Talk:Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject Poland (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Inbound linking[edit]

Poland and History of Poland don't link here yet. Wetman 17:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Whoever put the sentence: The Free City of Danzig voted democratically to become a part of Germany again. Democratically??

  1. Poles and Jews had no rights to vote
  2. all non-Nazi political parties were banned
  3. there were no referendum

Majority of citizens had choosen Nazi government in the democratic elections, yes that right. However, election of the enemies of democracy marked the end of democracy. Cautious 11:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

97% of the people in Danzig before ww2 were Germans

97% of the people in Danzig before ww2 were Germans. thats the reason why poland failed in attempt to annex it after ww1. there was no reason for the people of Danzig to vote for poland. The city was since 13th century inhabitad by germans. the culture was hanseatic northgerman. the architecture of the most important buildings is the the so called northgerman Backsteingothik. there was never a signifikant polnish mayority existing in this city. that Danzig should be part of poland was the idea of some polnish extrem rightwing nationalists as part of the idea to create a greater poland. Completly ignoring the right of national selfdetermination of the people of Danzig.


What, no map? :o) — OwenBlacker 21:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

See [1] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"in contrast"[edit]

"... Poles living on the German re-annexed territories were deprived of their human rights, and faced serious persecutions. By contrast, after World War II Germans living east of the Oder-Neisse Line were expelled to Germany..." The use of the word "contrast" here suggests that the Poles discussed here would have preferred to have been expelled, since the Germans were expelled and that is contrasted favourably with the non-expulsion (but persecution) of the Poles. The article thus claims, in effect, that the Poles were persecuted, in "contrast" to the Germans, who were presumably not persecuted because they were expelled instead. Either expulsions are bad things or good things, I would think. The fact that the article suggests expulsions of one ethnicity is bad (earlier in the article) but of another ethnicity is good makes no sense to me.Bdell555 21:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Since unlike the Soviets, Germans annexed only parts of Poland, and treated other as occupied territory, why not move this article to Polish areas annexed or occupied by Nazi Germany?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That sounds like a good idea. The only reason not to: The Soviet Union didn't treat any areas as occupied territory, the difference in the names may be confusing, but that wouldn't matter. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The map[edit]

The map misinforms that only the 1939-1941 GG was occupied. What about Eastern Poland?Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We need a better map. Perhaps you can make one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Expanded a bit, added more info on specific measures against Poles in that region, and more numbers. Table of volksdeutsche is in the proper article, I see no need for it here in such form, also the usage of word indigenous is very unfortunate as it was largely Nazi propaganda.--Molobo (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


The text inserted by Skapperod claims that Germans from the "Altreich" (is that btw a Nazi era terminology?) did not form the colonists. However the term Altreich is also in regards to Sudety region from which 110.000 German colonists came as the text indicates. So it seems that people from "Altreich" did come. --Molobo (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sudetenland was part of Germany only after 1938. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1939 census[edit]

The data for 1939 presented by Skapperod as the number of Germans and Poles in 1939 was actually a Nazi claim made in Nazi organised census, which the author herself points out in the book and warns that is is problematic. I would advise Skapperod once more to point out when Nazi propaganda is involved, and warn readers that the "data" is product of this regime(we had discussion about this in Prussian Settlement Comission before). The statements of Nazi Germany should only be presented as such, and in proper context. I added more scholary data on number of German minority as well as number of Jews in the region. I also corrected some terms, as both Poles and Jews were subject to both extermination and expulsion. I also deleted non-relevenat issues about "peace conference" about Recovered Territories that is of no connection to those territories. I added that former Nazi colonists and adminstration officials in that region are regarded as expelled by Germany. I also corrected the pursuit of Nazi collaborators. If some people find that information needing references I will be happy to provide them .--Molobo (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly avoid Nazi sources. Census in Germany should be expanded to provide info on unreliable ones. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The cited numbers were given by the source without saying they were unreliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Molobo wrote above "the author herself points out in the book and warns that is is problematic". It would be nice to see a citation - not that there is any doubt that Nazi numbers are unreliable, anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Heinemann numbers are not directly attributed to the 1939 census. In a footnote regarding East Upper Silesia, she refers to another book, "Musterstadt", for problems with the 1939 numbers without going into detail. This is not enough to back up changes attributing all the numbers Heinemann gives to the 1939 census (though it is possible she is citing the census, but we don't know for sure), that's why I attributed them to Heinemann directly. Also, the "Nazis" did not "claim" someone to be German. If the 1939 census is the source, the persons declared themselves to be German, and the Nazis were the ones not satisfied with this mere declaration, but "racially evaluated" everyone and decided who was "really" German only after this process. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC) The Heinemann numbers are not directly attributed to the 1939 census. In a footnote regarding East Upper Silesia, she refers to another book, "Musterstadt", for problems with the 1939 numbers without going into detail. This is not what Heinmann writes actually. She clearly mentions that the results are from December census performed in bezirke and gau's during 1939. Now what other then Nazi authority was able to conduct census in that regions. And btw-I am afraid you are confusing the Gaus with Polish annexed territories. Only Warthegau was made solely out of them-others acquired Polish territories but consisted of already existing German areas. In fact it would be good idea to split this information into the Gau article itself, while leaving information about Polish annexed territories. Anyway If you insist on disputing what Heinmann writes I can simply quote her and let others decide if what you are saying is correct. However her data isn't essential here as it concerns only partially the topic. --Molobo (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Oberschlessien hatte 4.2 Millionen Einwohner in annektier Ostoberschlesien(Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz) lebten etwa 2.43 Millionen Menschen, davon ungefahr 1,08 Millionen Deutsche, 930 ,000 Polen und fast 90.000 Juden. Zu den problemen der daten die auf einwohnererfassun vom Dezember 1939 beruhen It is clear from the above text that she quotes data from Nazi administrative units. In addition the data is only in regards to part of the annexed territory and the whole annexed area of Polish Silesia by Germany. Thus-we have only partial information, second what others then Nazis conducted population polls in December 1939 ? Third-the information is not about Polish annexed territories but wider region. --Molobo (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


