Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:55, 1 June 2006

it could be argued that the PC was a legitimate grievance of Germany no matter who was in power - a democratic Germany would have asked why the notion of self determination could not be applied to them - at least for Danzig - and perhaps Polish pigheadedness over the Corridor was also a mistake.

Done quite get your point. Majority of the population was Polish. Why should then it be attached to Germany?! Szopen

Because it's popular recently (especially on the Wiki) to blame Poland and "Polish pigheadedness" for the outbreak of WW II and all of it's consequences. Space Cadet 18:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If Poland were landlocked country, it would have been a satellite of Germany, that occupied her all ports. Why would any of European powers want to strengthen Germany? Wasn't Germany already too powerfull.

Polish or German majority?

http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg

According to this link, German constituted 42% of the Pomorze (And remember, that by "Corridor" some Germans understood also Greater Poland, which has much lower German proportions). They were majority in three districts (in one, 55% majority, and in two, 70%) Szopen 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

--- this is a post-war source. according to "meyer's konverstation lexica" from 1878 there has been a 2/3 german majority in "western prussia" which later became the corridor.

to get a near 50:50 proportion some parts of w.prussia were left with germany and dazing/gdansk was cut out (against polish wishes)

however all this sounds too nation-based.

german nationalists used the german minorities in east europe for excuses for the war. however they were "supported" by nationalist eastern europe governments not giving national minorities the rights granted in versailles treaty.

Abdreas, may 1st. 2006

In other words, in total f Western Prussia germans were 2/3 majority. That's right. But in Pomorze, they were not - they were 42%. Szopen 09:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Annexed and re-annexed

I know that phrase "re-annexed" was introduced becaue "annexed" offended some friends of ours. However, the current sentence (corridor, as well as other parts of Western Poland, were re-annexed) is not TOTALLY correct. Corridor and Greater Poland - ok, but, just let me nitpick for a moment, there were parts which were never part of Germany before (Litzmanstadt aka Lodz or - pre -1919 German name = Lodzsch).

But the real reason why I am talking about it, is because then Polish annexation of Corridor is described not by using "re-annexed" by annexed.

I would be most delighted by explaining this difference to me. If noone however would object in say one week, I will change the phrase to suit my liking (into sometihng like "corridor was then re-annexed into Poland". Szopen 16:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proper name: Polish Pomerania

In my opinion, Polish corridor is not NPOV at all. Its a propagandist name given to the area by the Nazi Germans between WWI and WWII. Proper name: Polish Pomerania.

CC, 00:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Polish Corridor is a historical term. It is not in use anymore as a designation of a geographical entity, but only of a historical region. You and I would not call it corridor today, but people in the 1920s did. Therefore the article should stay here.
I just changed some sentences added by the anonymous user. Do you agree with these changes? If so, the neutrality disclaimer may be removed. -- Cordyph 17:52, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the map, but what we really need, is the map that shows, Poland, Germany, East Prussia and the corridor, and the sea of course.

Dear Max please not revert, try to help to improve. Corridor was part of Germany 1914, but illegally, since before 1772/1793 partitions it was a part of Poland. When German emperror abdicated, Poles had no reason to obey the rules of German Republic. Why would they? So question of Provinz Posen, West Preussen and Ost Preussen was open. And Treaty in Wersailles could have made decisions. AM

I DID NOT revert the page, you did however, revert my changes. I merely removed the incorrect and editorializing information. Please only add correct information. Also, please log in and use a username instead of dozens of ip addresses. Maximus Rex 19:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Emphasizing the Corridor as Wilson's idea

Okay, I've reverted to my version of the page. Somehow Ruhrjung apparently, in doing an edit marked "copyedit", inadvertently returned to an older version of the page. Then an anon user returned mostly back to my version, but added that long incoherent section on "Before the Polish Corridor". So I'm going back to my version. john 06:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The only thing that wasn't intended was the edit-summary "copyedit", which ought to have been changed before I saved the page. ;-/ My hope is that my disposition and choise of words will turn out to be less divisive and have a longer time of survival than the previous attampts. :-)

