Talk:Free City of Danzig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries / Prussia  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Prussia.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Free City of Danzig[edit]

Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion

The English name of the city is Gdańsk so the English name of the political body is Free City of Gdańsk'


The English name of the city today is Gdańsk; the English name when it was a free city was Danzig. Ergo, Free City of Danzig is correct. No English speakers referred to the city as Gdańsk before 1945. Nor did the inhabitants of Danzig. But the city of Danzig no longer exists – nor do its inhabitants, with a few exceptions (Cf. Günter Grass).

Sca 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We do not write this encyclopedia in 1945 but now, ergo "Free City of Gdańsk" is correct. Also 15% of its inhabitants called it Gdańsk. Space Cadet 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And, however, the vote clearly states to use Danzig. Ameise -- chat 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Dzień dobry, Space Cadet! Co słychać?

Yes, we ARE WRITING (English present perfect tense, my friend) it now, but we are writing about something that doesn't exist now -- something which formerly existed as the Freie Stadt Danzig, which was universally known IN ENGLISH as the Free City of DANZIG, and we are writing it for the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Changing borders and populations is possible; changing history is not. (Cf.The Danzig Trilogy, by Günter Grass -- not "the Gdansk Trilogy," etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and so forth, blah blah.)

Czesc!

PS: Following your own logic, I assume you refer to the capital of Lithuania as Vilnius, not Wilno, right?

Sca 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


"WE ARE WRITING" is Present Continuous, not Present Perfect, my friend. Present Perfect would be "WE HAVE WRITTEN". I can't believe I have to educate you on the basics of English language. I guess, I overestimated you. But going back to the case, let's see if You can follow this (I'm typing slowly, because I know you're reading slowly):

Côte d'Ivoire used to be called in English "Ivory Coast", but now, even in reference to that period in history, we consistently use Côte d'Ivoire. Do ... you ... under - stand?

Finally the case of Vilnius: I am a strong supporter of consistent use of names such as Vilnius, Lviv and Hrodna. As soon as we straighten out Gdańsk (and the Free City of Gdańsk, for that matter) I will immediately edit Emilia Plater to say that she was born in Vilnius. You have my word. Cześć! Space Cadet 21:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Binding Wikipedia naming convention[edit]

Wikipedia naming convention (binding) suggests to use the English name or the native name: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

Non binding discussed proposal[edit]

For the current dicussions on the propoised standards plase also see also:

Mestwin of Gdansk 00:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The "Free City of Danzig" is a historical entity. That is it's name, when it existed, in the 19th and early 20th century. Changing it is rewriting history and nonsensical. Maximus Rex 01:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This should be named after whatever its official title was at the time. Are we to rename the Battle of Stalingrad to the Battle of St Petersburg because that is its name now? G-Man 01:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Er...Battle of Volgograd. St Petersburg was Leningrad. john 01:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My apologies :) G-Man 13:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Maximus Rex. Practice at en has been to use historical names in their historical period anyway, though with a mention of current names, so the change doesn't fit our usual naming practices. Jamesday 00:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is some small discrepancies between the english and the polish article concerning population of Free City of Danzig. According to the english article about the interwar period 90% of population was german and 4-8% of population was polish. According to the polish article 10% of the population was polish, german population was in majority.

Shame on those trying to promote the name Free City of Gdansk[edit]

We've repeatedly had discussion over whether this article should be at Free City of Danzig or Free City of Gdansk. The consensus was pretty strongly in favor of the former. As such, it is extremely poor behavior to repeatedly revert to Free City of Gdansk without any discussion, especially since this amounts to a cut and paste move. If you think it should be changed, feel free to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and suggest it, or discuss it here on the talk page. I doubt you'll have much luck, but obviously you have every right to argue whatever position you want. What you don't have the right to do is willfully ignore consensus and engage in a revert war in order to secure your preferred presentation. Extremely poor behavior. john k 18:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Space Cadet, for being mature about this. You'll notice that my remark was not directed as to the merits of using either name, but directed rather to questions of process. Of course, I disagree with the substance, but as I said in my post, anyone has the right to suggest that we title it another way. I'm happy to argue aimlessly with you about it for a few days, if you'd like. My point was that just doing cut and past moves and engaging in revert wars, when you don't have a consensus for the change, is bad form and bad behavior. john k 20:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bierut decrees[edit]

"One of the major tools of the program of mass expulsion were the so called Bolesław Bierut laws. The Bierut laws declared all mobile and immobile private property of ethnic Germans as Polish state property. Every inhabitant was only allowed to take a bag containing no more than 20 kg of private belongings, excluding watches, money and other goods of value. The Bierut laws also declared all crimes including rape and murder against Germans as legal. [...] Till today the Republic of Poland declines to prosecute these war crimes or to resturn stolen private property. Both crime complexes constitute a massive violation of the The Hague Landwar Convention (of 1907) which was signed by Poland in 1920."