As the areas have been merged with German ones the Nazi census was further manipulated. But they are estimates of number of Germans in Polish areas and I will source them as soon as possible. Additionall estimates for Germans settled are in the collaborative scholary work WYSIEDLENIA, WYPĘDZENIA I UCIECZKI 1939-1959. ATLAS ZIEM POLSKI [2] And here [3] --Molobo (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot just add a source as a "fact" and all else is a "claim". If you have a source giving different information, you have to properly attribute it and present it neutrally. I restored to the last version where everything was properly attributed to the source it is from. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
All reliable sources should be treated equally, unless they are highly controversial and require attribution. You "last version" attributed only Polish sources, implying they are unreliable or controversial and need an attribution, and presented data from other sources as facts. This is not the right approach to create a neutral article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read the version I restored and you will see that not only Polish sources are attributed, but all sources which somehow differ from other sources in the article. No matter if Polish, English, or German. If two sources state something different, they need to be attributed and presented neutrally, not one as truth and one as claim. That's just basic WP:NPOV. I restored the attributed version, add whatever you find but attribute it properly. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost all Polish sources were attributed, and I saw almost no non-Polish sourcres attributed. That was rahter biased. Attribution is not needed, one can simply note that there are different estimates and use inline footnotes to let reader see where they are from. Further, the version you are restoring lacks my copyedit and Molobo's expansion, and finally, you have not addressed Molobo's comments about unreliability of some of your sources/numbers, which may come from Naiz propaganda sources. Please stop reverting until this is clear; feel free to edit the article and improve it based on the existing version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I did not attribute only Polish sources, look at what you revert. Bramwell, Heinemann, Duiker, Segeti are definitely no Polish sources. Your "copyedit" was basically the removal of the attributions. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I did not like that "wholesale revert" of yours ether Skäpperöd. Lets try to work things out piece by piece next time please.--Jacurek (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to attribute most statements in text, not unless it is important to clarify that this opinion is held by a particular person. See also Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Is_detailed_attribution_good_or_bad_practice.3F. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Definite population data does not exist, all population numbers presented here are estimates (="opinion") of someone. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And as long as we have clear inline citations, there is no need to bloat the article in bad style with intext attributions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment If there is a genuine scholarly dispute regarding numbers perhaps that should be expanded on to inform the reader. This is not a paper encyclopedia so length issues should not hinder giving as much detail as could be warranted. Alternatively I suppose that you could in-text attribute the lower and higher bounds given by your sources and have the rest of the sources left as inline citations. Beware Original Research. Unomi (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any major scholary dispute. There are differences in numbers but not in great scale. --Molobo (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First expansion[edit]

1.Changed structure to logical order-first annexed units, then what were they annexed into. 2.Gave information on various measures specific to annexed territories. 3.Gave information regarding Nazi estimates 4.Numerous other minor information expansions. 5.Moved information from invasion of Poland to proper place. --Molobo (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "logic" fucked messed up the format. Also, this article is about the time during the annexation, not before. Also you again messed up the Heinemann numbers stating they are the Nazi census. This is your generalization and interpretion of a footnote in Heinemann's book that does not say so. The table you inserted also needs some more work. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy, please...--Jacurek (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? I haven't read the new version, but first glances made it look like it was an overall improvement. The tables, which I did read, looked better, certainly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Skäpperöd puts in a lot of good work into many articles but the "wholesale" reverts of somebody who like Molobois very knowledgeable on the subject is not right. There must be a better way of arguing that the rude way.--Jacurek (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a wholesale revert, I don't know why you use this slogan. More detailed explanation below.
  • Molobo added: "All of territories were annexed straight into the already existing Gaus, with Warthegau being the only exception ", ref'd to "Położenie ludności polskiej w Kraju Warty 1939-1945. Dokumenty niemieckie", Poznań 1987, pages V-XIII"

This information is obviously wrong, Danzig-WP was also partially made up of pre-war German territory.