--Ruhrjung 12:01, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Corridor wasn't Wilson's idea, it was an obvious idea for the Poles since they wanted access to the sea and that part of West Prussia had a mjaority Polish population. Just because Wilson put it in his 14 Points didn't make it "his idea." In any case the article must began with a definition of what the term "Polish Corridor" means, put as plainly as possible. Adam 12:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He took it up. If this didn't make it "his idea", I'm sorry for my faulty use of your mother tongue. The wording I actually proposed was now:

The Polish Corridor was a term given authority by USA's President Woodrow Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points (1918), for a territory connecting a restored Poland with the Baltic Sea.

Is it, by the way, your informed opinion that France and Britain, as the victors in the war, would have realized the idea by themselves?

--Ruhrjung 18:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. john 19:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

odd account of the start of WWII

Removed rather odd account of the start of WWII Roadrunner 07:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

fresh eye

It is sometimes useful to come an article with a fresh eye. Most of this article was the usual Polish-German-Polish-German historical quibbling, which I have deleted in toto since it had nothing to do with the Polish Corridor. Hands up who else is sick of obsessive minorities of petty European ethnic chauvinisrs wrecking this project? Adam 08:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I am also sick of this nonsense, but I've reverted back to my version, which I think had a bit more useful detail about Hitler's demands in the Polish Corridor in 1939, which is, I think, relevant to this article. If you want to mess around with it, feel free, but I think my version was almost certainly the best version of the article heretofore, and further edits should be based on that, not based on deleting stuff from weird POV versions. john 08:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...if we're calling it a piece of German territory, it should be said to be part of West Prussia, not Eastern Pomerania (which is the Polish designation of the region). But I'm afraid that putting it that way might cause problems. john 08:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the WP Poles and Germans could get over their stupid fetishisation of these bits of land and their multiple antique names the world would be a happier place. I will delete the reference. Adam 09:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's avoid broad generalizations. It's only a small percentage of both German and Polish contributors who have been making problems on these articles. john 09:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. But in that case the majority ought to be more assertive in preventing the kind of Gdansk-Danzig-Gdansk-Danzig wars we see far too many of. I agree by the way that the article is much better with your material in it. Adam 09:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The so called Corridor was not a artificial linking territory, but a part of before 1772 Poland, restored in 1918. It is obvious that in line with Masovia or Little Poland also former Royal Prussia was included into the Polish state. Yeti 22:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This I contest. The central point here is that great parts of what Poland lost of West Prussia in 1772 remained by the Weimar Republic in 1919. A Poland was restored, but not the Poland of 1772. I've always been led to believe that the Corridor was to be constructed somewhere, and that such considerations as popular referenda would not have been allowed to interfere. But it's what-if history, and hence no suitable ground for wikipedia articles.

The concrete question ought maybe be formulated: Was there really any distinct territorial unit that prior to WWI was known under one name and after WWI was known as the Polish Corridor.

However, I must say that I currently am startled and somewhat surprised. I've made several attempts to work towards consensus and to include the contributions by different contributors, but this feels pretty much meaningless when these other contributors all the time reverts to their own last versions. Where are your wikispirit, people?
--Ruhrjung 00:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't rvt arbitrarily. I rvt when I think the subsequent editds have added nothing of value to the article other than to promote prsonal POVs. This is my view in this case. Adam 00:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And which "personal POVs" are promoted by:

• one link for Gdansk instead of two
• stating that "Various postwar German governments" disliked the corridor instead of "The postwar German government"

just reviewing your last revertion?

I believe to have seen the same tendency before – not only from your side.

--Ruhrjung 01:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I linked Danzig and Gdansk to try to keep everyone happy, although I know they lead to the same article.
• "Various postwar governments" is a meaningless formulation. So far as I know all German governments opposed the eastern borders so it is correct to say "the postwar German government."
• I don't have "a side" here. I am trying to write a historically accurate article.

