Jump to content

Talk:Oder–Neisse line/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

user:H.J.

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for German revanchism. It is also not the place to post speeches, regardless of what they contain. Nor is it a place to write "No alterations allowed" as this violates the very core principle of Wikipedia--"merciless editing." I removed the piece and request that one of the sys-ops removed the article too, unless it contain real some information. Danny

Danny, Mac, Vickie.

First of all, when one shows the exact text of a recorded speech, it must not be editing. I tried to formulate this better. If anyone has an even better phrase, please post it under the speech.

The 32 page copy of the speech by the Hon. B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee in the House of Representatives May 16,1957 contains a lot of important information and this part that I posted here is in connection to the question put up by Roadrunner on Winston Churchill.

Perhaps someone can inform me , if it would be legal for me to post the complete text of the speech.

A suggestion, Danny why don't you keep your name-calling to yourself. user:H.J.

Actually, if you look again you will see that I have only called you user:H.J., which I believe is your name. And no, you cannot post the whole speech. It is not what Wikipedia is about. We do not have the Gettysburg Address, nor do we have MLK's I have a dream speech. There is no justification whatsoever for this one. Danny

Danny Then I am to assume that (posting articles called by you) "German revanchism" is meant do be a compliment ? !

On the matter of posting a complete text, how do you expect to know all of it, when you are not interested in posting all of it (text, etc). Does that not leave you vulnerable to condensed versions, sloganism , false perceptions etc, which are often far removed from the actual facts ?

user:H.J.

user:H.J., please see what wikipedia is not number 12. If you think the speech is important enough, then please provide an external weblink to it after a brief summary. ---maveric149, Monday, July 8, 2002

Maveric, there is no external weblink. All I could find , that there is a B.C.R. museum in Tennessee. I have now posted the title of the documented speech with the numbers mentioned. Perhaps someone can make something of these numbers. What is the legal stand on someone other than wiki posting the text, do you know ? Then we could refer to that url. user:H.J.

user:H.J.: One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that everything can be edited. If something shouldn't be edited, it doesn't belong here.

More to the point, this is not a place to rehash every argument in the last fifty, or five thousand, years. Let alone every speech made in the US House of Representatives, most of which were made to impress constituents, not to influence legislation. Many aren't actually delivered on the floor at all, only inserted into the Congressional Record. An article on the Oder-Neisse line might plausibly include a note that this person made a speech on the subject, if he was otherwise important or if the speech influenced events. Vicki Rosenzweig

Following up to myself: user:H.J., you have your own off-Wikipedia homepage. It would be perfectly reasonable for you to put the speech in question there, and use that as the off-Wiki link for people who want to consult it. Vicki Rosenzweig

Moved this article to Oder-Neisse line.

The material in question still says absolutely nothing, except that someone talked about it in Congress. I would venture to say that someone talked about just about anything in Congress. That is not information worthy of inclusion. Until it can be proved otherwise, I have deleted it. Danny

Old talk

(German:Danzig)

I copied the staff from Pomerania page, that is more relevant to Oder_Neisse page. However, I have no idea how to fit it into the latter. " The allied powers (United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union) at the Yalta and Potsdam peace conferences in 1945 have decided to move Polish borders to the West, and have allowed the governments of Poland and Czechoslovakia to resettle the German citizens, that remained on their territories.

Polish version of what happened: As a result of the Allies (including Poland) winning the war with Nazi Germany, Poland managed to take back the territories lost in September 1939 and previous wars. (Please take into account, that local names in Pomerania, were actually Germanised Polish names. The same is related to most of names in Mecklenburg. i.e. names ending in German version -itz, Rakowitz, is Polish name of Rakowiec and means "Place full of gambas") ")

German version of what happened: Most of Pomerania, including its largest city, Stettin, was put under "temporary" Polish administration pending ratification of a peace treaty with Germany, which never occurred. (Borders were acknowledged by neighbouring German state, East Germany in the treaty of 1950. West Germany acknowledged the borders in 1970 treaty with Poland, while unified Germany closed finally border issue in the unification treaty in 1990). Those German inhabitants who had not fled were expropriated and expelled. (German citizens, that convinced Verification Commitiees, that they are of Polish origins, were granted Polish citizenship.) Eventually the area was repopulated by Polish settlers, many of them from the eastern parts of prewar Poland annexed by the Soviet Union. The name of Stettin was changed to the Polish Szczecin and all other German place names were similarly Polonized.


A.M.

Removed....

A 1957 meeting in the House of Representatives recorded details of the Expulsions and Ethnic Cleansing of Germans by the Communist Soviet Union and Poland and denounced the occupation by Soviet Union and Poland of German territory east of the Oder and Neisse as illegal.

It would be worth mentioning if the U.S. House of Representatives denounced the occupation as illegal. It didn't. One member wrote one speech which denounced it, and this is below the threshold of things worth mentioning.

First of all, there needs to be some statement as to what the Bierut decree is. Second, illegal in whose viewpoint.


The denial to renounce the illegal Bierut decree is a nother complication.

Removed line about illegal occupation. First of all, Soviet power is no longer relevant. Second, virtually everyone (including both the German and Polish governments) do not consider the territory illegally occupied or part of Germany at all. Some people might, but they are in very small minority.

Why are the Poles so paranoid about Germans owning land? its not as if the Germans are "evil" or anything...

Maybe it has something to do with the millions of Polish citizens who were murdered by Germans the last time those very same Germans "owned" land in Poland.

Maybe the Poles are "evil"...? SC

That's not a question: it's an advocacy statement about one side of an ongoing dispute. Hence, I've moved it here:

"Right or Wrong, Legal and Moral Question

It must be pointed out that it is by international law illegal to expel original inhabitants of military occupied land and then to 'replace' them with ones own people. Those people, which support and justify the implementation of these (by international law illegal) acts, started before and agreed on after the war at the Potsdam Conference, do not wish to have attention raised to the question of legal or moral justification of these acts. They seek to discredict with demeaning slogans and name-calling anyone pointing to the legal and moral Right or Wrong question of the Potsdam decisions. " 

Vicki Rosenzweig

Right versus Wrong

The Oder-Neisse line and the Curzon line have both been created by murderous decisions and actions.

It must be pointed out that International Law states. that it is illegal to expel original inhabitants of military occupied land and then to 'replace' them with ones own people.

Supporters, who justify the implementation of these (supposed by international law illegal) acts, started before and agreed on after the war at the Potsdam Conference, do not wish to have attention raised to the alleged illegality and immorality of these acts, resulting in millions of death. There are those who declare the outcome of the Potsdam Conference right and seek to discredict with demeaning slogans and name-calling anyone pointing to the illegal and immoral wrongs of the outcome of the Potsdam decisions.

Ex post facto. This particular crime was, I believe, outlawed in the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, therefore several years after the Potsdam Conference.

Please note the Nuremberg Trials.

The other thing to point out is that international law is determined by the comity of nations, and there is no reason under international law to give the Geneva Conventions a higher status than the Potsdam Declaration even if the Geneva Conventions were violated (and there are about five or six ways to argue that they weren't). Something else to consider is that there is a lot of bad stuff that is permissible under international law.

Mentioning the status of the Oder-Neisse line under international law from a NPOV standpoint would be useful. But the above passages don't make it.

What does it mean

The exile Polish government in London was dimissed, as Stalin said, for being 'too friendly to Germany'."

Who dismissed the government ?

Mr. Stalin himself!

To User:Kpjas

The Polish Exile government in London firmly refused to abandon the principle of territorial integrity.

In April 1943 the Soviet Union broke relations with the Polish government in exile, after the discovery of the murders of the Polish officers at Katyn. In July 1944 the Soviet Red Army entered Poland and established a communist controlled "Polish Committee of National Liberation' at Lublin. Following the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945, Polish Provisional Government of National Unity" was formed in June 1945, the US recognized it the next month. Although the Yalta Conference called for free elections, those held in Jan 1947 were controlled by the communist party. The communists estasblished a regime entirely under their domination.

Excerpt from Henry Bogdan: From Warsaw to Sofia http://www.hungary.com/corvinus/lib/bogdan/bogdan25.htm and: AIESEC world discovery plus a lot more on google.com

user:H.J.

The article currently reads "It must be pointed out that the brutal expulsions by the Soviets and the condoning of this genocide has directly lead to many more ethnic cleansings in the last 50 years.


