Talk:Oder–Neisse line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Western border more secure?[edit]

A little less strange, but misplaced: why is a border more westward more secure/proper - I don't know (though one reason I've seen given is that it was the "shortest possible border between Poland and Germany"), but it doesn't matter. The article text doesn't say that a westward moved border was more secure. It says that it was perceived that way by some politicians. Two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To me this claim is dubious. It does not make sense by itself.The readers will start scratching their heads and either question the logic of our text or the people whose thoughts we assume noteworthy. Both does not appear wise to me. Tomeasy T C 22:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What claim is dubious? The fact that some Polish politician and activists believed it? Why? Anyway - it's sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Re: [1] with edit summary: not in cit. given; requ. cit.; map doesn't illustrate "pre-war" border, similar map already used

First, what exactly is "not in citation given"? I'm having trouble making out what you're referring to. Second, of course the map doesn't illustrate the "pre-war" border, that's why it's caption says "Piast Poland during the rule of Bolesław III Wrymouth". It illustrates the text "The Oder Neisse border had existed previously as border between Holy Roman Empire and the Polish Piast state from 10th through 13th century." If you want to suggest a change to the caption that's fine but don't just remove it.

Re: [2] with edit summary: img illustrates "myśl zachodnia"

What do you base the claim that it illustrates MZ on? Do you have a source? Even if, obviously the caption is misleading - this was NOT a "Polish propaganda poster", rather it was some strange map that didn't have anything to do with official Polish government, its stance or anything of the kind. There's no obvious connection between that map and the text of the article - its inclusion is gratuitous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1) To quote the Historical Dictionary of Poland: "Duríng the tenth through thirteenth centuries, lower Odra formed the Western border of Poland."[3]
that sentence was used as a source for:"The Oder Neisse border had existed previously as border between Holy Roman Empire and the Polish Piast state from 10th through 13th century"
In fact the source says nothing at all about the Oder-Neisse border. "Lower Odra" is hardly identical with the modern border, the Neisse is hardly close to the area of the "lower Odra" and the Pomeranian Oder wasn't a border at all. Other user might call such a "simplification" manipulative.
2) The section is named "Pre-war German-Polish border", a map showing the 10th century border is a) rather confusing under that headline and b) there is a very similar map already included in the "recovered territories" section. One map should be enough.
3) A propaganda poster is not necessarily governmental, that the "myśl zachodnia" wasn't an official position of the pre-war government is clearly depicted. The map shows however so obviously the aims of "myśl zachodnia", that I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't use it. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Herkus, I am still waiting for your reponse to the essential issue,mainly what sources claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line? Unless such information will be provided this entry seems largely synthesis and needs to be trimmed. A propaganda poster is not necessarily governmental-source please that this a propaganda poster. The map shows however so obviously the aims of "myśl zachodnia"-I see no source confirming your claim. Is that your unsourced opinion? If so than it is purely a Original Research. No source claims this is a propaganda poster, nor any source claims that this part of myśl zachodnia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1)The same source does discuss the Oder-Neisse border - it says "the great powers sharply disagreed on the location of the new border. According to the Soviets, it should be along the lower Odra river, and then along its left tributary".
Obviously, the O-N line WAS pretty much the same as the border between HRE and Piast Poland between 10-13th century. It sounds like you're trying to use the fact that it wasn't "precisely" exactly the same as an excuse to remove the fact that it was essentially the same. There are multiple sources which discuss the connection between the boundaries of Poland during the Piast period and those instituted after World War II.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
2)Which section a particular image is included in has less to do with the appropriate section but rather with HOW IT LOOKS in the article. The reason why this map was put in the "Pre-war German-Polish border" section was not because that's what it showed (obviously) but because putting it in that place in the raw text made the map APPEAR in the appropriate section. I'm gonna put it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, scratch that. It's pretty obvious that the image is supposed to illustrate the sentence given above. Hence it very clearly belongs in there. I might retitle the section though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
3) Well, the first problem is that this wasn't even a poster - where did that come from? Second, I don't think it is at all "clearly depicted" that MZ wasn't official. In fact text which sought to clarify this was removed (by either you or Miacek, I can't remember).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention that myśl zachodnia is very varied, there are numerous scholars and numerous theories and proposition, it never was clearly defined. It's just basically the study of Western Poland. You would have to be clear about who specific you are writing about. Plus they didn't lay claims on Czech Republic. The map is basically unsourced, and allegation that it is "propaganda poster" dubious and unsourced as well. Not to mention that its introduction is pure Synth.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually was the term "Mysl Zachodnia" even used in interwar Poland? Or was it a later application of the term? Anyway, "Mysl Zachodnia" basically involved the "academic study of Western Slavic territories from a non-German-centric perspective" or something like that. It is somewhat related to this topic but really, only tangentially.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
1)Lerski does not say, the Oder-Neisse line formed the Polish-HRE border, he refers to the "lower Odra". A source should support the claim, not just something similar.
Unfortunately Google shows only a snippet view of page 4 of Lukowski/Zawadzki, however to quote them:"In the forty or so years after the Second World War, Polish historiography was want to depict a "Piast Poland" whose boundaries were curiously congruent...."[4]
Maybe somebody could quote the rest of that sentence. Their emphasizing of the "forty years after WW II" indicates something has changed meanwhile. There's no doubt that the traditional post-war Polish historiography adopted "Mysl Zachodnia" and propagated a "Piast concept" of Poland. However, we are not here to propagate an outdated Polish POV (at least, I'm not). HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I don't quite get what your objection is. The fact that the present Polish-German border is pretty close to the border from the 10th-13th centuries Piast Poland and HRE is true. Isn't it? You seem to be objecting to the inclusion of this fact based that no source states this in precisely those words. But the sources do allude to this fact (quite frequently actually). So again, I'm not seeing what the problem is.
And let me back up the request to establish some kind of link between Mysl Zachodnie and the Allied decision at Potsdam.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to provide a source for a non-existent claim. The adoption of "mysl zachodnia" "shaped the political culture of the People’s Republic of Poland" and the "Piast concept" provided the intellectual justification of the Oder-Neisse line. That’s why it needs to be mentioned. How Wojciechowki's (he was head of the Western bureau of the underground government) views influenced the Polish government in Exile or the Lublin Committee would be too detailed, though "mysl zachodnia" would deserve its own article.
Could you please outline, which part of that section is exactly synthesis? I don’t see anything like that, except what you might guess what a reader might think about it. But the reader’s ability to think on his own is not WP:SYNTH. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
For starters, the fact that the info is in a section entitled "Allied considerations during the war" - but there is zero evidence or sources to indicate that the pre-war views of this fringe group had any bearing what so ever on "Allied considerations during the war".Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a point - was the Polish exile/underground government member of the "Allies"? However I changed the headline as Wojchiechowski was active in the underground state. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's a little better but not much. Now the section starts with "During the interwar period..." but is entitled "Considerations during the war". That's obviously self-contradictory.
Also, the fact that Wojciechowski was part of anti-Nazi resistance is not all that significant here. Who wasn't? (Rhetorical question). Lots of Poles of all kinds of political views and persuasions were. Yes, he was part of it and worked for them but so did many others. I think you're really trying to stretch here to make this connection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Herkus you still haven't provided sources that would claim that the fringe group connected to Wojciechowski, Polish western thought had any influence on Allied decisions regarding restoring border at Odra and Nysa known as Oder-Neisse Line. And I guess you don't have them since a lot of time passed since that issue was brought up. You are engaing in WP:UNDUE,WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH.