Adam 01:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Disregarding that I don't really see the answer on my question. :-) I don't fully follow your reasoning. Above, you write about "all German governments" and still prefer the singular reference. I don't really understand how long time this first post-war government remained at power, and why it's preferable to refer to it in singular when you agree that they all had the same opinion. (Also disregarding if "government" is understood as synonym to "régime" or to "cabinet".)
--Ruhrjung 01:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Postwar German government" means the German Republic 1919-33, not each individual cabinet. Adam 01:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The key phrase above is: when I think the subsequent edits have added nothing of value. Adam Carr reveals himself as a rather self-loving person. That's maybe good for him. If he isn't blindened by it. I think he should be well served by an other attitude: telling others that they know nothing doesn't really create respect for editor Adam.

/M.L.

I didn't say you knew nothing, I said you didn't understand the text, because your English isn't good enough to do so. Adam 03:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I didn't understand the text, maybe the text is to blame? One must doubt your seriousness. The disputed issues are not very hard to understand. You shouldn't conclude falacy to comprehend from foreigners' idiomatic faults. It looks rather as if you were frustrated and changed to ad hominem attacks when you had no factual support for your current position. /M.L.

I still have no idea what you are objecting to. Adam 12:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you again trying to express the point that my language skills are too limited? Isn't that a rather nasty debate technique - ad hominem in disguise?

My objections are expressed on the "page history" for the article, which you dismiss as if you haven't seen them.

You can however judge them to be expressions of "personal POVs", collectively.

I wonder which.

The not so funny aspect is that until 15:17, 13 Apr 2004, you (and I guess, some kind of a concensus) represented the view I proposed yesterday (at 20:44), when you from 12:15 (14 Apr) had changed position, and explained this with "the article has to be begin by saying what the Corridor was". You haven't explained how you've come to your new conclusion, that the Corridor was a new name for an old territory instead of

• "a name used to refer to an area" (your old wording) or
• a concept "intended to give Poland an outlet to the Baltic Sea" (my wording) or
• a term "for a territory connecting a restored Poland with the Baltic Sea" (Yeti/Ruhrjung).

- Not on this page and not in the article's page history. Space Cadet, Ruhrjung and Yeti explained their ambitions with their edits. John Kenny and you didn't. You seem to think that you stand above such "bickering". But you change back to your faulty version again and again and again, and when you finally improve yourself; and actually heed some of the criticism you've received, it's still God-like and unexplained.

I guess a narrow analysis of other contested points would give a similar picture of your arrogance.

/M.L.

To which I reply:

• Until you become a registered User and acquire a User name, no-one will know which comments are yours and which are some other anonymous persons. I and other regular editors here do not like anonymous people and are usually not interested in arguing with them.
• I have looked at the article history and I still don't know what your specific objections were or are.
• However I suggest you now read the article as I have now amended it and tell me what specific objection to the text you now have. When you come back with a user name and a specific objection we can debate it.

Adam 13:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The territory

Was POlish corridor a name given to whole formerly German territory given to POland after WWI, or only Pommern? I saw preWar postcards which included also Great Poland in "Polish corridor" Szopen 15:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Corridor vs. Pomerania

Adam Carr apparently reverted my change without giving any reason. What I was trying to say is that this article is an example of double-barreled articles on wikipedia. There are several others that reflect only one side of the story. Such pairs are, for instance:

• Final solution - Holocaust
• Recoverred Territories - Ex-German Eastern Territories

I'd like this article to have a link to either Pomerania or Pomeranian Voivodship in the header, but I do not want to engage in a revert war with User:Adam Carr. Any ideas as how to handle it? ] 10:22, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

You know quite well that using either a German or a Polish geographical name in that sentence will only start another German-Polish revert war. The only neutral thing to say is that it was a strip of territory. I see no analogy with the other articles you cite. Adam 10:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The very name of this article reflects the German point of view, for Poland it was not a corridor but Pommeranian Voivodship. And the term Pommerania is neither Polish nor German, it is completely neutral as it is a Latin (and English as well) geographical term, while Corridor is not. And the analogy is quite simple:

• Final solution (German name, parts of German POV preserved) vs. Holocaust
• Recoverred Territories (Polish POV) vs. Ex-German Eastern Territories (German POV)
• Polish Corridor (German POV) vs. Pommeranian Voivodship (Polish POV).

