Talk:Polish Corridor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-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
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

/Archive 1


Name[edit]

I think that the most common name in the English-speaking media in the 1930's was actually probably "Danzig corridor"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you use old names of former English colonies? What about Mumbay? Do you use old derogatory names of India/Africa cultures' ideas like in the 1930's ? Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the Corridor being a "German propaganda idea"[edit]

Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_Corridor_was_German_propaganda_idea

I added a terminology section. There I introduced the sources given in the discussion above. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should note that the term was most widely employed by the Nazi propaganda, and that Polish diplomacy preferred to avoid its use. Some refs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Some interesting publications are listed here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the above sources, some of which I had already used for the article, so far support that the term was "most widely employed by the Nazi propaganda" or that its use was avoided in Poland.

  • [6] The source you listed first ("Omnipotent Government") says "The favourite subject of German propaganda was the Polish Corridor".
  • [7] The source you listed second and last ("The Polish-German Borderlands") is a bibliography of English (primarily contemporary) essays. I used this bibliography already to support the statement that the term from the beginning was in international use.
  • [8] The third source ("Gods Playground") was introduced by you without a page number, could you please point to the respective pages in the book?
  • [9] The fourth source ("The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered") states "German hatred of the Polish Corridor" during its creation in/after the Versailles treaty.
  • [10] The last source on your list ("A Church Divided") states that Protestant German clergy in 1939 was convinced by Nazi propaganda that Protestant clergy in the corridor was abused by the Poles.

Maybe I overlooked something, then please point it out to me. Google book search results of "Polish+Corridor+Nazi+propaganda" by themselves do not necessarily proof the connection of the words you had in mind when you performed the search, as shown above.

Please don't get me wrong, I do not want to imply that German/Nazi propaganda did not use the term. Of course they often did so, as this was one of the key conflicts in the interwar period. I am nevertheless convinced that this term was used simply because it was the most common term to refer to this area - not only in Germany, but worldwide. This is supported by the sources presented so far and no evidence for the contrary has been presented yet. Also, a term "used" by propaganda is not necessarily a propaganda term. Nazi propaganda also used the terms "Poland" and "U-boat", that does not make them propaganda terms. "Polish Corridor" does not imply anything propagandist by itself, in contrast to propaganda terms like "Recovered Territories", "Saisonstaat" (seasonal state, used for interwar Poland), "Repatriation" (when used for the expulsion of the Kresy-Poles), "Wunderwaffe" etc pp. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. The term was used in Poland, and worldwide. But it seems that it was most important to and thus most widely used by German (later, Nazi) propaganda and diplomacy. As for why it was disliked by Polish diplomacy, I think Beck's quote is a sufficient ref. PS. Source question: p.319, beginning of the last para, should be highlighted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other useful ref: on origins, on public opinion worldwide (also here).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: the books at link no. 8 and at the first link in the comment above are available for preview only for US IPs.Baltaci (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research/Synthesis ?[edit]

"It soon came into international use.[4][5][6][7][8]" Which of the sources presented makes this claim ?--Molobo (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hartmut Boockmann, see also: Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_Corridor_was_German_propaganda_idea HerkusMonte (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources provided seem to make that claim. If it will not be provided then they have to be removed as OR/Synthesis.--Molobo (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Boockmann does. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you show this quote ? And if so due to controversy it has to be marked that it comes from German historian.

--Molobo (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is linked at the discussion above. The exact source is already mentioned in the article and I don't see a reason why every single sentence should start with "German historian A says.. Polish historian B..." Theses are sourced and if you have a different one, add it and provide a source. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the subject is a matter of controversy, to present NPOV it is best to mark statements where they come from and not present them as objective statements.--Molobo (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am making[edit]

Major expansion of this article, it should take a day or so to complete so please have patience. Going to sleep for few hours. Will continue at morning. --Molobo (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done for now. More will come in future. Removed not connected incidents like train accident, events in East Prussia and not in Pomorze, added several sources on reasons for the hand over, added more information on fate of Germanisation when Poland was restored. More is needed on German propaganda use and genocide against Poles and Jews by Germany in 1939.--Molobo (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

False text alledgedly from source used. No such sentence in the book.[edit]

Poland refused to debate her new western borders

is sourced by:

Neal Pease, Poland, the United States, and the Stabilization of Europe, 1919-1933, Oxford University Press US, 1986, p.146, ISBN 0195040503: Authorized by Jozef Pilsudski, the Polish envoy in the United States, Filipowicz, in 1931 pointed out to president Hoover that Poland would invade Germany if her provocations, that is the refusal to accept the post-war boundaries, would continue.