  • Molobo removed: "The annexed territories roughly resembled the former Prussian partition of Poland, but were 25% larger than the provinces lost by the German Empire in the Treaty of Versailles" Given that Versailles and the "Regain of lost German East" were key arguments of the Nazis for the annexation (instead of just occupation like in the GG), this is the least the reader should know. Molobo instead added this to a paragraph about the renaming of the gau (very very wrong place): "The German state used old Prussian propaganda during annexation, although only 43.942 sq. km only 23,933 were actually part of Prussia before 1918", an information the reader can not make anything of.
  • Molobo added: "with the Reichsgau Posen being the only gau made up of solely Polish territories annexed" (which is true) to a paragraph about the situation in 1935 which makes it false.
  • Molobo removed: "On 8 and 13 September 1939, the German military districts of "Posen" (Poznan), commanded by general Alfred von Vollard-Bockelberg, and "Westpreußen" (West Prussia), commanded by general Walter Heitz, were established in conquered Greater Poland and Pomerelia, respectively.[1] Based on laws of 21 May 1935 and 1 June 1938, the German military, Wehrmacht, shared its administrative powers with civilian "chief civil administrators" (Chefs der Zivilverwaltung, CdZ).[2] German dictator Adolf Hitler appointed Arthur Greiser to become the CdZ of the Posen military district, and Danzig's Gauleiter Albert Foster to become the CdZ of the West Prussian military district.[1] On 3 October 1939, the military districts "Lodz" and "Krakau" (Cracow) were set up under command of major generals Gerd von Rundstedt and Wilhelm List, and Hitler appointed Hans Frank and Arthur Seyß-Inquart as civil heads, respectively.[1] Frank was at the same time appointed "supreme chief administrator" for all occupied territories.[1]". This paragraph is about the administrative aspects in the course of the invasion and annexation, vital for this article.
  • Molobo added: "The final structure of annexed territories and their distribution into German administritive units was made after disputes between local Nazi officials as well as Wehrmacht with all sides seeking to boost their influence and possesions. The overall dispute was settled by Hitler, neverthless throughout the war both military and officials continued with onesided attempts to change borders to their benefit" No details at all, no information other than there was a dispute of unknown scale between unknown individuals with unknown outcome.
  • Molobo changed the table format so it shows the administrative division of the annexed territories during the annexation (scope of this article) somewhere in the right instead of the left, also the format change made the table about a mile long.
  • Molobo changed "about ten million" (two sources) to "10,568,000" (supported only by one of the two sources, the other nevertheless was left in place).
  • Molobo removed the attribution of the contradicting numbers to their sources.
  • Molobo inserted "The German authorities classified people based on racial criteria with Poles and Jews being considered untermenschen as opposed to Germans who according to the German state’s ideology at the time were “herrenvolk”-that is a “master race”. This classification had not only ideological meaning but was expressed in all aspects of practical daily life and treatment of population[3]." to the population data paragraph. This is redundant as it is explained in detail already below.
  • Molobo attributed the Heinemann numbers to the Nazi census, which is not supported by the source (see above). Heinemann only in a footnote regarding the Upper Silesia numbers refers to another book for problems with the population count there, nothing more.
  • Molobo moved the section about planning below the section of the actual execution.
  • Molobo inserted a table and a paragraph about the population data of an unidentifdied document published by "Nazi Germany". I did not rm that, but obviously some work needs to be done formatting the table and attributuing the source, also it is debatable whether this document should have the prominent position.

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are minor problems you are having with the article. As to Heinmann-she clearly uses data gathered by Nazis in Reichsgaue-It is doubtfull if the whole data needs to be shown here as Reichsgaue are not Polish areas annexed by Germany but mostly already existing areas to which Polish areas were attached.

I see a lot of OR in your text-nowhere had I read that reversing Versailles was the reason for annexation of Łódż or territories that never formed German Empire. Could you give us source on that ? That the military districts were created is true but nor relevant to the subject in great deal-I moved the information ot Invasion of Poland. As to dispute by Nazis and Wehrmach who gets which territory-It makes me happy me that you are interested in information I provided, I can add more if you wish but this shouldn't distort the article. As to the precise number it is more elegant to use the exact numbers rather the rough estimates here-Is there any reason to remove this ? Please also check references-they clearly show what documents are used, also the documents are widely used in scholary works on the subject so they are notable.--Molobo (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • "Heinmann-she clearly uses data gathered by Nazis in Reichsgaue" She does not say so, so don't attribute it to her.
  • "I see a lot of OR in your text-nowhere had I read that reversing Versailles was the reason for annexation of Łódż or territories that never formed German Empire." You are kidding me. That the Nazis wanted to revert Versailles is widely known. That the Nazis wanted more than that is also known. That is why the article stated that the area annexed was 25% larger than the area that was German before Versailles. Lodz is - as you also know well - within this larger portion. So what is this statement about other than accusing me of OR, i.e. trying to get personal?
  • "That the military districts were created is true but nor relevant to the subject" They were the immediate predecessors of the Gaue we are talking about here, by name and shape, they introduced the civil administration that would last until the end of the war because of the special character of German law, how is this not relevant? The formal annexation a month later was only the dismissal of the military guys and the confirmation of the civil administratin built in this period.
  • "As to dispute by Nazis and Wehrmach who gets which territory" see above. Wehrmacht did not have "own" districts, they shared all they occupied with a civil administration. If you don't detail the conflict, it's of no use stating there was one.
  • "Please also check references-they clearly show what documents are used, also the documents are widely used in scholary works on the subject so they are notable." That's why I left the table and resp para in, see my criticism above.