I'd like this matter to be solved. Also, please explain your reverts, it leaves no place for false accusations of starting a revert war. ] 10:51, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The matter can be solved by you not reopening silly placename arguments and leaving the article alone. Adam 10:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reply, but I'd still want to hear what are the arguments behind actually not linking the article on a political phenomenon to its geographical location? Is the term Pomerania POV? Or is it biased in some way? I don't get it. ] 11:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are talking about. The sentence as it stands is perfectly accurate, so why start arguments by changing it? Go and do something useful. Adam 11:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let me state it loud and clear:

• An article on a political or geo-political phenomenon must have a link to the geographic location.

First war of Schleswig links to Schleswig-Holstein, Greater London links to London, Paris Commune links to Paris, Oder-Neisse Line links to both Poland and Germany and so on. Why Polish Corridor cannot have a link to Pomerania?] 12:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Because every use of a place name in an article about Poland and/or Germany starts an edit war among nationalists and placename fetishists like you. Adam 08:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Was it supposed to be a joke? Or perhaps you were trying to offend me? You should try harder than that. However, I'm not sure if offending me is a good idea.

Anyway, I'll say it again: discuss with what I say, not with what you think of me. If you'd say that my idea is wrong because you don't think it's relevant or something along this line it would be acceptable. However, you are saying that my ideas are wrong because it's me who proposed them in the first place. This is not fair, this is not right and this is not what I expected of you. Think twice before you say that someone is a nationalist because the term is extremely offensive to some. I'm sure pro personam arguments is not what wikipedia needs. ] 09:22, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

To the Germans, it was part of West Prussia, and Pomerania consisted entirely of German territory. Sigh john k 18:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But Pomerania, unlike West Prussia or Pomeranian Voivodship, is a geografical region, not a political entity. Also, it is used by Poles (Pomorze), Germans (Pommern) and even Brits and Americans (you guessed it, Pomerania). It's not that only one side considers it to be a distinct region - it's accepted by everyone. Perhaps everyone minus Adam Carr, I don't know because you haven't give a reason for revert, eventhough I asked you to. ] 20:47, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fake offer?

Molobo, how is the German offer "fake"? I do not understand your comment about military presence being takin into account, so I restored that as well.--Hohns3 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason for war was Polish unwillgness to enter Hitler's alliance not Gdańsk. --Molobo 15:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Free State of Danzig played an important role, that cannot be denied. I see you have gone into more detail about the overall diplomatic picture (which is also good). As for the Kashubians being Slavic, why do you object to that? I did some formatting changes, but overall I am happy with our work. Good job. --Hohns3 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Requests

Okay, for the Consequences and the Post-War Erasection, I removed two {fact} requests. 1) Obviously the population was not consulted when the fate of Danzig and what was to become the PC was determined. The 2nd claim, about "being given the opportunity to be German citizens"...or at least that is what I think it is supposed to say, is a largely incoherent sentence and I wish you the best of luck to find and describe exactly how this would have been possible. Cheers. --Hohns3 05:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Any citizen in Gdańsk could change his citizenship for German one. This was written in treaties. --Molobo 11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

? The city was to either be neutral or attached to Poland, and 97.6% rejected the latter choice. --Hohns3 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazi POV

Regarding the wording of what happened to the Corridor in WW2. The Nazi POV would be that it was part of the Reich, the rest of the world would say it was simply occupied by the Nazis. We do not intend to push Nazi POV here, do we ? --Lysy 06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

your understanding of the wording is incorrect, it was incorporated into the reich and was a part of Nazi Germany (and so subject to conscription and its laws), the General Government was occupied; France was occupied; the Corridor became a part of Germany proper as it had been until the end of WWI. the corridor was annexed to Germany, whereas lands that were occupied were not e.g France and the General Government.

