Talk:Erika Steinbach

Archives
March 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – January 2006

Erika on a cover of Wprost should be reintroduced to the article

Check out this link, it had been uploaded before but I think krauts erased it. I think it's essential to reintroduce it, what do you think? http://www.copyriot.com/sinistra/news/pics04a/wprost.jpg

Erika Steinbach - born in Rahmel-Inhabitants Records since 1600's

Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel (see [Rahmel on map of West-Eastprussia in 1896) and records of Inhabitants [1] in Westprussia, ( now Rumia, Poland), in direct vicinity of the Landkreis Danzig, Freistadt Danzig, in a part of Germany, which without plebecite of the local population, was with the Treaty of Versailles 'given' to Poland, but remained in Germany, until it was conquered by the Soviet Union in 1945.

Rumia (Rahmel in German) has never been the part of Freistadt Danzig (Free City of Gdansk/Danzig). Altough after the 3rd partition of Poland (1795) was taken away from Poland and incorporated into Prussia until 1918 (for 123 years). Rumia (Rahmel) since 1918 was returned to Poland. To clarify the above passage - Rumia has never been a part of Freistad Danzig (Free City of Gdansk/Danzig)

Trip

You changed "One of her aims is to build a monument against forced migration in the centre of Berlin, devoted to German victims of the expulsion of Germans after World War II." to "One of her aims is to build a monument against forced migration in the centre of Berlin, devoted to Germans subject to the expulsion of Germans after World War II."

Obvious appeasement of a trip with hundreds of thousands up to two millions of German civilian deaths, most of who were according to a history book of mine woman and children.NightBeAsT 18:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I can see that the article causes much emotion. I don't see any problems in putting both names: Rumia and Rahmel. Simply many Polish people would not understand "Rahmel" and German people will not understand "Rumia". I agree that the expulsion of German people could not be justified in any way. The fact that Germans committed crimes on Polish citizens cannot be such justification, because the idea of colective responsibility cannot be accepted. On the other hand it is also the fact that Erika Steinbach's status as an expelled person is problematic (which was mentioned in the article). It does not change the fact that any forced migration is wrong and displacement of Germans was wrong. On the other hand I have an impression that Germans tend to put pressure on Poland, the Chech Republic, but not on Russia. They say very little of the expelled from Königsberg for example. Jasra 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Having Russia as a friend has been more important for German governments after the end of the Cold War, for many reasons. For example does Germany need Russian energy, and the Russians also need the Germans. If I remember correct Yeltsin in 1991 offered to sell East Prussia back to Germany, however the Germans declined since that area is in a horrible condition. Maria Stella 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it about expulsion of Germans only, or all expulsions, regardless of nationality ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 12:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The centre is especially focusing on expulsions of Germans, naturally, but will also deal with other expulsions, for example the ethnic cleansings of the Balkans. Maria Stella 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

war of names

It does not look very serious when one person changes something and the other reverts the changes and things repeat many times. What is wrong in putting two names? In German the locality is called Rahmel, so in German sources the name Rahmel is used. In Polish it is Rumia, so the name Rumia is used in Polish Wikipedia. This is English Wikipedia and there is no English name for Rahmel/Rumia so I think to preserve NPoV both names should be used. Regards, Jasra 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Space Cadet 23:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(Because my web browser crashed deleting what I had written and my comment to Molobo about it on his talk page fell victim to a wave of mass deletions days ago, I'll keep the explanation short this time so as not to waste more time.) The town was German from 1772 until 1920 so I find the stress of its Polishness a bit biased. (in cases of Polish towns, Molobo would insist on pointing out they were Polish before) I think the idea of double-naming meets both sides' approval (and looks really messed-up in the text) and is not too incongrous to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote (dearly "beloved" by Space Cadet:-). How about including this source [2]. Molobo called it a "very POVish article" so in reality it may be qualitative. Sciurinæ 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The town was German from 1772 until 1920 so I find the stress of its Polishness a bit biased. As a result of aggression against Polish state and 148 years of putting down Polish uprisings. --Molobo 10:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumia/Rahmel naming issue

Both the proponents of "Rumia" and "Rahmel" seem to have a very essentialist approach to the naming problem: Names are not inherent to places, but mere conventions by the people referring to them. There are no single and universally correct names for places, things, and sometimes not even for people.

The sentence about the "[...] Polish village renamed by Nazi administration to German name of Rahmel (the name before Nazi occupation was Rumia)" reads as if "Rahmel" was a new invention by Nazi administrators which had never been in use before, like "Litzmannstadt" for Łódź (Lodsch in common German) or "Gotenhafen" for Gdynia (Gdingen). This is evidently incorrect.

Contrary to what both Polish and German contributors to this debate seek to imply, the population of the area that Rumia/Rahmel/Rëmiô belongs to had been ethnically mixed for centuries, and many people were bilingual. Not surprisingly therefore, the place was called different names by different people at the same time, and, even more so, at different times. I think there is no dispute that the area was inhabited by a centuries-old German-speaking minority even when it was part of the (multi-ethnic) First and Second Rzeczpospolita. These people referred to the village as "Rahmel", and this name did not become "illegitimate" ex-post just because it was later elevated to the official name by the Nazi invaders.

Finally, the whole area was a stronghold of Kashubian, which linguists categorise as a separate language, not a dialect of Polish (even if it has neither an army nor a navy). Therefore, the Kashubian version Rëmiô may have a stronger claim than either Rumia or Rahmel. --Thorsten1 11:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Being Kashubian myself I have to state that my language as much as it shows some originality it's a dilect of Polish. Actually Poles who never heard Kashubian can easily understand that (both spoken and in read). I heard once that it was suppousingly in XIX century when Prussia officials tried to turn that dilect into language just to try to separate Kasubians from Poles. Have no idea whether that's got anything to do with any true story. But the fact is that always Kasubians have identified themselves with Poles. Actually many of us Kashubians were executed by Germans and killed in concentration camps over WWII for being Polish. Germans were often forcing us to sign the volksliste, forced to serve in Wehrmacht. It didn't work. I never met any Kaszubian (Kaszuba) who would claim that he was German.

I think there is no dispute that the area was inhabited by a centuries-old German-speaking minority

Please provied sources confirming your POV.

The German minority was very small in Poland prewar-just circa 700.000 people.

http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg

Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German speaking

Poznan 1921-16 % of population is German speaking

Upper Silesia 1921- 42 % of population is German speaking

According to p.27 of the Reich Statistical Yearbook for 1941 the population of the territories :annexed from Poland was as follows in June 1940:

Province Ostpreussen: 994,092.

Reichsgau Danzig-West-Preussen (not including Danzig): 1,487,452.

Reichsgau Wartheland: 4,538,922.

Prov. Schlesien: 2,603,550.

General Gouvernment: 12,107,000

According to p.6 of "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from East-Central Europe" Volume 1, (Bonn, 1954) the following was the German population of these areas when they were annexed from Poland in 1939:

Polish Territories attached to the Provinz of Ostpreussen: 31,000.

Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen: 210,000.

Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Wartheland: 230,000.

Eastern Upper Silesia: 238,000.

Generalgouvernment: 80,000.

--Molobo 12:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo: Please remember to indent your posts more carefully. Your editing style on talk pages tends to make discussions you are involved in unnecessarily difficult to follow (here is another example).

I do not understand how the population statistics of Eastern Upper Silesia or the Generalgouvernement are supposed to relate to this issue. But never mind that - your habit of bulk-quoting large portions of not-quite-on-topic text to talk pages is well documented and one just has to put up with it.

You quoted my statement "I think there is no dispute that the area was inhabited by a centuries-old German-speaking minority", asking "Please provied sources confirming your POV." Please read up on the history of the region in a library of your choice. I have no reason to "provide sources" for something which is not "POV" but a commonly accepted fact. The existence of this minority is not questioned by anyone, to the best of my knowledge; in fact, you yourself are referring to it a few lines below your question: "Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German speaking".

Whether the German minority in inter-war Poland was "very small" depends on what you compare it to, of course, but this is not really relevant. What is relevant is that a German-speaking population, which would refer to Rumia as "Rahmel", existed in the area well before 1939. Thus, the German invaders did not have to invent a name for this village when they occupied the area (as they had to with "Litzmannstadt" and "Gotenhafen"). Putting such artificial and ideology-laden inventions on par with the historical name of Rumia is incorrect and unfair to non-Nazi German speakers who used the name "Rahmel". --Thorsten1 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There ware Germans in Cracow and Warsawo also-shall we know rename Warsaw and Cracow to Warschau and Krakau ?

--Molobo 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but we shall not insinuate that the names "Warschau" and "Krakau" are short-lived Nazi inventions. Get my point now? --Thorsten1 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning 1939-1945, yes it was a Nazi invention to name those cities so. Likewise renaming Rumia was made by German state not by initative of local people.

--Molobo 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, as always, please indent your posts properly, so that the structure of the discussion remains clear.

"yes it was a Nazi invention to name those cities so". One would hardly expect the Nazi authorities to use the name "Warszawa" in German (although they did so in official instructions and announcements issued in Polish). But that does not mean that they invented the name "Warschau" in 1939, or that it would be incorrect for Germans born there to state "Warschau" at their birthplace (as it would be to use the name "Litzmannstadt", even if may have been the "offical" name for a couple of years). However, this is what the sentence "[...] Polish village renamed by Nazi administration to German name of Rahmel (the name before Nazi occupation was Rumia)" implies. Get it now? --Thorsten1 08:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Centre Against Expulsions - "knowledge" vs. "unknowledge"

I totally agree with Kusma that the section should be merged with the main article on this centre. Quite apart from any other defects, the section discusses details of the centre and the debate which do not relate to Steinbach as a person.

While I'm at it: I removed the following sentence "It is unknown if Steinbach exposition will deal with expulsions of milions of Poles from Polish areas by Germany during the war such as the 'ethnic cleansing' program to rid the Warthegau area of Poles and to resettle the 'cleansed' areas with ethnic Germans." In the edit summary, I explained that "if it is unknown we should not include it here." Molobo restored that sentence, saying in the edit summary that "If its not it speaks well about the bias of the organisation."

Now, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to record knowledge, i.e. things that are known. As long as something is unknown, one can only speculate about it, and we are not supposed to do that here. The (merely assumed) absence of the 'ethnic cleansing' in Poland, which preceded and indirectly caused the expulsion of Germans, would indeed imply the project's inherent bias. But we are not here to expose any bias by letting things "speak well" about it. We are here to provide facts based on which readers can make up their own minds. The sentence Molobo is defending is not helping people to make up their own minds - it is blatantly trying to manipulate them. This is perfectly legitimate and common practice in opinionated journalism, but totally out of place in any encyclopaedia. --Thorsten1 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to record knowledge, i.e. things that are :known. As long as something is unknown, one can only speculate about it, and we are not supposed to do that here

Incorrect-Wikipedia lists quite huge number of topics that remain unknown ranging from aspects of physics to history. However if mentioning the fact of avoiding remembering German genocide by the organisation hurts your feelings about objectivity, feel free to remove it.

--Molobo 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the format of your above statement - again, please remember about proper indentation. As for the rest: Again, it's utter nonsense. --Thorsten1 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Edition War

For a few days we have been observing an edition war, mainly, though not exclusively between Space Cadet and Stella. There is no point in writing one edition only to have it erased by someone else.

So far there are a few points we cannot agree on:

1) Rahmel or Rumia - which name is primary? I think there is no point in discussiong that. We should say "in Polish Rumia, in German Rahmel" (actually Kashibian name can also be added) without arguing who renamed what. Actually Thorsen is right I think it was not renaming, just using German name (e.g. in the same way we have Roma in Italian, Rome in English and Rzym in Polish).

2) Discussion about her expelee status. From logical point of view it can be discussed. Her father was sent to Poland as an occupier (of course it is not her fault), so he was in Poland illegally. If there was no agression she wouldn't have been born in Poland. At this point her status can be disputed. On the other hand I would not make the difference between those who escaped because of the approaching frontline or those who were expelled by any legal or illegal administrative decisions. The fact that their family did not wait for the Russians and escaped does not allow questioning her status. Of course if German law allows her the status of an expelee this is the fact and should be stated.

3) The Centre - I would also prefer putting this part to Centre rather than Erika Steinbach article. If the doubts are raised they should be mentioned. Although I removed the last point talking about colaboration with Nazis. Colaboration of local Germans with Nazis cannot justify expelling the whole population. The fact that Nazis applied colective responsibility did not allow anyone to apply collective responsibility.

Regards, Jasra 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

She was not born in Poland as it was in Germany at the time of her birth (1943). Her father was stationed in Germany fully legally. The problem here is users introducing original research without any references, and even falsifying what the references others have cited does actually state. Any claim withouth references regarding her birthplace should be removed. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. I cannot see why the current version which state both the German and the Polish name should not be acceptable for everyone. It was Rahmel when Steinbach was born and is Rumia today, simple as that. History is history and we need to stick to the facts. Regarding the claim that her expellee status has been questioned, we also need references. Maria Stella 02:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maria, when you are replying to other people's posts, please indent your replies with one or more colons so that we can see what exactly you are replying to.

"She was not born in Poland as it was in Germany at the time of her birth (1943)." As I and Jasra have pointed out above, the question is not that easy to resolve. Even if you argue from a legalistic point of view and say that the are was legally German territory, and not foreign territory under German occupation (like the Generalgouvernement), you cannot simply ignore the fact that this incorporation was never recognized internationally. Even you could provide evidence for the contrary -- which you can't, of course, but let us assume you could -- there still remains the issue of legality vs. legitimacy. By assuming an uncompromising position, you are only justifying the equally uncompromising position of the opposite party.

"Regarding the claim that her expellee status has been questioned, we also need references". As I explained in an article version that has been reverted twice by Molobo and Space Cadet, "her legitimation to speak on behalf of the German expellees has been questioned. However, in terms of the 1953 German Federal Expellee Law, she has official expellee status." I do not know if her legal status has been questioned; however, this is not really important, as this status does not even entitle to compensation benefits from the German state any more. What has been questioned -- not only in the Polish press -- is her moral and political legitimation to speak on behalf of the expellees, when she cannot even consciously remember having to leave the place where her parents happened to live for a short time only.

As for the question of the Bundestag source: You mentioned this on my talk page as well, and I posted a reply there. --Thorsten1 09:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Jasra: Thanks a lot for giving us your levelheaded opinion and demonstrating once again that there are reasonable Polish editors. The usual suspects might accuse you of fouling the nest, of being volksdeutsch or whatever, but don't let that irritate you. --Thorsten1 09:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Her family had to flee from her birthplace when she was 2 years old, and she then lived in a refugee camp until she was 7 years old. Do you or any other participant in this discussion share this experience? In any event, the article also state that her family roots are from Silesia. I still think we need more sources in this article, and especially for the claim that her expellee status has been questioned. Having lived in Germany for a couple of years, I never saw Steinbach's expellee status questioned by any serious politician.

As for the birthplace: Jerusalem being the capital of Israel is not "internationally recognized", but nonetheless Jerusalem is listed as the capital in the Israel article, simply because it is a fact. Rahmel was legally a part of Danzig-West Prussia in 1943, not of the General Government of Poland. I find it pretty irrelevant what the enemies of Germany did recognize or not. Surely Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and lots of other countries did not dispute German souvereignty. Maria Stella 13:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Her family had to flee from her birthplace when she was 2 years old, and she then lived in a refugee camp until she was 7 years old. Do you or any other participant in this discussion share this experience?" It will hardly have mattered to 1½-year-old Erika that she was leaving the place of her birth. As for the "refugee camp", this is simply not true. East German refugees were accommodated with families who, at least according to the housing authority, had a room to spare in their house or apartment. Erika Grote and her daughters were assigned accommodation in farmhouses in rural North Germany. This may not have been a picnic, as the locals were usually not too welcoming, but it was not a refugee camp experience. "Do you or any other participant in this discussion share this experience?" Whether I, you, or anybody else shared it is hardly relevant for this discussion.