"Must be pointed out" is hardly NPOV. The statement itself needs support--one might equally well claim that the Trail of Tears was the direct cause of those ethnic cleansings. That two actions are seen as similar doesn't mean that one caused the other: or shall we edit this article to say that "it must be pointed out" that German policies between 1933 and 1945 were the direct cause of the expulsions being discussed here? Vicki Rosenzweig

Could someone who actually knows about this replace "ethnically cleansed" with something more accurate -- are we talking pure genocide? Choice of expulsion or death? If genocide, are we talking about people rounded up and murdered, or dead as a result of other policies? Ethnic cleansing is just so inaccurate and can also be misleading, as it means many things to many people. JHK

Ukranians are expelled and also come in to take over German property? Which is it? Rmhermen 15:35 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

Rmherman, Ukrainians had come under Polish rule after 1921/22 war Poland/Soviet Union. Stalin took this land in 1939 and kept it in 1945 (Curzon Line or land East of the Bug River). Warsaw Polish government moved people from East of the Bug river (for example Lwow to Breslau/Wroclaw) into German land east of the Oder-Neisse, from where they expelled Germans. user:H.J.

Then they were relocated not expelled. But if they were trying to build a Polish only state, why didn't they expell them? Rmhermen 15:47 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

I propose redirecting the Odra-Nysa line and Oder-Neisse line articles to German-Polish border or border between Germany and Poland.

I'd like the article to begin with a brief, dispassionate paragraph mentioning the two main English variants of the name of this border (in alphabetical order):

  • Oder-Neisse line
  • Odra-Nyas line

The paragraph could mention that the derivations of each variant from the German and Polish languages. --Uncle Ed 16:22 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

We may do that, but I think, a placement under Oder-Neisse line is fine as well. Everyone but Taw has agreed to this. Do what you think best. -- Cordyph 16:37 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I just moved the page back to Oder-Neisse line. To anyone, who might have the idea of moving it back to Odra-Nysa line: Please have a look at this talk page and see, why this page goes under this title. -- Cordyph 11:08 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Can someone fix this - alot of pro-Polish stuff has been added by a newbie and some stuff deleted that shouldnt have been - the article has become very incoherent as a result

PMelvilleAustin 14:25, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

It is a complete mess now. What do you think about reverting to the version before the first edit of October 14. The article had been okay then, and almost every edit by 212.144.140.68 and 145.254.x.x appears to be redundant. There are several facts, that do not belong here, but to the articles History of Poland and History of Germany. If I do not hear an objection, I will revert to that earlier version and afterwards try to improve the article. That is much easier than cleaning the mess. -- Cordyph 07:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Do it mate PMelvilleAustin 08:02, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, done. I reverted to the version before October 14 and then re-inserted some of the stuff added by 145.254.x.x. The stuff added by 212.144.140.68 did not belong here, since it described events in Poland during World War II, which had nothing to do with the Oder Neisse line. In addition I changed some sentences myself. I hope you agree with these changes. --

Cordyph 12:29, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What happneed during WWII has a lot of to do with the Oder Neisse line.

I am trying to merge both versions. GH

How many Poles from Polish minority ( os called autochtones ) in Germany was allowed to tsya in Poland after WWII?? szopen

2 200 000 were expelled out of 3500 000 (population of the former German territories. There were also 3 500 000 Volksdeutsche from pre 1939 Poland. I don't know how many of them were expelled.GH

There is some inconsistency here with numbers. I've read following numbers: 2,2 million expelled, 2,5 million, 3,5 million, 5,5 million, 6, 5million or even 10 million. The number of dead is from 415.000 to 3,2 million (which is higher than what officially is number of expelled Germans!) Maybe we should add the note tht 2,2 millions expelled is official estimation, and a lot of Germans also escaped earlier, and total number... etc etc? szopen

@Taw, Morwen, Hephaestos and SecretLondon. Especially for Taw. Could you possibly explain what are trying to achieve by constantly moving this page? Since this is an english wikipedia the correct name is Oder Neisse Line (see Britannica Online [[1]]). Changing to Odra-Nysa is completely foolish and childish. Now imagine if some Englishman kept changing pl:Londyn to London, or pl:Nowy Jork to New York? Again, what are you trying to achieve? It looks like pointless de-germanisation of english names. Greetings from Szczecin near the Oder river.Przepla 20:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The other river is Nysa Luzycka, not just a Nysa -- cc, 04:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Most of the articles are so Por-Poland that there's always about German aggression during WWII and how the Nazis ill-treated the Polish. Most do not want to report on how Poland backstab Czechoslovakia when she annexed Teschin right after the Nazi Wehrmacht move into Sudentenland. I think the greatest evil are the Russians as Stalin is more lebensraum minded than the Germans. Yes, he gets East Poland from Poland, but now it belongs to Belarus and Ukraine. And now Russia is only left with tiny Kaliningrad. I think Kaliningrad should return to Germany for better administration and developments.

POland took over Polish Zaolzie against Munich. And as reaction of earlier Czech invasion in 1920 (or so) when Czechs took over area violating earlier agreements. And later they forced Poles to recognise that facts, when Soviet army was at gates of Warsaw. Czechs were hyenas in 1920 - I would say that our action was justified, only timing was not.
I do not agree with you. Germans expelled million Poles from their homes and killed about 4-5 millions of them. Soviets expelled about 5 million and killed at most one million, but more probably half million (includign victims of civil war post 1945).
Anyway, mentioning that Nazis ill-treated Poles is not pro-Polish. It is just fact.
BTW, my wife's mother has name Maria. As many of her friends. You know why? Because during war some local Nazis decided, that Polish girls can be only named with Maria.

szopen

Well, the Poles get their revenge when the war concluded by expelling the Germans from their home. I would say the victors always have their final say on how history will be written. The ugly side of them will always be justified as necessary. Germany has done a great evil on her neighbours during WWII and deserved her punishment, but the price to pay in term of territory lost is just too great.

well,i am foreinger and has a question.Since Oder-Neisse line along Oder-Neisse river is a natural boundary, why the city of stettin,which is obvious on the west side of the river, now belongs to poland? can anyone answer me?

As mentioned in the article itself, Stettin _was_ originally going to stay German but was given in compensation for Stalin taking the northen half of East Prussia including Kaliningrad.
The same reason is why there was so much "ethnic cleansing" - the originally planned "Oder-eastern Neisse" boundary would have left much of Silesia - and most of the Germans in the Oder-Neisse areas - as part of Germany. For all the "rights based on the 11th Century" talk among many Poles alot of the current borders were achieved by pure luck for them. PMA 09:48, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
Few toughts from a Pole in Szczecin (Stettin). Current anti-German sentiments on Wiki are unfortunately results of an 45 years indoctrination by Communists Goverments. Historically, Polish-German relations were much more peaceful than Polish-Russian. For instance Polish-German borders established in 15th century were unchanged until partions in 1764, while Polish-Russian were in constant flux -- Polish troops even occupied Moscow in 1605, and 1610-1611. Partitions of Poland were in fact results of plots by Russian Empire. Kosciuszko's, as well as January and November uprisings (in 1793, 1831 and 1863) were against Russia. Only Russia sent Poles to the Asia as a punishment. Poland was again invaded by Russia in 1920, and backstabed in 1939. While Nazis atrocities were mainly targeted agains Jewish population in Poland, Soviet Russia targeted Polish inteligetzia (most educated persons -- teachers, military officers, scientists and the like). After 1945 Poland was practically occupied by Soviet Union. All those anti-Russian facts, had to be somewhat minimalized. Hence the propaganda of evil Germans. Most historical films were about three, relatively short periods -- Teutonic Knights, Kulturkampf and Nazi Occupation. To convince Poles that border shifts were justified, the idea of borders from 1025 AD was concieved -- as current Poland's border are the same as in 1025 AD. (One may ask why not the 1500 borders when Poland had border with Black Sea, or 1550 when Poland possessed current territories of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). The fact is, that Szczecin is as German as Lwów (Lviv) is Polish. (I mean Lwów is essentially a Polish city, and Szczecin is essentially German.) (Berlin was a slavic settlement initially -- it does not however make it Polish city).
Oficially Berlin is 20% Slavic 30%German, 20%French and 30% Jewish city, b yhistory Cautious 17:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So Poles were indoctrinated by over 45 years. Anti-German sentiments fortunately are lowering, especially (and ironically) on West Poland -- e.g. in recent poll for a most distingushed citizen of Szczecin highest places receive German mayors: Haken and Ackermann. Most pro-EU were Poles living in the West, as they already know most their western allies.Przepla 23:59, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that borders shift was Yalta Treaty idea. Poles definitelly didn't want to give up Lwów and Wilno (Vilnus), as those cities were our homeland, not some God-forsaken western cities...
The most (and only) anti-German political party (LPR -- League of Polish Families), is nick-named Friends of Russia League, as their rhetoric is in fact the same as of Communists -- attack Germans so people don't realize that real enemy is Russia.
So this is inside of Polish society. (No doubt I will be called traitor now by some zealot.)Przepla 23:59, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that here in wikipedia we have a group, that wants to repeat the version of history, that were Nazi times propaganda. Cautious 17:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let's not get races hatred into our minds. The peace between Germans and Poles should always be preserved and cherished. Well, maybe a United European State could solve years of uneasyness.