I am reading the book right now and there is no such text in it. --Molobo (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The URL is [11]. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The URL confirms that there is no such quote present in the book.--Molobo (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To present the Polish POV, I introduced a sentence: "Poland refused to debate her new western borders.<ref>Neal Pease, ''Poland, the United States, and the Stabilization of Europe, 1919-1933'', Oxford University Press US, 1986, p.146, ISBN 0195040503: Authorized by [[Jozef Pilsudski]], the Polish envoy in the United States, [[Filipowicz]], in 1931 pointed out to president [[Hoover]] that Poland would invade Germany if her provocations, that is the refusal to accept the post-war boundaries, would continue.</ref> This ref of course only confirms the Polish POV for 1931. That's why I gave[12] a short summary in the footnote text as cited above. The book gives additional information regarding the border issue and the Polish position that are not cited. Other refs are of course welcome, allegations not. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is that you gave something completely different from the book and presented in a way that suggested it is a quote. Please don't do that again.--Molobo (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the source does not cover the Polish POV of the whole period, which is indicated in the footnote as everyone can see from the quote I gave above, and which is not something "completely differnt". Skäpperöd (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your answer completely avoids the subject. You gave something that was not in the book, in a way that it suggested it was a quote. Such quote was not to found in the book. Please don't do such thing again.--Molobo (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises[edit]

Ludwig von Mises book "Omnipotent Government:The Rise of the Total State and Total War" is online here, please specify your reference (10). HerkusMonte (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Molobo (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Railway Crash[edit]

The Railway Crash caused some disputes between Germany and Poland in 1925 bundesarchiv.de, I'll try to find something more about it. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

454,000 settlers to the corridor ?[edit]

(cut Molobo's sentence from the article:)

"According to Polish historian Andrzej Chwalba, starting from XVIII century Kingdom of Prussia[1] and later the German Empire pursued a policy Germanisation in regards to Polish inhabited territories and settled large number of colonists-all together around 454,000 thousand.[2] "

This needs to be confirmed. Though a ref was applied, it is not very likely Chwalba really stated the movement of 454,000 settlers to the corridor area in an attempt to Germanize the area. The reason for doubt: The article Prussian Settlement Commission outlines the Germanization attempts of Prussia by settlements. In all the years these attempts took place, 154,000 colonists were settled in all of the Province of Posen and West Prussia, with substantial participation of local Germans who already lived there before and just moved to a new farm. The corridor area only consists of 70% of West Prussia, also, the settlement focussed on Posen.

Thus, confirmation is badly needed if Chwalba really states such a number (454,000) for the corridor area. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC) "cut Molobo's sentence from the article" Please don't try to manipulate. I never gave such sentence in the article. This sentence is the result of HerkusMonte edit not mine.--Molobo (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

NEVER, never make such false accusations. It was YOU, who added
Starting from XVIII century Kingdom of Prussia and late German Empire pursued a policy Germanisation in regards to Polish inhabited territories. Both also settled large number of colonists-altogether around 450,000 thousand, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_Corridor&diff=prev&oldid=256419966
later changing the number and presenting Chwalba as a source. I changed the beginning, as you like to start every sentence with "German A said..., German B said...", while you "forgot" to mention Mr. Chwalba. The number of settlers and the whole claim was added by YOU, so don't shout "manipulation". HerkusMonte (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad Herkus that you are advising Skapperod to stop making false accusations. However I'm afraid it was you who removed Reinhard Bendix[13] to conviently point to professor Chwalba only; while avoiding mentioning Reinhard Bendix-a German sociologist who points to colonisation efforts pursued earlier. By deleting him without comment. Care to explain why you did that Herkus ?--Molobo (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think User:Skäpperöd tried to manipulate anything. Reinhard Bendix wrote in his book Bendix, Kings or People you provided as a source:
"He (Frederick II) settled 300,000 colonists in the sparsely populated eastern parts of his territories."
Bendix says neither anything about the corridor nor anything about "Polish inhabited areas". In fact the page you cited (p. 61) says nothing at all about Frederick (it's p. 161). That's why I reverted that source. You should be more accurate in the usage of sources, some people might think, You might use false citations to back your POV. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So neither the settlers figure nor the area, both introduced by Molobo, were supported by the sources given by Molobo. Thanks for clarifying. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually Skapperod Herkus Monte just pointed out that I missed a 1 on the page number, but the rest is quite in line with what I wrote. Of course since I am a bit of source freak :) I will give additional sources for the colonizations by the Germans of Polish territories, including the colonization Germanization action in the period 1832 .--Molobo (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

(copied from article:)"Gotthold Rode estimated 575,000[3]. Polish authors[who?] note that a number of them were civil servants with no roots in the province and around 378,000, and this claim to lesser degree is confirmed by some German sources[3]."