"Having lived in Germany for a couple of years, I never saw Steinbach's expellee status questioned by any serious politician". It seems you haven't lived in Germany for long enough then, or you didn't pay enough attention. Of course, it was not her legal status that was questioned, but her moral legitimation; and it wasn't "serious politicians" who questioned it - they do not really care about this topic - but journalists who did care. Steinbach responded by saying "You do not have to be a whale to put yourself out for whales", admitting that she does not even consider herself an expellee.

"Jerusalem being the capital of Israel is not "internationally recognized", but nonetheless Jerusalem is listed as the capital in the Israel article, simply because it is a fact." This is totally beside the point. Quite apart from anything else that could be said in reply to this statement and the rest of the paragraph, we are discussing the proper name of Steinbach's birthplace here. That "Jerusalem" is the only correct English name of Israel's capital. This is not under dispute, so it's a lame comparison. --Thorsten1 22:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not wanting to create another furor here, as this is an incredibly devisive issue, which I doubt will be resolved anytime soon... however, I would like to disagree with Maria Stella's assertation that Erika was NOT born in Poland...rather Germany. This is absolute rubbish. Although Poland was UNDER OCCUPATION by German and Russian forces during this time, it STILL EXISTED, unlike during the pre-WWI period when it was annexed and OFFICIALLY did NOT exist. So she WAS born in Poland. From what I have read about Erika, it seems that the situation was not quite as 'dire' for her family as she would have us believe. I agree with THorsten1 about the places they would have been offered to stay etc. And in this way, though her father may have been here legally according to German law of the day, he was here ILLEGALLY according to international law and as part of invasion forces, thus making her claims to being of those poor unfortunates who had to suffer Exile, very very tenuous. She does not have unanimous support even from her own government/people. ---As for Maria Stella's comments on being in Displaced persons or Concentration Camps, I think it's rather rich considering the circumstances to even compare the 'plight' of Erika to those who suffered innumerable and incredible horrors due to the arrogance of the Nazi occupation. Yes I'm a grandchild of a couple who were interred in various camps. The uncertainty, the pain, the anguish never EVER left them, even after migration to the furthest corner of the earth. My Grandfather was a resident of Lodz and was hunted by or in captivity by the invaders. So please, consider your words when you speak of other's lack of knowledge of 'camps'. Perhaps I should consider suing the German government for the situation it left MY family in... khrystene 1:46am 20th May, 2006 CET

You are all wrong. The official maps in Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1991 did not show Rumia/Rahmel as being "under Polish administration". Neither as being part of Gernmany. Why? Because all democratic German governments, unlike the Third Reich, always recognised the Treaty of Versailles which gave Rumia/Rahmel to Poland in 1919. And because the city was in Poland between the wars, its annexation by Germany during World War II was illegal according to all modern European countries, including Germany (!). Denying that Erika Steinbach was born in Poland is equivalent to denying the legality of pre-war borders of Europe (not only the post World War II border changes) and accepting the border changes by Adolf Hitler as legal. Only some neo-Nazis do that, so be very careful about whom you ally with. ProudPomeranian 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources and birthplace

As far as questioning her expellee status is concerned, the sources can be news material on Polish TV and in Polish press. The thing I remember best was a question a journalist (unfortunately I do not remember his name) asked on a press conference she had during her visit in Poland. I cannot literally quote his question, but I remember the content. He said: You were born near Gdynia in occupied Poland, because your father was an army officer. I have a question for you: "Would your organization grant the status of an expellee to a person who was born let say at the airport near Stalingrad (because some families came to visit soldiers there)" As far as I remember the journalist did not receive the answer to this question. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong to question her status, but I cannot agree that her status was never questioned or that the fact that it was questioned cannot be proved.

As far as German sovereignity over Rahmel/Rumia is concerned: you gave the example of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a de facto capital of Israel, but I have seen many maps where Tel Aviv is marked as the capital. So it is not as clear as you try to say.

Territories that used to be German or German occupied and now are Polish can be devided roughly into 4 categories:

1) Those which used to belong to Germany before 1945 and in 1945 were given to Poland (I don't want to discuss any historical reasons for that, just the facts are important) - in this case it can clearly be said that before 1945 it was Germany and now it is Poland. Wrocław/Breslau can be an example 2) Those which between 1918-1945 belonged to the Free City of Danzig, before that it was Germany (in medieval times Poland) and after 1945 Poland. The Free City of Danzig was supposed to have joint administration, but effectively Germans were more influential. 3) Those which were Polish between 1918-1939 and after German invasion were incorporated into the Reich. Most of these areas were German during the partitions of Poland, here Rahmel/Rumia can be an example. 4) Those which after the invasion in 1939 were made General Governship. (Cracow/Krakau/Krakow) can be an example.

The difference between 3 and 4 depended on the decision of German authorities. Both 3 and 4 used to be Polish and we can refer to them as to German-occupied. When Warsaw was occupied by Germans during the First Word War no one sys it was Germany then.

Regards Jasra 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If her expellee status was questioned by some Polish journalist, I suggest we write exactly that in the article. Btw., if I were Steinbach, I wouldn't bother to answer the question of the journalist either, because the comparison with Stalingrad is ridiculous and the journalist knew it.

"Occupation" is a legal term. Either a territory is occupied, or it is not occupied. Sadly, this were historically defined only by the state controlling the territory. Territories which were made part of Germany did not have the status of occupied territory, and cannot be described as occupied. Warsaw, on the contrary, was never part of Germany, during the First World War it was taken by the Germans from the Russians and was only under military administration (like parts of France, the Netherlands etc. also were during WWII). It had nothing with German territory to do at all. It is no point in mixing together different concepts.

If Rahmel was to be described as occupied, we would have to describe lots of territories after the war as Polish-occupied Germany because the Germans considered them to be so (in German schools the maps until 1990 showed large parts of present-day Poland as "Polish-occupied Germany"). Maria Stella 12:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, Maria... First, if we want to describe the place as if it legally belonged to Germany, then please provide some international document that says so. Otherwise we'd have to stick to international law, which never recognized the occupation of Poland. Should we follow your logic in all places and include other Nazi concepts in wikipedia as well? Western Prussia was as one-sided invention of the Nazi regime as, say, wunderwaffe or inferiority of Slavs.

Secondly, the question was not as absurd as you claim. If Steinbach was born in occupied USSR and not occupied Poland - would it make any difference? Different kind of occupation? Her father was a member of the occupation forces and, as proven by the IPN article, for instance, did not even have his flat there.

Let's move on, military occupation is when one nation's military occupy all or part of the territory of another nation. As Poland never ceased to exist nor there was any treaty ceding the Polish territory to the Nazis, the area remained legally a part of Poland, both before, during and after the war. If we were to follow your logic, we'd have to state that all people born in, say, Paris or Smolensk in 1942 were born in Germany. Furthermore, the German state could regard them as German citizens - or at least they would have the right to apply for German citizenship. Halibutt 01:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, the German term for an expelee is Heimatvertriebene, that is "expelled of one's homeland" is quite broad. If Rumia was Steinbachs homeland, then mine is Mars. Anyway, she is indeed legally an expelee in that the act of 1953 was focused on reparations to German citizens who left any property in the east. It included pretty everyone, both the expelled themselves, the soldiers who lost their watches on the front, the families who visited them and their parrot ran away - everyone. Which is also the source of the discrepancy between the number of people expelled and the number of "expelees"... Halibutt

@Maria Stella: "... we would have to describe lots of territories after the war as Polish-occupied Germany because the Germans considered them to be so..." Wrong. These territories were considered as Soviet-occupied, just like East Germany. "...in German schools the maps until 1990 showed large parts of present-day Poland as "Polish-occupied Germany"...". Wrong again. On maps, these territories were labelled as "German Eastern territories under Polish administration", in line with the wording of the Potsdam Agreement. Although the Potsdam Agreement remained in effect until 1990, this moniker quickly disappeared from school maps and public usage in general in the aftermath of Ostpolitik.

@Halibutt: "It included pretty everyone, both the expelled themselves, the soldiers who lost their watches on the front, the families who visited them and their parrot ran away - everyone". Well... "unsourced assertions" would be putting it mildly. In fact, expellee status was awarded to anyone who had a permanent residence either within the German borders of 1937, or outside it, as part of any German minority between the Baltic states and Romania. Whether or not they lost real estate or any other property (such as parrots or watches) was not decisive.

"If we were to follow your logic, we'd have to state that all people born in, say, Paris or Smolensk in 1942 were born in Germany." Wrong, again. France and Russia were never incorporated into the German Reich, like Rumia was, but were legally foreign territory under German control. Maria Stella is not right of course, but you are trying to prove her wrong with the wrong kind of arguments. --Thorsten1 22:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page has been a mess for over two years now. I decided to give it a try and perform a general cleanup. Hopefully this helps to settle the endless revert wars and discussions going in circles (I also archived the 233kb-long discussion here at the talk page, it must've been some sort of a record...). I migrated most of the info on the Centre Against Expulsions to that article's talk, as it had little to do with Steinbach herself and lots to do with the centre. I also expanded on her post-war life. It wasn't easy as the details of her life vary from interview to interview. The basic source I used was the GW article listed as a "general" reference.

Most of the changes are pretty self-explanatory, though there is one basic thing that might require some additional comment from me. The basic problem for many of those who revert warred over this article was the name of the place she was born in. Initially I thought that there might be some NPOV solution to the problem, but apparently there isn't. After two years I realize that this is a classical situation of two conflicting POVs, one represented by the majority and one by a minority. The problem is whether we accept the Nazi annexation of Poland or not. If so, then she was born in Rahmel, West Prussia. If not, then it was Rumia, occupied Poland. As the only state to accept the annexation of those areas by Nazi Germany was Nazi Germany itself, I decided to follow the version supported by the united nations and the international law ("no territorial changes through war" and so on). Hopefully this would end the dispute. Halibutt 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I can live with this version, and appreciate your contributions. The Rumia/Rahmel thing is not yet perfect, but then, as long as Rahmel is mentioned I am OK with it. (I don't have an alternative suggestion either) -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's not perfect, hardly any compromise is... Halibutt 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The name

Rumia's official page has special section concerning the name, and it mentions that Rahmel was only given after Prussian takeover in 1772. I added this information along with link to Rumia's page with this info. --Molobo 10:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://www.um.rumia.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=51

--Molobo 10:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO it would perfectly fit into the article on Rumia. However, this is a biographical note of a person who was merely born there and discussing the etymology of the German name of the town where she spent little more than a year of her life here seems a bad idea. Part of the problem with constant revert wars here was that people (me myself included) wanted to put too much unrelated info into this article. We could avoid many problems by sticking as much as we can to her actual biography while moving info on Rumia, BdV or ZgV to respective articles. Halibutt 15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article already includes information on the town-I seen no reason for misleading "It was part of Poland and Germany" sentence regarding the name. We have official records as when the village was given a Germanised name, It haas the right to be as the fact about German occupation in 1939. --Molobo 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just like the article on Rumia mentions the Polish Defensive War, which however does not mean that we should discuss things related to PDW and not to Rumia in that article. Please, Molobo, neither Steinbach invented the name or was there in 18th century. Why to mention something that is completely irrelevant here? German name is a German name, nothing more nothing less. Should we spam all articles where a German name is mentioned with etymology of the name? And what about Polish names? Should we add to the article on, say, Józef Piłsudski that his surname was coined in 16th century after the village of Piłsudy and then discuss the etymology of that name?

The article mentions both names as both were clearly in use at various periods in history. Full stop. Even Chris accepted the compromise solution - why can't you? Halibutt 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions both names as both were clearly in use at various periods in history This is misleading, the German name was used only during Partitions of Poland and Nazi occupation. This are only two periods when it was used. Why can't it be mentioned, instead of the elusive "various periods of history". Let us be clear-the name was used with aggression against Poland. --Molobo 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

German name is a German name, nothing more nothing less. German name may imply the location has German history. Thus it is important the give information why it has one, in order not to confuse the readers as to status of the location. --Molobo 19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the place does have a German history. Auschwitz or Birkenau have a German history too, yet you don't add the etymology of the German name to all biographical articles on holocaust victims, do you. Sorry, but I fail to understand why is the etymology of the germanized name of Rumia so important here and not important enough to be included in the article on Rumia. Why don't you describe it there and end the issue? If people were interested in the history of that place, they would check that article. I don't like this miss Steinbach and I believe she is just a demagogic **** seeking power on the back of some 90 years old grandpas. However, this is a biographical article on her and I'd like to keep it as focused on her biography as possible. Halibutt 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, once again I ask you to stop adding that to the article. Both you and I know that the town was as German as Cape Town or New York. However, the place to explain that is either the article on Rumia or history of Rumia. I believe that the more history of Rumia is pasted here, the more we have problems with various people tring to add their own POV on it - and the wars over this article start again. Why exactly can't we stick to what is obvious to all sides involved and explain the details in a relevant article? Miss Steinbach neither occupied (annexed/reannexed/took over/whatever) Rumia, nor did she rename it in early 19th century. Others did and such info could perhaps fit in their bio notes. But why here? Halibutt 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added

Alledged to "German victims", as whatever Germans were the victims in the same scale as people Germany tried to exterminate during World War 2 is a very controversial idea as seen in the words of the Jewish hero and survivor of German genocide Marek Edelman: [3] They say they were evil and good Germans. But why didn't I have the luck during this whole time of finding a good one ? I didn't met a single good German, only those who hit me in the face.Yes I am sorry for the girl that died during expulsions.But I have no pity for the Germans as a nation.They put Hitler in power.German society lived for five years from occupied Europel; lived from me, and my friends.To me they gave two slices of bread, while Germans eated as much as they wanted. That is why it is important that they continue penance. Let them cry for long, long time - maybe then they will finally realise that to Europe they were the executioner[...]They don't deserve mercy, they deserve penance.And that for many generations, because otherwise their arrogance and haughtiness shall return We should avoid then sentences that could lead to disputes. --Molobo 17:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, read again. The article is far from victimisation of Germans or Germany. It merely mentions "victims of expulsion after World War II", nothing more, nothing less. The very fact that Germans were indeed expelled from various areas is not disputed by anyone. We might not agree on the interpretation of facts or the number of expelled, but the very fact that there were Germans expelled is undisputed. At the same time you claims that there is a dispute between those who believe that Germans were expelled and those who don't. That's why I'm reverting your "alleged victims of..." back to "victims of...". Halibutt 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

fact that there were Germans expelled is undisputed The sentence speaks about "victims" not about "expelled" the very term is propagand btw, as they were part of legal population transfer within Soviet Zone of control not from country to country. Neverhless "victims" is POV-as expelees include as it seems also colonists, soldiers, Nazi officials etc-they can be hardly viewed as "victims", or for example all those Germans that were part of 25% of German minority in Poland that engaged in diversion, sabotage or direct help to German Reich prior WW2 ? Are 82.000 members of Selbstschutz excluded from "expelled victims" ? Therefore as it can be seen, naming those people victims is POV, hardly everybody expelled was a victim. --Molobo 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now then, you have a point here in that the "victims" might not be the best word here. On one hand the centre is to be devoted to those who were expelled, who by definition were "victims of expelling". However, as the centre might as well be devoted to "expelees" as per the German law (including those like Steinbach who never owned anything there and left the area long time before anybody expelled them), how about the wording I proposed now? In short, it's: One of her main aims is to build a controversial monumental Centre Against Expulsions (Template:Lang-de) in Berlin, devoted to the victims of forced population migrations or ethnic cleansing in Europe, particularly to the Germans displaced after World War II. The term displaced person is as NPOV as it gets. Halibutt 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, I fully agree with Halibutt's profiling of Erika Steinbach in the section above. That said, Molobo's statements in this section [4] are, as usual, POV-laden. First off, it is not really our task here to lead a moralising discussion on the moral legitimation of the words "expellees" and "victims". It is perfectly legitimate for a Holocaust survivor like Edelman to have and express sentiments as the ones quoted above in an interview with a journalist: No one has any right to request neutrality from someone like Edelman. It is less legitimate for anyone born decades afterwards to express such sentiments, and even less legitimate to let themselves be influenced by such sentiments while trying to write a neutral encyclopedia for an international readership; this readership does have the right to request neutrality.

