Talk:Free City of Danzig

Free City of Danzig

Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion

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

---

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

Sca 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

---

Dzień dobry, Space Cadet! Co słychać?

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

Czesc!

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

Sca 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Binding Wikipedia naming convention

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

Non binding discussed proposal

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

• Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(disputed_place_names)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bierut decrees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dubious

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

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

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

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

• Systematical mass rapes and executions created an atmosphere of terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of the Napoleonic-era Free City

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

It does look precise. [1] has:

• January - 29 November 1813 - Siege of Danzig (East Prussia), Poland
• 22 January 1813 - Prussian Court moves to Breslau (Silesia), Poland

Vagueness about the 1933 elections

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

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

Split?

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

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

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

For example, this is done in the Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Vrije Stad Danzig (1807-1814) and nl:Vrije Stad Danzig (1920-1939) - 52 Pickup 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have created a separate article for the Napoleonic state. It can be found at Free City of Danzig (Napoleonic). - 52 Pickup 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

exile government

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

Added source on usage of Gdańsk as training center

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

Legal Status after 1939 and after 1945

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

removed nonsense...

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

unclear

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

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

Ah, I see. The text was confusing. Thanks.radek (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

latest edits

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

I agree the latest edits by the IP and User:Whatawho did not really improve the article, however I'm not sure why you adress the above to me. I tried to find a source for the ILO part and added it. I'd politely ask you to make clear whether you adress the term "nationalistic" to me.HerkusMonte (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry maybe i confused you with IP, but who removed this: Although the League of Nations courts decided in Poland's favor, arguing that, because of the Free City's economic status, its population could not join such organizations.? Loosmark (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed "its population" to "it" (the city), because the ILO is not an organization to be joined by single persons or a group of individuals. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My appologies to you then, it was the IP who acted controversially. Loosmark (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please compare [3] the condition of the article as it stands now and how it stood after the edits of Radekcz, which all pertain to a Polish point of view by a) underplaying the binding agreements between Danzig and Poland, which without the native population's consent, divided duties in the city between Danzig authorities and Polish authorities b) making it look like the National Socialists of Germany had declared Danzig free when it was the Danzig government. c) Erasing the notice that the Danzigers did not want to be incorporated into Poland, which puts resistance to Poland in a different context rather than the one it exists in in Radekz's version of the text, where "German territorial revisionism" is the reason for Poland's actions. d) removing the mention that it was BOTH concern AND paranoia of German territorial revision that was most critical e) eliminating the note that the boycott of Danzig goods continued after Poland agreed to stop "promoting it" f) eliminating the Free City's opinion of the tariff war (just like the mention of the Free City's fear of Polish subversion was removed) g) eliminating the idea of fait accompli and the background as to what was going on when the Free City was declared part of Poland. I will not have my text be butchered and manipulated simply to serve as propaganda. Either we work together to share both points of views or I'm taking all of the text I added out. You can't simply call something "POV" because it shows the Free City view and "NPOV" when it shows Poland's point of view.--Whatawho (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In case you have missed it, the Free City's politics were dominated by the Nazi party since the early 30's and wikipedia's NPOV can't be built by incorporating the Nazi view as some sort of balancing factor. Loosmark (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, I forgot: every view that does not support the holy sacred Polish view of the world is the "Nazi view", even if it doesn't come from Nazi sources, reflect a position held by the Nazis or have anything to do with the Free City's politics from 1933 onward. This article primarily focuses on what happened between 1920 and 1930, by the way. Seeing that you have worked on the embarassing, half-comprehensible and ridiculously POV article Bombing_of_Wieluń, and seeing how you called my edits "nationalist" for undoing a series of edits which transfered a balanced report into a biased piece of Polish propaganda, I would say the last sentence I wrote, on 1 Sept, is something you should think about, too...even if my comments were originally addressed to Radekcz--Whatawho (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The "balanced report" as you comically call it was a far cry from being balanced. I'd also ask you to refrain yourself from ad hominem attacks against me. If you have any suggestions for the Bombing_of_Wieluń article, made them on the appropriate talk page. Loosmark (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Reinhard Haferkorn

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

No, please investigate further. It is from a British academic journal, not a book. I find it peculiar that you think anyone who writes something automatically has their work invalidated if they later become members of a certain political party. Perhaps it is, in fact, his observation of the Danzig situation that led to his opinions about the city. Anyway, that is irrelevant, because here, his words are not being used; we are using him for his reference to a court case and later, a newspaper article.

Second of all, after deleting his quotations and other nearby text, you have rearranged the text so that the sentences no longer make sense. You have also removed the Polish source for a claim about the atrocities committed by the Selbschutz. Unless you wish to debate the authenticity of the source with someone who can speak Polish, I think this was not a good decision.

As for your own contributions, your style is sensationalist and I have checked some of what you have written only to find it is not what the sources say. --188.102.197.166 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Your tone is inappropriate.
• If you think something needs a source or differs from the cited ref, please use one of these tags
• DON'T remove such tags without giving the requested reference
• A colleague of Lord Haw-Haw and "trusted" member of the Nazi party isn't reliable. Find a different (reliable!) source and you might add whatever you like. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits, POV tag

• you have settled for the vague "[Poland] sought to extend its privileges" rather than expound upon them. This has sanitized the article of a great deal of criticism, although you seem to have no problem with abundant criticism when the other camp is mentioned.

• you have changed " [there was] a strike after the Free City was created" to "local dockworkers refused to unload ammunition for the Polish army"

• you have removed mention of Poland's 1918 request for the incorporation of all of East Prussia

• removed mention of the strike breaking as an attempt by British to control Danzig's commerce, and also the near-decision to declare martial law (both of which indicate how "semi-autonomy" functioned in reality

• removed mention of the illegal movement of military vessels into Danzig's harbor.

• instead of "Poland protested the Free City joining the ILO", you wrote "the Free City protested against the Westerplatte depot

(I guess the Germans are responsible for everything)

• you have removed the opinion of the court, (which AGAIN demonstrates the lack of so-called "semi-autonomy")

• Poland, in spite of being 33% full of minorities, is refered to as the "Polish state"...Danzig, a 95% German city, is referred to as "the city" and its people are referenced with "its populace"

• Poland's challenge to the statute refusing Poles dual citizenship has been removed. Geo-G. Chrisholm's opinion as to why this was an important part of the German-Polish conflict has also been removed

• Poland's building of Gdynia, a port that served more of a purpose than munitions storage, has been put into this context. The facts supporting its building in another context, as a deliberate violation of the spirit of the Free City arrangement, have been removed. For example: that Gdynia was built from scratch, took over Danzig's work in spite of the promise that it wouldn't...the Polish claim that Danzig was too small to be a deep-water port, etc.

• all mentions of the tariff war have been removed; no mention of Poland's decision to boycott the city and its effects in the midst of the Great Depression. And, furthermore, there is no mention that Poland never officially called an end to the boycott, merely said it would "see what it could do" - which was, more or less, no longer promote it.

• The discussion of Germany's attempt to renegotiate Danzig's position has been removed, as well as Poland's position in lieu of these talks.

• The section no longer notes that Poland transformed the Free City installations it controlled into war installations.

• Buckhardt's opinion and Francis Yeats-Brown's opinion about the Danzig crisis have been removed.

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

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

Other points:

• The source given for the supposedly murdered political opponents in the Free City does not mention murder.

• You wrote: "Albert Forster became the Gauleiter in October 1930. Under his tenure, in 1933, the Nazis won 50 percent of votes in the Volkstag elections." I changed this sentence the first time around, before you reverted it, because it implies that the Nazis won 50 percent of the votes because of Forster.

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