  • The 575,000 estimate - for the corridor area or for Poland? Until 1923 or until when?
  • Second sentence is not understandable at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

History paragraph - clarification needed[edit]

Which part s of the paragraph starting with ""Restoration of old territorial border that existed prior to the First Partion of Poland" is a very misleading wartime opinion. The Feudal system under the empire made the Polish-Lithuania-Swedish- kings, many with Habsburg wifes..." is attributed to the source at the paragraphs end? Does the paragraph really reflect the source or the just the editor's oppinion? Could the editor please clarify? Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this bit for now - it seemed to be a result of two (or more) editors trying to argue their points in article space. I think a single-sentence summary of the situation - that the area in question had been under Polish sovereignty but effective Prussian rule - contains all we need to say here for the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic reasons[edit]

It needs to be sourced that ethnic composition was considered a reason for the creation of the corridor by the allies, else this paragraph will be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The ethnic composition is a relevant issue and will remain. Regardless, the fact that leaving this Pomorze area in the hands of the opressive German regime- which as historians note created a apartheid-like situation of Poles- would mean leaving hundreds of thousands of Poles at mercy of Germany will be gladly presented and sourced as argument during diplomatic efforts for regaining Polish lands after the German failure in WW1.--Molobo (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But letting thousands of germans in the hand of even more oppressive Polish was right? Not to mention that the France, UK and the US took the Poland righ to the corridor area "out of the hat", since the Kingdom of Poland was an allied of the German Empire, and the second republic was made of a coup. For some reason, some historians (especially the grandnephew of some english minister of that time) start using the "ethic" composition as an explanation for such absurd - not to mention the chart offered in this article is about 2 years after the end of the war. Absurd since most elections held on "germans were minority" territory ended in "stay as Germany part". The corridor area was a over 200 years german/prussia territory, and worse, it cut the historic city and port of Konigsberg from the rest of Prussia (not forgetting how JERK the poles were about the germans passing that corridor). About the apartheid-like system, how do you and your "historians" explain the creation by WILHELM II of the KINGDOM OF POLE? PHWeberbauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.161.6 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Pomorze with Corridor[edit]

Some confuse Pomorze with Corridor-Corridor is in Pomorze but it is not the same thing, thus data is different.--Molobo (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The number[edit]

800,000 Germans had left Poland by 1923 For whole of Poland, Corridor or Pomerania ? --Molobo (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm updating the page[edit]

Will continue in the morning. Please have patience.--Molobo (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore the lead paragraph to something more like it was? The article is almost exclusively about the 1919-39 "Corridor", not the 1466-1772 one, and I don't believe the term "Polish Corridor" (or Gdańsk/Danzig Corridor) has ever been in widespread use to refer to the earlier territory - at least, nowhere near as widespread as its use to refer to the 20th-century one. The way the first paragraph is at the moment, readers are misled about both the topic of the article and the real-world use of the term. (Anyway, I'm off on holiday, so I wish everyone Wesołych Świąt, Fröhe Weihnachten and all other local equivalents, and see you all in the New Year!) --Kotniski (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the wishes. I am done for now, but I am sure to expand further. I corrected some things, removed too much focus on history that can be read in seperate subarticles, added additional sources. Removed some info that was not about the Corridor or not connected, sources that turned out to be unscholary but by "independent researcher", If you have any questions feel free to ask them, and best of wishes to you also. I will of course expand the article further, as I am much interested in German history towards Poles.--Molobo (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


Once again, the good poles and the bad germans[edit]