However, even if we assume for a minute that it were acceptable to have such sentiments influence our edits here, every single of Molobo's points is outrageously fallacied. Here we go: ""expelled" the very term is propagand btw, as they were part of legal population transfer within Soviet Zone of control not from country to country." The word "expelled" does not necessarily imply a population transfer from country to country. It simply means that someone is being made to leave their place of residence against their will. (By extension, it can also apply to situations where someone is temporarily leaving their place of residence planning to return, but is prevented from doing so.)

Even if a transfer from country to country was required in order for the process to be an expulsion, this is easily fulfilled in the present case: As Molobo would otherwise be the first to emphasise, the territories the "expellees" had to leave were either about to become a part of Poland as they were leaving, or had already become a part of Poland by the time they left. The fact that the territories they had to leave were under Soviet occupation at that time, and that the expellees settled down - or at least could have settled down - in another territory under Soviet occupation does not mean that their resettlement was not an expulsion. This is about as absurd as saying that the Polish population resettled to the Generalgouvernement from, say, Rumia, were not victims of an expulsion because both Rumia and the Generalgouvernement were under German occupation.

As for the "legal" bit: That depends on who makes the law. When Poles were being expelled from Warmia into the Generalgouvernement, this was also perfectly legal according to the people who made the laws under which it happened. The expellees' offical line that the expulsion was a breach of international law is on very shaky ground indeed. But there is a difference between legality and legitimacy. As anyone, the expellees have every right to feel subjectively that they were treated in an illegitimate manner, even if it might have been (and continues to be) legally unassailable.

Finally, an expulsion remains an expulsion, even if it is both legally correct and legitimised by some higher cause. People who refuse to leave their homes which are to be flooded by a dam built in order to ensure their country's energy supply, and who are forcefully removed by the police, are still being subject to an act of expulsion – even if it is legally correct and perfectly legitimate from an objective point of view.

"as expelees include as it seems also colonists, soldiers, Nazi officials etc-they can be hardly viewed as "victims", or for example all those Germans that were part of 25% of German minority in Poland that engaged in diversion, sabotage or direct help to German Reich prior WW2 ? Are 82.000 members of Selbstschutz excluded from "expelled victims" ?" This part is even more of a fallacy. Firstly, it does not really matter if the expellees are Nazis, war criminals, etc. If somebody kills my daughter and then I kill the killer, I might benefit "mitigating circumstance" un court, but in term of the law and by most people's moral standards I would still have committed a crime. The pepetrator of the first crime would become the victim of the second. Of course, the second crime does not redeem the first, but neither does the first redeem the second. By the same token, a Nazi official who oversees the expulsion of Poles from Rumia and gets "resettled" from, say, his native Breslau a few years later is a victim of an expulsion. Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.

However, the argument is even less valid regarding the "25% of German minority in Poland that engaged in diversion, sabotage or direct help to German Reich prior WW2". The amount of 25% seems to be created out of thin air - a population in which 25% (even when excluding children and old ones) engage in any kind of political activity, let alone illegal and violent acts, is basically unheard of. (BTW, what exactly is "diversion" supposed to mean in this context?) Even the Polish underground state, which enjoyed an enormous amount of loyalty, did not achieve such a degree of mobilisation, except during the Warsaw Uprising. However, even if we assume that this percentage was correct for a minute, it would not really make much sense in this context. As Molobo recently pointed out elsewhere on this page, the German minority in pre-war Poland was relatively small; he said it was about 700,000. Thus, the vast majority of the 15 million or so Germans who were expelled from their homes after 1945, did not live in Poland before the war, and can therefore not be held accountable for acts of illoyalty against the Polish state committed by no more than - even according to Molobo's implausible overestimation - 175,000 people (about 1%).

Summing up: One can certainly argue that by having some 15 million citizens forcefully "relocated", Germany as a whole paid a rather small price for the atrocities committed in its name. However, those 15 million had to relocate under conditions which were often less than "humane", as was envisaged in the Potsdam Agreement; and they were not exactly warm-heartedly welcomed in what remained of their country. They had to endure an incomparably crueller fate than many other Germans - without being in anyway more "responsible" for what had happened than the rest. No matter how you look at it, they remain victims of expulsions – even if the train of events that ultimately led to these expulsions was set and kept in motion by their compatriots and, in many cases, even by themselves. Molobo's claim that "naming those people victims is POV, hardly everybody expelled was a victim" either smacks of total ignorance - or the arrogance of someone seeking the moral highground by insisting that only his own ancestors could possibly have been "victims". Or both. --Thorsten1 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Expelee status

Interestingly the law which somebody was nice enough to state "includes people who lost all kinds of property" is in fact worded different. In fact I wonder what property according to the author of that change Steinbach lost ? Was it perhaps some future property that would be hers if the chosen German nation would finally exterminate Poles as Hitler promised and settle their land ? Because I am unawere of her possesing anything in Poland. Anyway the law is indeed worded differently and includes also people who didn't lost property as I can see it. Here is the sentence : http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bvfg/__1.html I don't know if I am translating this right :

ohne einen Wohnsitz gehabt zu haben, sein Gewerbe oder seinen Beruf ständig in den in Absatz 1 genannten Gebieten ausgeübt hat und diese Tätigkeit infolge Vertreibung aufgeben mußte,

Without having a home, had his work or profession in named areas which he practiced, and because of expulsions he had to stop. What an interesting sentence. Are concentration camp guards expelees also according to German law if I am reading this right ?

Of course German law also makes it clear that people who were part of colonisation efforts earlier-for example during Kulturkampf when Poles were forced to sell their land to German colonists are expelees also: Heimatvertriebener ist ein Vertriebener, der am 31. Dezember 1937 oder bereits einmal vorher seinen Wohnsitz in dem Gebiet desjenigen Staates hatte, aus dem er vertrieben worden ist (Vertreibungsgebiet), und dieses Gebiet vor dem 1. Januar 1993 verlassen hat; die Gesamtheit der in § 1 Abs. 1 genannten Gebiete, die am 1. Januar 1914 zum Deutschen Reich oder zur Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie oder zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zu Polen, zu Estland, zu Lettland oder zu Litauen gehört haben, gilt als einheitliches Vertreibungsgebiet. Basically this passage means that people who had earlier property in territories of Poland that were part of German Reich before 1914(!) and later were forced to move out of it are expelees also If I am reading this right. Now this not only justifies Partitions of Poland but also makes it legal for Nazi settlers to claim they are expelees if their families had some possesions in Poland earlier(as the expelee status passes over). German colonists from German Reich era are also expelees according to that right if I am reading this right.

All in all as can be seen the law is very broad and doesn't include victims but also others. Personally I am schocked that Germany has such nationalistic law, justifing(willing or not or aware or unaware) many discriminatory policies of German Reich and Nazi Germany towards non-Germans. --Molobo 17:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Place of birth

The following was copied from Maria Stella's talk page:

Maria, pretty please, take your problems with the new version to talk before you blind revert to the version that caused so much stir. I've really done my best to make that article as NPOV as possible and it hurts me to see that people value my work so low. Halibutt 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to integrate some of the improvements, but the problems were not solved with your version. Basically, using Polish sources and Polish points of view in a biography on a German politician in English is wrong. The article should rely on mainstream German sources like her official biography. Maria Stella 17:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

She has no official biography so far. There are a plethora of more or less accurate biographical notes here and there. That's precisely why I used as many internet sources as I could. There's no rule in wikipedia that would require German or Zulu or Italian sources to be used anywhere, which however did not stop me from using mostly German and English sources If for some bizarre reason you don't like the Polish sources cited in the article - state that at the talk page instead of outright deleting them. Deleting content just because might be considered vandalism and that's not what you want, is it. Anyway, the Polish article and an interview with her were the basic sources used by yours truly and the potential readers of this article have the right to know that. The more sources we have the merrier.

As to your recent changes - you basically revert to the version from before my edits, especially in the most conflicting part. Could you please state what's wrong with the current compromise solution before you yet again revert? Halibutt 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are changing her place of birth to "Rumia, Poland, then under military occupation by Nazi Germany", replacing the reference to the (rather authoritative) Bundestag biography with an obscure "Blum" reference. First of all, Rahmel was not under military occupation. We have already discussed this. The claim that it was under military occupation when it was instead made an integral part of Germany is outright historical falsification. Rahmel did not have such a legal status. Secondly, it was not Rumia, Poland in 1943. It only became Rumia, Poland, after 1945 as well as the years 1920-1939. Thirdly, something called "Nazi Germany" did not exist. Colloquial names should not be used. Maria Stella 13:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral German annexations in the years 1939-1945 were not recognised by the international community. Balcer 13:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Which "international community"? I take it we are not going to recognize unilateral Polish annexations of German territory not recognized by Germany after the war, then? Maria Stella 13:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Potsdam Conference? Poland did not annex any territory unilaterally, it was all done with the approval of all the Allies. I find your changes bordering on pushing Nazi POV. Please be careful here, this is a very touchy subject. Balcer 13:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Approval of Joseph Stalin & co. is not more valid than Axis decisions. The same rules must apply for all countries, special rules for Germany is bordering on racism and totally unacceptable. Maria Stella 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Approval not only of Stalin, but of Churchill and Truman, and most of the international community at the time who, to say the least, did not have too many kind feelings toward Germany at that point (see Allies of World War II). Balcer 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Hirohito of Japan, Benito Mussolini of Italy, Fransisco Franco of Spain, Miklós Horthy de Nagybánya of Hungary, Boris III of Bulgaria, Ion Antonescu of Romania, Jozef Tiso of Slovakia, Peter II of Yugoslavia, Ante Pavelić of Croatia, Henri Pétain of France, Puyi of Manchukuo, the Provisional Government of Free India, the leader of Thailand and other states did not dispute German souvereignty over West Prussia. Maria Stella 14:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You are making my case for me, you know. This list of states is essentialy the rogue's gallery for this period. Balcer 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Maria Stella is making a VERY good case for you Balcer. She seems to think that the world's invaders and dictators have the right of way even when they LOSE the war they began. This is a very touchy subject... I personally don't think Maria Stella is objective enough to be able to write on it. AS for her assertation that ONLY German sources be used in the writing of an article about a GERMAN... what a load of nationalistic BUNK. You don't write historical pieces on anyone or anything using only ONE frame of reference. In other news, today I read that the German SPD party had decided it no longer wanted the Centre for the Exiled/Centrum Przeciw Wypędzeniom. Interesting. khrystene 2am 20th May, 2006 CET

Rahmel was considered part of Germany by the state controlling the territory at the time of Steinbach's birth. That the former government of Poland did not recognize it (Polish irredentism) is really not relevant in this article. If it is relevant, it is also relevant in all articles dealing with Poles living in German territories annexed by Communist Poland that Germany considered the areas occupied part of Germany. Maria Stella 14:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Allies of WWII

Not only the government of Poland had a problem with Germany's annexation, by 1943 almost the whole world did, seeing as it was at war with Germany. Balcer 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a bilateral issue, over a territory which has switched sides several times in history, involving two countries. It not involving Rwanda, Niue or any other countries. The opinion of the enemies of Germany is not relevant and obviously POV. You don't base articles on George W. Bush on the opinion of North Korea either. Maria Stella 14:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Was the Treaty of Versailles a bilateral agreement between Poland and Germany? Can the Allies of WWII really be dismissed as a "few dozen African colonies", like you stated in comments? Anyway, I am up against the 3RR limit, so no more reverts for me today. Balcer 14:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Treaty of Versailles was a treaty between Germany and other states. The "Potsdam Conference", planning ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity (similar to the crimes Milan Babić was convicted of), was not a treaty between Germany and other states, and thus of no legal relevance. Maria Stella 14:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that Poland was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles, right? As to your views on the "Potsdam Conference" they are, to say the least, not in agreement with the commonly accepted point of view. Please consult the Wikipedia article about the Potsdam Conference to obtain a more reasonable view, or edit it if you disagree. This article is not the place for this argument, anyway. Balcer 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The treaty of Versailles is of no relevance in this discussion, because it is a treaty involving Germany which the "Potsdam Conference" is not. Hopefully most people would consider ethnic cleansing a crime against humanity, but 50 years of communist indoctrination in Poland has made Poland a special case. Maria Stella 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Potsdam Conference happened in 1945. Please explain how it is relevant to justifying a unilateral annexation of Polish territory carried out by Nazi Germany in 1939. Balcer 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Polish annexation was as unilateral as the German annexation. If German annexations are not rezognized, Polish annexations cannot be recognized either. That means Silesia and other territories were "Polish-occupied Germany" until the signing of the peace treaty after the cold war. It's time you Poles make up your mind which of two possible solutions you prefer (1: Recognizing actual annexations or 2: Only recognize border changes based on formal treaties). The same standards must apply to all articles. Maria Stella 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely vote for 2. Please let me know which option you would prefer. Balcer 18:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine with me. I lost my patience with Maria Stella's edits and her POV-pushing. Seeing yet another revert I left her own version as it was, tagging it as NPOV and asking for citations where some dubious remarks were added by her. I'd suggest a dispute resolution process to be started, though I don't plan to waste my time on this article any more - and will not do it myself. Halibutt 15:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Guys, do you know that Neutral Point Of View means ? It's not the POV of German or Polish nationalists; it's supposed to Neutral. Claiming that Poland was not occupied by Nazi Germany but "integrated" to Germany during WW2 is simply an outrage. --Lysy^talk 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems that the current dispute is between the POV of WWII Nazi Germany and the POV of basically the rest of the world. However, as I said above, I lost my patience now and asked Piotrus what would be the best dispute resolution process to be applied here. I will not revert the article any more (unless the dispute tags are removed), nor will I ask anyone to do it. Halibutt 15:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maria Stella claims are bordering on pro-Nazi revisionism. In this diff, she claims the German annexation of Polish territory was recognized internationally because a bunch of puppet states and Nazi Allies recognized it. Doesn't Wikipedia have any mechanisms to prevent the unqualified insertion of pro-Nazi views? After all, what will we hear next, arguments that Nazi propaganda gave just another valid point of view or that the Nazi German point of view on Auschwitz and Treblinka must be given equal weight? Balcer 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the point where some help from German editors would be useful. Do we consider WW2 Nazi POV as something that should influence the shape of the article ? --Lysy^talk 17:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "international disapproval" of the Nazi annexation. Her bio intro looks like a mess now with all of its "citations needed". Something simple like "Steinbach was born in Rumia (German: Rahmel) in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, part of Nazi-occupied Poland. Her father, Wilhelm Karl Hermann, was a..." Feel free to touch up the suggested wording. If the reader wants to learn more information about the village, he/she can easily find it at its own article. Olessi 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Simple is beautiful. I've tried it in the article exactly as you put it. --Lysy^talk 18:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing with nationalist POV pushers. Personal attacks is against Wikipedia policy, and the comments of Lysy, which has nothing with reality to do since he is lacking fundamental knowledge of Central European history, should thus be ignored. This is basically a question of NPOV and historical correctness or Polish communist POV and historical falsification. The version preferred by the non-Poles cite an authoritative official source, the official Bundestag biography, and explain the whole issue of annexation and the opinion of the Poles in a neutral way. The version preferred by the Polish nationalist POV pushers deliberately contradicts the historical facts and is very inappropriate. Maria Stella 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maria Stella, You've lost me with your "Personal attacks is against Wikipedia policy, and the comments of Lysy, which has nothing with reality to do since he is lacking fundamental knowledge of Central European history, should thus be ignored". Where did I attack you personally ? Are you confusing me with someone else ? --Lysy^talk 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia need is mechanisms to stop the Polish nationalist POV-pushing which is very damaging to the project. Yes, let the Germans and others write the biographies on German politicans and the Poles and others write the biographies on Polish politicians. We could start with translating de:Erika Steinbach, which is NPOV and concise and based on mainstream and official sources. Maria Stella 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia need is mechanisms to stop the revisionist German nationalist POV-pushing. khrystene 20th May, 2006 2am CET

The official German-language Bundestag biography contains only one line on the subject of Steinbach's birthplace: Geboren am 25. Juli 1943 in Rahmel/Westpreußen. This line tells us very little about the actual legal status of "Westpreußen". If you want to prove your case here, and if you insist making incomplete claims about who recognised and who did not recognise the annexations, you really should be able to find a better source. Balcer 18:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maria Stella wrote: Recognizing actual annexations or 2: Only recognize border changes based on formal treaties). The same standards must apply to all articles.