1."She does not say so, so don't attribute it to her." Heinmann: Oberschlessien hatte 4.2 Millionen Einwohner in annektier Ostoberschlesien(Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz) lebten etwa 2.43 Millionen Menschen, davon ungefahr 1,08 Millionen Deutsche, 930 ,000 Polen und fast 90.000 Juden. Zu den problemen der daten die auf einwohnererfassun vom Dezember 1939 beruhen Do you want me to consult others if the data here is A-relavant since it does not concern Polish territories but Reischsgaue B-If Heinmann uses census data from Nazi administrative units C-If Heinmann mentions problems with the data D-If there was any other census then Nazi census in Nazi Administrative units ?--Molobo (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it is possible that Heinemann actually cited the census data. This possibility alone does not justify attributing it as if it was a given fact, it is only speculation. Regarding East Upper Silesia, the footnote "die auf einer Einwohnererfassung vom Dezember 1939 beruhen" makes the possibility very high. This does not mean that you can attribute all numbers she gives to that census, neither does the reference "Zu den Problemen der Daten [...] vgl. Steinbacher, "Musterstadt"" mean that she issues a warning that her data is unreliable. All the footnote says is that she used the census data for her numbers regarding East Upper Silesia. That does not automatically mean that she cited them ("beruhen" means "based on"), though of course it is possible. That neither does automatically mean that all numbers for all territories she lists is unprocessed 1939 census data, though it is possible. That why the attribution must be Heinemann and not 1939 census per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Go ahead and ask for other oppinions. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Concentrate on the topic not on the person you are talking to. "Everybody knows" is not an argument and constitutes Original Research.--Molobo (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that someone who says that his main area of interest is WWII in PL/GE sayds that he never heard of Hitler and reversing Versailles as one of the more important aspects of his plans and actions. Frankly, I cannot really believe that. If you really did not know, think of where Hitler celebrated France' capitulation for a start, and about the following:
Nazi Germany, opening sentence: "The Third Reich arose in the wake of the national shame, embarrassment, anger and resentment which resulted from the Treaty of Versailles."
  • Treaty of Versailles article: "Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi party. Indeed, on Nazi Germany's rise to power, Adolf Hitler resolved to overturn the remaining military and territorial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles." Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

3.Sure, I will link it to proper section in Invasion of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unthinkable to not start this article with the invasion and to not discuss the intermediate administration in the month between invasion and formal annexation, especially given that the administrative structure of the annexed territories was based on the territory and cadre shaped during this 'intermediate' period. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

4.The article is still in process of expansion. However the dispute is not really that relavant, I am surprised on your insistance that it is. What sources back you up that it is important ?--Molobo (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What dispute is so important to me? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Skäpperöd, again, PLEASE, could you start making your edits by changing sentence or two at the time with short explanation instead of reverting somebodys work all at once? It will be easier for others to follow. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I support Jacurek, please Skapperod-you just deleted the whole section on German minority, whole section on repressive measures by German authorities against Poles specific to annexed areas, all information about pro-Nazi organizations. Mark the specific sections in article you want to change, explain why, but do not delete whole information that is important to the article such as Nazi racial policy.--Molobo (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have overlooked the German minority section, and I apologize for removing that one. Regarding the list above, I uphold my criticism as it stands. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have copyedited the first part of the article. I think both sides make good points, but please, try to keep the above discussion structured - in the moddle I got lost trying to figure out who's replying to whom. My thoughts:

  • P1) "The annexed territories roughly..." is now in lead; I think it is useful there, and can be copied below. I do think that the "The German state used old Prussian propaganda" is potentially useful but unclear: how was the Prussian propaganda used? I'd GUESS that the German state claimed it is taking over Prussian lands and that was the false propaganda claim...? If so, this should be made clear.
  • P2) "German military districts" - I think this is relevant and useful info and I restored it, but I do think that indeed it should be just summarized here and moved - but not to "Invasion..." but to Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II.
  • P3) "The final structure of annexed territories and their distribution into German administritive units was made after disputes between local Nazi officials" - per above
  • P4) table - seems to look slightly better in Molobo's version
  • P5) I moved planning section to the forefront again; I also split the sections on demographics from the treatment of the population. Please note that my recent article on Polish culture during WWII has some information on how Nazis suppressed Polish culture on the annexed territories (to a much higher extent than they did in GG).