Once again,we face a delicate matter were crucial points seem to be "forgotten" or with a lack of english sources. The forgotten part seems be the strong believe in Poland that they were able to win a war against Germany in 1939, which was one of the motives of polnish diplomacy resist any attempt to solve peacefully the matter (Cartier, v. Manstein, and nearly all serious historians credit these and even a cited pdf on the war crimes of the Wehrmacht says this). On the other hand, "The Prussian census of 1910 showed that there were 528,000 Poles (including West Slavic Kashubians, who had supported the Polish national lists in German elections" --- all 4 quotations are, strange, polish books... and we got: "n addition to the military personnel which was included in the population census, a number of German civil servants and merchants were introduced to the area, which influenced the population mix, according to Andrzej Chwalba" -- ouch, another ethic "claim" based on... polish books? Very STRANGE the LACK of ENGLISH books to support such important claims. Important, since it is the main claim of the polish right on those territories on the corridor, but well, this is wikipedia. PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.161.6 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not good poles and bad german, but rather just bad Nazis.radek (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

access to the sea[edit]

which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea,

Why was this so important if the Corridor was lacking any modern port?--Npovshark (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Construction of Gdynia seaport was started in 1921 --Molobo (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish organization poster[edit]

Regarding File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg: the original sourcepage seems to have caption/description for this image, so how can we be sure anything? The accompanying text is not describing the picture as so much seems to be using the picture to illustrate it; "Błyskawicznie spadł nalot niemczyzny (liczby ilustruja % Niemców)" means "Advance of Germanization was quickly reversed (numbers show % of Germans)." The description found on Commons at the moment "Polish Progaganda resp. Anti-German Progaganda poster, stating that the percentage of Germans in the population of several former German cities had been reduced from majority in 1910 to single digit minority in 1931, as a result of the cities' transfer to the Polish Corridor by the Treaty of Versailles" seems very ORish. How do we know its really a Polish poster and not Nazi German propaganda? How do we know its from 1931? Why is it assumed its anti-German? I find Jacurek's caption "A 1931 poster of a Polish organization, showing the reversal of the German part of the population in selected cities of the area" better, but even for that I'd like to see a proof that this is "A 1931 poster of a Polish organization". Till this is found, I suggest using this instead: "A Polish language poster, showing the drop in German population in selected cities of the Polish Corridor area in the period 1910-1931". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be very difficult to proof an origin, year etc. of the poster..It could have been printed by some pre-war Polish Nationalists (I think it was) or as Piotrus suggested the Nazi Propaganda may have produced it. One thing I'm sure about is that the Commons description is biased, just written by somebody who wanted to be this way. I also like "A Polish language poster, showing the drop in German population in selected cities of the Polish Corridor area in the period 1910-1931". version better.--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all that is said here except for the possibility that it is a Nazi propoaganda poster. Most Germans are unfamiliar with the Polish city names, and a propaganda poster that must be translated and explained first just doesn't make sense. Agree with the proposed caption, I just had copied the caption as it was at commons. I'll ask the uploader for comments. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated on commons, I took it from http://www.halat.pl/drang_nach_osten.html Somebody, preferably a native Polish speaker, might contact Dr. Hałat and ask him about the origin, year etc. of this poster, and also of File:Nie jestesmy tu od wczoraj.jpg, which can also be found elsewhere, like on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8heCCgl4zU. And no, "the drop in German population" is not acceptable, because populations do not drop like rain. Populations usually do not get hit by lightning as in an act of God, but often they suffer from human acts. The caption might be altered to "Polish language poster comparing the percentage of Germans in six cities which have been transferred from Germany to Poland in 1920, apparently according to the German census of 1910, and to the Polish census of 1931". German census of 1910 is only a redirect. I have no idea where and how it was used, and whether it was aimed only to Poles. Considering the absence of any wording, Polish or German, it may also have been an attempt to intimidate the Germans remaining in Poland, especially the "0" in Bygdgoszcz/Bromberg, which were already officially gone. On the other hand, File:Postkarte der polnischen Volksbüchereien Juni 1939.jpg seems to have been aimed to the Polish allies in the West, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, speaking of "Polish organization": It's funny that Poles have so much so say about German organisations like German Eastern Marches Society, but few about comparable Polish organisations or activities of the interbellum. Is that because there were none, neither NGO nor governmental? -- Matthead  Discuß   15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the "Polish language poster comparing the percentage of Germans in six cities which have been transferred from Germany to Poland in 1920, apparently according to the German census of 1910, and to the Polish census of 1931" suggestion acceptable, with minor rewording for style (I'd change "apparently" to "likely"). Perhaps you could expand the pitiful articles on historical German censuses? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

proposal[edit]

i propose deleting this sentence even though British and French politicians found the Corridor the most indefensible part and the one which most needed to be revised peacefully. or least find additional sources for this claim. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes this should be sourced an if not removed.--Jacurek (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed as a clear copyright violation: unindicated verbatim copy from the source. Rephrased and reintroduced partially. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Free City of Danzig[edit]