I think that in case when neither most international bodies did recognize the annexation nor there was any treaty we can talk about annexation or occupation. This would be the case of Rumia/Rahmel. Some time ago I proposed referring to this territory as to annected rather than occupied or German. I think that everyone would agree that the territory was annected. Unfortunately my proposal seems not to satisfy anyone and the edit war goes on.

In case of the territories given to Poland by the treaty of Potsdam - I wouldn't mind if both Polish and German PoVs were presented, starting from the most extremist German (or Polish ;)) through more moderate German, moderate Polish to the most extremist Polish (or the other way round). Actually as far as I know nowadays there is certain form of agreement between Poland and Germany about the recognition of existing borders (although there is no a treaty) and there was no any form of agreement in case of unilateral annexation of part of the Polish territory). However if some Germans do not agree with present borders this fact can be mentioned and it will not violate NPoV.

Some reference point can also be international organisations (regardless your of my personall attitude to them) like the Ligue of Nations or the UN. If the annexation was not recognized by them it can be stated illegal and no matter whether there were countries accepting German decision or not. All the rulers you mentioned (apart from Franco and Hirohito) were overthrown after the defeat of Germany and not recognized by UN. I know that this might be a debatable argument and I do not like the UN at all, but this reference point is presented by many people and I don't think it can be ignored.

As far as a comment about the use of word Nazi Germany is concerned, I don't know if it is colloquial or not, but I have always thought that this term was used for the sake of political correctness in order not to associate Nazi actions with the German nation as a whole. "Real" Polish nationalists would rather use words Germany or German insted of Nazi Germany or Nazi.

As far as Potsdam is concerned - this is not strictly connected with the article, but because the topic was raised - I can say what I have said before: I agree that ordering any expulsions or displacements was a crime against humanity and the fact that the other side had committed crimes against humanity before is not relevant. Any crime should be condemned, but only criminals who are proved guilty should be punished. Their families must not be punished and of course the whole nation must not be punished.

Sorry for a too long post, regards, Jasra 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry for a too long post" - there is really nothing to apologize for, Jasra. Thanks for bringing some focus, common sense and good faith into this meandering, sometimes absurd and ill-meaning debate. --Thorsten1 22:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor sidenote - the post-war Polish-German border is currently recognized by both states. It was accepted by the East Germans in the Treaty of Zgorzelec and by the Wessies in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970). Finally, it was again recognized by reunified Germany in 1990 (ratified 1992). So there's no international dispute whatsoever - and even before the West German government and the exiles considered the pre-war Polish-German border as the basis for their claims to name the areas gained by Poland after WWII as under temporary Polish administration. However, the place she was born in was not a part of those areas as it used to be in Poland both before and after the war and was not subject to any territorial arrangements. Halibutt 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Little rat"

I do not have the time or nerve now to get involved in disputes, or to correct Molobo's awkward prose right now. However, I have a complaint about this edit summary by Space Cadet, in which - instead of summarizing his objection to Sciurinæ's version - he called him a "little rat", using "szczurek" as a Polish malapropism of his username. I expect that this will be defended as harmless humour, but as people's sense of humour varies widely we'd better keep such "humour" out of here. --Thorsten1 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard. Szczurek is a very popular surname in Poland (Google gives 283,000 hits), so I definitely do not see it as a significant insult. Still, twisting people's names is never good practice, so I also ask Space Cadet to refrain from this in the future. Balcer 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect that this will be defended as harmless humour, but as people's sense of humour varies widely we'd better keep such "humour" out of here.

You didn't seem too concerned about "jokes" about Poles though(that is how you called statement that Poles only contributed hair disease as part of their culture) : Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus/Archive_2

Chris73's opinion that "the details are too complex and not relevant enough for the intro" is perfectly valid, regardless of any Polish plait jokes he may or may not have cracked in the past.(...) -Thorsten1 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

May we expect you similiar warning and comment towards Chris73 as the one made towars Space Cadet by you Thorsten ?--Molobo 23:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, your comment to Chris's casting his vote was simply not civil. Yes, Chris cracked a silly joke more than one year ago, and apologised. What's that got to do with Chris's vote now aside from being a needless tirade against him? It was reasonable to criticise it, rather than do the same thing to you. In the same way, it is more reasonable to criticise potential personal attacks than insult Space Cadet back, which also throws the usefulness of this tirade against Thorsten1 into doubt. Sciurinæ 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Chris cracked a silly joke more than one year ago, and apologised. Really ? I didn't saw that. Since you know he did, would you kindly direct me to the place where he did. I would be most grateful.--Molobo 02:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is on [5], the page you exhibited as grounds for your demonisation. If that's not enough and you still have hard feelings because of that supposedly unforgivable affront to you and the nation you pretend to represent, I doubt chatting here off-topic will not solve anything, either. Good night. Sciurinæ 02:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He says "It was not the best idea". He has better ones ? Answer on my talk page, no need for off topic started by Thorsten here.

--Molobo 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw I think it should be Wiewiórka not Szczurek If I am reading it right.

--Molobo 23:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Actually Sciurinae is the whole subfamily of squirrels, within a bigger family Sciuridae (wiewiórkowate), including proper squirrels, but also marmots (świstaki), prairie dogs, etc. [6]. So "Wiewiórka" would be much more relevant. Of course, calling someone little rat is not very polite, but it is not a big insult either. In some context calling someone "rat" can have a positive meaning - indicating intelligence, endurance, experience in survival. Jasra 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo's attack is wrong in several respects. Firstly, one of the most poorly understood principles on Wikipedia is "two wrongs don't make a right". Wikipedia is full of things that should rather not have been said (a significant portion of which are Molobo's own contributions). The fact that someone criticises one of them does not mean they accept all the others. Secondly, Molobo paraphrased Chris73 as saying that "that Poles only contributed hair disease as part of their culture". I looked this up and Chris73 did definitely not make any such statement. What he did say was "In the meantime, please enjoy this particular aspect of the polish culture" [7]. Whether this was a wise thing to say should not be our concern here, but as we are already at it, let us at least get our facts straight. Molobo's point is somewhat muddled, but it is evident that Chris73 neither said nor implied that "that [the] Poles only contributed [a] hair disease" to anything - Molobo's assertion that he did is a blatant lie. Anyway, the statement was made 14 months ago (long before Molobo even appeared on Wikipedia) and explicitly apologized for within 48 hours. There are worse offences with shorter prescription periods.

Balcer and Jasra are right that the overtones of szczurek in Polish may be slightly less negative than those of "rat" in English, but this is mainly due diminutive to the -ek suffix in szczurek. Even in contexts where it does have connotations of "intelligence, endurance, experience in survival", it remains clearly negative. Rats are universally considered as vermin, the intelligence and endurance of which make them even harder to get rid of. In English, if you want to emphasise someone's "intelligence, endurance, experience in survival" in a neutral or positive way, you may call them a "sly fox", but never a "rat"; quite the same applies to Polish usage. The diminutive suffix may be used to tone down the severness of the insult - but it can also be used to belittle the insulted party, to indicate that it is not to be taken seriously. (Similarly, calling someone a "little thief" can be more insulting than just "thief".) However, there can be no reasonable doubt that Space Cadet intended it as derogatory. To make things worse, Space Cadet made his remark about Sciurinæ not to his face, but behind his back, by using a language Sciurinæ does not understand. No matter how you look at it, there is really no defending Space Cadet's behaviour. (Quite apart from the fact that any such attempt is totally ridiculous when coming from someone who already speaks of "sexual harrassment" when someone addresses him as "darling" [8].) --Thorsten1 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Versailles treaty

The anon editor is attempting to insert claims that the Versailles treaty was illegitimate and did not take into account the wishes of the inhabitants of Rumia. Whether that is true or not, the Erika Steinbach article is definitely not the place to discuss these issues. I invite the anonymous editor to discuss such speculation on the talk page of the Rumia article, not here. Balcer 20:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the appropriate tags. I also invite the anon user to explain himself on the talk page. Restarting the long debate over the status of Rumia is something I would really prefer to avoid. Balcer 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Following is the information about Rahmel, Erika Steinbach, Westprussia, Treaty of Versailles the January 1945 situation in West/East Prussia etc, which was removed from the Erika Steinbach Wikipedia article by Balcer: MG 4/4/2006

I removed the long insertion of text from one of the edits. The diffs were: [9],[10], if anybody is interested. No need to paste the whole text here. Balcer 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the tags needed? //Halibutt 10:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

24.23.39.36

The fighter isn't exactly anonymous, he has a long record of almost radical nationalistic contributions. Is he financed by the LPR to make fun of Germans?

Xx236 07:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost as popular as Jesus

Mrs. Steinbach seems to be almost as popular as Jesus [11]. One should believe she is the most important politician in Germany. Donnog 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace

It seems kind of strange to have an entire section dealing only with her birthplace only because of the nationalist partisans. I would suggest that the birthplace is moved to the first sentence, and that we simply write "Erika Steinbach (born July 25, 1943 as Erika Hermann in Rahmel, West Prussia, now Rumia, Poland) is a German politician etc.". Donnog 21:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be POV to make such a statement. Rumia was a Polish village until 1939, it was occupied by the Nazis during WW2. Claiming that it was in West Prussia instead would mean legitimizing Nazi occupation of Poland. Neo-Nazi POV is the last thing we would like to see in this article. --Lysy^talk 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The goal of eliminating nationalist partisanship is a worthy one, but in this case implying that Rahmel was just a legitimate part of Germany in 1939-1945 comes close to expressing the extreme German nationalist viewpoint. Unilateral annexation of a territory taken for a few years during a war without recognition by the international community should not be passed over in silence. Balcer 22:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of territories switch sides by unilateral annexations, including many cities now in Poland which were in Germany before 1945. It is not up to us to judge who is right and wrong, because that violates the neutral point of view policy. Sure you are aware that the place was German until 1920 and became part of Poland without plebicite. I.e., from the German point of view, the place had only been occupied by the Poles for a few years. Donnog 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's been internationally recognized as Polish territory. Nazi occupation has not. NPOV does not mean promoting neo-nazi doctrines. It's been already discussed many times (see above) and the current is the consensus version. --Lysy^talk 17:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has been discussed ad nauseam, but contrary to your claim, the current version is not based on any "consensus". Unless, of course, you define "consensus" as what happens after everyone is bored to tears with an argument and simply gives up. To repeat a point I made above: This article is not the proper place to explain the history of Rumia in great detail and with footnotes. This should be - and actually is - done in the article about the town. To the uninitiated (i.e., almost all non-Polish) readers, the excrescent discussion of the town's history in the article raises more questions than it answers. Especially since Steinbach herself, whatever one may think of her, seems to be well aware of the accident of her birthplace and doesn't even try to style herself as an expellee. To repeat Steinbach's statement I quoted above in rebuttal to Maria Stella: "You don't need to be a whale to put yourself out for whales" [12].

It is also a misconception that simply stating a fact implies approval of that fact. Stating that a certain village was politically a part of a certain country at a certain time does by no means imply that this situation was "legitimate". Stating that Rëmiô/Rumia/Rahmel/ was a part of Germany at the time of Steinbach's birth does not mean "legitimizing Nazi occupation of Poland", representing a "Neo-Nazi POV" (to quote talk), "expressing the extreme German nationalist viewpoint" or "promoting neo-nazi doctrines". --Thorsten1 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this page, and I have to say that the article as it stands seems best to me. Unless there is an actual off-wiki controversy (e.g. in Germany or Poland) about her birthplace, I don't think its worth devoting an entire section to. —Mira 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider this counterexample: Horst Köhler, the current German president. In his article, it clearly states: Köhler was born in Skierbieszów in German-occupied Poland. It does not state he was born in Germany, or in General Government, or in Third Reich.

Furthermore, if one really wants to specify which Nazi jurisdiction Steinbach was born in, it was Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, not Westpreussen. Balcer 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the history better. I wrote she was born in Danzig West Prussia. No, Köhler was born in Poland (General Government of Poland), not in Germany. The General Government of Poland was never part of Germany. Rahmel on the contrary was in Germany when Steinbach was born, whether you like it or not. Comparison doesn't make any sense. Donnog 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Germany in 1941

Let me also insert a map, which shows the territorial extent of Germany in 1941. Now, do you seriously believe that all people born within those borders in 1940-1944 should be described simply as "born in Germany", without any explanation? Well, if you think so, get to work. There are probably hundreds of biography articles out there which must be fixed immediately. Balcer 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your example is beside the point. Skierbieszów was never a part of Germany during World War II, even by the Nazis' own laws. Rather, it was legally a part of the General government for the occupied Polish areas. Rumia and its surroundings, on the other hand, were directly incorporated into the German state, in the same way that Austria was. Secondly and more importantly, Skierbieszów had never been a part of a German state or even anywhere near the German area of settlement before. It was not until 1942 that the autochthonous Polish population was deported and Germans from other parts of Europe were resettled there. The designated name of "Heidenstein" was created out of thin air. Rumia has a different history. Unlike Zamojszczyzna, West Prussia or whatever you want to call it, had not only been part of a German nation-state since 1871, but an ethnically mixed area for centuries, with Germans, Poles, and Kashubes living door to door. All three names - Rumia, Rëmiô and Rahmel - have been in existence for a long time; "Rahmel" was certainly not an artificial creation like "Heidenstein". The town was within spitting distance from Danzig (Gdańsk, if you prefer). Saying "Steinbach was born in Rahmel, Germany (now Rumia, Poland)" is thus exactly the same as saying that "Günther Grass was born in the Free City of Danzig, now Gdańsk, Poland", and this again is something completely different than saying that "Horst Köhler was born in Heidenstein, Germany, now Skierbieszów, Poland". If stating this difference makes Donnog, Jasra, MiraLuka or myself "neo-Nazis" in your or Lysy's eyes, as you have insinuated above, I challenge you to say so. It's better to have such things out in the open than to beat about the bush. --Thorsten1 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If Steinbach came from a family which lived for many generations in Rumia/Rahmel, the arguments you present might have deserved stronger consideration. However, Steinbach's father simply got posted to a Luftwaffe airfield, which just happened to be in Rumia, and could equally well have been located in another part of occupied Poland or anywhere else in areas controlled by Germany for that matter.