I am not addressing other issues because either I have no strong opinion, or the above discussion doesn't allow me to clearly understand the points being made. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

P2 and P5: My guess is that the criticism is basically of people who don't find this information interesting enough and are in a hurry to go on to the "real" interesting stuff where people die and get tortured. For an understanding of the administrative reshape of the annexed territories however the information in P2 is vital. The paragraph is already a very much condensed set of information. The information is necessary to understand how the Nazi "civil" administration was already embedded in the Wehrmacht structures and not something set up after Hitler said "Now it's all annexed". The decree rather formalized an annexation that had already happened as it was more a suspension of the Wehrmacht guys from their positions than a call for building a civil administration. The borders were already drawn, the official staff of civil administrators was already in position and acting. We should not rely too much on the date of Hitler's decree as the "starting point", but see it as a formal step.
P4: Well in my browser it looked awful and was way too long. Also, we are talking about the time of the annexation, not of the time before (and maybe thereafter, I don't know if the former administration was re-instated on a 1:1 level). Also, for the time we cover here, the administrative division followed the Gau scheme, so these Gaue should be in the left.
P1 and P3: I am curious, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
P2. I support the new section and subarticle. P4. I've reviewed the tables and I do think yours is more compact. The main difference indeed is order or columns, and I don't think this is that important, through I'd like to hear from Molobo why did he redesign the table (maybe I am missing something)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Heinmann Reichsgaue[edit]

I think we should move Heinmann data to proper place in Reichsgau article. People are now confusing the data of those Reichsgau with Polish areas. Furthermore the data is complicated by the unreliability of the Nazi census she presented.What do you think --Molobo (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the data should be moved, but copying it is likely a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"People are now confusing the data of those Reichsgau with Polish areas." Who is confused by what? There were only the Reichsgaus, what Polish areas should this be confused with? The GG? It is always clearly addressed what area exactly is being talked about. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic paragraph[edit]

I cut this paragraph from the article as it is not transporting any information. It reads

"The German state used old Prussian propaganda during annexation,[clarification needed] although only 43.942 sq. km only 23,933 were actually part of Prussia before 1918.[3] The final structure of annexed territories and their distribution into German administritive units was made after disputes between local Nazi officials as well as Wehrmacht with all sides seeking to boost their influence and possesions. The overall dispute was settled by Hitler, neverthless throughout the war both military and officials continued with onesided attempts to change borders to their benefit.[3]"

This paragraph needs to be rewritten or left out:

  • What "old Prussian propaganda" ?
  • What number is right if any ?
  • Who exactly had quarrels about what exactly with what counterpart and how was this solved ? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi census[edit]

It would be very helpful if we could expand the article on census in Germany, particularly with section on Nazi census of 1939 and its reliability. I think that one of Molobo's points here is that Nazi data is unreliable and this should be pointed out in the text. It seems like a good point to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Jacurek (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1939 census data is not even cited here. The only reason the paragraph is in here is the insistence of Molobo that Heinemann cited the figures, which is still unproven (see numerous posts above). Actually, it is now evident that the Heinemann figures for Warthegau and Danzig-WP are the same as in the table - this table however gives the November estimate and not the December census. I shortened the Heinemann paragraph accordingly. The only possibility that December census data is in the article is the Heinemann figure for East Upper Silesia. Heinemann says in the footnote that these numbers are based on a population count of December 1939, which still does not mean that she cited them unprocessed, though it is possible.

Much cited Piotr Eberhardt in his 2003 book says their was a debate whether the 1939 census is reliable or not, and summarizes that some (German) authors said so and some (Polish) authors said it is not. So I would not introduce a proven unreliability but rather a note that there was (is?) a debate. But if we do not have the census data in here, it does not make much sense to include such a note at all.

The 1939 census sure has the problem most pre- and post-war censuses have, that is the census asks for either a German or a Polish ethnicity. In the broader area of the historical Polish-German frontier, for many people it was not easy to sort themselves into one of these categories, and such a "non-fixed ethnicity" could switch from Polish to German and back depending on the political circumstances. Even after the war there was the "verification" and "rehabilitation" of "autochtones", a million of which were confirmed as Poles. So this million is the bottom margin of uncertainty we have, given the high number of people who died during the war or fled and did not return. Additionally we have an uncertain number of people who considered themselves to be Germans/Poles, and then the Nazis came, "evaluated" them and said "No you are not a German but an untermensch" or "No you are not a Pole but a Polonized German". A German who could not with documents prove the aryaness of at least three generations of his ancestors was not regarded German by the Nazis, wheras a Pole who fit in their pseudo-scientific racial parameters was in many cases.