The Free City of Danzig was placed under the protection of the League of Nations without consulting the local populace /without a plebiscite Why was this sentence tagged with a "citation needed"? A plebiscite was only organized in East Prussia, Upper Silesia and Northern Schleswig, I don't think this is disputed in any way. So what exactly is supposed to be sourced? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the facts are obvious to those who know something about it, but for some readers this article might be the first information ever about Danzig and the plebiscites. It is always better to have good sources, and if something is that obvious, that only makes it easier to find sources. I introduced one, a dispute here is completely unnecessary. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

not a reliable source[edit]

This [14] is not a reliable source. First, it is an economics-think tank. Second, it is a Austrian School economics think tank that is generally considered fringe. Third, the von Mises institute is not considered a reliable source for information on economics, except for self referential stuff about the Austrian School, and even much less so for historical stuff. Fourth, it's "von Mises" not, "van Mises".radek (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see there's been no response. Does that mean that it's okay to remove the source?radek (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, weren't you supposed to be the one defending everything blue and orange? Or is the Mises Institute separate from the AU?
But on becoming serious again, you are right stating that Mises is not mainstream, and neither are the theories in the book in question (The Independent Institute review). I hesitate with removing though because the book is not used for citing the theories. I have instead removed the copyvio and refractored, but I agree that there should be better sources. I would not myself remove but not object either. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As far I know the Mises Institute is separate from AU. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Austrian School on occasion, particularly that part of the theory that was developed by the actual Austrians (like Ludwik Misesz and Frederyk Hajecki) - but unreliable sources are unreliable sources and these days they're definitely fringe. I'll take a look at your changes, but the source should definitely be removed (I don't want it popping up on Econ pages later).radek (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this [15] is a primary source, and besides, should Hitler's speeches really be used as sources in Wikipedia articles?radek (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To source what someone said such primary sources are fine, just not for interpretation. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Still, I would feel more comfortable if we didn't use Hitler's speeches as sources. No need to change the text of the article though as it is cited to other sources as well. Just remove that one.radek (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Establishment of the corridor" vs "Poland regains independence"[edit]

The section on the establishment of the corridor should be renamed back to "Establishment of the corridor". The article is not about Poland becoming an independent state, though this is of course the background to the establishment of the corridor and already stated as such. The title of a section should reflect its content. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: What was established was the reborn Polish State, the area in question was simply part of Poland. That the Germans continued to call the area corridor doesn't change the fact that the corridor wasn't established nor it existed as a political or any other entity. Loosmark (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
First, "the Germans" did not "continue" to call this area "corridor". The term corridor was not in use before, simply because there was none. And other German geographical terms for this area, like "Westpreußen" and "Pomerellen" of course remained in use. The corridor had some very different features from the rest of the Second Polish Republic, and the establishment was not simply the "rebirth" of Poland, but the Allied desire to provide Poland an access to the sea. That is all sourced in the article. Also, the phrase of a "regain of independence" is in itself arguable. What was created after WWI was not a revival of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but a completely different republic. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For Polish people it was a great feeling to have their country again after centuries of German opression so yes it was like regaining independence again. The area in question was the Pomeranian Voivodeship and had exactly the same status as any other part of the country. Perhaps you can provide some reliable sources which state otherwise. Loosmark (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Support: The term "Corridor" was used already in March 1919 by the NYTimes, definitely not influenced by "the Germans" and became the common term in international usage of the 1920s/30s (see also Footnotes 5 and 7). As such the initial headline is just neutral and factual. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Hmm now we have a problem. Skäpperöd claims the term corridor was not in use before, while HerkusMonte says it was already in use. Please try to built some consensus on that. Loosmark (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no discrepancy. "Before" means obviously before it's creation in 1919. But maybe you could explain what you meant by "the Germans continued to call the area corridor" HerkusMonte (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are actualy the sources which say that the corridor was established? From the sources you used in the article I can only access a German source which says something like that Poland was given 70 percent of Poznan and West Prussia (the so-called corridor). Loosmark (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • see eg Norman Davies, God's Playground: 1795 to the present, p.368: "The establishment of the Polish Corridor" Skäpperöd (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • W. Warren Wagar, H.G. Wells: traversing time‎, p.209: "Wells singles out the establishment of the Polish Corridor through almost entirely German-speaking lands"
  • Piotr Stefan Wandycz, The United States and Poland‎, p.122: "severance of East Prussia through the creation of a Polish Corridor"
  • Barbara Dotts Paul, The Polish-German borderlands, p.60: "Defends the establishment of the Polish Corridor and thus Poland's access to the sea"
  • Kallis a Staff, Aristotle A. Kallis, Fascist ideology: territory and expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922-1945‎, p.106: "due to the establishment of the so-called Polish Corridor"
  • Richard Ernest Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, Military heritage of America‎, p.404: "included the establishment of the Polish Corridor"
  • Academic American encyclopedia‎, p.391: "creation of a POLISH CORRIDOR separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany"
  • Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, The Polish review‎, p.99: " the establishment of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor"
  • Ernest Samuels, Jayne Samuels, Bernard Berenson, the making of a legend‎, p.257: "establishment of a Polish corridor to the Baltic"