This was added by Matthead. After removal, it was reverted back by Chris_73. The text above was taken from some German propaganda. Chris_73 is also known for many other controversial actions like removing information on Wehrmacht war crimes or renaming Polish cities names to German names. They both are from Germany. Unfortunately Chris_73 is an admnistrator, so there's nothing we, humble users, can do about the German pov articles. I know I'll be banned by Chris for this, but I had to get attention of English administrators. (by User:Ak47K)

The so called Bierut decrees issued on February 28 1945 with additional laws from March 6 1945, January 3 1946, and March 24 1946 declared all mobile and immobile private property of ethnic Germans as Polish state property. It is even mentioned on Bolesław Bierut, and described on Pursuit of Nazi collaborators#Poland. Maybe we should even have an article on Bierut decrees? I am not sure about the Hague Landwar Convention, probably every country in europe violated these during WW2, starting with Germany. However, removing the complete text related to the Bierut laws was not correct, hence I reverted you. BTW, the czech equivalent are the Beneš decrees-- Chris 73 | Talk 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should have an article on Bierut decree, but I'm afraid that someone is going to write some lies again. In Bierut decree there's nothing about 20 kg of private belongigs or all crimes against Germans to be legal(are you serious!?). Bierut decree (known as Warsaw decree, rarely used, because of another Warsaw decree) is about rebuilding Warsaw only, so it shouldn't even be here on Danzig article. By Bierut decree former owners have been disowned from their right to ownership (Poles, Germans, everyone) - in order to rebuild Warsaw. This law is still valid (no comment on this one).Ak47K

I removed the mentioning of the 20kg etc, since I could not find a reference. I also removed the Hague Landwar Convention sentence. According to the German Wiki article on the topic (which went through a lot of discussion on its talk page), crimes against Germans were also exempted, so I kept this sentence. Is this better for you? -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You left the most controversial sentence and there's rather a big difference beetwen German and English aritcles. I suggest to write about this sentence just like it is in the German wiki: Abusing placed at the German population were exempt from punishment.Ak47K

Done. Hope this is OK with you -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's ok now. Thank you. Ak47K


Dubious[edit]

  • and it is estimated that more then 90 % percent of the pre-war population was killed or expulsed by Soviet and Polish troops on the end of the wa

Estimated by whom ? I want a credible researcher or comission with citations since it seems like German nationalist propaganda. --Molobo 13:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)



  • The mass expulsion was connected to massive war crimes by Soviet and Polish troops

What war crimes ? Please name comission, scholary evidence and with citations please. Also this seems a bit impossible-I don't think any Polish troops were located at Gdańsk-with most of them being Germany at the time. Please name Soviet units and Polish ones that are supposed to be involved and trials or research against them. --Molobo 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Systematical mass rapes and executions created an atmosphere of terror

Again. According to whom ? Please show documented and credible research proving they were mass rapes and executions. Again with citations pleas. -Molobo 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Poland engaged in a program of mass expulsion of all Germans from the city

Not really, those with technical knowledge were always chosen or even forced to remain.This statement is untrue. --Molobo 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The Bierut laws declared all mobile and immobile private property of ethnic Germans as Polish state property, and excempted crimes against the German population from punishment

First of all ALL Polish citizens had their property confiscated, so its POV to single out Germans.

  • As to excempted crimes against the German population from punishment-if you are so sure about it please give appropriate passage from Bierut Laws that states this.

--Molobo 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

End of the Napoleonic-era Free City[edit]

I've just given the section on the Napoleonic-era state a bit of a polish, and noticed in passing that it was stated as having come to an end on "22 January 1813/1815". The "1815" part presumably refers to the Congress of Vienna (although I can't find a reference to the city in the Final Act?), but the first date seems extraordinarily precise. Can someone provide some details regarding this? Silverhelm 05:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

It does look precise. [1] has:
  • January - 29 November 1813 - Siege of Danzig (East Prussia), Poland
  • 22 January 1813 - Prussian Court moves to Breslau (Silesia), Poland

Vagueness about the 1933 elections[edit]

As of this moment, the article states, "In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local election in the city." This doesn't sound right. Typically, a party might win control with a certain number/percentage of seats in play, but a party does not win an election per se. The next sentence says, "they [the Nazis] received 57 percent of the vote," which suggests they won 57 percent of the seats in an unspecified body. What was the election in question? A city council? The Senate of Danzig (which is referenced in another article linking to this page)? The election details should be specified. The answer might be something like, "In May 1933, the Nazi Party took control of the Senate of Danzig in an election where it won 57 percent of the seats." However, not knowing the details and not having any reference books about this subject, I don't want to make the edit myself. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of this period and subject can edit accordingly. 207.69.137.207 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

at [2] several election results can be found. I'm wondering, in several elections 'Kommunistische Partei' is listed. Is that the KPD? In 1935 the result explicitly stated KPD. --Soman (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Split?[edit]