Given these rationales, it would be easiest to leave the 1939 census out as long as it is not even cited here. Or, to insert a section about the inconsistency between ethnic categorization and the self-perception of the so categorized, which may include a paragraph about the census. I fear however we would unreasonably boost the scope of the article with such a section. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Molobo wrote above: "She clearly mentions that the results are from December census performed in bezirke and gau's during 1939. Now what other then Nazi authority was able to conduct census in that regions.". Whether he is wrong or not, I think we can agree that Nazi data is not the most reliable, and we should somehow warn the reader that we are relying on it - even if it is via reliable scholars who processed them (but note that those reliable scholars themselves note the problems with that data). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am all for proper attribution. What I objected was improper attribution, i.e. attributing all Heinemann data as if it was cited December 1939 census just because Molobo says so, while the author of the source says one estimate is based on a December 1939 census. I further object to implying the author warns that the number of the German population is estimated too high, by suggesting the author shares the view of the other source saying a number of Poles declared themselves German in that census. Heinemann for problems with the data refers to another book: Steinbacher, Musterstadt, pp.117-118, and noone actually knows what specific problems are outlined there (I just get a snippet preview in a book search and have not been checking the library yet). I don't know how to make myself more clear.
I had already introduced an in-text attribution reading "For East Upper Silesia, Heinemann gives numbers based on the census of December 1939, saying there was a total of 2.43 million people..." and in the attached cite-note it reads: "For the data of East Upper Silesia, Heinemann in a footnote refers to the book "Musterstadt" for problems with the data compiled in 1939", which I think is sufficient, but improvable. What alterations do you propose ? Skäpperöd (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As the data isn't clear and author indicates the Nazi census has its problems I removed this information per undue weight.--Molobo (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany[edit]

Thanks Skäpperöd for making editions piece by piece, it so much easier to follow and understand. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Having one section about each "German privileges" and "repression of Poles" led to a situation where a lot of stuff was inserted twice, once as "Germans gained/were allowed foo" and second as "Poles/Jews lost/were forbidden the very same foo". I have instead introduced the sections "German privileges at the expense of Poles" and "Ethnic segregation", which are basically the same but structered according to content and not to ethnicity (though ethnicity is of course an aspect of the content). That way much redundant stuff got merged. For the repressions against Poles and Jews then not covered in the before sections, I renamed the remains of the former "Repressions" section to "Further repressions". These are basically those measures used by the Nazis to transform the remaining Polish populace into a less educated low-fertility population and the repressions that had no other purpose than being mean. 09:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Population data for Upper Silesia[edit]

The number in the table (> 7 million) seems way too high. Heinemann says all Upper Silesia had 4.2 million inhabitants (Rasse, Siedlung ... p.229), Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship (annexed part minus two counties, ~half of Upper Silesia) article says 1.5 million in 1925. Maybe the numbers in the table are for all of Silesia? This needs to be checked. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a source mirroring the table that says it is "Province of Silesia" and not Upper Silesia. I changed that accordingly and attributed it to this source (not the best one, maybe someone has a better one?) Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

German military administration in occupied Poland[edit]

I've created a new article, since its something that seems to apply not only to annexed territories but also to General Government. I also noticed there there seem to be lack of categories for historical German administrative territories? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


I updated the article, added new information in regards to Nazi repressions and measures, I added tables, new sections and data as to support for Nazi rule, number of incidents with friendly Germans reported, new demographic tables. Merged repressions as it was illogical to have the article split into two seperate repressive sections. Somebody removed from the lead that Jews and Poles were target of genocide-I restored it. I will continue to update the article as time allows.--Molobo (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use books of 1970 and even before, they are unreliable. Also, the structure was logical before your rendering. First the plan, then the execution; also, now segregation is a subsection of repression of Poles and Jews, which is not accurate as seggregation affected the German population as well. Also, I think the repressive measures should be after the expulsion etc, as this was the primary goal and the repression was thought of as a kind of an intermediate state for the temporarily remaining Poles. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources published during the Communist era[edit]

...should not be used here. See this thread at WP:RS/N. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

...disagreed, per my post there. They can be used, with caution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
During the Communist era, repressions were described by Łuczak in his book "Położenie ludności polskiej w Kraju Warty 1939-1945. Dokumenty niemieckie", published in the People's Republic of Poland in 1987:

When I read the above citation my observation is that the material posted is communist propaganda, a clever way to whitewash German crimes in Poland, imply that it is communist propaganda. Think!!--Woogie10w (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This was fixed, for the time being--Woogie10w (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus is correct for reverting this outrageous attempt to tag Nazi war crimes in Poland as communist propaganda.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In the respective WP:RS/N thread (linked above), most participants said these sources must be used with care and that these sources should be used to illustrate the Communist era historiographic perception. That is clearly not what is done here, and the removal of in-text attribution to indicate that the sources are from the Communist era wasn't suitable either. I again tagged the respective sections as relying heavily or entirely on Communist era sources - which is an undisputed fact - until this is fixed. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so, if you dispute an item, cite that particular item and dispute it at talk. Blanket tags like that are not acceptable, its another POV push on your part --Woogie10w (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Note well there are academic sources published in the good old USA that back up those posts by Polish scholars. .--Woogie10w (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As the scholar and historian Andrzej Friszke noted in IPN Bulletin fom 4th May of 2004 Czesław Madajczyk remains the best author and scholar in regards to studies on Nazi Germany's policies in Poland. Also Friszke did write that most of Polish research on Nazi Germany is based on publications before 1989 as post-1989 researches focused on Soviet era and territories[4]-as such there is no doubt that this sources are considered reliable. In fact even modern historians from Germany use Madajczyk's works and praise him which can be sourced.