Skäpperöd (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK so the German propaganda was very effective in pushing their term, but that doesn't change the fact that there are tons of sources who talk only about the establishment of an independent Poland, the corridor was not a legal entity and that the term had no use in Poland. Loosmark (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to think about it: Why did Jozef Beck in a Sejm speech in 1939 argue the term corridor shouldn't be used (Fn 13)? Such an appeal would have been superfluous if it wouldn't have been used also in Poland. He addressed it to Sejm members, probably not influenced by "German propaganda". And do you really believe Germans used the New York Times in 1919 for their "propaganda"? HerkusMonte (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

compromise proposal[edit]

ok in the spirit of trying to find a consensus acceptable for everybody how about a title for that section like the "corridor" becomes integral part of independent Poland? Loosmark (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

much too long for a headline. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What about "First World War aftermath"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, it sounds neutral and encyclopedic. Loosmark (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the section is not about the First World War Aftermath, but only about a specific event in this aftermath. The title is thus much too general and would fit for nearly every section of the article. Following the spirit of Piotrus' proposal but being more specific, what about Implementation of the Versailles Treaty or Incorporation into the Second Polish Republic? These headlines are as specific as "Establishment of the corridor". Skäpperöd (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not ideal but from my point of view the second one is acceptable. Loosmark (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

James Minahan[edit]

A question about this gentlemen. Who is he and what are his credentials? Is he a historian? He wrote In the eleventh century, they created an independent duchy, which is not provided by any other source. Let me just remind that questionable sources are subject to deletion. Tymek (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You refer to James Minahan, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000, p.375, ISBN 0313309841. James Minahan [16] is writing for Greenwood Publishing Group [17], "a leading educational publisher", the book includes a foreword of Yale emeritus Doob [18], so peer review is guaranteed. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that anyone can be a freelance writer and independent researcher, as the page provided by you says. Still, what are his credentials? Tymek (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Namier[edit]

The source states that he was a member of the British Intelligence Bureau. Changed the text accordingly for accuracy.radek (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

obvious POV[edit]

Why is it that Poland "subdues" and "conquers" but the Kingdom of Prussia "administers"? Maybe these should be flipped.radek (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Korytarz polski is used with quotation marks[edit]

Rather Pomorze.Xx236 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Korytarz polski" is the term referring to the Polish Corridor, which is distinctive in time period and area. "Pomorze" is a more general term, neither limited to the area nor to the time period in question. "Pomorze" in sensu stricto is Pomerelia, which not only includes the corridor, but also Gdanzig, and has had differently interpreted and variing frontiers over time. In sensu lato, "Pomorze" is the whole region of Pomerania, from the Vistula to the Recknitz. Thus, the term "Pomorze" should not be used as an equivalent/translation of "Polish Corridor". Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
actually Pomorze was the Polish name for that area between the wars, "Polish Corridor" is the term pushed extesively by Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine. Loosmark (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course "Pomorze" was a Polish name for the area at that time too, but not only at that time and not only for this area [19] [20] [21]. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredrick II's '300,000' Settlers[edit]