Since this article currently covers two city states based around Gdansk, would it make sense to have two separate articles instead? As for article names, I suggest:

  • Republic of Danzig - 1807-1815
  • Free City of Danzig - 1920-1939

This article, in its current form, describes the 20th century state more than the one from the 19th. By splitting the article, both states can be given equal emphasis. - 52 Pickup 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, this is done in the Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Vrije Stad Danzig (1807-1814) and nl:Vrije Stad Danzig (1920-1939) - 52 Pickup 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, I have created a separate article for the Napoleonic state. It can be found at Free City of Danzig (Napoleonic). - 52 Pickup 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

exile government[edit]

The article Government in exile mentions that there was a government in exile of the Free City of Danzig. But there is no indication of that in the article itself. Any clarifications? --Soman (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Added source on usage of Gdańsk as training center[edit]

For Selbstschutz and Nazi organisation preparing to organise atrociites during Invasion of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status after 1939 and after 1945[edit]

It is missing section here, but present at the Polish wikipedia article (there were de facto solutions only, federal government answer for parliamnetary question concerning current status of FDC can be helpful also: Antwort der Bundesregierung).Dotz Holiday (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Indented line

oh god. ths beeing written by the "PDS" an party which is in Germany being monitored by the feds because of some of their tendencies against the constitution (Verfassungsfeindliche). this true that the former German territories including Danzig which were put under Polish control in 1945 were exactly that, put under their control not seceded to Poland. Poland being puppet by the Soviet Union used their powers to annex the territories. Now without deciding if this was right or wrong one should ask oneself thefollowing question: if somebody hit someone els, considered right by law to take away everything his family owns without compensation? And now consider yourself the person who for some reason be it right or wrong was the one which hit the other person.... It should not be a question if one should revise the borders between Germany and Polandand if Polen should pay the victims and their families reimbursements. It should only be the question if it is morally right for Poland to finally admit to their actions and openly teach the truth in their classrooms that Poland annexed these territories. Of course most people voicing such opinions are unfortunately extremists and not people in their right mind. Luckily it is also the opinion of not just some Germans in their right mind but also of a small intellectual minority in Poland. at least there is to be hoped that one day both nations and their ethnic groups will not blame each other, but far more just admit to their past by saying: that's the way it was and is no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.160.47 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

removed nonsense...[edit]

...inserted by an anon user.radek (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

unclear[edit]

This: "Poland also protested the Free City's workers joining the International Labour Organization". The Wobblies (God bless'em) were a fairly radical labor union (banned in US for awhile I believe) so it's not surprising that a government or someone somewhere would object to them but it's unclear what is meant by "Poland protested" - the Polish government? The Polish workers? Additionally, was this significant or was it just opposition to radical labor typical of almost all European and North American governments of the time? The text tries to play this off as some kind of an ethnic conflict but in all probability it was a political one and it's not clear what parties exactly were involved.radek (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The International Labour Organization is not a Union or a radical political organisation, it's a branch of the United Nations/League of Nations and the question wasn't about single workers joining the ILO but about whether the Free City as an international subject is allowed to join. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The text was confusing. Thanks.radek (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

latest edits[edit]