The whole "Polish preventing Germans buying land" sticks in my throat in particular - it's stupid, bigoted, bizarre and paranoid IMHO but then given the vocalness of the "11th Century rights" people i shouldnt be all that surprised at the bigotry. PMA 06:33, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

@Wik: Could you kindly explain why inserting puppet was non-NPOV? Those goverments were in fact puppet govts, aren't they? Przepla 22:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, that's just your POV. --Wik 22:48, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
Changing former 'puppet's to 'Soviet satellite state's. No one can argue they were independant nations only in name. Jor 22:59, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Seems OK for me. I concur with your Posen solution in Szczecin BTW Przepla 23:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


TO HISTORY OF THE LINE Sorry but the Germans where expelled from German territories not now Polish os Soviet territories as their was no peace treaty till 1990. It was although not ethnical Cleansing as there can be only cleansing when their is a mixed Population 95 % of this areas where pure German so it was simply a ethnical change of population. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.124.6 (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'Today and the future' section

Do we need this section? I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to NPOV-ify it, and most of the info seems to me to belong to the Heimatvertriebene article. Jor 19:56, 14 February 2004 (UTC)

Historical facts

As a rationale to reverting changes made byUser:66.47.62.78 I'd like to point out:

  • borders in Silesia were decided by Silesian Uprisings after plebiscite's results were deemed unapropriate by Poles (plebiscite were held during Polish-Soviet war, so many people decided to vote for safe Germany, and mainland Germans were permitted to vote, providing they were merely born on Silesia and moved to Mainland later),
  • Silesia would be more appropriate discussion of those changes,
  • Poznan is Polish teritorry. It is a capitol of Greater Poland region for Merlin's beard! Przepla 21:37, 14 February 2004 (UTC)

More Historical facts

The plebiscite vote in that part of Silesia by Silesians was 4 to 7 for Germany. Period. Then agitators arrived from Poland and stirred the ethnic Polish Silesians up.

I have no idea what Merlin's beard is supposed to reference to.

I don't deny that. Silesia was at that time very ethnically mixed. 4/7 vote means that 57% voted for Germany, while 43% for Poland. Close call, one would say. Now, imagine allegations about falsifications, refusing of postponing plebiscite until after Polish-Soviet war was concluded, etc. No wonder that Poles revolt. You stated that vote was 4 to 7 and yet Poland get the land. In fact vote was 4 to 7 then Poles revolt, and Leauge of Nations due to uprisings gave this land to Poland. If vote went the other way (i.e. 4 to 7 in favour of Poland), I believe that the Germans would revolt. With such strong ethnically mixed population problems are unavoidable. To add problems to that picture, some significant number at that time asked if they are Poles or German would answer: neither of them, they are Silesians. So whole situation was nobody-wins one. Neverthless, this is beyond scope of this article. for Merlin's beard is my way of saying for God's sake -- taken from Harry Potter I believe. Przepla 01:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hallo Przepla, I noticed, that you are pretty new, welcome! It seems that you are living in Stettin? A student from Danzig university told me, that in order to study, the students all have to learn German and English. Is that so in Stettin as well? I went through there by train in 2002 along the Baltic Sea from Berlin to Danzig and Elbing. Hope to go there again soon. I wish I could tell you, that this wikipedia is a nice place, but I can't. There are very nice people here, but unfortunately there are many very agressive, pigheaded, unpleasant people with a really nasty attitude. I think you may have already noticed it a litle bit. I have already compared this place to a viper's nest or horniss nest. Lot of times they tend to gang up. It is often best to stand back. At the moment it is actually much better than it used to be, believe it or not.

There are so many gross mistakes on wikipedia especially on the history articles and it is really frustrating, when mistake and distortions get input over and over, especially those vicious attacks. I came across the following on wikipedia and am putting it here for more details :1921 Plebiscite in Silesia and Korfanty led violence. I know that a place in Silesia was renamed to Korfanty. On the Merlin's beard, I guess I am a little past the Harry Potter years. Do they have the books in Poland as well ? I started a lot of articles on wikipedia and contributed quite a bit. For some time I got so sick of wikipedia, I stopped. Now I do not even put my name to it. My friends know who I am. MfG

Hello. I don't consider myself new, since I am here since summer, but natuarally this is a relative matter and I am personally using Internet since 1998 and consider all who does not use it for more than 3 years newbies too ;-). So I am already aware of intrisincs of Wikipedia and conflicts which occur. I don't know if I am refering to the same problem as you, but Wiki's conflicts indeed are much less common now, than last summer. Regarding using German and English in Polish schools, those two languages are indeed taught at every level of education. I myself speak only English, as I was too old to catch up with current trends in education. Regading Harry Potter, I shall respond with this quote from C.S. Lewis: When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. I am 26 years old, by the way. Regarding Polish-German relations, I must say they are thriving. Szczecin's University (where I've got my Masters Degree in Law, and Bachelors Degree in Physics) have very strong relations with Rostock's University. My entire year had a 2 weeks interniship there and some significant number are studying there. One of my friends is even doing her doctorate in Rostock. As you are anonymous, feel free to use my talk page to further communicate with me. Przepla 14:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I separately want to address historical issues mentioned by you. You should be aware, that Korfanty is Polish national hero, for securing possesion of some parts of Silesia. Poland was at time non-existant for over 180 years, and it was crucial to further existence of nation, to have some economically important areas of Silesia. (My data are stating 29% of area and 46% of population). Within that conflicts there was no good side and bad side. Both sides were equally wrong, and I'd call Korfanty's led violence a NPOV title. Przepla 14:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Polish restrictions on the sale of property to foreigners".

Although there is some politics in it, the rationale of these decisions is mainly economical. The unrestricted land trade may turn the real estate market upside down due to land price differences and purchasing power of Poles and Western Europeans. The restrictions are temporary as it is believed the economic differences would gradually diminish after Polish EU accession. This is the same reason Germany and Austria introduced restritions in labor transfer.

I might add, that it is said that land trade restrictions were negotiated in exchange for 12 years restriction in unlimited Polish labour in Germany. Przepla 14:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
These restritions in labor migration are 7 years. In fact, land sale restritions are more complicated. It's at most 12 years. Some types of real estate are less restricted.Poszwa 16:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, for clearing this up. I knew that there was 12 years for something, but wasn't exactly sure for what. Przepla 18:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the whole article, I think it needs some major rewrite. I'm Polish and therefore biased but I think there are too few facts and too many unnecessary emotions. The information about expelled German should go to separate article. The Nazi/Soviet/Communist crimes and Polish/German wrongdoings are mostly irrelevant here. I find German Wikipedia entry de:Oder-Neiße-Grenze more NPOV than this one. Poszwa 11:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Answer in reference to this earlier message:

"Polish version of what happened: As a result of the Allies (including Poland) winning the war with Nazi Germany, Poland managed to take back the territories lost in September 1939 and previous wars. (Please take into account, that local names in Pomerania, were actually Germanised Polish names. The same is related to most of names in Mecklenburg. i.e. names ending in German version -itz, Rakowitz, is Polish name of Rakowiec and means "Place full of gambas")

"territories lost in September 1939 and previous wars": "previous wars" ??? Previous wars such as in the 11th Century ?? Who keeps a score card of such events, such as a list of battles from the 11th Century ?? How many cases have been brought up in the World Court, in referencing Geneva protocols, etc., over issues from the 11th Century ???? Before attending to such matters maybe the champions of such ideas as, pay-back for an 11th Century event, should determine what level of great-grandparent they had in place at the time of the 11th Century. Getting distressed over perceived mistreatment of a 18th level or so great-grandparent is a bit absurd. BTW, 1st level greatgrandparents number 8, and the number is doubled with each preceding generation (example, 2nd level g-grandparents number 16, 3rd 32; 4th 64; 5th 128; 6th 256; 7th 512; 8th 1024; 9th 2048; 10th 4096; 11th 8912; 12th 16,384; 13th 32,768; 14th 65,536; 15th 131,072; 16th 262,144; 17th 524,288; 18th 1,048,576; etc.). It would appear that many Poles and Germans are related to one another. JJ

I just came across this propaganda by the previous writer ref.-itz I suppose the person that wrote about the Germanised Polish names would insist, that the German language words: Sitz, Blitz, Witz, Hitze are all Polish- of course- ??