Anyway, Nazi Germany's unilateral annexation of Pomerania was just as illegitimate as its incorporation of the General Government into the area of its control (the precise rules which Nazis used to administer the areas they conquered are their own business and not relevant in the light of international law, given that the usual rules for administering occupied territories were thrown overboard). I cannot accept the argument that the Reichsgau's and General Government deserve different treatment. The fact that the area was part of Germany before is of little importance. Germany gave up those areas in the Versailles treaty and then confirmed the new borders in treaties with Poland. After they conquered those areas, they obviously did not sign any peace treaties with Poland in which it would have given up those territories. You have to wait until the end of the war to legally incorporate the territories you have conquered from another state through military conflict.

Overall, I am finding this argument rather dispiriting. It is accepted that the Nazi regime was criminal, and its entire surviving leadership was placed on trial for crimes against humanity. As such, any of the unilateral wartime annexations it carried out are a priori illegitimate. Our article should reflect that. Balcer 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. The German annexation was a legitimate as the Polish annexation of Breslau and the rest of Silesia after the war. You seem to have little knowledge of the laws of war, an occupation if per definition legitimate. Anyway, stop comparing occupied areas and areas part of German state which are two very different things.Donnog 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

@Balcer, you wrote: "If Steinbach came from a family which lived for many generations in Rumia/Rahmel, the arguments you present might have deserved stronger consideration. However, Steinbach's father simply got posted to a Luftwaffe airfield, which just happened to be in Rumia, and could equally well have been located in another part of occupied Poland or anywhere else in areas controlled by Germany for that matter." I take it that, had Steinbach's family been there for a longer time, it would be alright to say she was born in "Rahmel", whereas we must say she was born in "Rumia" because the family had not been there for long? Sorry, but this is one of the most illogical points I've heard on Wikipedia in a long time, and there is really no shortage of illogical points here. "I cannot accept the argument that the Reichsgau's and General Government deserve different treatment. The fact that the area was part of Germany before is of little importance." As I pointed out clearly enough, the two cases are really quite different. The Danzig region was an area of German settlement since the Middle Ages, and had been part of proto-German Prussia and later Germany since the late 18th century. The Lublin region was not. Full stop. "Germany gave up those areas in the Versailles treaty". You know as well as I do that Germany signed the Versailles Treaty virtually at gunpoint. The loss of these territories was never accepted throughout the Weimar Republic. There was a widespread consensus to recover these territories at the earliest opportunity. Similar things can be said about Poland, by the way. It is often forgotten that Poland was as unsatisfied about Versailles as Germany. Germany wanted to keep more, Poland wanted to get more. Which brings me to the next point: Political forces in Poland laid claim to, e.g., Opole Silesia. One may argue about the legitimacy of this claim; but everyone would agree that the case for it was somewhat stronger than, say, claiming Cologne for Poland would have been. That difference is is quite the same as the one between West Prussia and Zamojszczyzna. And the theoretical legitimacy of these claims did not depend on who made them. "It is accepted that the Nazi regime was criminal..." It most certainly is. "... the unilateral wartime annexations it carried out are a priori illegitimate. Our article should reflect that." No, it should not. This article is about Steinbach as a person, and not about the legitimacy of her birthplace being in one country or another. There is ample room for such musings on Rumia, just one click away from this article. As I pointed out twice, and will do so for a third time now, even Steinbach herself, whatever one may think of her, is wise enough not to attach too much importance to her accidental birthplace, so we shouldn't do that either. As MiraLuka said - "Unless there is an actual off-wiki controversy (e.g. in Germany or Poland) about her birthplace, I don't think its worth devoting an entire section to." There simply is no such off-wiki controversy. Rumia vs. Rahmel is simply not an issue, and even if it were, it would have its proper place in the article about the town.

Finally, may I conclude from the fact that you have not called me a Nazi to my face that you revoke this implicit allegation? If not, please be up front about this. I promise I'm not going to report it as a personal attack; I just want to have it in the open. --Thorsten1 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you correctly observed, I have been careful not to make derogatory remarks towards any participants in this discussion. I have pointed out that neo-Nazis would tend to consider German wartime annexations to be perfectly legitimate, and so the article version to which I objected would just happen to be consistent with that view. This was in reaction to User:Donnog, who claimed he introduced his changes in the name of removing nationalism from Wikipedia, a claim I found rather strange. Anyway, my apologies to you if you felt offended.

Anyway, since you consider me intellectually inadequate to participate in this discussion ("one of the most illogical points" etc.), I will no longer waste your and my time. Balcer 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The extent of the explanation is, aaah little exaggerated, don't you think? Is the history of her birthplace really so important? This is what any reader would wonder about. Okay, she was born in (Nazi-occupied) Poland (wouldn't that make her Polish?? ;-), who cares?

I removed the part of the sentence about where she is particularly well-known. Find concrete names of countries, not some theory (or find a source for that theory - see WP:NOR). And I removed the sentence about many allegedly believing she was trying to "downplay the German responsibility for Holocaust, atrocities and the outbreak of the war." Because she's trying to establish a centre against expulsions? How could this sentence have remained for so long, I wonder? And who's Mr "many" anyway? Sciurinæ 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Lysy^talk 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim she was born in "in Rumia near Gdynia in Nazi-occupied Poland" is blatant historical falsification.

1. Political parties does not occupy cities. Just like there is no Republican occupation of Iraq, there is no "Nazi occupation".
2. The Polish territory under German military occupation (namely the General Government of Poland) did not include Rahmel, which was incorporated into the German province of Danzig West Prussia and in 1943 was an integral part of Germany. Either a territory is under military occupation, or it isn't. You can't change this based on your personal opinion on historical justice. I could say Scotland is occupied by England, but it would be my opinion and just incorrect in regard to the official status of Scotland. I could also say my uncle was born in Stalinist-occupied Breslau in 1955, but it would be my POV as well. Donnog 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1939. During the war it was Polish government in exile, not the Nazi government that was internationally recognized as the rightful government of Poland. The Nazis could divide occupied Poland into as many zones as they wanted or declare annexations, but from international point of view it was still occupied Poland, not Germany. --Lysy^talk 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. There was no international authority to make such judgements. This is hence a bilateral German-Polish issue, and we cannot take sides (heck, the Israel lobby at Wikipedia even claim that Wikipedia shall not follow security council resolutions. For example Jerusalem is listed as the capital of Israel only because the Zionists think so, although the entire rest of the world and the UN does not). We need to stick to the facts on the ground, because that's practice at Wikipedia. Donnog 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, Donnog, can you please consider if the following statement seems correct to you: "Nazi Germany occupied Poland during WW2 and Rumia belonged to Poland before 1939". --Lysy^talk 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The history of Rumia and the history of WWII should be dealt with in other articles than the Steinbach biography. Donnog 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Now that we agree on that, can we revert to the version before your edit ? --Lysy^talk 20:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we all agreed that Rumia/Rahmel was under de facto German control, regardless of the legality of that control? Just trying to find some common ground here. —Mira 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's save to say that Rumia/Rahmel was controlled by Germany, regardless of whether one considers it to be German occupation or not. --Lysy^talk 19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Rahmel in German-controlled province Danzig West Prussia, now Rumia controlled by Poland"? Donnog 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, not again... What's exactly wrong with that statement (I mean the previous wording that's been so heavily fought for)? Why is it so essential to mention the Nazi Germany's point of view so prominently? Was the R. town not occupied by Germany? It was. Was it not a part of Poland de iure? It was. The de facto state is already described by the mention of the occupation, no need to elaborate on that. Unless of course we want to label all people born in 1946 in Germany as people born in UK/USA/France/USSR (as was the case of Poles born in, say, Lwów in 1898, yet the commies labelled them as born in Lvov, USSR). After all this was the de facto state of matters back then. Logical? Nope. //Halibutt 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The city was part of Danzig West Prussia, integral part of Germany, and not under military occupation. These are the facts, end of story. Why is is so essentieal to mention People's Republic of Poland's point of view so prominently in articles on Polish politicians born after the war in cities occupied by Poland from the German POV and part of Poland from the Polish POV? Germany has never been part of neither UK, US, France nor USSR. How about a minimum of intellectual honesty??? Only Alsace-Lorraine has switched side. A person born in Alsace or Lorraine today is born in France, not in Germany, just like a person born there in say 1880 was born in Germany, not France. Donnog 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we have two different POVs here:

1. Nazi official standpoint: the territory was part of Germany
2. POV of the allies: Poland was occupied by Germany

The Nazis officially maintained many other things, too yet we do not consider their POV to be neutral. --Lysy^talk 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the POVs are neutral. This is why we should do as in the case of Israel/Palestine and other controversial topics, and base the article on the facts on the ground but note controversy, perhaps in a footnote. Donnog 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Donnog's methods, I do agree with his above statement. The Allied point of view was not neutral either. —Mira 03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

With the major differences being the legal basis for the Allied view - as the Polish ownership of the place was in line with all possible international treaties and the international law itself. On the other hand the only countries to support the unilateral annexation were Germany and its puppets (even the USSR declared their pacts with Germany null and void in 1941). So this case is like mentioning the flat earth argument in the header of the article on Earth. Sure, there is such a belief, but it's far from being as prominent. //Halibutt 05:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

New version

Okay, well it's not so new. I made a small change to the birthplace line in the article, just to see what people think. I'm looking for comments, improvements, and helpful civil discussion of possible changes. Let's try to work toward a compromise version here. —Mira 03:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your version is that it suggests that the place is in Poland only now, while it was Rumia, Poland both before, after and during her birth. //Halibutt 05:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

True, which is why I asked for comments to improve it. I like your version, except for the part I just removed. It just seemed like too much information there. However, I don't feel strongly about that in any way. —Mira 08:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mira. I support your change - the exact location of the village is explained in the Rumia article and not relevant here. --Lysy^talk 09:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Rumia article. This is the biography on Erika Steinbach. What is relevant is the status of her birthplace when she was born (1943: Rahmel, Danzig West Prussia) and today (2006:Rumia, Poland). The status of the town from 1920 to 1939, or before 1920 has absolutely no relevance in this article! Donnog 13:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1945-1991: Breslau in Polish-occupied Germany?

This is what we will need to use to be consistent with the wishes of the nationalist POV pushers. Donnog 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to be more careful with what terms you throw around here. I am American, so how am I pushing my "nationalist POV" here? —Mira 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to be careful labelling nationalism as such. I don't know what your opinion on lies and irredentism is. Now I know. I only see continous nationalist vandalism and POV pushing on this article in contradiction with our most important policy. Donnog 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, as I've explained to you, edits that you disagree with are not vandalism. And the rest of your comment doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not pushing a nationalist anything. —Mira 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing a nationalist POV [13], introducing historical revisionism and you disregard the NPOV policy. Donnog 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

New NPOV version

Would this be ok to everyone?

"In her official Bundestag biography, it is stated that Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel, West Prussia. The city had been Polish between 1920 and 1939, and reannexed to Germany after the outbreak of the war and incorporated into the province of Danzig West Prussia. Germany considered it integral part of Germany (contrary to the Polish areas under military occupation), while the Polish government in exile considered it part of Poland. Since 1945 it has been part of Poland again as Rumia." Donnog 21:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's way too long and deals with information that really belongs in the Rumia article. —Mira 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I go for the short version, similar to de:Erika Steinbach: Erika Steinbach (born [date] in Rahmel, West Prussia). It was you Polish nationalists who demanded every detail on Polish POV on Rahmel must be included. A longer and NPOV version explaining the situation is better than your historical falsification which does not even mention the name of her birthplace when she was born. Donnog 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am no Polish nationalist, and would appreciate it if you would stop throwing around wild accusations which are bordering on personal attacks. —Mira 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Donnog, you've started to call other editors nationalists ever since I've told you (here, on July 6) that I considered this term to be offensive. I therefore assume that you are purposefully using the word in bad faith, to make personal attacks. Once more, I'm politely asking you to reconsider this as it does not help your case at all. --Lysy^talk 05:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What I oppose to is pushing the Nazi POV here. The Nazis made a number of statements during WW2. They maintained that a part of occupied Poland belonged to Germany. They also maintained that certain people were subhumans and not worthy to live. I'm sorry but the rest of the world did not share Nazi point of view, though. I do not think that we should be basing wikipedia articles on Nazi POV and claiming that it was "neutral" is simply ridiculous. --Lysy^talk 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"International criticism and abuse" section

I've made an edit in which I removed the chunk of text added by Katarzyna today. The first two sentences are about her status as an expellee. This may be notable and was indeed noted before, see the section "Federation of Expellees". Maybe it can be moved into the International criticism etc section, but at any rate repetitions should be avoided. Sentence 3 is an accusation expressed as a fact, without a source but a weasely passive voice. Sentence 4 is in part correct. If I remember correctly, she was accused of worsening German-Polish relatios indeed (though a source would be needed, and the passive voice removed). The last sentence is ridiculous. Not only would there have to present proof of her beliefs (and beliefs are hard to prove), but also the nebulous assertion that these views "led to her being better known in Poland than in Germany". It was the centre that made her especially well-known (or "hated") in Poland. In the edit I've also tried to improve the sentence about the Wprost cover. Sciurinæ 13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with Sciurinæ's critique although I think the text could be improved. I've put the text in question below with sentence numbers to make his critique easier to correlate to the text.

(Sentences 1 & 2) Due to the fact that her parents moved to Poland after the German occupation of that country, Steinbach has recieved direct criticism for not being a true expelee but merely a war migrant. This point is emphesized especially in Poland, where it is often reminded that her family forcefully occupied a home during the war which did not belong to them, only to leave after the German defeat.

Perhaps a repetition. Let's review to see if the "Centre against Expulsions" section covers these points adequately.

Sentence (3) The center for forced migration which she co-founded has been criticized for not showing both sides of the story, merely nice pictures of 'poor' Germans leavging Poland, but no mention of the war Germany raged on her neighbors, of the gencied perpetrated by Germans, and of the forced occupation of homes and property which before the war was not German.

The above sentence needs a citation and needs to be put in the active voice. Also the sentence, as written, becomes a polemic against the Centre and should be put in summary in the "Centre against Expulsions" section with perhaps a fuller (and NPOV!) treatment in the Centre against Expulsions article.

Sentence (4) Because of this her views have been criticized for hurting what had so far been good German-Polish relations.

This sentence is a bit biased but should be included in the article.

Sentence (5) Her nationalistic beliefs have led to her being better known in Poland than in Germany, and being often associated with fascism and a German return to Nazism.

The word "beliefs" is OK here because presumably she has expressed these beliefs in public pronouncements. If you wish to replace "beliefs" with "public statements", "public pronouncements", "polemic", "speeches", whatever, that's OK but the use of "beliefs" does not warrant removing the whole sentence. The part about her being "better known in Poland than in Germany" could be true but would be difficult to verify. Suffice it to say something like "she is notorious in Poland for her nationalistic beliefs and is often associated in the Polish press with a resurgence of Nazism in Germany".