i'd politely ask HerkusMonte and the IP number 88.73.255.55 from Germany to discuss the changes before introducing a shocking number of 13 nationalistic POV edits like today. thanks. Loosmark (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the latest edits by the IP and User:Whatawho did not really improve the article, however I'm not sure why you adress the above to me. I tried to find a source for the ILO part and added it. I'd politely ask you to make clear whether you adress the term "nationalistic" to me.HerkusMonte (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry maybe i confused you with IP, but who removed this: Although the League of Nations courts decided in Poland's favor, arguing that, because of the Free City's economic status, its population could not join such organizations.? Loosmark (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I changed "its population" to "it" (the city), because the ILO is not an organization to be joined by single persons or a group of individuals. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
My appologies to you then, it was the IP who acted controversially. Loosmark (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please compare [3] the condition of the article as it stands now and how it stood after the edits of Radekcz, which all pertain to a Polish point of view by a) underplaying the binding agreements between Danzig and Poland, which without the native population's consent, divided duties in the city between Danzig authorities and Polish authorities b) making it look like the National Socialists of Germany had declared Danzig free when it was the Danzig government. c) Erasing the notice that the Danzigers did not want to be incorporated into Poland, which puts resistance to Poland in a different context rather than the one it exists in in Radekz's version of the text, where "German territorial revisionism" is the reason for Poland's actions. d) removing the mention that it was BOTH concern AND paranoia of German territorial revision that was most critical e) eliminating the note that the boycott of Danzig goods continued after Poland agreed to stop "promoting it" f) eliminating the Free City's opinion of the tariff war (just like the mention of the Free City's fear of Polish subversion was removed) g) eliminating the idea of fait accompli and the background as to what was going on when the Free City was declared part of Poland. I will not have my text be butchered and manipulated simply to serve as propaganda. Either we work together to share both points of views or I'm taking all of the text I added out. You can't simply call something "POV" because it shows the Free City view and "NPOV" when it shows Poland's point of view.--Whatawho (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? In case you have missed it, the Free City's politics were dominated by the Nazi party since the early 30's and wikipedia's NPOV can't be built by incorporating the Nazi view as some sort of balancing factor. Loosmark (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's right, I forgot: every view that does not support the holy sacred Polish view of the world is the "Nazi view", even if it doesn't come from Nazi sources, reflect a position held by the Nazis or have anything to do with the Free City's politics from 1933 onward. This article primarily focuses on what happened between 1920 and 1930, by the way. Seeing that you have worked on the embarassing, half-comprehensible and ridiculously POV article Bombing_of_Wieluń, and seeing how you called my edits "nationalist" for undoing a series of edits which transfered a balanced report into a biased piece of Polish propaganda, I would say the last sentence I wrote, on 1 Sept, is something you should think about, too...even if my comments were originally addressed to Radekcz--Whatawho (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The "balanced report" as you comically call it was a far cry from being balanced. I'd also ask you to refrain yourself from ad hominem attacks against me. If you have any suggestions for the Bombing_of_Wieluń article, made them on the appropriate talk page. Loosmark (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you call everyone who doesn't agree with your ridiculous polish propaganda POV a Nazi and than cry about ad hominem attack when the backlash hits, Loosmark. Whatawho has cleary stated what he has edited and why he edited these points and all of his edits are valid. If you have any substantive criticism about them than bring it forward instead of calling people nazis and avoid referring to what others said. But your own edits (calling the natural wish of the Germans of Danzig who have been separated from their country to remain German "nationalist spirit"/deleting the fact that this separation was against the will of the population etc.) already show that your interested in nothing but POV pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.208.79 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IP from Germany, I'd politely ask you to refrain from ad-hominem attacks like "your ridiculous polish propaganda POV" and similar. Also please avoid falsely acusing me of something I did not do - I did not call anybody a Nazi, I only said that the Free City's politics were controled by either right wing or later the Nazi party and as such their view can't be the ultimate base for wikipedia's NPOV.  Dr. Loosmark  20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reinhard Haferkorn[edit]

The article currently uses a book by Reinhard Haferkorn as a source. Haferkorn joined the NSDAP on 1 May 1933 and was assessed as a "trusted National Socialist", in WWII he worked at the Foreign ministry, departement for English affairs in cooperation with Lord Haw-Haw (see Anglistik und Amerikanistik im "Dritten Reich"), I don't think such a source is reliable and removed these parts. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, please investigate further. It is from a British academic journal (in which Haferkorn was a contributing author). It is not a book (...by Haferkorn. But apparently you think your opinion of what is a reliable source outweighs the opinion of the journal). I find it peculiar that you think anyone who writes something automatically has their work invalidated if they later become members of a certain political party. Perhaps it is, in fact, his observation of the Danzig situation that led to his opinions about the city. Anyway, that is irrelevant, because here, his words are not being used; we are using him for his reference to a court case and later, a newspaper article.
Second of all, after deleting his quotations and other nearby text, you have rearranged the text so that the sentences no longer make sense. You have also removed the Polish source for a claim about the atrocities committed by the Selbschutz. Unless you wish to debate the authenticity of the source with someone who can speak Polish, I think this was not a good decision.
As for your own contributions, your style is sensationalist and I have checked some of what you have written only to find it is not what the sources say. --188.102.197.166 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Your tone is inappropriate.
  • If you think something needs a source or differs from the cited ref, please use one of these tags
  • DON'T remove such tags without giving the requested reference
  • A colleague of Lord Haw-Haw and "trusted" member of the Nazi party isn't reliable. Find a different (reliable!) source and you might add whatever you like. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Who are you to stamp my tone "inappropriate", especially with a smart-aleck, bullet-item reply like the one you gave here? Anyway, I have a laundry list of complaints regarding what you did to the article, see below.--188.106.6.243 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits, POV tag[edit]

  • you have settled for the vague "[Poland] sought to extend its privileges" rather than expound upon them. This has sanitized the article of a great deal of criticism, although you seem to have no problem with abundant criticism when the other camp is mentioned.
  • you have changed " [there was] a strike after the Free City was created" to "local dockworkers refused to unload ammunition for the Polish army"
  • you have removed mention of Poland's 1918 request for the incorporation of all of East Prussia
  • removed mention of the strike breaking as an attempt by British to control Danzig's commerce, and also the near-decision to declare martial law (both of which indicate how "semi-autonomy" functioned in reality
  • removed mention of the illegal movement of military vessels into Danzig's harbor.
  • instead of "Poland protested against the Free City joining the ILO", you wrote "the Free City protested against the Westerplatte [vague, run-on sentence which is hardly comprehensible]...or the representation of Danzig in international organisations like the International Labour Organization by Poland.