F(a)ctually: S-itz Place, location, seat = Sitz in German (such as in seat of government, a place to sit, to sit down = setzen (G), I sit = ich sitze(G) Old German Saxon sete

You might be interested to find out,that modern German language words,such as:

Sitz = (seat or location), Blitz= thunder, lightning, Witz = joke, Hitze= heat

were spelled in c.1400 as follows:

  • Hitze = hiczcze
  • Blitz = bliczcze,
  • Zeh = cze, engl. toe
  • Zahn = czan engl. tooth

So much for the 'Polish' place names -itz

To Poszwa and Przepla, I had written a long 10 point answer, but I guess it was too long, it disappeared before I could push submit. Will answer again at some other time.

Just short. You are welcome to start an article on Korfanty and his times. Yes, it was a terrible time in Europe, dictated by outside forces and hopefully the united Europe can better than previously withstand agitators from within and without.

On Oder Neisse line. Americans, many, are only interested in propaganda, feel-good, fast(food), easy, simple, simplistic answers and especially war propagandas( Lets blow-em all up). Book stores are still full of rows after rows of Nazi 'crimer fighter' books and only maybe feature one book each on the larger states of Europe. Hopefully Wikipedia, despite all its flaws can educate people a litle more. So far Wikipedia is still full of slanted material, misstatements and attacks by groups. There are some pretty good articles, as long as they are not about any controversal material. There are very nice wikipedians, but there are a whole bunch of roughies and ganging up is constantly going on. I basically have quit contributing because of the often hostile environment.

To 66.47.62.78:

Actually, my version of the history is: As a result of the Allies (including Poland) winning the war with Nazi Germany, Poland managed to take back the territories lost in September 1939 and also some of the territory that was lost in the previous wars (some of them very long ago, some of the land might have never been Polish, it doesn't matter much). However, the legal pre-war government in excile wanted the pre-1939 borders only. Stalin decided the eastern part of Poland, east of Bug river would go to the Soviets and decided that to compensate the loss, Poland would get eastern part of defeated Germany. After the war, Poland had to accept the status quo. The (communist) government propaganda sold it to the Poles as a good deal as a return of the land lost long time ago. Poland, however, got a net loss of the territory, from 388,000 sq km to 312,000 sq km. The country was devastated and several million people got killed, many were displaced. I would say that despite "winning" the war, Poland lost more than Germany (although I won't argue about it). The displacement of the peaple was a tragic consequence of the war and the resulting change of the borders.

Concerning Polish/German names of the towns. The problem is not yet solved. Both Slavs and Germans borrowed names from each other. We know that Slavs lived on the present Polish areas from 6th century. We don't know what was before. Vistula for example is probably a Celtic name. Some of the names are certainly older and borrowed from earlier tribes. There is, however, no doubt that Poles (or other Slavic tribes) lived in most (if not all) area of current Poland around 11th century. This includes areas east of Oder-Neisse line. Some of the Slavs lived also west of Oder-Neisse line (see Sorbs).

After that, due to loss of control, intrest from Polish kings, (mostly peaceful) migration of Germans and influence of German culture, some of the area got German inhabitants, in some areas the population was virtually all German. Some of the cities were build by Germans and the land has undoubtly strong German character. Some were mixed with mostly local populations who was neither strictly Polish not German. For centuries there were little conflicts between all the nations. Some conflicts started with partition of Poland in late 18th century as Prussians got control over areas with Polish majority. The 19th century among other inventions brought nationalism. Second World war was hopefully the last act of the conflict. Poszwa 14:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well said, sir! Przepla 18:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes the first Slavs ruled by Frankish merchand Samo lived in Moravia. Samo had 20 wives, leads me to believe, they were refugees from somewhere else and the men were dead. Great Moravia was the first Slav ruled place, destroyed by more Avars, Huns from Asia. Frankish emperor Arnulf of Carinthia ruled (parts of ?) Moravia, all Moravia, then Bohemia, then last Piasts received their ducal titles from the emperors and land liens. Mieszko I, Boleslaw I etc were all married to daughters of Margraves. That is how the empire was ruled, by emperors daughters, granddaughters, nieces, widows being married to neighboring conquerers, if you will. Making them a part of the family, settled them down. All the first bishoprics in Moravia, Bohemia, Poland were for 100 years or more under the archbishoprics of the empire. (see google.com: Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent) Ever since the Slav people came into Germania (see Tacitus), they intermarried, for example Dagome Iudex =Ote=Oda von Haldensleben. Dubrawka, 1. wife Mieszko I, who insisted on him getting baptized, this Dubrawka was a widow and was first married to Guenther von Merseburg, father of famous German religious figures Ekkehard and Ute. There are countless examples, especially during Habsburg times, when all the Lithuanian Jagiellos were married to Habsburgs, later Swedisch Vasas etc. Gotta go, greetings MfG

MfG, Mieszko was prince and didn't have to receive any titles from emperor. Also Polish rulers were marrying also Rusin daughters and were related to all royal families of Europe.

Now, i see the article is protected. What are the issues with it?

Let's sort them out 1) Whether one should add emotional sentences like "despite all odds" into encyclopedia article 2) Whether Polish-German treaty guaranteed rights of both minorities (Polish in Germany and German in Poland) or only German in Poland (this is easier to check and verify) 3) Whether it is needed to add the "15 million" number when it is number of Germans expelled or who escaped from ALL eastern Europe in article treating on Poland alone. Szopen

page is now unprotected - and someone else's problem now... PMA 14:31, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


Here is some other historical data :

In 1808, during the French period, the nationalistic Polish priest Hugo Kołłątaj already claimed that the Oder-Neisse Line should be the western border of Poland.

In summer of 1939, before the war, the polish politician Jędrzej GIERTYCH said that after the war the Oder-Neisse Line should be the border. A member of his family, Roman Giertych is now the Polish Vicepremier. That shows a total other picture of the Polish victims.

Johann

Johann, I corrected your poor English but your comment still does not make any sense. Space Cadet 01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New Version: only about the border line!

I applied the new look to the article. Please limit yourself to edits about the border. Expulsions should go to Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Attrocities to the world war II attrocities. Seaman 14:59, 5 March 2004 (UTC)

Soon to be edits

I am going to add Polish reaction to expelee demands, espacially i am thinking about "Wprost" actions (in short, we will pay compensation as soon as Germans will pay for destruction of all Polish villages, recompensate for lost lifes of almost WHOLE intelligentsia etc). Anyone objects to that?

Also, Polish governmetn position IIRC was that only German government can pay compensation, because it recognised Polish borders with any consequences of that.Szopen

I am against. The new concept of Oder-Neisse line is that it is exclusively about the borderline. The demands of Expellees and reactions, belonged to German expulsion after WW2. Seaman 13:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. My proposition had sense only when the Expelees position was presented Szopen

this phrase makes no sense

"this made the border effectively into existence." please fix it. i'd do it, but i have no idea what is intended. Kingturtle 05:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Merge

I think this should be merged with Revision of borders of Poland (1945). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

History of the Line

I have tried to clean up the English a bit, given the controversy that erupts so easily on these pages, I feel I should explain some of the changes.

left 2 exclaves on the other, eastern side of Poland (Free City of Danzig and East Prussia).

I feel my edit is georgaphically justified, especially in relation to the 1919-1939 boarders.

(exactly 188 000 out 388 000 were to be annexed)

188 000 out 388 000 of what? It look might be people, but then people aren't annexed, only territories.

including extremely brutal occupation and evacuation of 800 000 remaining dwellers of ruins of Warsaw

As I understand adjectives such as "extremely" should be used sparingly on wikipedia, I think that "brutal" is sufficient. Concerning "occupation", it is again territories and ppl who are occupied, in any case they had been occupied since 1939.

The following aught to be changed: The prequisite to the shift of Polish-German borders, were German annexations in 1939 that exceeded German borders from 1914 and the decision of Sovet Union to annex the Eastern half of Poland, already approved by Western Allies.

This could be written better. It doesn't make too much snese and the chronology is all over the place. (when is "already approved"? is looks like it means 1914, which in any case aught to be 1919.)

Due to recent events in occupied Poland,

When is recent? What are these events? It goes on to mention the Warsaw Uprising, but I dont see how that has in itself anything to do with a lack of opposition to the annexation (of the "recovered territories"). --BadSeed 09:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Witkacy, could you please summarise what are your issue wuth Bdell version and what would you want to change to be acceptable? Szopen 08:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

My reasons to revert to "my" (and other) versions are: Please read the documents of Potsdam Conference. Then you will understand that the Western Allies didn´t agree with Stalin to shift the western border of Poland to the Oder-Neisse-line. Because they didn´t agree, they shelved this problem for a peace conference in the future. Until then they just put East Germany under Polish administration. The transfer of Germans - the expulsion started quite long before Potsdam - was ordered in an "humane and orderly way" out of Poland (!) - not out of East Germany (the Potsdam Conference clearly acted on the background of Germany in the borders of 1937 - they knew what is Poland and what is Germany). Well the emphasis of "ordering" is on "humane and orderly". This is what is written in the Potsdam Protocol, nothing more.