However I changed the headline as Wojchiechowski was active in the underground state. You are wrong. Wojciechowski was a member of the the Polish undeground, but it consisted of many groups with many ideological beliefs and goals. The one he belonged to was opposed to Polish Government in Exile.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact the whole article is missing information about Allied reasons for establishing the line, position of Polish Government in Exile, instead focusing on a fringe group that had nothing to do with the actual establishment of the border. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC) ~ No Pole had any impact on Joseph Stalin. Prove that Mikołajczyk or Bierut were able to inflouence him.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Re [5]. The map does in fact use the 1939 Nazi census. I'm not seeing where "Polish percentage" is actually in the map so I don't quite see as how the statement that where source is given for polish percentage it refers to the census of 1914,1923,1925 can be accurate or relevant. In some cases, it does have "Percentage of Germans" which is sourced to censuses from 1923/1925 (East Prussia and Pomerania) and Upper Silesia is from 1914 but that doesn't invalidate the point that most of the numbers are from the Nazi census.

While we're on the topic, what's the scholarly opinion like on the reliability of the 1914, 1923, 1925 censuses?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


I removed a fragment: "President Harry S. Truman and British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said that they could not tolerate Polish administration of part of one of the occupation zones (effectively making Poland a fifth occupying power after the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union) and the expulsion of millions of German people from it into other areas.Stalin responded that the Poles were taking revenge for the injuries which the Germans had caused them in the course of centuries"

This is largely a synthesis and manipulation, the pages do not state this in such manner and not in that order. Some of it actually is nowhere to be found-only Stalins remark about injuries is present,but it is in completely different context and situation. The whole Truman claim is nowhere. There is only a statement that there will be no additional occupation zone, and if Poles want to "occupy" something than they will do it on agreement with Soviets.Since territories Poland received weren't occupation zone this does not apply.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fiction by Rummel[edit]

The text [6] is so dumb, that I don't know how to oppose. The subject of Rummel has been discussed several times. Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Oder–Neisse line[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Oder–Neisse line's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bialecki":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

“It was also decided that all Germans remaining in the new and old Polish territory should be expelled.”[edit]