--Richard 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean - although you acknowledge there's sth foul about the sentences, you disagree? Do you want to put a {{fact}} before each of the sentences instead of removing them? I'd disagree there. Look at the top of the page - the article is subject to special official policy, the task to Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is part of it, not improve it or otherwise reward. Sciurinæ 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy to remove unsourced or poorly sourced materials is to prevent libel. However, if you can prove the charges to be true, they are not libel.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to protect public figures from criticism but to present verifiable true statements about what people think about those public figures. If you can't source the statements then you risk having Wikipedia be a tool for someone to libel or slander someone. If you can source the statements, then Wikipedia is simply repeating the libel or slander.

I didn't say that there was "something foul" about what was written. What I meant was simply that the text needed improvement to be equal to the quality of the rest of the article. You worry about "rewarding" negative material. If the negative material about a living person is true (or even if the fact that a reliable source has made negative criticisms of a living person), then that negative material belongs in Wikipedia. However, to maintain the quality of Wikipedia articles, we should not allow unsourced or biased text in the article EVEN if it is true. We should instead work to source the text and remove bias as much as possible. Not to reward the original contributor but for the sake of maintaining the quality of Wikipedia.

I don't know anything about Steinbach or the Centre except what I've read in Wikipedia articles and the Talk Pages. So I started with neither a German nor a Polish bias. Based on what I have read, I believe the content of what was written in the text but I don't like the polemic tone of the text and the lack of citations.

Do you object to the actual "truth value" of what was written? If so, can you explain what the problems are?

P.S. I believe that the Centre against Expulsions may present a biased perspective. However, I also believe they have valid points to make. I have worked quite extensively on the Expulsions of Germans after World War II article. Look at the edit history and talk pages of that article to see that I do know something about this area and I do work very hard to maintain a NPOV stance.

--Richard 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting the text deleted by Sciurinæ

Sentences 1 & 2 - yes, it's a repetition and so should be left out

Sentence 3 - this belongs in the Centre against Expulsions article

Sentences 4 & 5 - These sentences belong in the "International criticism and abuse" section but need a rewrite which I have done.

Hope this is OK with everybody

--Richard 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(with reference to your comment of 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC):) I don't believe what the edits said - at the same time, I don't disbelieve them, either. Their nature was altogether negative, unsourced and not perfectly written. They can be improved just like the entire article, but I wouldn't give priority to he who might just have an axe to grind - hence only a removal and an explanation for that on the talk page. Regarding the truth value of sentence 4, I'm not so sure. I don't know anything about her beliefs, other than her plan to build the centre. What can be said for sure is that her beliefs - whether nationalistic or not - didn't make her notorious in Poland, but her plan of the Centre against Expulsion alone (or whatever it's name is). You needn't have told me about your work for the Expulsion of Germans article: first, I don't suspect you of bias, and second, I had the article on my watchlist at the time. And I agree with your recent edits and would like you to continue this work.

P.S. I've noticed why there was suddenly interest in Steinbach again. Apparently there's now some kind of pre-version of the Centre against Expulsion.[14] Sciurinæ 12:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: my mention of my work on the Expulstion article - OK, I was feeling a bit defensive and wanted to establish my NPOV credentials since I was putting myself in the position of defending some of the text being inserted by someone who seemed to be POV-pushing. I have a different philosophy from the one you have expressed. That is, I try to be as inclusive as possible, looking at even the most blatant POV-pushing and trying to find some way to reword it so that it is worth inserting into the article in the interest of providing the broadest and most balanced treatment of the topic. I hope my recent edits to the "International criticism" section have reflected this philosophy.

Now, regarding the Expulsion article, I sure could use some help over there as there is an editor who is insisting on inserting text into the intro that asserts that the expulsions were the result of aggression and atrocities committed by the Germans. Now, we do mention that as on of the "Purported Reasons" for the expulsions but we mention it in the context of other reasons in an attempt to provide a balanced, NPOV treatment of the reasons for the expulsions. The editor (User:Daborhe) seems to feel that the current treatment is a "whitewash" of the Nazis. Please take a look at that article and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks.

--Richard 07:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Chairwoman of the Center Against Expulsions

The previous text said "she is the chairwoman (jointly with Peter Glotz until he died in 2005)."

A person cannot be "the chairwoman (jointly with a dead person)". The present tense form of the word "is" is incompatible with having been a joint chairperson with Peter Glotz until he died in 2005 (i.e. an arrangement that occurred in the past and is no longer in force).

If you want to say that "she shared the chairmanship of the Centre jointly with Peter Glotz until he died in 2005 upon which she became the chairwoman", then do so. The previous text was simply awkward.

--Richard 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

View of Erika as representative of Expelees

What kind of citation will you accept? the position that "Steinbach cannot be trusted as a daughter of occupant cannot be trusted" is prevalent if not expressed literally in Poland. You can argue all you want about the fact being encyclopedic or not, but it is a fact that she is viewed this way in Poland.

It's not me that sets the standards for citations but Wikipedia policy. That policy is expressed in WP:RS and also WP:Citing sources. Ideally, the citation would be a statement in a reputable book or an academic journal. Otherwise, a newspaper or magazine article is also acceptable. Websites of reputable magazines and media channels are acceptable. Websites of questionable reputability are not considered reliable sources.

Also important... the statement in the Wikipedia article must reflect the reliability of the source. It is difficult to prove that an idea is "prevalent" or that "most or many people believe...". It is easier to prove that "some people believe...". In fact, the most defensible statment is "Historian X believes..." or "In magazine Y, it is asserted that ...".

--Richard 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lysy's extremist nationalist POV pushing

Here is the last example of Lysy extremist nationalist POV pushing. The POV text he wants to add includes:

"Steinbach's position as head of the Federation of Expelees arouses much controversy in countries which were occupied by Germany during the Second World War. The fact that she was elected a head of the Federation despite her family being relocated to teritories of Poland occupied only after 1939 is a sign of German revisionist ideology in the minds of many people in Central-Eastern Europe. Steinbach's public pronouncements have been criticized for causing a deterioration in German-Polish relations due to stirring up controversy regarding the rights of Germans who were expelled from Poland after World War II. This controversy has led to Steinbach earning a strong negative reputation in Poland which associates her and the Centre against Expulsions with fascism and a German return to Nazism. "

Additionally he claims she was born in "Rumia in German-occupied Poland" when she was not, and btw. without citing any sources! According to official sources, she was born in Rahmel, Province of Danzig West Prussia, Germany. Deliberately falsificating this is vandalism. Donnog 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Donnog, please take time to read the discussion above in the very same talk page. Also try to avoid attacking other editors. --Lysy^talk 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, try to read what is actually written in the fragment mentioned above. If this is extremist nationalist POV pushing, then how come there's nothing nationalist in that part, nor is there any pushing as the POV is clearly marked. Donnog, miss Steinbach is controversial and we all have to live with it. //Halibutt 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversial among nationalist Poles only. Who cares? You may live with it or you may chose not to, but its not our problem, but rather yours. These Polish nationalists are so ridiculous. Stettiner 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

he highlighted after, noting that the Area was predominantly ethnic Germans, and had been a part of Germany before the travesty of Versailles. Steinbach may be a controversial figure, but that doesn't mean we can throw NPOV out the window Halibutt.

--Jadger 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Who highlighted "after" ? --Lysy^talk 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Donnog did, to highlight how it made it POV, because of what I said above, the word only also contributes to it as it was German long before 1939, just the brief period of the 2nd Polish republic intervened. Also I have noticed the statement: The fact that she was elected a head of the Federation despite her family being relocated to teritories of Poland occupied only after 1939 is a sign of German revisionist ideology in the minds of many people in Central-Eastern Europe. contains weasel words, which are not supposed to be on wikipedia, can we find a source for this sentiment?

Also, this statement contains weasel words:This controversy has led to Steinbach earning a strong negative reputation in Poland which associates her and the Centre against Expulsions with fascism and a German return to Nazism. " does anyone besides conspiracy theorists actually believe that Germany is returning to Nazism as it claims? can we have a reliable source that says so please, I think a citation is needed for such a dubious claim.

--Jadger 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach, born in Rahmel, Danzig-West Prussia

The town of Rahmel was in 1943 part of Danzig West Prussia, see also de:Danzig-Westpreußen. Donnog 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if you recgnize Hitler's conquests as legal. Unlike you, all democratic German governments always recognised the Treaty of Versailles which gave Rumia/Rahmel to Poland in 1919. And because the city was in Poland between the wars, its annexation by Germany during World War II was illegal according to all modern European countries, including Germany. ProudPomeranian 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

please, don't try to start an angry argument, that is to both of you. while in the contemporary context it was in West Prussia, now it is not, and that needs to be noted. Claiming it was illegally seized is just begging for a POV battle. "all democratic german gov'ts" u mean Weimar which had absolutely no power because of the defeat at the end of WWI, and then the post WWII German democratic government that was also powerless to make demands upon other nations. They only recognized it because they could do nothing else, and they recognized so they could arrange other deals with the other nations. perhaps you could cite a credible source that says that its annexation was illegal? and I also mean a contemporary neutral source, not post-war reasoning.

--Jadger 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, this has been discussed again and again. Please take the time to read the argument above first. --Lysy^talk 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

German invasion of Poland

Jadger, who are we do decide what were the reasons behind not invading Poland in, say, 1960? The fact is that the German govts (all except the govt of Mr. Hitler) recognized the Polish borders. Whether they had another option or not is a mere speculation. //Halibutt 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

please, I said let's not get into an argument on here, I was simply stating the counterpoint to "proud pomeranian" in this section so that those who skip through don't just think there was only one side. and please Halibutt, don't try to instigate another battle of wits with me, I would like to see Poland fight a two front world war for nearly 6 years against the three strongest nations in the world, then be totally devestated, then after you can try telling me that Poland has the power to force other nations to give back disputed lands. --Jadger 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Germany actually fought against the three strongest powers together (US,USSR and Britain) for only about 2 years, not 6 (since the first serious combat between US and German forces occured at Battle of the Kasserine Pass in February, 1943). Balcer 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, wasn't the entire WWII because mr. Hitler wanted to get back disputed lands? Anyway, of course we could hypothetically discuss whether the Bundeswehr could invade Poland on its own in 1960 or 1980, but this is mere science-fiction, and should not influence the way we write articles. Oh, and Poland was destroyed by the WWII no less than Germany. Both in terms of population and in terms of economy. In terms of population, both German states reached the pre-war number of inhabitants (roughly 70 millions) in 1950. Poland recovered the pre-war population of 35 millions only in 1978. //Halibutt 07:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't just talking land warfare, but included the battle of the Atlantic and all combat, not just notable land battles. my point was that Poland was overrun in less than 6 weeks, putting up no credible fighting after the first two weeks, while Germany fought against the three most powerful nations for nearly 6 years (I include France in the original, then USA after 1941, France in 1940 had the largest and most powerful army by contemporary standards). we can't discuss whether the Bundeswehr could of invaded poland in 1960 or 1980, they were not even adjacent anymore because of the Warsaw pact. population numbers don't show anything Halibutt, Germany is a much more attractive place to live than Poland is/was, and they had a much higher immigration rate.

now please, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

--Jadger 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you really want to compare Germany's and Poland's resistance to the invasion of their own territory, then you must consider that once the Allies launched their offensives into Germany proper from January 1945 onward, Germany resisted for only 4 more months (in fact less since the collapse of resistance on the Western front occured in March, 1945, and serious fighting occured in April 1945 only on the Oder-Neisse front). In other words Germany was overrun in less than 15 weeks. So, they did better than Poland, but not by that much (it's not 6 years vs. 2 weeks for sure). Oh, and they also lost the war. Balcer 18:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

please, Germany's armed forces had been worn down by 5 1/2 years of war, while Poland was fresh and their was no attrition in 1939. just look at the Luftwaffe by 1945, it was so thoroughly worn down its new pilots had almost no training. not to mention that the Siegfried line's defences had all been moved to the Atlantic Wall, so their was not any real defensive positions in Germany. Hitler ordered all his troops not to retreat at all, so before the Allies made it to Germany the cream of the crop of German soldiers and materiel had been killed/destroyed. Germany in 1945 was already destroyed by war, so that must also be taken into account, not just the number of weeks it took for the Allies to reach their demarcation lines.

you are comparing apples to oranges here, it makes no sense. I know they lost the war, my point was the fought harder than most peoples, besides maybe the British, did, they persevered through the worst of circumstances, which did not end with their surrender in 1945.

--Jadger 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am making a stretched comparison here, but so were you. Anyway, keep in mind that Poland's objective in 1939 was not to repel the Germans (which of course they knew was impossible), but to put up strong enough resistance to make sure that France and Britain honoured their obligations and declared war on Germany. This was why the whole army was put up right on the borders in a very disadvantageous position. If the Polish army had deployed on the line of the Vistula away from the border with Germany, they would have lasted much longer. But then of course German propaganda would claim that German forces are advancing hundreds of kilometers into Poland without encountering resistance, and France and Britain would give up Poland as a lost cause. So, the Polish strategy succeded in its basic objective. Balcer 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

please, France and Britain declared war on September 3rd and 4th, well before any definitive battle reports got back to London or Paris, they knew they had to declare war because Hitler was showing them to be politically impotent again like in the Czechoslavakia Munich Agreement. just a question, how could Poland "make sure that France and Britain honoured their obligations and declared war on Germany" when they knew they knew they could not defeat Germany? were they (the Poles) going to declare war on France and Britain as well if they did not defend Poland? If France and England were not going to continue the war they would of made peace talks with Hitler after Poland was conquered, but they were determined to see it through to the end, no matter what happened in Poland. If the Polish army had of deployed on the Vistula much of their population would already be in the hands of the Germans before the Polish Army could mobilize fully, how is it more advantageous to line up farther back (on the Vistula) when your men don't have time to get to their units before being overrun?

and BTW, I was not the first to make stretched comparisons, Proud Pomeranian claimed that since the gov't of Germany was democratic, its acknowledgement of "facts on the ground" was done totally free-willingly. the term used "facts on the ground" shows that it was only acknowledged with a bit of armtwisting. I did not even mean for mine to be a comparison, all I meant was that the German people fought bravely and persevered in the most difficult of situations longer than any other nation has.

--Jadger 06:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, it's basic strategy. When you dislocate your forces so close to the enemy, it means that you're either preparing for an invasion, or want to fight for time. The latter was the case of Poland who in 1939 wanted to gain both time and space for a counter-offensive as soon as the French drop in. The Polish formation was also a result of one of basic fears of Polish diplomacy in 1939: that the Germans would conquer Pomerania, Greater Poland and Silesia without much opposition, and then declare the war as completed, which would allow the West to sign an appeasing peace treaty in no time just.

But this is of course OT here. Sure, the Germans fought bravely, just like Poles, Russians, Gurkhas, Italians and many more nations, which however does not change the fact that all German governments except for the Nazis recognized the Versailles. So was the case of all other governments in the world except for Nazi allies. So, in other words, it is a conflict between the POV of the Nazis and the POV of the rest of the world. And the POV of the rest of the world is called NPOV. QED. //Halibutt 12:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "definite battle reports"? When Britain and France declared war after Poland fought for three days against most of the German war machine, they knew that the battle was still localised at the borders and that the Germans were not in Warsaw. This obviously meant that Poland was putting up fierce resistance. That was enough.

The governments of Britain and France, together with their public opinions, were not unanimous on what to do about Germany. Sure, some people wanted immediate war if Germany crossed the next "red line", but many others did not want to "die for Gdansk" and wanted to avoid a war almost at any cost. Thus, Poland's resistance contributed decisively to shifting the debate towards the decision for war, since if Britain and France failed to assist their ally engaged in desparate David vs. Goliath struggle against an aggressor, they would have lost any credibility they had left. (Whereas if Poland did not fight itself, why should France and Britain shed their blood for her? etc.) Plus clear evidence that most of the German army was busy in Poland meant that France and Britain would be able to enter the war and mobilize safely, not having to face an immediate German attack a la 1914.