Wikiferdi 14:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please source them. Perhaps the relevant orginal documents can be put on Wikisource, like Potsdam_Agreement already is. If not, please give references for your claims. This is adressed to both concerned parties. I would guess eventually wew will end with a consensus like 'there is a dispute between those who clam (source) and those who claim (source)'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikiferdi is technically correct, but I would note that the practical difference between an agreement to extend the western border of Poland versus the western border of Polish administration was small, primarily because Poland was not considered an occupying power like France, UK, US, USSR.Bdell555 23:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Piotrus

you refer as source to the "Protocol of the Proceedings, August l, 1945" (Potsdam_Agreement).

But the real Potsdam Agreegment was signed on August 2, 1945. I have a copy of the "Potsdam Agreement" in German, French, English and Russian. Actually there are important differences between what is written in "your" source and the "Protocol" which I have.

Maybe I can find the text in the internet - I have it just on paper. Could you help me to find it? Thank you!

-- Wikiferdi 10:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The use of the above noted terms "humane and orderly" sounds like American jurisprudence crap . . . it was probably borrowed from US legal treaties involving relocation of American Indian tribes. Such legal people live in a fantasy land, but they get away with it. Who else but Americans would have expected the Russians to ethnically cleanse Germans in a "humane and orderly" fashion ????!!!!!

Potsdam Declaration

Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.

Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:

"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."

Under item VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write:

"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."

Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."

So keeping in mind this facts sincerely it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli.

Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration.

(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too.)

-- Wikiferdi 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Breslau-Lwów trade

Originally Germany was to keep Szczecin/Stettin and the Poles were to get East Prussia with Kaliningrad/Königsberg, but after Stalin decided he needed Königsberg as a year round warm-water port, the Poles were given Szczecin/Stettin as compensation. The Poles also insisted on keeping Lwów/L'viv in Galicia, but Stalin refused and offered Lower Silesia with Wroclaw/Breslau instead. (Incidentally many people from Lwów were later moved to Wrocław and to Gdańsk).

This doesn't make sense as Lower Silesia was already given to Poland. Or am I wrong? Meursault2004 17:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)



American responsibility for the border change

Are there any references to american responsibility for the border changes?

This U.S. plan from 1944 seems to have the oder-neize border as a fact, se first paragraph. Proposed post surrender plan

Is it not possible that the border change was caused by two facts, or possibly three.

1. Stalin wanted to expand to the west, more territory for his people.

2. The west (U.S. G.B.) wanted to continue the policy begun with the Versailles treaty and its teritorial changes, namely to weaken their economic competitor Germany industrialy by removing her natural resources of coal and iron, as well as industrial centres. Se also Morgenthau Plan

3. An overcrowded Poland wanted to exchange worthless and uninhabitable swampland for fertile German agricultural teritory and industrial centres.

Not really. Poland wanted to get some territories in the west, but fiercily refused (Polish government in exile) to treat it as compensation for lost territories in the east. Szopen 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

-- The teritorial amputations of germany were mainly economic in nature, as can be seen in the quote below. On the site this comes from you can find documents with discussions on giving France the German Areas such as the Ruhr and Saar, and of the problem of having a german minority in their country would mean. No such objections were voiced about the eastern territories, presumably because they knew damn well there would eventualy be no living germans left in them.

Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War. dated September 5, 1944. [2]

"We contemplate the transfer from Germany of ownership of East Prussia, Upper Silesia, Alsace' and Lorraine (each of them except the first containing raw materials of importance) together with the imposition of general economic controls. We also are considering the wisdom of a possible partition of Germany into north and south sections, as well as the creation of an internationalized State in the Ruhr. With such precautions, or indeed with only some of them, it certainly should not be necessary for us to obliterate all industrial productivity in the Ruhr area, in order to preclude its future misuse. Nor can I agree that it should be one of our purposes to hold the German population "to a subsistence level" if this means the edge of poverty." http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box31/t297j25.html

Stor stark7 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Stor stark7 14:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry Stimson thought that Alsace and Lorraine were part of the 1919-1937 boundaries of Germany?? What school did he go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Re "This U.S. plan from 1944 seems to have the oder-neize border as a fact, se first paragraph.": The rejected Morgenthau Plan (1st para, Proposed post surrender plan) was only a proposal (& even then only talked of Southern part of Silesia). "Overcrowded Poland" ??? Where does that come from? Compare area vs population stats of present BRD with Poland. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Random U.K. war cabinet excerpts

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_2_transcript.pdf

W.M.(43) 53rd Meeting. 13th April, 1943.


II. Foreign Secretary’s Account of his Mission to Washington.

  • A.E.

Politial ques. Main point U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. President troubled - feels Litvinov’s posn in Moscow less influential than Maisky: also troubled about his Amb. in Moscow: wants send Davies back when well enough to go. They don’t tell R. as much as we do abt. day-to-day dipl. events. I suggested eg. U.S. Amb. Moscow shd. give them full a/c our talks.

USSR. Terr. claims. Reconciled to Baltic States - fait accompli. Wd. like plebiscite as conscience clause.

Polish frontier. If P. got E. Russia (East Prussia?)& something in E. Siberia (Eastern Silesia?), P. wd. well to accept the Curzon Line. Tactics: we, U.S. & R. shd. agree fair solution & get P. to accept it: better than letting negotns between R. & P to get into mess.

Finland: no anxiety: thought terms reasonable. But Welles nervous re want assistce. pact ? Protectorate. I said take this up with R.

Public feeling in U.S. twds R. No sentiment as here, but on whole not unreasonable, even in Rep. Party. “We shan’t be any worse off for havg. tried to come to terms with them.” Hoover line is difft. - wd. like closer relations between U.K. & U.S. in order to keep away fr. R.

Our attitude to R. - v. curious about it.

French: Hull loathes de G. & intrudes him into every conversation. Much complaint too about our failure to put U.S. view on French. I concentrated therefore on future. One diffce - U.S., even if G. & de G. come together, don’t want to see one central Fr. authy. - prefer to deal with several. I said we wd. like one, even tho’ we don’t recognise it as a Govt. All the others came out as Govts., wh. puts them in diff. posn. Diff. see why U.S. take this view - unless because want to internationalise some Fr. possessions. Even if we go into Fr., they don’t want a Fr. authy. to go in they wd. prefer us to take responsib. for civil adminn.: i.e. opposite view to that on wh. they act in N. Africa.

Pol. side of mil. opns. - agree gone ill in N. Africa. State Dpt. don’t have our close relns. with C.O.S. etc. Agreed shd. try to work out machinery for closer contact. Cd. we send out F.O. man to help Dill? - said we’d consider. Change mainly reqd. is on U.S. side.

Trend of U.S. opinion - away fr. isolation. My contacts confirmed view of Pres. etc. Welles hoped Senate wd. pass resoln soon givg. Pres. more latitude in pursuit of his policy. Pres. thinks this is best development - avoid Wilson’s separation fr. Senate until faced with Treaty. Bringing Congressme etc., into Conferences. Eve of my departure I was shown by 2 members of F.A. Cttee of Congress draft of such a resoln.

Basis of U.S. co-opn. World-wide basis essential - also China wd. have to come in:

a) U.S. hatred of Japan (not same feeling v. Hitler):

b) fears of China lapsing into chaos.

c) China as counterpoise to R. in Far East. (Pro-China feeling helps him to bring on opinion favouring war v. Hitler) Elaborn of organ. cannot be left wholly to U.K. & U.S. This leads Pres. to play up U.N. on every occasion. Form. (1) Genl. Assembly, covering all, mtg once or twice a year = Assembly of L/N. (2) Adv. Council - 4 Govt. Powers (incl. China) & 6 or 8 others to be chosen prob. by Continents. v. near Council of L/N. (3) Executive of 4 Gt. Powers exercising wide powers delegated by (2). Attached to this an offl. like Sec. Genl. of L/N. “Moderator” Authy. to communicate with (3) or (2) on issues requiring their attendce. Talked to Welles re Council of Europe. He thought room for this Sub-Cttee of (2). Subjects to be discussed - wd. they deal with 155

pol. ques: he felt prob. not. See no special diffy. except (3): I believe most will have to be done by (2).


Germany. V. tough attitude. Welles vehemently in favour of dismemberment. They’ve gone into it v. carefully. (P.M. “Liberation of minor components”!) In our mil. occupn we shd. proceed jointly in each area (BA.R.). G. wd. be broken up in mil. occupn into areas approx. to eventual break-down into parts. Pres. agreed, less vehemently. Hull hadn’t made up his mind. I agreed tht. this solution shdn’t be excluded & we wd. consider details. Argument (Welles) - G. bound to have a grievance: therefore give her a good one. “Don’t maltreat your enemy by halves.” (P.M.)