(I guess the Germans are responsible for everything)

  • you have removed the opinion of the international court regarding this case, (an opinion which AGAIN demonstrates the lack of so-called "semi-autonomy")
  • Poland, in spite of being 33% full of minorities, is refered to as the "Polish state"...Danzig, a 95% German city, is referred to as "the city" and its people are referenced with "its populace"
  • Poland's challenge to the statute refusing Poles dual citizenship has been removed. Geo-G. Chrisholm's opinion as to why this was an important part of the German-Polish conflict has also been removed
  • Poland's building of Gdynia was about more than creating a munitions storage, but you have nevertheless reduced its construction to this context. The very reason Poland had rights towards Danzig was because Danzig was supposed to be Poland's special port. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Yet Gdynia was built from scratch, took over Danzig's work in spite of the promise that it wouldn't...and you have removed these details. You have also removed the Polish claim that Danzig was too small to be a deep-water port, etc.
  • all mentions of the tariff war have been removed; there is no mention of Poland's decision to boycott the city or the boycott's effects in the midst of the Great Depression. And, furthermore, there is no mention that Poland never officially called an end to the boycott and merely decided to no longer promote it.
  • The discussion of Germany's attempt to renegotiate Danzig's position has been removed, as well as Poland's position in lieu of these talks.
  • The section no longer notes that Poland transformed the Free City installations it controlled into war installations.
  • Buckhardt's opinion and Francis Yeats-Brown's opinion about the Danzig crisis have been removed.


  • "The boycott continued until the Nazis came to power in Germany and, after negotiations with Poland, ended it." has been changed to: "In the aftermath of the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 the Danzig – Polish relations improved and Hitler instructed the local Nazi government to cease anti-polish actions.[36]".

Instead of mentioning who ended the tariff war, you have replaced this with the vague "in the aftermath of the non-agression pact.." (which also fails to acknowledge that it was the Nazis who engineered the pact). Then, reading on, we learn that relations improved, which led Hitler to instruct the local Nazi government to cease "anti-polish actions". What exactly are "anti-polish" actions? Are ending the tariff war and signing a non-agression pact not already the opposite of "anti-polish actions"? Yet you have attributed the end of anti-polish actions to the improvement of G-P relations..

Other points:

  • The source given for the supposedly murdered political opponents in the Free City does not mention murder.
  • You wrote: "Albert Forster became the Gauleiter in October 1930. Under his tenure, in 1933, the Nazis won 50 percent of votes in the Volkstag elections." I changed this sentence the first time around, before you reverted it, because it implies that the Nazis won 50 percent of the votes because of Forster.

--188.106.6.243 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Please consider WP:Verifiability, WP:Source and WP:NOR. Please use reliable sources, unsourced material may be "challenged and removed" (Template:Citation needed, WP:PROVEIT) . Especially direct quotations need a source.
  • In the case of Francis Yeats-Brown, a co-founder of Oswald Mosley’s January Club , I’ll assume good faith and presume you didn’t know about his background
  • Regarding the murder of political opponents, Matull mentions the SPD politicians Wiechmann and Bruhn, who were killed by the Nazis (Wiechmann died of torture, Bruhn shot). Sodeikat also mentions Wiechmann's death based on C.J. Burckhardt's memoirs.
  • Regarding “anti-polish actions” I refer to Anita Przazmowska (fn.36, Page 80): “Hitler gave firm instructions to the Danzig Senate not to take matters into their own hands and to cease attacking Polish institutions and citizens.” HerkusMonte (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:1939 "....executed upon their surrender, against international law"[edit]

to make it brief: to say that it is against international law is a personal opinion which might be justified. Yet it cannot be and should not be up till now held as a fact. The reason being, that this city was not part of Hitler Germany nor a part of the second Polish Republic. There with it is from today's point of view difficult to say if these were, as one would say today, legal combatants. Anyone who has attended any lectures on international (criminal) law might remember that the Geneva Convention et alia only apply to Armed Forces and like of an internationally recognized state, and not civilians taking up arms within their own country.Of course this makes a little bit difficult for us, since the Polish post workers were sent to Danzig. Now one could argue that these post workers were Polish civil servants and acting in line with their duty to take up arms and therefore had to be treated according to international treaties and law. In this case one should also then conclude that these were legal combatants on foreign soil without its approval. Giving the city of Danzig to act in self-defense prior to September 1 and any time thereafter. This of course is would not excuse any execution both the league forbidden by the international law.

On the other hand one can argue that these Post workers were residents,not necessarily citizens, of the city of Danzig working for the Polish post office. In that case they would be considered civilians. In the Wikipedia text it is mentioned that they are such, civilians. If they were civilians they could be considered in today's understanding as unlawful combat combatants or maybe even terrorists, pending on the view. In those days one would more say that they are/were Spies, partisans, criminals, maybe even traitors or terrorists. In that case their execution without trial is from today standing morally condemnable, maybe was against national law of the former free city of Danzig, but not against international law!