For the abuse of tags see :

Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes removal of extremely-long-standing policy and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first.

In regards to the template itself it doesn't have its place here. Much as I dislike Peoples Republic of Poland, its really is absurd to name it a totalitarian communist regime in 1987. It certainly was not totalitarian nor communist. The template is more fitting to sources from Stalinist period in SU or North Korean sources.--Molobo (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't engage in a discussion here to whether Poland was Communist before the Communist regime colapsed in 1989 or not, neither will I engage in a discussion to whether calling a Communist era source a Communist era source is vandalism. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_17#Template:Communist_era_sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Focus on annexed territories[edit]

Please keep in mind this is not the article about Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. This is an article whose section should describe Nazi treatment of Poles on the annexed territories and make it clear how it differed from treatment of Poles in the General Government. Only if the treatment differed it should be described there, there is no need to repeat the content of the Nazi crimes... article here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Piotrus-the information here comes directly from specific measures used in annexed territories mentioned. GG was to be used as reservation for Poles untill their final extermination within 10-15 years as designed by Germany. The differences are mentioned by Madajczak-for instance Catholic Church was going to be exploited rather then destroyed in order to better control Polish population. Age of slave labour was highter in GG then in annexed territories and so on. But the measures described here are specific to Annexed territories-the German terror in GG was based on other means and laws. The best comparision is that while General Gouvernment was a concentration camp with slave labour, Annexed territories were mainly a death camp for Polish and Jewish population that was to be removed as fast as possible. Of course some general information is needed-such as classification of Poles and Jews as creatures inferior to dogs by German authorities.--Molobo (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Proceeding with Communist-era sources[edit]

Large parts of the article are based on two sources published in Communist Poland. How should these sources be used and attributed? How should the results of this RS/N discussion and this TfD discussion be adapted? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Communist-era sources used[edit]

  • Czesław Madajczyk, Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, volume 2, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1970
  • Luczak, Położenie ludności polskiej w Kraju Warty 1939-1945. Dokumenty niemieckie, Poznań 1987

Sections based entirely or almost entirely on these sources[edit]

  • 4 Ethnic segregation
  • 5 Repressions against Polish and Jewish population
    • 5.1 Economic discrimination
    • 5.2 Slave labour
    • 5.3 Reducing biological growth of Polish population
    • 5.4 Discrimination of Polish language
    • 5.5 Discrimination in education
    • 5.6 Religion
    • 5.7 Judicial system
    • 5.8 Kidnapping and murder of Polish children
    • 5.9 Consequences
  • 6 Status of German minority
    • 6.1 Case study-Mława district

Related previous discussions at RS/N and TfD[edit]


After the above-linked RS/N discussion, I have in-text attributed these sources like this:

During the Communist era, repressions were described by Czesław Madajczyk in his book "Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce" published in the People's Republic of Poland in 1970:

This was removed. I have then tagged the sections in question with "Template:Communist era sources". The template was removed and the above linked TfD discussion was initiated.