Barvaria: N.Western: Prussia (less E. Prussia etc.): Ruler under internatt. supervision.

Austria sep. at first, tho’ later with Bavaria: Saxony.

  • P.M.

Centripetal tendency of G. will be strong. Poss. ??? in time to implement other ideas. E.g. Confedn. of Danube, as central European bloc. If Wurtemburg joined, it wd. be poss. To go easier with G. states wh. close to Vienna via Berlin. Czechs. wd. like to join with Poland, if they made proper arrangement with R. If not, they wd. turn twds. Vienna.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf

C.M. 18(45). 7th August, 1945.


Review of Foreign Affairs.

  • E.B.

Berlin Protocol. a) C.F.M. Vital need = good Secretariat. e) War Crimes: Agreemt. to be signed to-morrow. Hope trials h) Balkans: Commn on oil equpmt: powers of B. & U.S. repns on b) Reparations. R. removals v. drastic. On percentages – had to yield to R. pressure, largely because U.S. willing to make concessions. c) German Fleet. Subs. – satisf. solution. Merchant Fleet: 1/3rd subject to U.S.S.R. satisfying Polish claims. d) Koenigsberg: Final settlement reserved to Peace Settlement: but will be fait accompli before then. will go on. U.S.’s anxieties about Hess. f) Austria: no reparations agreed. g) Poland W. Frontier: discussions with repns of P.P.G. Want to talk with C/R. & B/T. – insist tht. Poles live up to undertakgs: then trade ?exch will open from that area. C.C.’s must see this new formula is carried out. i) Transfer of Populations. V. serious problems. Conduct of D.P.’s. j) Inland Waterways. R. reluctant to duscuss. U.S. & B. think it important. But R agreed to serve on I.T.O.

  • P.M.

Was there throughout. Not much done before our return. E.B. did v. well at short notice inpickg. up unknown threads. Diffy – whatever your ideas the facts keep moving on – e.g. Poland’s W. Frontier.R. ideas of repns – same delusions as we had in 1918. Don’t care,either, what happens to W. Europe.Not done too badly.

  • E.B.

R. pressure tht. Ruhr be declared part of Germany. Many ideas about that – considered on A.P.W. Cttee. Now to be examined by C.F.M. We shall have to watch our security.

  • E.Sh.

Moscow agreemt. tht. 8 yrs. 50 m. tons G. coal to be ready for export. Shall have to raise that issue.

  • P.M.

Food & fuel for Berlin this winter. Surplus food areas & Silesian mines both under R. control. Got nearer to agreemt. with R. on this – thro’ decision to treat G. as economic whole.

  • A.B.

Brutal behaviour by Czechs. in clearing out Germans.

  • P.M.

Cdn’t do more than we did on this – askg. Govts. to hold their hands.

Stor stark7 13:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of ethnic Germans living east of the Oder-Neisse line today

The article specifies that "an estimated one million ethnic Germans still reside in Silesia and Masuria." According to the last census, conducted in 2002, there were approximately 150.000 persons identifying themselves as "ethnic Germans" in the territory of Poland. See the Wikipedia page on German minority in Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_of_Poland Also, the minority is present mainly in the Opole Voivodship in the southern part of the country. Therefore I am changing the sentence to read "approximately 150.000 ethnic Germans still reside in Poland, mainly in the Opole Voivodship, with smaller presence in regions such as Silesia and Masuria."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.106.101 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added some links, They are from the EU history resource. I expect there is more to be found there, but I settled for the relevant documents where there are excerpts of the U.S. foreign minister and of Churchill's memoirs describing how they reasoned when the decision was made to move Poland west at the expence of Germany.

I also added a link to a page of a professor at the university of Hawaii who researches ethnic cleansing. The link goes to a chapter that deals with the border change and resulting expulsions. I've added it to the expulsions article, so it was touch and go if it belonged here too, but I'll leave it here for now and if someone minds then I guess it will disapear. Stor stark7 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Teheran and Yalta conferences


  • Closing The Ring; In the Teheran conference Churchill suggests to Stalin that he can compensate Poland for the curzon line by giving Poland a slize of Germany. Stalin liked the Brittish proposal.

Eden said he did not know how much the Russians were going to eat. How much would they leave undigested? Stalin said the Russians did not want anything belonging to other people, although they might have a bite at Germany. Eden said that what Poland lost in the east she might gain in the west. Stalin replied that possibly she might, but he did not know. I (Churchill) then demonstrated with the help of three matches my idea of Poland moving westwards. This pleased Stalin, and on this note our group parted for the moment.

Closely related to the reparations issue was the problem of fixing Poland’s boundaries. President Roosevelt said, at the outset of the discussion, that the United States felt that Poland’s eastern boundary should generally follow the so-called Curzon Line. He still held, he said, the view he had expressed at Teheran that it would be desirable to adjust the southern end of the line so that the city of Lwow and at least a portion of the oil fields should be inside Polish territory.

"(Stalin) I prefer the war should continue a little longer although it costs us blood and to give Poland compensation in the west at the expense of the Germans," he continued. "I will maintain and I will ask all friends to support me in this. … I am in favor of extending the Polish western frontier to the Neisse River."

Mr. Churchill doubted the wisdom of extending the western boundary of Poland to the Neisse River. He agreed that Poland ‘s western boundary should be moved into what had been German territory but asserted "it would be a pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that he will die of indigestion." He estimated that the taking of territory in East Prussia as far west as the Oder would necessitate the moving of six million Germans.

Stalin protested that the number would be much smaller because "where our troops come in, the Germans run away."

Moreover, the three Powers have now agreed that Poland shall receive substantial accessions of territory both in the North and in the West. In the North she will certainly receive, in the place of a precarious Corridor, the great city of Danzig, the greater part of East Prussia West and South of Koenigsberg and a long, wide sea front on the Baltic. In the West she will receive the important industrial province of Upper Silesia and, in addition, such other territories to the East of the Oder as it may be decided at the peace settlement to detach from Germany after the views of a broadly based Polish Government have been ascertained.

I don't really feel that this is entirely in line with the current version of the article. Stor stark7 21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Proposals for territorial changes were made as early as 1939. Advocacy of changing the status of East Prussia was made after WWI by McKinder. --Molobo 17:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation of sources

According to one the paragraphs,

It was Stalin who first insisted that Poland's western frontier be extended to the Oder at the Tehran Conference in late 1943. The Americans, however, were not interested in discussing any border changes at that time. (US State Department, Foreign Relations of the US: The Conference at Cairo and Tehran 1943, "Tripartite Dinner Meeting, 28 Nov 1943" pp. 509-14). British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden wrote in his diary that "A difficulty is that the Americans are terrified of the subject which [Roosevelt advisor] Harry [Hopkins] called 'political dynamite' for their elections. But, as I told him, if we cannot get a solution, Polish-Russian relations six months from now, with Russian armies in Poland, will be infinitely worse and elections nearer." (Anthony Eden, The Reckoning (London, 1965) p. 427).

The bolded texts, for example, show the citations. But wouldn't it be better if you use the "reference" function to make that clearer, putting the sources at the bottom of this article? I'm doing this in the Chinese version - even though Chinese wikipedia doesn't have a good function for this purpose, I still try to list them at the bottom.--User:Fitzwilliam 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this would be preferable. It is just that nobody has gotten around to it, yet...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubious map