The topic is quite complex as any able historian or lawyer will be able to confirm. I know way would be able to discuss this topic in such a few sentences sufficiently.

For anyone wishing to go into more detail he or she should first read at least five books by renowned authors which are not laymen, preferably law professors, with contradicting opinions on the topic of international humanitarian law formerly known as international law of war et alia before making a decision if it was against international law. (Yes I have done that,and have been tested at the University concerning exactly such topics. ---- before you guys complain :-))

If if you decide not to study these difficulties please do feel free to voice your opinion, but exactly as that: your opinion! And should be marked as such.

As you can see I did not erase the opinion voiced in the article, I just made clear that exactly this is an opinion and not the court ruling.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

AFB


PS.: Something personal: actually I came across this page doing research and writing up a paper. And I have repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly .... come across webpages including Wikipedia articles which state facts which are just false! Please do remember while reading articles on Wikipedia, that some of them, by far not all, a written by laymen and people who want to influence you. Thank you again.

The county court of Lübeck suspended the death sentences as illegal in 1998 [4] (page 4). For more details about the trial of 1939 you might be interested in "Dieter Schenk: Die Post von Danzig, ISBN 3-498-06288-3". Anyway, you would need to provide a source for your claim, the execution of prisoners is/was legal. Currently it's rather your personal opinion. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as i was able to understand the ruling it stated that the executions were unjustified since the polish defenders should have been charged under the laws of The Free City of Danzig which did not know the death penalty but were instead charged in front of a military court of the Wehrmacht.

And there start the unfortunate implications: 1. That would mean that the actions of the Polish defenders were actually ILLEGAL but that they were not punishable by death since the death penalty was not in force in Danzig. 2. One could also argue that since the Free City joined the Reich per decree of the Senate on 1. September 1939 the Free City and its laws were no longer in force when the defenders where jugded.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.191.236 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


First the penultimate author did not say that it wasn't against international law, just that it is to be questioned if in 1939 such actions were against international law. This was due in part due to missing sources and due to the often miss understood term of international law used these days applied to the past.

Secondly HerkusMonte criticizes that there is note the source, but at the same time lists one source Tomasz (Żuroch-Piechowski:Auxiliary Materials F ) which on the other hand relies the book from Dieter Schenk. if you are so precise a few sources that please name the exact reference number of the verdict in 1995. And third even though the killings were legal also by the laws of the third reich, it would not automatically mean that they were breach of international law !in 1939! Also remember that international criminal law is not a mandatory course in the legal education in Germany. It is Doubt doubt that from dead today's standpoint it constitutes a breach of international law but this is not the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.110.96 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre section removed[edit]

Principles underlying the status of the Free City of Danzig in constitutional and international law Who added this? It was completely unsourced and full of fringe claims accusing Poland of "illegal occupation" and speaking of FCD as it was still in existance. I removed it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

religion section[edit]

This edit [5] which created the Religion section really threw the balance of the article off. I'm thinking most of this is undue and too detailed for this article, though it would be fine in a spin off "Religion in the Free City of Danzig" or something like that. Additionally, the info is largely unsourced though a lot of it's detailed enough so that there probably are sources out there (there were/are a few gratuitous POV claims). I'm also going to hesitantly venture a hypothesis (which could be wrong) that some of this is a slightly cleaned up google-translation of some German source, at least in parts it reads like it. The one or two sources that are actually in there appear to be Primary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This article might give a short overview about different religions in the FoD but details should be kept at the resp. main articles (Jewish Community of Danzig, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Gdańsk#history). HerkusMonte (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Lede[edit]

The last paragraph of the Lede was confusing. The first half of it was a single sentence that covered events around the Nazi party gaining control in 1933 and events after the start of World War II. I am splitting it into two sentences based on the earlier revisions, but editing by those who know the history would be useful.

I didn't think the observation that the formation of the Reichsgau of Danzig-West Prussia occurred without the approval of Poland or the League of Nations belonged in the Lede. It's pretty obvious since it's a result of the invasion of Poland and it's not mentioned in the article (which the lede is meant to summarise) --Sailfish2 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Shot against international law[edit]

I deleted the bit about the polish POWs(?) from the post office being shot against international law, because 1) They were civilians and per international law at the time civilians taking up arms could be shot 2) The reference links to a pdf that references a verdict or rather a revision by the court in Lübeck which however was not due to illegality as such but because the penal code used to come to the verdict was not formally in power in Danzig before 19.11.1939. The verdict actually does not take a stance on the legal status of the polish defenders but only claims that they would have had to be jugded under Danzig law which did not include the death penalty. 3) As an extension of 1) the status of the post workers is not clear (or made clear) and as such we cannot say whether they were shot against international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.161.194 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Population estimates[edit]

Could someone with access to the Henryk Stępniak source in the Population section please give some dates for the pop stats quoted Rsloch (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Problems[edit]

1) In the lede, it was obviously an oversight when it was written that the Free City had been created because Poland needed access to the sea. Poland got access to the sea via the Polish Corridor. The Free City was about giving Poland access to an established port city, not access to the sea

2) where in the text is the example of "widespread organized murder"? It only says that, due to persecutions, most of the city's Jewish population had fled throughout the thirties and that, before that, the city was a mass transit point for mass migration.