Ok, I've seen the reference to these individuals in this article. The '300,000' refers to roughly that many people settled in Silesia, West Prussia and the Netze District. What most people don't realize is the devastation, and thus depopulation, to Silesia due to the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. According to the German Wiki, 500,000 Prussians died due to those two wars, while only 284,500 people were settled. Granted, not all of the deaths were confined to Silesia or individuals from Silesia, nor were all of the settlers confined to Silesia, however its something one needs to take into context. Rulers have long re-populated war-torn territories with people from other parts of their realms, or from neighboring realms. Sometimes, such as in the French re-population of southern Alsace and indeed as in Silesia, it extends the territory of one ethno-linguistic group at the expense of another without the intent of eliminating one. I'd suggest removing that figure until one can find out how many were settled in Silesia, and how many were settled in the First Partition territories, given that there were only around 400,000 inhabitants in total in those territories in 1772. Given the size of the 'settled' group compared with the population of the First Partition territories, one can draw false conclusions of how much of that territory 'became' German as a result of them. Prussia1231 (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Bernstein Namier-an error[edit]

Lewis Bernstein Namier-he was born to Jewish family, not Polish one. Neither was he born in Poland but in Russian Empire. I understand that somebody found a mistake in a book, but that sometimes happens(for example I remember once a book being used to claim Kraków was part of Germany in Middle Ages). I suggest to editors not to restore this information. If somebody disputes this, a third opinion can be asked for.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Real" Poles aren’t Jewish and Jews aren’t “real” Poles? Honestly, I’m not going to discuss on that level. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Of course Jewish people can be Polish. Unfortunetely in this case it was impossible-Poland didn't exist at that time, and Namier wasn't a Polish citizen when Poland was rostered after WW1.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we follow that logic at Marie Curie or Henryk Sienkiewicz, who was actually born in the same town as Namier? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think in both cases their citizenship is discussed-feel free to start discussion on them on their discussion pages, if you believe articles need changing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's your POV, not mine. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed information not confirmed by sources[edit]

The sources given by HK seem to serve to push extreme POV-after checking it is clear that they speak about period long past the decisions made regarding this territory and are connected to WW2 Nazi Germany. Also some of the statements could not be found in the source given about Lewis Neimer.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this revert of yours? Then you probably misread the sources? They back up Herkus Monte's edit, verbally:
Both sources therefore give a timeframe for their assessment which includes the time of the creation and existence of the Polish Corridor. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Source A:is an opinion based on Namier writings about his attitude to Germany in 1942. Namier personaly mentions nothing of hate but reasonably voices that he had long time concerns about Germany(which in 1942 have been proven to be correct-see Holocaust or Nazi repressions against Poles articles).
  • Source B:writes about works in 15 year period after Second World War was won(and German state stopped from exterminating whole nations, among which Namier's Jewish one was primarily included-see Holocaust article). Again not the period written about here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You chose to write “... not confirmed by sources” in this headline. A claim so obviously wrong, I don’t see any reason to discuss. Unfortunately this is not the first time you are accusing me of (deliberately?) misquoting a source. I urge you to stop this kind of assumptions, otherwise it would be hard to assume your good faith. The way you are trying to present Namier as a neutral “British professor” while he was in fact (for plausible reasons in the 1930s, of course) extremely biased against Germans, seems to suggest a strange kind of proximity of your and Namier’s views. Another question is whether it's adequate to quote somebody who died 50 years ago and whose views are outdated, to say the least. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes the claim is wrong, as the description is actually concerning different period, a very special one-look at Nazi Germany and Holocaust articles.As to quoting-Namier was the British expert for Polish affaris during Versailles Treaty responsible for forming British decisions regarding restoration of Poland so he is notable he.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Understanding the conflict from a neutral point of view needs some background information:

The term Germans, German or Germanic is only used in English language while it is deutsch or Deutschland in the correct context which refers to the language and not ethnicity. Btw., Dutch=Deutsch, another misrepresentation in the English language. The population of the corridor in their origin was neither German(ic) nor Polish. For most part the corridor was made up of Western Prussia, while Prussia was ethnically close to Lithuania and formed a cultural and linguistical unity with East Prussia until it was annexed by Poland in the 14th century. That said, there was never a majority population there that defined themselves as Polish. It had a population originating from the Prussians and later immigrants, whowere not all from Germany but came from all parts of Europe, among them many French Hugenottes. Kashubians are also not Poles. Pomerania refers to another part that was later annexed by Poland. The correct historical terms would be Royal Prussia and Pommerelia. The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles stated that no territory should be annexed without plebiscite. Poland prevented plebiscites for the reason that they would have lost them. Some were commenced but then stopped for apparent reason. In the 1920th Poland had expelled and also killed most of the pre-WWI German speaking population. No German government of the Weimar Republic had ever recognized the corridor because of the the right of self determination.