I'm not convinced by the unsourced map of "Poland as divided up among the sons of Bolesław the Wrymouthed". It looks too convenient to be anything other than Communist-era pro-Russian, anti-German propaganda. I've reverted this page again in order to attempt to bring some discussion to this talk page, I shan't do it again unilaterally. Colonel Mustard 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Nope you can find several maps of that period with the same borders, and the map in question is from 1913 IIRC so it would be hard for it to be communist propaganda. --Molobo 11:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC) It is from political History of Poland" written by E.H. Lewinski-Corwin and published in 1917. The map is actually used on German wiki also. --Molobo 11:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I just harbor a great deal of suspicion and cynicism about medieval history. Good to confirm that a source is kosher, regardless, I guess. Colonel Mustard 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The map is actually used on German wiki also. Maybe it is, in some article somewhere, but certainly not in the German Oder-Neisse line article.[3] Stor stark7 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The book that the image comes from can be found here [4]. It also describes the, at the time (~89 years ago), state of the art knowledge of the historical distributions and movements of the slavs.[5] --Stor stark7 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The map can be found in History of Poland on German Wiki. If you are unsatisfied with it here a couple of others from modern era representing Piast Poland: [6] [7] [8] [9] state of the art knowledge of the historical distributions and movements of the slavs. Incorrect, its about Poland not about "Slavs" (not "slavs"). --Molobo 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the book is about Poland, and you know that I know that, since i provided a link to the front page of the book where it clearly states that the book is about the political history of Poland! I was refering an introductory chapter in the book detailing the early whereabouts of the Slavs (a chapter I pointed to with another link), which you obviously failed to understand, or chose to deliberately missinterpret. --Stor stark7 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the map showing the situation ca. 850 years ago from this article, as it has no bearing on the Oder-Neisse line other than as trivia, and as such it takes up very much space in the article. The counterpart to the Oder-Neisse line, the Curzon Line article does not use it, so there is no need to use it here either. If ancient history should be mentioned then it would be better to remove the map and instead list Recovered Territories in the "se also" section. In that article they at least have some context for the map. --Stor stark7 11:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Poland had those territories before Germany was often recalled in Polish publications. As such the map is notable. --Molobo 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then that reason should be explicitly stated in conjunction with the map, as a justification for its presence in the article! --Stor stark7 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that such borders existed before is already justification for presence of such a map in the aritcle. --Molobo 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be read in conjunction with the paralell discussion in Talk:Curzon_Line#Map of ancient Polish borders --Stor stark7 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposition of Removal of medieval Map

I propose the removal of the map of medieval Poland from the article altogether. Presently the map, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the creation of the Oder-Neisse border, tends to dominate the article. The only justification of the map lies in its connection with the Polish term “Recovered Territories”” to which the article already has links, and where the map also features prominently. There is no need to feature the map in this article also. --Stor stark7 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. No source given for the image anyway, uploader only tagged it with "public domain because its copyright has expired". --Matthead 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. The same holds for the fabricated "Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet" map that should go. Ideally, the article should be illustrated by maps of Poland and Germany in their old (1939) and new (1945) borders. --Lysytalk 08:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak support. On one hand the commies used to portray the line as historically justified by the Piast borders, so the map is 100% relevant here. However, if that causes too much problems then go for it. //Halibutt 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe add a proper comment to the caption, then ? --Lysytalk 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

support It only shows the ultra nationalism of the polnish goverment claiming territories that were 800, 900 or more years german settled as ( and maybe around the year 1000 some wild polnish tribes were hunting in the bushes there). these maps were craeted to justify ethnic cleasing of 16 million germans (2,2 million german civilians were killied during that) for these crazy idea of reclaiming some hower ancient"polnish" territoy. --131.173.252.9 17:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are oversimplifying here, the German population would be expulsed regardless of the map. --Lysytalk 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as I remember the map in question was created long before the polnish government expulsed anyone. In fact these were created before the Polish government was established at all. //Halibutt 01:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Germany's territorial losses 1919-1945

I still think the map should go. It is useful in Recovered Territories but I think it is of very dubious value here. It takes up very much space, and realy gives very little relevant information in exchange.

As an example: As can be seen in the election posters in this link [10] both the German conservatives (CDU) and the social democrats (SPD) campaigned for many years on the promise of regaining the lost territories. No-one has however seen fit to introduce such a poster to this article, even though the motive for introducing it would be somewhat similar to the Piast map, i.e. reflecting popular reactions to the border. Such posters belong in their own articles, and so does the Piast map.

I suggest that that we remove the Piast map and ask the author of this excellent map if he would please create one or two appropriate maps for this article. I like Lysy's suggestion of one 1937 borders map, and one modern borders map.

--Stor stark7 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Annexation of GDR???

In this article someones adhere to "In November 1990, after the annexation of the GDR..." - What nonsense! Could someone explain to me what is all this good for? Haven't you seen the pictures of the population of the GDR which freed themselves in a peaceful demonstration from the Communist regime? (Ronald Reagen called upon Gorbachev: Tear down this wall! - And actually this happened as no Sovjet tank restrained the German demonstrators as they climbed the Berlin wall and began to tear down that wall.

Wikiferdi 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Crowds will always be crowds. They will "demonstrate" for and against with equal enthusiasm. Vide Napoleon. Avoid POV. The "someones adhere" version reports the cold facts without emotional interpretation. Space Cadet 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Space Cadet, could you explain to me please, why facts should be cold? Maybe the space is cold but facts can sometimes be very hot. And then, please explain why the "annexation-version" shouldn't be viewed as POV?!

Wikiferdi 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Cold facts" is a figure of speech. Are you familiar with the term? GDR became a part of West Germany with its political system, money, alliances, membership in EU, etc. Not the other way around and not in a form of conjugation, where both participants have input on the outcome. The present German state is not a Union but simply West Germany after absorption of GDR. Vide unions between Poland and Lithuania. Space Cadet 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Your comments about my nick are very funny and intelligent. Please continue coming up with new ones and don't worry about their irrelevance to the subject matter.

Well, you shouldn't consider just my comments on your nick intelligent. Also my comments on the subject are intelligible. I can't accept your comment as NPOV. No sensible historian would confirm what you uphold here. Or do you know one?

Wikiferdi 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligible? Extremely, of course. Now, instead of constantly asking me for explanation or sources, why don't you come up with some, for a change? Take your time, because right now I'm going to the Polish Hood (Greenpoint) to feed my depression with some Żywiec beer. Happy editing! Space Cadet 18:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K. read here: Berlin Wall - you won't find anything about annexation, will you? - Wikiferdi 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, explain your point of view like I already did and don't quote WIKI, which as you know anybody can edit. Space Cadet 01:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Do you know what "intelligible" means?

Guys, chill out. It is commonly accepted to refer to this event as German reunification - hence article names. Yes, it had some aspects of annexation, and this is discussed in that article - albeit quite briefly, and should probably be expanded by people more familiar with political science and politics of Germany. This talk space is not the place for that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

GDR (East Germany) never became part of the Federal Republic of Germany, the (reastablished) states (Länder) of GDR did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.224.207 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I...???

Can I add the {{Template:German borders}} in this article. The line is boundary between Poland and Germany. -Pika ten10 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored Famous Churchill quote

I've restored the famous quote by Churchill "it would be a pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that it got indigestion."[1]"

It was deleted under the summary "expanded"[11] by Molobo (talk · contribs), so I'm assuming it was a simple mistaken deletion.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, regarding your repeated deletion, now with the explanation "A proper place is Wikiquote, this is encyclopedia, too much tabloid like style". It sounds as if you object on aesthetic reasons, but rest assured that it is in fact encyclopedia material, the phrase is included in Britannica too [12]. Just search for Polish goose. :Looking forward to hearing your next argument.--Stor stark7 Talk 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV and relevance issues

I removed this portion of text from the WW2 section of the article as it seems to present a biased POV and may not be relevant to the subject of the article:

This Polish view conceals the fact that this [[Ethnic Cleansing] was only the 2nd Stage in long-term Polish plans of Annexation of German territory: Polish-German tensions between the two World wars had sharpened after Poland had forced, together with the Allies at the Versailles Treaty, over 1 Million German civilians into a most hostile, anti-german Polish state [2]. Out of these 1 Million Germans in German Posen-West Prussia (1921: 1.058.000), over 750.000 had escaped their Polish-occupied German homeland within only 5 years due to Polish harrassment and oppression. [3] [[Poland's] crucial and aggressive role in triggering World War II is usurally concealed in Allied versions of history and hardly known, however verifiable [4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.78.62 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect map

How could there be 100% of Germans in Lower Silesia if Germany murdered Jews in Wrocław, and Poles were minority in Wrocław ? The map is incorrect obviously.--Molobo (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The map does not make this statement. The different shades symbolize which nationality 'dominated' which territory in 1931. So, if some place is shaded according to the German label, this means only that the German nationality was the majority nationality in this specific places--nothing more. I believe this was in deed the case for the mentioned city. Note the word 'dominates' int the caption as well as in the description.
Otherwise, you were of course right and the map would not make sense at all. Reason: According to your logic, the map would then have made the statement that at any specific location in the entire depicted region only one nationality exists, constituting 100% of the local population. At some place this population would have been (100%) Polish and in other places (100%) German. This is of course not what the map says and I think it is also made sufficiently clear. I hope at least by this additional explanation it is clear enough. Tomeasytalk 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"The map does not make this statement. The different shades symbolize which nationality 'dominated' which territory in 1931"