3) The Gulden was devalued 40 percent because that made it equal with the Zloty. Where did this information that it was a result of political planning come from?

4) What does this even mean: and Danzig became a springboard for anti-Polish propaganda among the German and Ukrainian minority in Poland.

Re 3) Please do not remove sourced content or falsify what the sources actually say. The devaluation was the result of increased government expenses, not a political decision. You also removed sourced information about the Gold reserves of the Bank of Danzig, please don't do that again. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't be snide and accusing me of falsifying - that's a big accusation - "what the sources actually say". First off, I don't see any pulled quotes, do you? So it looks like I couldn't even falsify "what the sources actually say" even if I wanted. And it's a shame we don't know what the sources say because I find it really hard to believe that, if the value of the Gulden "falls" to exactly the value of the Zloty because the Senate decides to make the Gulden even with the Zloty, that is the result of increased government expenses. But that's not even what is written, you know..
The sentence is: "the economic policy led to a devaluation of more than 40% of the Gulden". And I'm questioning the source, because that's a ridiculous assertion; if there was devaluation, and the Nazis only made it an even 40% (which still would not describe what the text in this Wiki article claims), don't you think that had something to do with the economy...like maybe the fact that, by 1937, the city, dependent on its shipping economy, was handling only 15% of Poland's exports, and the rest had gone to Gdynia? Or do you believe that, just as the Wiki article claims that the "economic policy" of the Free City supposedly led to the 40% devaluation, the "economic policy" of the Weimar government also led to full devaluation of the Mark...and Obama's "economic policy" led to full devaluation of the dollar, and nothing else did?
ok, we allegedly have a reliable source that perhaps says the devaluation was attributable to spending policy. But why do we have this mess of a sentence when it isn't even a pulled quote?
The economic policy of the Nazi government, which increased the public issues for employment-creation programs[31] and the retrenchment of financial aid by the German government.[32] led to a devaluation of more than 40% of the Danziger Gulden
And how about this one?
and Danzig became a springboard for anti-Polish propaganda among the German and Ukrainian minority in Poland.
How does a city near the Vistula become a springboard for anti-Polish propaganda among the "German and Ukranian minority" in Poland?
I don't appreciate your tone when I'm only trying to help improve the article. For example, have you bothered to read the "religion section?" It's a total mess.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.89.22 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You replaced sourced content but kept the source, thus implying the source would support your POV. That's what I call a falsification. However I have added another source [6], Peter Oliver Loew clearly outlines the reasons for the devaluation of the Gulden - the desastrous economic policy of the Nazi government. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"thus implying the source would support your POV. That's what I call a falsification" Oh, give it a rest. So I made a mistake, the source should get moved up one sentence because I missed it in a heap of HTML. You could have merely pointed that out.
The only person here with a point of view to push is YOU: first, your first POV, you think I purposely included the one source in the next sentence because I wanted to manipulate the source; your second point of view, quoting you above: "the economic policy was desastrous" and the Gulden fell to the value of the Zloty because of it. By contrast, I am simply reporting the facts as they are: that the Danziger Senate met and voted to make the currencies even. If you want to say that devaluation occurred, and it was attributable to economic policy and only economic policy as you imply, you need a source. You claim you have a source. Now. Loew. Good. But "According to Loew" should go to that source in the text. We are dealing with theoretical concepts and economic phenomena, he cannot prove that excess spending caused 40% devaluation no matter the country, the time period or the situation. And, for anybody who knows about the Free City era and is aware of the situation, it is even harder to believe that "economic policy caused 40% devaluation" when other things are going on to manipulate the market, like Coal Strikes ending and most of Danzig's business going to Gdynia. Businesses in counties with a strong currency have a hard time selling their products because they are more expensive to, for example, Poland. So the obvious response, especially in lieu of the high tariffs Poland placed on Danziger goods to begin with, which hurt Danziger businesses, is to lower the currency value to help businesses grow. You are aware that, before 1933, only 40 percent of Danzig's factories were in business and the city even reduced the number of representatives in parliament to shave costs? But I assume you know all of this.
So here's the sentence: The economic policy of the Nazi government, which increased the public issues for employment-creation programs[31] and the retrenchment of financial aid by the German government.[32] led to a devaluation of more than 40% of the Danziger Gulden. It sounds like you are suggesting the last part, "...led to a devaluation of 40%", is Loew's opinion. I read your source - it is. I have incorporated this in the text. Other problems:
  • looking at the above quote, are retrenchment of financial aid and increased public issues (does this mean increased spending?) for employment-creation programs not contradictory?
  • as awfully written as parts of this article are, you have the nerve to place a "who?" tag when I quote that "the Poles" were annoyed when their neighbor changed the rates...well, that is exactly the way it is written by Ruhnau (his words: Polen protestierte gegen die Abwertung, waehrend gleichzeitig eine organisierte Fluct aus dem Gulden einsetzte). I feel sorry for you if you can't see how changed exchange rates can upset exporters, governments and whatever else Ruhnau was referring to. It's so bloody obvious that the Poles would be pissed, because goods and services from a state with a weaker currency than before are always less expensive than before. In other words, the obvious expected result, in terms of economic theory, would be the flooding of the Polish market with Danzig-produced goods, which would be bad for Polish industries.
  • And why did you not address my other points, ie German-Ukranian propaganda bit?
  • For the record, if you really wanted to get picky, "a reduction of more than 40 percent" is weasel wording because you add weight to the sentence, kind of like if you would add a "!" I don't object to this, however, because I find it interesting that a 42% reduction was how much the difference between the Zloty and Gulden was, and personally believe that a drastic reduction should sound drastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.82.108 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please sign your edits or, even better, create an account.
  • Unfortunately you falsified once more the real content of a source[7]. No, the Nazis did not retrench "other financial aid" while raising employment-creation programs, the German government (in Berlin) slashed the financial aid for the Free City, both factors caused the City's financial collapse. The source (Ingo Loose) is absolutely clear about this and it's hard to assume good faith if you insist to push a certain POV contrary to what the sources actually say.
  • The reasons for the devaluation of the Gulden are not Mr. Loew's private opinion but a common view of many scholars. I have added some more references.
  • "Polen protestiert gegen die.." is off course not translated as "the Poles" but as Poland, i.e. The Polish government. "The Poles" is hardly an encyclopaedic language. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