The reluctance to fight was still in evidence during the period of Phony War. But then it was awkward to make peace, once the war got rolling and both the French and British took casualties.

Redeploying to the Vistula would not have saved Poland, obviously, but it would have allowed her to resist longer. Sure, mobilization would have been harder, but then the Polish divisions would not have been stretched thinly at the border, easy prey to being bypassed on their flanks by German motorised forces. If simply fighting as long as possible was the criterion for success, Poland could have used this strategy, but of course it was not.

Again, let me restate Poland's foreign policy goal, in simple terms: "If Germany invades Poland, this must result in a World War being declared against Germany". Mission accomplished. Balcer 13:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting but belongs somewhere else on the Internet and NOT on Wikipedia Talk Pages. IF it does belong a Talk Page, it most assuredly does not belong on this Talk Page. Please stop or move this elsewhere.

--Richard 16:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you Richard, that is what I said at the start, unfortunately it got dragged on. BTW Halibutt and Balcer, no one cares what you think happened in 1939, your posts are pure conjecture and unsubstantiated, as were some of mine.

--Jadger 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Let's avoid such arguments in the future by avoiding any speculation that country A was X times braver/better/smarter than country B. Balcer 22:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, could you please return to reality? Why are you logically and intelligently trying to argue against "objectivity"? You are trying to be fair and realistic with editors who think communist Poland was an "independent" country (and have stated this publicly on Wikipedia). Isn't that enough to make you quit wasting your time? And the U.S. was "waging" war against Germany long before Pearl Harbor and the lend lease act, so you are pretty accurate about your time frame too. Thought you'd like to know. Dr. Dan 03:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan obviously believes that Paris was part of Germany in 1941, just like Smolensk, Rumia, Oslo and Copenhagen. Obviously Hong Kong was Japanese around that time and all Brits born there during that time should be referred to as "born in Japan". Not to mention Brits of the Channel Islands, who were obviously Germans... //Halibutt 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for another reality check. No Hali, I don't think that occupied Paris was any more a part of Germany than I think that occupied Vilnius was any more a part of Poland. But then I grew up in a country where you could have varied opinions. As for the rest of the above fantasy, it gave me quite a laugh. Unfortunately your remark that communist Poland was an "independent" country was neither a fantasy of mine, nor particularly funny. Dr. Dan 12:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, once again, this is not a discussion forum. If the discussion is not directly related to editing the Erika Steinbach article, please take it elsewhere. --Richard 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Deliberate Nationalistic POV Pushing - Twisting

Not only do a number of people , such as Lysy, keep reversing NPOV versions such as Erika Steinbach, born in Rahmel, now Rumia , in the heading by reinserting a very onesided POV statement (see sample). Lysys even re-inserts the following statement In January 1945, three months before the advancing Soviet army reached the area, Steinbach's mother decides to return to Germany and went to Schleswig-Holstein [15].

Wikipedia is publishing this and a number of others are copying this twisting of what actually took place. Twisting history like that is an affront (purposely insulting) to millions of victimized refugees. Labbas 28 August 2006

I have reverted your unsourced edit. Please do provide sources supporting your claims about her flight and I'll not oppose. As to your continuous attempts to push the different name of her birthplace, I'm sure you have noticed (and actually removed) this comment in the article's text: please discuss changes to her birthplace on the talk page before making them. I'm sure you are aware that the present wording of the birthplace is a result of a painfully reached consensus and I am going to defend it against nationalistic pushes either side. --Lysy^talk 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

well, to be brutally honest Lysy, your version is also unreferenced, so your point is moot. and as for the current version of the birthplace, it says German occupied Poland, which is totally untrue as "German occupied Poland" was the General Government, whereas Rahmel was thoroughly inside the German Reich. I personally a vote should be taken on this, as there is no clear consensus as you claim on this talk page.

--Jadger 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The legal point

There is no doubt that the German annexation of Rumia (and other) in 1939 was illegal. Even the German government has admitted that. However, it is not because some act was illegal, that it did not happen. I quote a famous (or notorious) instance in the country where I live now. The Belgian government in 1945 was right to declare the 1940 annexation of Eupen-Malmedy null and void. (note that English, French and Dutch Wikipedia "Eupen" ignore the annexation, but German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedia mention it - anyone notice the pattern?) The same government was wrong however to consider all the inhabitants of the area who had been in the German Army as treasonous and eg take their voting and pension rights away. These people had been conscripted into the German Army - they had not applied voluntarily, like those who followed Léon Degrelle and some Flemish nationalists.

However, I fail to see how we are taking any rights and privileges away from Erika Steinbach when anno 2006 we state, as is legally 100% correct, that she was born in Poland. German-occupied Poland, yes - even German-illegally-annexed Poland. But Poland nevertheless. In fact, User:Halibutt's reference to Paris and people born there from 1940 to 1944 was not correct. It does not matter a jot for Erika Steinbach's nationality whether she was born outside or inside Germany - she was German not because she was born in Germany (even according to the old border which she herself defended until the last moment, she was NOT) but because she was of German BLOOD. She might have been born in Stalingrad for all we care - she would still have been German when reaching Kiel.

Of course, the problem is really because she is Head of this Vertriebenenbund. Could it be that the passions may subside a little if the fact that strictly speaking she was not a refugee would not be highlighted to such a degree as it is now? Of course, it would be a different matter if someone found a good source to confirm this lingering suspicion of mine (and perhaps of some others) that the family settled in a place that a Polish family had been evicted from - that would be a major point, making the expellee in fact an expeller to begin with.--Pan Gerwazy 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

there has been discussion elsewhere wether the modern German government was really free to make any other claim that annexing lands inhabited by Germans (and others) was illegal. please do not get into it, it will start a rather heated debate that may procede into flaming.

She was not born in Poland, if she were born in Poland, why does she not have Polish citizenship? or never have it in the past? Poland was not a political and geographic entity at the time (if you exclude the couple of offices the government in exile had in London, Moscow and Washington). If we were to pretend to go along with your reasoning that German annexation of former German territory was illegal, it was still annex by Germany at the time, she was born in an area that was a part of the Reich, not in Polska. That is like claiming if one is born on a boat in international waters they can choose whatever nation they want to hold citizenship in.

Well, actually, I remember hearing recently from an immigration officer about the case of a baby born in 1918 on an Americn ship in Japanese (or Chinese, I forgot) waters, father Belgian (engineer sent to help the Russian army), mother Russian. Guess what, the parents had the right to choose, and they chose American nationality for their child (who later did settle in Belgium). The argument about Germany not being in a position to do otherwise (and I remind you that Erika herself campaigned for a border that put her place of birth in Poland) is, I am sorry, getting a bit ridiculous nowadays when we see how Germany can and does openly defy Poland and other East European countries by siding with Russia and France against the USA and Britain.

If being born in Poland means you can claim Polish nationality (I doubt that personally, very personally, I think you have to prove that your parents were Polish and other stuff, but well you never know, laws like that are changing fast in Europe nowadays) I have no doubt that if she goes to the Polish embassy in Berlin, she will be given a Polish passport. If she does not have that passport, she should not be considered Polish. Note that there is a discussion concerning this "phenomenon" at [16].

How was she not a refugee? she was forced from the land she was born in. If you were forced from the land you were born in, would you not want to be called a refugee as well?

--Jadger 00:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can most definitely relate with that (though of course there can be a lot of difference of degree in "forcing"). However, we are not so sure that she was in fact forced to leave West Prussia. They fled for the Soviet advance, but was that from Rahmel-Rumia or from Berlin? And if it was from Rahmel-Rumia, January 1945 sounds rather early. She is not one of those Germans who were told to leave the land that they and their ancestors had lived in for centuries. And she is not of those (Silezians and Masurians) who were later ostracized and encouraged to leave for being a bit different (like the Mormon village where they were told to have their religious gatherings in Polish, only the communist government also forbade them to print Polish prayer and hymn books). The point is that the place of birth is also important because it makes that clear. --Pan Gerwazy 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rumia / Rahmel

• Copied from my Talk page

Please read the talk page before reverting. The birthplace is important because of her being the head of the Vertriebenenbund. That means that for some people (Poles, mostly, but not only them) she is an expeller first and an expelled person second only. Note that Germany has officially recognized the annexation as illegal, so legally today we have to say that she was born in Poland. And TINC, I do not consider myself Polish. Have a nice day.--Pan Gerwazy 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the debate. This Talk Page is on my watchlist. All arguments for Rumia and Rahmel need to stay out of the introduction. It is too long a discussion to put there. I am OK with Rumia (then Rahmel) or Rahmel (now Rumia) but that's it. Any longer discussion belongs in the Rumia article not here. --Richard 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

end the debate on Rahmel/Rumia

as per the rules set out by the Danzig/Gdansk vote, the name used should be Rahmel (now Rumia), for instance, I will quote the specific rules:

1. In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
2. For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

that should settle it, this is already wikipedia policy, built upon consensus, now what excuse do you have for breaking the rules?

--Jadger 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The rule about "clearly German persons" is an individual part of the ruling, which only applies to the Gdansk-Danzig case specifically, I think. We could perhaps say that, logically, it should also apply to other places which became Polish in the year mentioned by the template. Rumia-Rahmel became Polish in 1919. Note that the second part of your quote has led to a lot of trouble and needs to be applied with caution. What do you think of adding the Polish name of Dresden to the article on Vladimir Putin? After all, Dresden DOES "share a history between Germany and Poland" and you can google "Drezno"? --Pan Gerwazy 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that template describes the result of one vote, and it is in no way official Wikipedia policy. Second, the specific provisions of the vote apply to Gdansk only. For other places, the vote may require that both Polish and German place names are included, which is exactly what we do in this article. In short, I do not see how that template is relevant to our dispute. Balcer 12:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

why does it apply to the Danzig/Gdansk case only? when if we followed it here it would solve so many problems that we are encountering. Just because a rule doesn't agree with your standpoint now does not mean you can throw it away.

1. you can google anything, including random letters, and still come up with results. how does Dresden share a common history between Germany and Poland? Dresden has always been German, read the Dresden article, it was a German town that merged with a slavic one, Slavic does not necessarily mean Polish. when was Dresden a part of Poland? see Talk:Dresden for the discussion on this, which also shows that the Gdansk/Danzig vote is supposed to be extrapolated to other articles that share a common German/Polish history.

as for Balcer: yes they are both included, but in the manner shown in that vote, not in the way you place it in this article. your comment is rather confusing, as you pretend that the rules don't apply then try to twist the rules so that they do apply in your favour. You don't see how it is relevant because you haven't even read it clearly.

--Jadger 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It applies in Danzig/Gdansk case only because that was what the terms of the vote were (in points 1,2,3,4). End of story. You might want to argue that extending the rule might be a good idea, but you cannot claim that the vote gives you any extra powers in the matter. Furthermore, the vote does not state specifically how the names must be included, it only gives examples of a possible way to do it. It definitely does not preclude using a form different from Rumia (Rahmel).

As for Dresden, here is a quick history lesson: Saxony and Poland were joined in a personal union between 1697 and 1763, under Augustus II the Strong and Augustus III of Poland. These kings generally spent more time in Saxony than in Poland. Thus, judging by where Poland's king resided, Dresden was to some extent the capital of Poland. If that is not shared history (as per vote formulation), I don't know what is. Balcer 16:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dresden was the capital of Saxony. Poland had its own capital. I would rather say Poland was part of Saxony, as Saxony was the dominant part of the union - the King being a Saxon and not a Pole. Stettiner 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Gdansk/Danzig vote is not Wikipedia policy. However, we should strive for consistency in usage across articles. Thus, if we depart from the standards set out by the Gdansk/Danzig vote, we should do so for good reason and not just to enable pushing of a POV about Erika Steinbach's legitimacy as leader/spokesperson for the expellees.

Gdansk is a Polish city that was German for a time. Rumia is another Polish city that was German for a time. My knowledge of German/Polish history is not strong enough to distinguish between the histories of these two cities. Can someone make an argument that the histories of the two cities differ sufficiently such that the Gdansk/Danzig vote does not apply? Rumia/Rahmel became Polish in 1919. When did Gdansk become Polish? In 1945? Does this difference materially affect the application of the Gdansk/Danzig vote to Rumia/Rahmel? I don't think so but perhaps someone can make a case for it.

More importantly, this article is about Erika Steinbach, not about Rumia/Rahmel. If you need to insist that she was born in German-occupied Poland and not Germany or in Germany and not German-occupied Poland, do it in the biography not in the intro. And do it in a paragraph that explains why the distinction is important (i.e. because of the dispute about her legitimacy as leader of the expellees). Please do not try to make this case in the intro or at least not in the phrase that specifies her birthplace. Doing it there severely degrades readability.

I will also comment that while the Angela Merkel article does mention her birthplace in the intro, neither the Helmut Kohl nor the Gerhard Schroeder articles mention their birthplaces in the intro. If we cannot agree on a mutually acceptable phrasing of her birthplace for the intro, then let's leave it out. It is not an obligatory part of the intro.

--Richard 16:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is not straightforward to achieve here. Different Polish cities spent different lengths of time within the borders of Germany or German-speaking states. Thus Szczecin only became Polish in 1945, and so its German name needs to be given some prominence. On the other hand, Warsaw was actually a part of Prussia between 1795 and 1807. Should its German name be given because "it was once part of Prussia" for a few years? Obviously I do not think so. Between those two extremes, we have places like Rumia which were in Prussia (and later German Empire) between 1772 and 1919. Anyway, here is the difference between Rumia and Gdansk. Rumia became part of Poland in 1919. Gdansk only became part of Poland in 1945. Besides, Danzig is special in that the German version of its name gained wide currency in the English language. but Rumia/Rahmel obviously have not. Balcer 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the birthplace should not be mentioned in the lead paragraph, so I moved it down. This is the format in other articles about German politicians, notably Horst Köhler. Balcer 17:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've already argued on this page, to say that Steinbach was born in Rahmel is to accept the Nazi conquest as legal. To say that she was born in West Prussia is even worse as this is accepting also the Nazi administration of the comquered territories. The German government does neither of the things. No German government after 1945 did. On the other hand, she was not born in Nazi occupied Poland but in territories annexed from Poland by Nazi Germany which is not the same (the former is rather a description of the General Government territories). ProudPomeranian 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

that is totally unsubstantiated Balcer, how do you know that Rahmel is not more common in English than Rumia? There is a difference between Danzig and Rahmel, Danzig was a very important city, while Rahmel is a insignificant large town rarely ever heard of outside of Poland (nowadays), in the time period we are referring to, it was named Rahmel. If someone is writing a biography of you, would you like them to write that you were born in Breslau for example instead of Wroclaw? that is of course an example, I do not know what Polish city your were born in. The point is, at the time you were born it was called Wroclaw, why would you want some new foreign name used to refer to it when you have never known it as such?

PP, in no way does referring to it as Rahmel, West Prussia mean that we are Nazi sympathizers, and please, we have already discussed the legality of the annexation, it does not have any affect here. When referring to the history of Toronto, it was called York for a period, and was in Upper Canada, now Upper Canada no longer exists, do you want us to remove all mentionings of Upper Canada and replace it with Ontario? no of course not, that is historical revisionism.

territories annexed from Poland by Nazi Germany (PP)

well than why don't we go to every biography article of a Polish person and and write territories annexed from Germany/Austria-Hungary/Russia by Poland because that is just as true.