I am talking about the map with 1939 German census which has boxes with population data and numbers, it claims Germans made up 100% of population there. That can't be right as there was a Jewish and Polish minority in Wrocław for example.So the data in the map is false. Perhaps due to 1939 being Nazi census. We should note that Nazi census it seems hided minorities in the region.--Molobo (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. In general, it's a good idea to mention a picture precisely when talking about one. I usually do it like this. Anyway, I should have taken more time to find the map to which your statement applies correctly, rather than sitting down and elaborating on an explanation that was not needed.
With respect to the issue you are raising. I think 100% is in any case wrong, at least when talking about a region as large as Silesia. Should we dismiss the map for that? I do not know. To answer that, I would like to know what the real percentage might have been. Or, as you mentioned, we could make clearer that this map was made at a certain time, but does not necessarily reflect the true data of that time. Tomeasytalk 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It´s a US government map.
  • Jews were usually seen as Germans of jewish religion, not as a different race or nation, only the Nazis made that classification.
  • maybe You´ve got exact numbers of the Polish minority in Lower Silesia before 1939? (84.139.249.155 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

I do not believe that the US state department conducted the 1393 census that is reported in the map. Rather they made he map based on German numbers. 100% is anyway not realistic. How the Jews were dealt with in a census is an interesting question. We should try to find that out. I am not sure that they were grouped together with Germans in 1939. However, I do not know this. But do you really know it or were you just guessing? Tomeasytalk 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The map was used by the US government [13] at the Potsdam conference, I don´t think the US government has any interest in falsification of true population numbers.
  • Jews (those who survived) were grouped together with Germans in 1945 and that´s what was important for the US government ( see Michael Wieck)
  • The map is the basis for the expected number of expellees, and 100 % is absolutely right for Lower Silesia.(84.139.198.229 (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
Just one minor point: Jews and Germans are not distinct groups. Of course Jews with a German cultural background are to be regarded as ethnic Germans, therefore it's not necessarily a contradiction if a city with a fraction of Jewish population is reported as 100% German. It might still be wrong, but not for this reason. Anorak2 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above points.
The map is clearly relevant as it was used by the U.S. as supporting material for their thinking during the border negotiations with the Poles and Soviets.
Since we are not drawing conclusions in the article based on the figures I do not see why we would need to debate them.
But... my spontaneous interpretation agrees with the above poster and would be that the U.S. chose to lump together Christian Germans and Jewish Germans.
The purpose of the map seems to be to determine roughly how many non-Poles would end up in German territory under Polish administration i.e. how many people would have to be ethnically cleansed by the Allies under the different border proposals. This should be kept in mind when reading the map, what the purpose of the map was; what type of discussions it was used as supporting material of. The map highlights/presents material relevant to those discussions.
Note also that the US do not seem to care about differentiating the 3 million Jewish Poles in the 1931 Poland territory census, nor the maybe 750,000 ethic Germans in Poland at that time, since that would have been irrelevant to the purpose of the map. By the way, most of the surviving Jews in Poland were expelled by the Poles after the war, see (History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Communist_rule:_1945.E2.80.9389 and Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944-1946)--Stor stark7 Speak 09:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Molobos remark about Poles in Wroclaw: they added up to 0,5% during the interwar years, I doubt that any map would consider them a minority worth mentioning. Karasek (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Jews in Germany were also Germans. However, the presented argumentation does not convince me. If the map is to consider the amount of people to be deported following the border shift, then why would one group Jewish Germans with the others. I mean, the Jewish Germans did not get deported for obvious reasons. Tomeasytalk 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Those who survived were expelled, nobody asked for it. Maybe you´d like to read Michael Wieck: A Childhood Under Hitler and Stalin: Memoirs of a "Certified Jew," University of Wisconsin Press, 2003, ISBN 0-299-18544-3..(84.139.207.29 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
That's new to me. Are you sure that the Jews of Breslau were expelled when the Polish border was shifted westwards? Where to were they expelled? Wieck's story might be quite exceptional as it also happened in Koenigsberg. If what you say is really true in general, it must be added to the article. So far it appears that German and Polish people (of Christian faith) were the only victims of this plan. Tomeasytalk 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"Are you sure that the Jews of Breslau were expelled when the Polish border was shifted westwards?"

This is untrue-most of Jewish community was mass murdered by Germany during WW2. Deportations begun in 1940, and continued in 1941 [14]The New Synagogue was set on fire and totally destroyed. During the Holocaust in Wroclaw between 1941 and 1945 the extermination of almost 8000 people was carried away. They were deported to nearby Gross-Rosen Camp or latter to Kowno, Terezin and Auschwitz. --Molobo (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How can a question be untrue?
You've explained me things that I am not doubting, essentially the holocaust. My question and genuine interest is to find some reference that describes the official policy of the Polish authorities with respect to the German Jews—the survivors of the holocaust—in the territories that were now under their control. This includes much more than Worclaw, btw. Since there were survivors of the holocaust on this territory, the question is valid and cannot be answered by pointing at the horrendous number of Jews that were murdered by the German state. Tomeasy T C 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it helps to understand why the Jews were expelled when we look at it from the other side: in 1945 the new Polish authorities of Breslau were desperately looking for people to stay in the city, since most of the new Polish settlers were rural people, but a city needs skilled, urban people. However, in most cases these people had to speak Polish or had to have a connection to Poland, like Polish ancestors, in order to stay in the city. The Jews of Breslau didn't have a connection to Poland, that's why they were expelled like the Germans. But most Jews of Breslau propably emigrated to Israel or the United States soon. Karasek (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Vertreibungsgebiet.jpg map is obviously poorly described, and it is unreferenced (who were its author?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not play the issue down by just a few persons. Imagine you had been one of those or you were the authority to make up a ruling for this of group. To me this is a fundamental and thus very interesting question. What was the authorities' plan with the German Jews in the mentioned territories? Tomeasytalk 07:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn´t want to play anything down, I´m just surprised, that you are surprised. The Jewish community of Breslau was absolutely assimilated (e.g. Fritz Stern), so why should the Polish government (from their POV) accept some Germans to stay? I don´t think any special plan existed. (84.139.243.118 (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

How could there be 100% of Germans in Lower Silesia if Germany murdered Jews in Wrocław, and Poles were minority in Wrocław ? The map is incorrect obviously.--Molobo (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As you certainly are concerned not about the Jews, but about an imaginary significant Polish population in Lower Silesia being "neglected" by a "false" map, you might be reliefed to read that there was no significant Polish population. In 1910, Breslau's Polish speakers made up not even 3% of the population, if you count the additional 0.7% Bilinguals also, you are just above 3% for the capital city. Martin Åberg, Mikael Sandberg, 2003 : social capital and democratisation, ISBN:0754619362. If the Breslau article is correct, this minor Polish community dropped to some 0.5% during the interbellum. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the authorities' plan with the German Jews in the mentioned territories? Tomeasytalk 07:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I cant answer for sure, but my gut feeling is that there were no special plans made for them, as I've seen some hints that the Jews didn't rank high on US priorities of what to think and plan for unless the issue was put right in front of their eyes by someone. It wasn't until late in 1944, after campaigning by Jewish organizations, that the charter of the UNRRA was changed so that they could provide aid also for Jews of German nationality. Later the UNRRA would set up a large number of Displaced persons camp in Germany to host the Jewish refugees, and ensure that they were well fed, roughly twice the amount of calories that the German civilians were living on (it appears that at least in 1945 German civilians were left to their own devices as regards getting enough food to survive, see p. 274 in this). However at least until mid 1945 there was probably not much thought or planning about the Jews. As the quote below shows they were for example originally lumped together with all the other Germans in occupied Germany as far as the "Non fraternization" directive was concerned: "As the reports below indicate, at first the U. S. military authorities prohibited the chaplains from 'fraternizing' with the local population, including the Jewish DPs, a situation that vexed the chaplains. After President Harry S. Truman ordered General Dwight D. Eisenhower to improve conditions for the Jewish DPs, these restrictions were lifted."[16]. Apparently Truman wrote this order as late as August 31, 1945. Two letters from Eisenhower to President Truman that may be of interest regarding the Jewish refugees. Letter: 8 October, 1945 and 18 September, 1945
--Stor stark7 Speak 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Polish authorities were imposed to Poland by SU, USA and GB. Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

name1 (now name2)?

I am afraid we need to discuss this here, because I am observing a small edit war on this question. Once again it is about Polish and German names of cities. It appears to be undisputed (so far) that name1 should be the German and name2 the Polish. (In case of L'viv one has to shift the languages eastwards, conversely to the border shift ;-)

Surprisingly, casus belli this time is the little word now. Some arguments were already conveyed in the edit summaries. I would like to stimulate the parties to stop reverting whatever is the current version, but debate here until we agree on one version. I think, in this case it should be possible to achieve consensus, or at least toleration of one stable version.

From my point of view: I do not care! Your arguments, please. Tomeasytalk 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

more

i reached this page following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Commission and pressing teritorial changes , i found it weird that only polish borders were included there since the aftermath of WW2 created over 100 changes in borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.168.47 (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=531
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oder–Neisse_line/Archive_1&oldid=1140382897"