I request a comment what (alternative) approach should be used here. Pre-1989 Poland was ruled by a totalitarian Communist regime with an anti-German agenda. That makes every book published in Poland during this era likely to be biased regarding contemporary history. If information derived from such sources is nevertheless used in wikipedia, the reader needs to be aware of it. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How convenient that half of the countries that were victim of Nazi genocide can have their scholarship discarded because they were communist... let me repeat what I said before: communist era-sources should be used with caution, and we should try to find better sources for controversial information. Polish scholarship was to a certain extent biased against Germany, yes, but so was German scholarship biased against Poland: while Poles put undue weight on the Nazi German crimes, Nazi apologists tried to white-wash the Nazi German crimes. We cannot generalize and say that either Polish or German sources are unreliable, but we should always treat Polish and German sources related to the Polish-German history with caution. Now, I suggest we stop blaming Polish/German sources, and discuss whether there are any claims in this (or other) articles that are 1) controversial and 2) based on dubious sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I must stand as an outsider to this debate, but perhaps I can usefully make some general comments. History (and WP) should be objective, but popular history is frequently told with a particular POV. That does not mean that history books taking a POV should be discarded, merely that they must be used with great care. Their facts will probably not be false, but they may be an unrepresentative sample. Interpretations are also liable to suffer from POV issues. Poland is in a difficult position in that Polish culture was repressed from the Partitions until 1918, presumably leading to a nationalist reaction (which is also a POV), then Nazi repression and finally Communist. NPOV is difficult to find, but we must try. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So how would you attribute these sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like beating a dead horse issue to me. All the points have already been either explained or stricken down by others on several threads concerning this, but for the sake of clarity:
1.Poland was not totalitarian state but authoritarian one
2.Poland had friendly relations with East Germany, so it certainly had no "anti-German" bias, were East Germans not Germans ?
3.Madajczyk is used, cited and praised by modern authors. His book is considered to be one of the most valuable scholary positions on the subject.--Molobo (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the title of second publication Dokumenty niemieckie (German documents), it is some collection of documents from the 1939-1945 period. This is not a communist-era source, although selection of documents may be biased.D.Albionov (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the foreword, i.e. the author's conclusions, that is used here. How would you attribute that? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To finish this, here's a proof that Czesław Madajczyk (1970) is cited in hundreds of works published after 1989: [5], including over a hundred English language works: [6]. Czesław Łuczak (1987) is slightly less known, but is still cited in close to a hundred works: [7], [8]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The booksearch links you provided do not back your assertions. Most hits do not refer to the books you think are cited, but to some random stuff, or to some other books, eg
"As noted by Luczak (1987), k-legged spiders or simply k-spiders provide such an obstruction: A + 1 vertices of degree A: having a common neighbour..."
Please look at the actual results of your search and not just the eery total of hits. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Enough are relevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
And see my note below about opinion of Madajczyk in modern, western scholary world.--Molobo (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Academic Source Published in the USA[edit]

Hi Molobo just picked this book up in the library yesterday, you may find it of interest. Author is Phillip T. Rutherford Title is Prelude to the Final Solution: The Nazi Program for Deporting Ethnic Poles, 1939-1941Hardcover, ISBN 0700615067 Publisher: Univ Pr of Kansas, 2007 The fate of Polish Jews under the German occupation has been well documented, but not as much is known about the wartime ordeal of non-Jewish Poles. Phillip Rutherford investigates Nazi policies of "ethnic cleansing" to reveal the striking anti-Polish nature of the crusade to Germanize newly occupied territory and to show... This will suffice as a reliable source, but the article would need some redo work. Regards---Woogie10w (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

About Madajczyk[edit]

Since one user continues to object Madajczyk as reliable source here is what The Institute of History of Present Time (research unit of the CNRS, the French National Center for Scientific Research) has to say about Madajczyk:

"It is with great sadness that we have learned of the death of Professor Czeslaw Madaiczyk, Chairman of the Polish Committee for the History of World War I and II, who died on 15 February 2008. Czeslaw Madajczyk was an eminent historian, whose scholarly work on 20th Century Polish and European History has been widely acknowledged and respected. His important studies on Nazi occupation of Europe after 1938, and in particular on Hitler’s rule of Poland have greatly enhanced our understanding of the often complicated and obscured processes of German occupation policies as well as of the differing experiences of ordinary peoples under Fascist dictatorship and oppression. These and some of his other books, notably on cultural life in Nazi occupied Europe, on the “Generalplan Ost” and other German war-time plans for Eastern Europe as well as on the Soviet massacre at Katyn, have become milestones of the historiography of the Second World War. He was a co-founder and for more than two decades also the first editor of the distinguished Polish quarterly “Dzieje Najnowsze” (Recent History). Between 1971 and 1983 Professor Madajczyk led the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Besides he was Vice-President of the Polish Committee of Historical Sciences (1971-1985) and later became one of the Vice-Presidents of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War (1980–1995). In these capacities Czeslaw Madajczyk was an ardent supporter of international scholarly cooperation and exchanges, even at times when relations between historians on both sides of the iron curtain were still threatened or questioned by political conditions and developments. The death of Czeslaw Madajczyk is a grave loss for the international community of World War II historians. Gerhard Hirschfeld President of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War" [9]

I hope this settles once and for all if Madajczyk is acceptable and reliable source by modern standards. --Molobo (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

B class[edit]

During the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, User:Piotrus determined that the article seems to him to meet the criteria for the B-class. Good job! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrected mistake[edit]

There was a mistake in the text, Madajczyk noted that there were only ) noted that 529 cases of friendly contacts between Germans and Poles reported by Gestapo, not intimate contacts. I corrected the mistake.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d Andreas Toppe, Militär und Kriegsvölkerrecht: Rechtsnorm, Fachdiskurs und Kriegspraxis in Deutschland 1899-1940, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2008, p.398, ISBN 3486582062
  2. ^ Andreas Toppe, Militär und Kriegsvölkerrecht: Rechtsnorm, Fachdiskurs und Kriegspraxis in Deutschland 1899-1940, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2008, p.397, ISBN 3486582062
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference .C5.81uczak was invoked but never defined (see the help page).