Hitler's demand to Poland was a plebiscite, and he proposed that if Poland would loose, it could keep the city of Gedingen which Poland already had made their access point to the Baltics while it was imposing a boycott on Danzig. The city of Danzig, the historical port, did not want to belong to Poland based on a plebiscite and was under Polish repression what caused the population to vote for Hitler. If Germany would loose the plebiscite, Hitler would have agreed to the corridor becoming Polish, but proposed that it should get a transit-highway to East Prussia. Poland was not granting German access by land to East Prussia after WWI.

The plebiscite, which was in the statutes of the Versailles Treaty was not held. The British guarantee to Poland, which also comprised a possible attack by Poland on Germany and backed Poland's repression against Danzig, was used by Poland to escalate the situation and expel and even kill the remaining Germans in the corridor. If the population in the corridor ever regarded themselves as Polish, they could have voted for Poland in a plebiscite. However, they were not, therefore the plebiscite was prevented. It is true that there was a large proportion of Poles in the Posen/Poznan area and a partition according to the ethnic distribution could have resolved the problem, if the Western Powers had wanted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.221.254.175 (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Poster[edit]

I added request to provide source for the poster, since it now seems that it is unclear.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image[edit]

It's a primary source. What else? Find a secondary source which discusses/uses the image in context of the Polish Corridor. Otherwise including it is OR. Volunteer Marek  23:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing up primary and contemporary. Just because something was published at the same time as the described events happened, doesn't mean it's a primary source. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No, in this context primary IS contemporary. If a person who wasn't at some battle in 1453 writes a contemporary account of that battle, that's a primary source as far as we're concerned. In that vein, you need a source which explicitly connects the image to the text. Particularly since I believe this was some minor privately self published post card.
Also this edit [22] is a bit sketchy in its usage of the term "liquidation". Under the Versailles treaty countries which had been occupied by Germany during WWI (which for the purposes of the treaty included Poland) had the right to purchase/nationalize the property of German nationals (who chose to remain German nationals AFTER the war - so it involved people who self-identified as German, rather than people who had been forced to be German citizens previously), which, more or less was acquired during the occupation. This wasn't particular to Poland but concerned all countries which had been occupied by Germany.
In that sense the use of the term "liquidation" in this context is misleading, inflammatory and POV. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"Liquidation" is the term used in the source. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
But it's a technical term. Without context and an explanation, the way it's being used in THIS article, it's POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  08:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't get the point of the edit summary “find a SECONDARY source which uses the image and comments on it”. If this were needed, all posters from articles like Polish–Soviet War or Soviet invasion of Poland should consequently also be removed. I can't see the point of doing so. Estlandia (dialogue) 09:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that in those cases we have sources which link particular images to a particular topic. Here we have an image that of unknown provenance, with a disputed author and no sources which links it in any way to the Polish Corridor - some of the cities listed are not even in the region. It's arbitrarily thrown in there without any kind of backing from sources. Volunteer Marek  09:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?[edit]

Some parts of this article should be rewritten in a neutral language.

According to Richard Blanke, an American historian of German descent ....

Is it really necessary to point put the descent of a historian? Burke is an American historian, who received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. The intention of this remark is obviously to discredit Blanke's publications because they do not suit certain people. What is this all about? Some people seem to promote a certain view of history that cannot be called neutral and balanced. Burke's book is really worth reading, it is not unbalanced and written in a very unemotional sober scientific language using a well-founded bibliography and original sources. One reason for the exodus of Germans was the quite rigorous treatment of unwanted national minorities by the newly established second Polish Republic which should not be played down and should be seen critically. --Furfur (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. There are also neutrality concerns to be addressed (see above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional Maps[edit]

User talk:Volunteer_Marek keeps deleting the maps I wanted to add. What do other users think of it?

The extent of German farmer settlement up to the 14th century. The map also shows German city foundations. Corridor already visible at that time
The extent of the German, Polish, Czech and Slowak language areas (Andree's Handatlas 1881)
The extent of the German language areas (Brockhaus 14th ed., 1894). The corridor area shows a large Polish/Kashubian language island.

.

Der Eberswalder (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Considering the fact that one is based on work of Nazi propagandist Walter Kuhn, who was involved in genocide and ethnic cleansing and the two others are from outdated 19th century sources likely influenced by prevalent atmosphere of nationalism at that era, I don't see them as valuable additions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Historia Polski 1795-1918. Andrzej Chwalba. Page 177
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Chwalba was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Blank was invoked but never defined (see the help page).