Re [8]. First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself. Just because the other article says something that doesn't mean it belongs here as well. If anything, what it means, since it's uncited in the other article, is that the other article should be corrected. Second, I don't see any "without the League's permission" anywhere. So that part, at least at this point, is just original research. That's why I said it needs a citation.Volunteer Marek 03:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The need for a citation is not grounds for undoing. Wikipedia has a 'citation needed' tag for a reason.Rsloch (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The "cn" should be used to be bring uncited material to editors attention. We're paying attention now. So is there a reference for this claim? Volunteer Marek 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes Rsloch (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this edit [9] does "make it inaccurate" as it presents information out of context. When Hitler came to power Polish authorities placed more troops at Westerplatte to see how he would react. He didn't and the Poles withdrew the troops. That's what the source says and overall this is a minor incident. Including it, especially the way you want to present it, is both POV and UNDUE.Volunteer Marek 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that more context is needed then feel free to add it, if you think it is a minor incident explain why in talk, but don't just remove material because you don't like it. As you seemingly have no issues with the first part of my edit (the League allowing the garrison) why remove it?Rsloch (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Polish propaganda[edit]

One of the reasons Wikipedia remains unacceptable in British academia is because of Polish nationalists like Marek who delete the facts and insert instead fantasies. It would be a mistake to think that these ridiculous pages all over Wikipedia which portray history as only Poles see it is not being laughed at. Polish 'history' books, fantasies in themselves, should not be permitted to be used on the English-language Wikipedia. 81.158.111.1 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Danzig Crisis[edit]

It's rather strange that it is not mentioned with a single word in an otherwise rather detailed article, and this before even considering its rather important role as the immediate WWII trigger. How do editors propose to remedy this unacceptable state of affairs? walk victor falk talk 00:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "not single word" is hyperbolic. Actually the last 3-sentence paragraph in the sub(!)-section "German-Polish tensions" section is about that. But reading that, you'd think the events of the summer 1939 were just another Thursday of run-of-the-mill Polish-German bickering and not what was the immediate trigger of greatest war in human history. walk victor falk talk 17:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi opposition is incorrect[edit]

Minor note, naming all non-NSDAP parties as "Nazi opposition" is incorrect and actually a common mistake. DNVP was a nationalist, anti-semitic and anti-Polish party that supported and allied itself with the Nazis on more than one occasion. Catholic Centre Party often found itself in agreement with Nazis(while not officially allied) in regards to anti-Polish propaganda of Nazi Germany(it's is ironic but the Catholic Centre Party despite Poles being Catholics was often quite anti-Polish in its views).I have thus made necessary changes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

An attempt to play down and discredit the anti-Nazi opposition in Danzig, accompanied by deleting and grossly whitewashing the role of the Polish government. We are talking about Danzig and not Berlin, the Nazis won the absolute majority in 1933 and the oppositional parties soon faced violent suppression. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)