--Jadger 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what you are presenting above is only a Nazi POV (and I sincerely hope it's not yours). It would be right if the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was legitimate, but it was not, hence the territory was occupied, regardless of what Hitler chose to name it. --Lysy 02:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way add this information ?

http://www.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect16.htm Ribbentrop’s proposal seems quite reasonable. However, we know what Hitler’s real intentions were from information given by the Danzig "Gauleiter" (Party district leader) Albert Forster (1902-1950) to the League of Nations High Commissioner in Danzig, Carl Jakob Burckhardt (1891-1974, in Danzig 1937-39). In November 1938, Forster told him what he had just heard from Hitler: The Fuhrer said he would guarantee Polish frontiers for his own lifetime - but only if the Poles were "reasonable like the Czechs." Burckhardt heard the same phrase from German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsacker when he visited Berlin in December 1938. Thus, it is clear that Hitler’s aim was to make Poland dependent on Germany. --Molobo 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I won't ask you again to stop adding the same POV-heavy statements which from time to time, include a number of grammatical errors; moreover, it was the German press in Danzig (and not necessarily Nazi-controlled organs) which exacerbated tensions...and German rearmament did not force anything. It could be seen as a response to Soviet action and the British, admitting the absurdity of the limits imposed through Versailles, reluctantly found this act to be justified. Interestingly, it was the French who aided Polish militarization, which dated back to the 1920's...one third of Poland's budget was going towards military expenses. German production then inspired further developments in this sort of "arms race" buildup, which even had an affect across the Atlantic (U.S. Navy to Gov't: everyone else is doing it, so why can't we?). On a more positive note, the information above is interesting, and has found its way into the article. I tried to summarize and avoid details, as this article is about the Corridor. --Hohns3 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

and German rearmament did not force anything. It could be seen as a response to Soviet action What Soviet actions ? Germany and Soviets were gladly helping each other in re-arming their countries since 1919. --Molobo 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Germany and the USSR were certainly not helping each other rearm since 1919 Molobo. Germany still had all of her weapons in 1919, all she needed to do was hide them for a couple of years if your delusions were realistic or based on actual events. not to mention that Soviet Russia was still in civil war in 1919, so it cannot be called re-armament there either. It is however true that the Soviets helped the Germans test there weapons in the Soviet Union by a secret treaty later on, but not for a long time after 1919. that being said, I dont see the point of hohn's argument either, the USSR and Germany did not border each other at the time so rearming to prevent Soviet attack makes no sense. that being said, what does make sense is that they rearmed so that they could take back the Saarland from French occupation, and prevent Polish border incursions like those that started the Silesian Uprisings because the Freikorps could only do so much in protecting Germany's borders before they became politically unreliable.

--Jadger 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, all this is obviously beyond the point, but for the sake of discussion, building Germany up wasn't so much for breaking up an Soviet attack as it was discouraging one, which brings into play the anti-Comintern pact to create a front the Soviets would have to consider before making any move. Yes, as you mentioned keeping its borders under control was important, but I think economic production-related factors deserve most of our attention. When it doubt, build weapons.

"all she needed to do was hide them for a couple of years"... I suggest under a pillow.--Hohns3 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany and the USSR were certainly not helping each other rearm since 1919 Molobo. Jadger please read history before trying engage in historic discussions, this isn't the first time you express views that contradict historical knowledge: I suggest reading: http://www.feldgrau.com/ger-sov.html German Military in the Soviet Union 1918-1933 --Molobo 11:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)