EXACTLY WHO? decided that all Germans east of the Oder-Neisse Line and west of the 1937 Polish border line "should be expelled" . . . What is the name of the International Law Expert who made such a pronouncement? . . . or maybe there was no pronouncement . . . maybe everything was handled on a case by case basis . . . maybe that was the interpretation of the word "Unconditional" in "Unconditional Surrender" -- the "Unconditionals" have no rights . . . Did the International Red Cross report to the Allied Control Commission on the treatment of those particular "Unconditionals"? Does International Law cover the "inspection" of what's going on in "Temporarily Administered Areas"? (The "Temporary" reference is to "pending the Final World War Two Peace Treaty for the Germans" . . . So, in International Law, the "Temporary" nature of those Administered Areas lasted from 1945 to 1990, namely 45 years.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the Potsdam Agreement states that Germans in the Polish Administered areas were to be expelled:

Item 12 of the Potsdam Agreement states in part,

“Orderly transfer of German Populations
The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner.”

Note: International Law does not recognize "Temporarily Administered" areas as constituting a de facto/de jure permanent area of the administering power — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

International Law doesn't allow also extermination of millions, which was a German hobby during the WWII. Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

U.S. General Lucius D. Clay on Expulsions of Germans[edit]

On page 313 of his 1950 book "Decision in Germany" (Garden City, NY: Doubleday), General Clay states in part, "When the Allied Control Council proceeded to implement the Yalta and Potsdam agreements to receive the citizens of German origin from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Austria, it was estimated that these expellees would exceed 3,000,000.[Endnote #13] It was not contemplated that this number would be greatly increased by the expulsion of the Germans in the Polish-administered territories. However, it soon became clear that Poland did intend to expel them and regardless of agreement they soon began to arrive by the thousands and hundreds of thousands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor Americans, they didn't understand what were the rules of cooperation with Joseph Stalin. Or they pretend only to be so naive? Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Roosevelt actually *was* that naive. ("I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man.") (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

East Prussia's strategic position that allegedly undermined the defense of Poland[edit]

Poland1939 GermanPlanMap.jpg

Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

involving 14 million people all together from the whole of Eastern Europe[edit]

An how many from the region East of the O-N ?Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did new Polish settlers come from =[edit]

" In addition to this, the Polish population originating from the eastern half of the former Second Polish Republic, now annexed by the Soviet Union, was mostly expelled and transferred to the newly acquired territories." Most of the new settlers came from Polish mainlans, not from the now Soviet terrotories. This is clear by looking at the numbers: Approx 9 Mio Germans lost their homes, but only 2 Mio Poles in the now Soviet territores lost their homes and needed to resettle.

One should also add, that in this way the teritorial gains from the Soviet Polish war of 1920-21 werre reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C50:100:5:816E:12B3:536:73C (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There where not only Polish given to live in the former German terretories mainly Ukrainians, Mazedonians but even Greeks till now Ukrainian Schoolclasses are existing JB


I think these recent additions focus way too much on the individual position of Konrad Adenauer. It wasn't Adenauer only who didn't recognize the Oder-Neisse-line but the whole political spectrum of West Germany (except Communists) until the late 1960s. This kind of giving undue weight on Adenauer is not surprising as the section is largely based on biographies of Adenauer. While it is completely adequate to focus on Adenauer's view in an Adenauer-biography, it is not a good idea to reduce the whole topic just to what Adenauer thougt or did. The section needs some balance. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A minor point: Usually the decisive date to define all of Germany (West German definition) is the 31 December 1937, not the 1 January 1937. Do the sources really use that date? HerkusMonte (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
To fully describe Adenauer's position regarding Poland his inclusion of former Nazis in the German government(who advocated extermination of Poles like Oberlander) should be added alongside his amnesty for over 700,000 Nazi war criminals, including several thousands involved in murder.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that German parties actually demanded border of 1914 not 1937[edit]

For example this poster by SPD demanded German borders from 1914 [7] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

German reunification and the Oder-Neisse-line[edit]

I think this section needs work. The narrative presented here at the moment is that Helmut Kohl refused to accept the Oder-Neisse-line before unification and even hinted at a change of borders after unification, maybe even by use of force.

Now, I think there is a broad consensus that Kohl caused much avoidable irritation, both domestically and internationally, when he wasn't as outspoken about confirming the border as he could have been (aparently trying to postpone alienating the expellee federations as late as possible). But he never hinted at a change of borders, maybe even by force. I know that he said the exact opposite, verbatim. He said "Nobody in Europe wants a change of borders, I don't know how to clarify this any further". The actual core of the issue between Warsaw and Bonn back then isn't covered in the present article section: Warsaw wanted a confirmation of Poland's land gains before a unification of the two German rest-states was to occur. Bonn insisted that only a unified German sovereign could make such a binding comitment, therefore this would have to wait until after unification. The international irritation was, however, big enough for Kohl and many other political leaders to state publicly from February 1990 onwards that a confirmation of the border was the only thing that was going to happen after unification. And that's exactly what was done in November 1990. Not such a change of tracks on the German side as the article suggests at present.Lookoo (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)