal reflection

I must say that I feel some (too many) contributors here could better try to see issues from others' points of view, and make efforts to interpret other contributors as constructive instead of enemies with a hidden agenda.

The way you treat eachother (and me) is not inviting to cooperativeness.

--Ruhrjung 15:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ban Nico and Helga and we all would benefit in the light of 1000 year old Polish-German friendship. They start the WW2 again and again. Cautious

I agree with Cautious that Nico is the problem person here. Let's have him banned from editing (at least from editing in Poland), and we will settle all other problems peacfully Mestwin of Gdansk 17:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not ban all contributors who consistently insist on the polonocentric explanation of history? Rübezahl 18:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Rübezahl. What views in this article are, in your opinion Polonocentric, and why? Which editors are, in your opinion, Polonocentric, and why? Mestwin of Gdansk 22:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, nothing. I'm just so sick of the "holypolonocentric" lobby on this Wikipedia constantly bashing anybody who dares mention any detail of the German history of the currently Polish lands. Example for fantically holypolonocentric? Let me think... It's a tough one... Oh, yeah, I knew I had it somewhere in the back of my mind: YOU! Rübezahl 01:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do not play a fool. Nobody forbide to " dares mention any detail of the German history of the currently Polish lands". The problem is when some users try to enforce nationalist verision of German history in this area, and insist on superiority of "Germandom" in Central Europe. Did someone try to remove FACTS about German history of Gdansk or Torun? Show me where. The problem is nationalistic interpretation taken from 19th century German historians (f.e. Kossina etc) for whom German nation was a entitled to subdue "barbarians" from Central and Eastern Europe for the German civilisation. Yeti 17:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sense so much loooooove here. "Polocentric" explanation of history is not different from "germanocentric" view of history and, while sometimes they are counter each other, they are not wrong per se (despite what certain people try to suggest here). Western authors usually know "germanocentric" view, since German is better known and Polish was outside steel curtain - at least, that's my impression after MANY countless discussion not only on wikipedia. But there is also "holypolonocentric" and "holygermanocentric" views, which ARE wrong. Presenting events from POV of your nation is not wrong. Falsifying history is another thing. Szopen

I agree with Szopen here. (Although I see the reasons for the West seeing Poland through German eyes lasting back to the times after the third division of Poland.) The hard question is however how to come to a point where both points of views are presented in a neutral manner in the articles.
--Ruhrjung 17:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pomeranian perspective

There was a nice sentence, unfortuantely erased by some sort of barbarian, I do not wnat to talk about: History of Pomerania is very often written from Polish or German point of view and very rarely from a Pomeranian point of view. - Mestwin of Gdansk 00:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some editing

Concerned that the page was over the 32k limit, I moved the history section to History of Pomerania as well as the following bits:

Economy

to be written yet

Culture

to be written yet

The page, as always, still needs a lot of work. --Roisterer 02:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Baltic Pomerania (Pamarė)

Since 3,000 BC Pomeranian Balts lived in Pomerania (Pamarė) - archeological culture of Pamarė. Only in aproximetly 8th century BC German tribes came to Pomerania from Scandinavia and mixed with Pomeranian Balts. Zivinbudas 22:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that the form Pamarė is almost never used in the English language. A Google search for it in English language articles returns just one hit [1] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Pamar%C4%97&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images), and this is just the front page for a forum on Lithuanian history, so one cannot even see the actual word Pamarė because the message containing it is not shown. Just for comparison, search for Pomorze in English webpages returns 21,400 hits [2] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=pomorze&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images).

In short, the term is not used in English, and so it does not belong in the header. Also, please see the Wikipedia:No original research policy which partly applies here. Balcer 22:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

How often are used in English "Wilno", "Kowno", "Szawle", "Poniewierz" etcr. ? There are historical reasons. It is only your demagogy. Zivinbudas 23:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wilno - 34,100 English pages (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=wilno+&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)

Szawle - 158 English pages (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=szawle&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)

Poniewiez - 80 English pages (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Poniewiez&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)

Kowno - 4,720 English pages (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kowno&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)

BTW, I am not necessarily saying that all those cities should have the Polish name listed. But at least a reasonable argument can be made there. In case of Pamarė I can't see a reasonable argument for inclusion. Balcer 23:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be funny. Those are only polish references. See Pamarys and you will find more. Don't play naiv games. Zivinbudas 23:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I got wrong numbers for that particular one, the correct number of hits on English pages is 80, and so I made this correction. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Again, let me emphasize that I would not necessarily insist on listing the Polish name for all those cities.

BTW, Panevežys (that is the right spelling, I believe) article does not even mention the Polish name, so I don't understand why you are bringing it up as an example. Balcer 23:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, no Polish name because you have just removed it, I see. It was put there by User:DeirYassin when he created the article. I take it then that you will now stop your campaign of adding Lithuanian names to Polish cities, and immediately start a new campaign of removing Polish names from Lithuanian cities. A clearer demonstration of your attitude to this whole naming issue would be impossible. Balcer 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Where did dissapeare Baltic Pomerania chapter from History of Pomerania?

I wrote Baltic Pomerania chapter in History of Pomerania and wrote comment in Talk:Pomerania. This chapter dissapeared from all places without any fixation. Thats polish "administrators", thats real Wikipedia! Congratulations polish-rubbish shitypedia. Zivinbudas 07:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Provide sources and it might be introduced back into the text. You might want to read Wikipedia:Cite sources and log in. Also, you might want to check your talk page. Halibutt 08:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)