--Jadger 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because these were not temporary, illegal wartime annexations carried out by a regime whose surviving members were put on trial for war crimes. Balcer 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

what is so wrong with:was sent in 1941 to Rahmel in West Prussia, (now Rumia, Poland) anyways?

1. we have already accepted both names must be stated somewhere in article
2. this follows the Danzig/Gdansk ruling.
3. this refers to the actual geographic and political location she was born in.
4. this shows that it is now a part of Poland.

also, why remove my link to historical Eastern Germany when it is indeed a part of historical eastern Germany.

--Jadger 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it does not give the full story, and appears to justify illegal Nazi wartime annexations.

Oh, and if the Polish Corridor is a "propaganda construct", why is that not mentioned in our Wikipedia article about it? In fact why do we have an article about it at all? Balcer 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

how does it not give the full story? it states that at the time it was a part of Germany, but is now a part of Poland, what more is there to it? besides POV pushing and the same old crying wolf.

because propoganda constructs are important to their own perspectives of history, as it says on the polish corridor article itself, it was in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, not an actual geographic location such as the Voivodeship it was in. When telling you how to get to my house, do you want me to tell you to go north of the mason-dixon line? you should now know exactly where my house is by your reasoning

--Jadger 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I doubt whether we would have an article on Frau Erika Steinbach if she had been born in Dortmund. I even doubt that we would have one on her if she were born in Allenstein or Gleiwitz (using the old names on purpose). This lady came in the news for the first time because she rebelled against the peace treaty. Removing whatever may offend whoever, is the worst possible solution. Yes, there is a policy saying "no weasel words please". Tell you something: the worst weasel word in the English language is (=nothing, nada ,zilch). The birthplace must be mentioned. That it was not in Germany must be mentioned. Note that we do follow the Gdansk-Danzig convention concerning the name of the town. We do mention that it was occupied and annexed (side note: since the annexation was illegal, there is no way we can safely say that there was really a difference between occupied territory and annexed territory). Of course, an illegal act can have legal consequences. But not in this case as I said before (Erika is and was always German). Putting any reference to the birthplace in another article is more or less like proposing to AfD this article.--Pan Gerwazy 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

you keep claiming the annexation was illegal, but one can still say that the current Polish rule/occupation/annexation of the land is illegal, that is why this dispute is still going on.

you said:That it was not in Germany must be mentioned.

keyword there is was, and yes it was in Germany, not current Germany, but the Germany of the time nonetheless. By your reasoning we should change the birthplace of Tecumseh and every other Indian chief into its current Canadian/American city name (that is, if we knew where they were born). For instance, we would say that Tecumseh was born in the USA, because he was born in what is now Ohio. is that really what you want? because that is what you are saying.

That is a false analogy. Tecumseh was born around 1768, there was no state of Ohio then, no USA - at the most we could say he was born on soil claimed by both the French and the British. As for his death, there was a legal problem with the admission of Ohio as a state which was only solved in 1953, so if you had taken a later ruler you could have been more lucky, except for the simple fact the Indians and the USA believed for a long time afterwards in different concepts of the word "land" and refuse to accept the other concept as valid. Nice example to illustrate it: Native Americans were made citizens of the United States in ... 1924. When determining whether a territory could become a state and fixing the number of representatives for each state the American constitution said that "untaxed Indians" did not count, see [[17]] I hope you are not suggesting that Bismark treated the Poles like that, and that after 1919 the Poles reversed the tables. Come to think of it, someone once did suggest something like the first part of the preceding sentence. Guess what happened to him? [[18]]--Pan Gerwazy 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We would have an article on her if she was born in Dortmund, as she is the head of an influential group of people in german politics. your claims that it only became newsworthy because

OK. That is an "if" situation - which means we can use OR here, provided it is not used in the article. So, let me try to explain. If she were born in Dortmund, the Vertriebenenbund would/could have chosen her because her father had Silesian roots (and because it is becoming harder and harder to find people who actually went through the 1945 flight themselves). No "left-wing" German journalist, and no Polish commentator would have minded. If she had been born in Allenstein-Olsztyn or Gleiwitz-Gliwice, she would have been a genuine expellee herself, so again there would have been no controversy. Erika started to campaign against the peace treaty when she was already engaged in expellee politics. The ambiguity of her actions must have been clear immediately: she herself was born outside the German border she was "defending". There is an expression in English: "People who live in glass houses should not start throwing stones."--Pan Gerwazy 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

you said: Note that we do follow the Gdansk-Danzig convention concerning the name of the town.

please show me how you do? as I keep getting reverted when I change it to Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland) which is how it is supposed to be according to Danzig/Gdansk ruling. claiming it was illegally annexed is adding POV, as some would claim that since it was in an area predominantly inhabited by Germans, and separated from Germany in order to strengthen Poland and weaken Germany after WWI, Germany annexing this land was actually in accordance with the latter Potsdam Agreement as it took back land inhabited by Germans, in order to make ethnically homogenous nation states.

P.S. no one ever said that the birthplace shouldn't be mentioned, but that it should be mentioned where it is important, not at the introduction when it is restated later in the article.

In closing, stop making the POV comment that the annexation was illegal, it has no place here and only diverts the discussion.

--Jadger 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is a nice idea, but it has its limits. In particular, it does not extend all the way to granting the Nazi point of view on things equal status to other viewpoints. Thus, in our articles on Auschwitz and the Holocaust, we do not present the Nazi view that all Jews must be exterminated as a valid alternative, which must be given equal weight in the article. Similarly, it does not extend to being neutral on other Nazi policies, such as wartime annexations. Balcer 05:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not extend to Stalinist policies, such as illegal and criminal Polish annexations of German territory either then! Stettiner 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

that is that same old logical fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum. The Nazis supported the reincorporation of German lands into the Reich, but they were not the only ones, because they carried out evil acts also, this is automatically referred to by some as "evil" or "illegal" but the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations both were national self-determinism, as well the Potsdam Agreement after WWII did exactly what the Germans had done in 1939 only in reverse (poland taking lands from Germany).

--Jadger 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, let's clarify this. Do you believe the Nazis were just another political grouping and they, together with their ideas, should be treated on Wikipedia just like all other groups? Or should their policies be given special consideration? Balcer 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They were simply another political group, the only difference being that they were the only extreme right wing anti-semitic party to gain power (there were a lot of them at the time). why should they get special treatment? one must objectively weigh there successes (e.g. autobahn, economic recouperation, etc.) with their failures/bad things (e.g. holocaust, aggression, etc.) of course the bad things heavily outweigh the good, but claiming all things concerning the Nazis was bad.

--Jadger 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand you are a German nationalist, and not a Nazi, but this is an old argument by naive people. It can be summed up as "And Mussolini made the trains run on time." Have a look at this:[19]. Our Mussolini article links to it.--Pan Gerwazy 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

By dehumanizing the Nazis and making them seem unreal/unhuman, it just leads to people thinking that these people were not human, and that this will never happen in there lifetime/ever again (which it is i.e. Darfur). We must show that they were humans like the rest of us, and that they were not an aberration, and we must learn from them, not just classify them as "evil" and make them taboo and offlimits. I don't know why you included that Mussolini reference? the main economic recouperation of Germany did happen under the Nazis, albeit the autobahn was started just before the Nazis took power, and some of the economic improvements were from re-armament. I am not saying as that article does that the good overshadows the bad, or excuses it, in fact I am saying just the opposite, that the bad has overshadowed the beneficial things that happened under the Nazis.

--Jadger 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's starting up all over again...

I've been trying to stay out of this Rumia/Rahmel argument but it has been and continues to be disruptive so I think it's time to try and resolve it.

Look, it appears that the only reason that anybody is trying to argue about this is because of the implication on Steinbach's legitimacy as a spokesperson for the expellees. I presume that you are not running around Wikipedia insisting on talking about "German-occupied Poland" or "German-annexed Polish territory" or "historical Eastern Germany" in every article that mentions a Polish city with Germanic history and people. If I'm wrong and this IS your crusade, then disabuse me of my error.

If I'm right that your efforts are focused on this article alone, then it appears that this is all about Steinbach's status as a German-German born in Rumia/Rahmel vs. her being a Polish-German born in Rumia. Presumably the argument is that a Polish-German born in Rumia has a right to be considered an expellee whereas a German-German (whose father was sent there on a military assignment) is not technically an expellee.

Is this the argument that we're really having? Because if it is, then let's say this in the article. If you're trying to win this argument by winning the description of Rumia/Rahmel as being "in Poland" vs. "in German-occupied Poland" vs. "in historical Eastern Germany", then the battle is lost because only the editors of this article and a few others will understand what these code phrases are meant to imply.

Consider the average reader who doesn't know anything about Germany, Poland or the expulsions. (BTW, this characterization describes me 6 months ago.) If you want someone like that to understand what you are saying, you need to say it explicitly.

Say something like "There is some dispute as to whether to characterize Steinbach as a child of a German military family temporarily assigned to Rumia or as a child of a German family expelled from Poland. This dispute is used by some to question the legitimacy of Steinbach's position as leader and spokesperson for the expellee movement."

BTW, my personal position is that, unless Steinbach is personally asking to be compensated as an expellee, then it's OK for her to speak for expellees. It may be a bit irritating if she said "As a child of an expelled family, I feel..." but, at the end of the day, she should be evaluated on the logic of her arguments not on whether she is technically an expellee or not.

--Richard 05:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

for the person that does not know anything of German history, I include the link to historical eastern Germany but it keeps being removed, when it can shed a lot of light onto this dispute. I am not concerned with whether she claims to be an expellee, but when a place is in Germany at the time and then claimed otherwise I tend to correct that as it is historical revisionism. If Rahmel/Rumia where in new lands only conquered after 1939 by Germany or in the General Government, then I would not have a problem with some other people's edits. but we are talking about the 25 of July, 1943, when it was in Germany.

--Jadger 18:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is the formulation: Rahmel in West Prussia, (now Rumia, Poland), which you are stubbornly trying to insert. It is obvious the majority of the people involved in this dispute cannot accept this formulation. Can you suggest any alternatives which would be more acceptable? Balcer 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

there are two people against it, that is not a clear consensus, and I am editing as per danzig/Gdansk ruling, which makes my edits immune from 3RR, while yours are not.

--Jadger 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gdansk vote, as it applies here (since Rumia is not Danzig) says only that both German and Polish names should be mentioned. It says nothing about which order they should be in. And it says absolutely nothing about having to include West Prussia.

Since you are having trouble understanding this, let me make it clear. The first portion of the ruling applies to Gdansk/Danzig only, as is made perfectly clear. Then, there is the point:

For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Does our article conform to this point? 'Yes, it does!. Both Polish and German names are mentioned. Note that this point only gives examples of how these names should be listed, and it does not enforce a single standard of how it must be done. Is this clear to you now? Balcer 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

and why can't the rest of the Danzig/Gdansk vote be extended to here? it is very useful and does not state that it is only for that city, but uses it as an example. By your reasoning we should also call the battle of Stalingrad the battle of Volgograd, after all, it is under a different regime/nation now, and its name has changed. That rule clearly gives examples e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) see the word now in there? that shows it is being referred to in the historical context of the time it was known as Danzig, and Gdansk is added for reader clarification. that is what I have done here.

--Jadger 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe extending it is a good idea, maybe not. The point is, it does not extend here now, and so you cannot use it to claim exemption from the 3RR rule. And examples are just that, examples. Nowhere is it said in the vote that those forms are the only ones acceptable. Balcer 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not stated, but implied, stop twisting words. you know what is meant but you refuse to admit it until it is outlined totally leaving nothing to assumption.

--Jadger 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to be very precise here because the 3RR rule is one of the most important and respected on Wikipedia. It is so important that some have questioned the very validity of the Gdansk vote, since it seems to give people a licence to break it (thankfully that license has not been abused so far). If you want to claim that you have a right to break it, you better be sure that you are on rock-solid ground. "Assumptions" or "extensions" just don't cut it. If you don't believe me, give it a shot, and see if you will escape a block. Balcer 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be time to follow the dispute resolution process

I think we may need to issue a Request for Comment or seek mediation from the Mediation Cabal or something. This edit war seems to be endless but I refuse to accept that 4 votes breaking 3-1 is a meaningful consensus.

In the short-term, if this revert war doesn't stop, we may need to seek protection of the article. I would much prefer that we seek a mutually acceptable solution.

--Richard 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

About page protection...

This is addressed to all who are involved in the revert war over Rumia/Rahmel.

I don't know how knowledgeable you are about page protection so I might be telling you something you already know. I feel confident that an admin would protect this page to stop the edit warring if we asked one to do so. If an admin decides to protect the page, he/she will simply choose the current version and one or more of you are likely to be dissatisfied with the wording that is in the protected version.

It behooves all of us to find a mutually acceptable wording now without page protection rather than have page protection imposed by an admin and then try to seek a compromise then.

I'm serious. This revert war has gone on long enough. Either find a compromise yourselves or seek the help of others by following the dispute resolution process.

--Richard 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with protecting the page, no matter what version. This usually helps tempers to cool down a bit. Balcer 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I second Balcer's reply. --Pan Gerwazy 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I was convinced that there was no other way out, I asked an administrator to protect, suggesting a revert to User:Piotrus if it was unethical for my version to be the one protected. Personally, I have no problem with Januszewicz' version (because it gives a longish explanation of the whole situation and is therefore relatively free from POV), except his last change contained a grammar mistake. I added the "to" missing, that is all. Now the real work must begin. For starters, we need to identify the passages that could be POV. First problem I see: the word "controversial" for the Bund der Vertriebenen. Is the evidence big enough to warrant that word? -this unsigned comment was added by --Pan Gerwazy 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Warschau

Germans fought in Warschau (now Warszawa) ? --Januszewicz 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw was not part of Germany (but rather the General Government of Poland). Rahmel was. Stettiner 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The page is protected due to an edit conflict. Please either try to find a compromise or file a WP:RfC. abakharev 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

let's discuss to get it out of protection

alright, here is the part(s) of the current version I have a problem with that we should moderate:

1. German occupied Rumia in Poland(renamed Rahmel and incorporated during the German occupation of Poland into Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia administrative disctrict by Nazi authorities

the above gives a false impression, it pretends that Rahmel had always been Polish, rather than only Polish for 20 years (and German for hundreds of years before that) and it avoids the fact that the majority of the population at the time was in fact ethnic Germans. when referring to Rumia/Rahmel from 1919 to 1939 we could turn the sentence around at it would be just as true, i.e. Polish occupied Rahmel in Germany(renamed Rumia and incorporated during the Polish occupation of Eastern Germany into whatever Voivodeship administrative disctrict by Polish authorities

I am glad that the link to Historical Eastern Germany has been left in, as that shows that Rumia had only been a part of Poland for 20 years before the Nazis invaded Poland.

I do not like the addition of the links from dw-world.de, especially since the sentence to describe it In 2006 she was involved in a controversial exhibition about the expellees is misleading, it isn't about the expellees, but all expulsions in European history. those links only show one side, we should add this link also,[[20]] from that same webpage, but it is more balanced and unbiased, it does not just tell the one side's accusations against the bund.

--Jadger 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First, simple math: from 1772 to 1918 is not "hundreds of years". but less than 150 years. Nevertheless, if someone wants to add the information that Rumia was in Prussia and then Germany from 1772 to 1918 following the First Partition of Poland, I have absolutely nothing against that. Second, what is your evidence that the majority of Rumia's population was ethnic German in 1918-1939 (after 1939 it might indeed have been, due to German expulsions of ethnic Poles). Third, Rumia was not "occupied" in 1919-1939 because the Versailles treaty which created the new borders was accepted by the entire world, including Germany, including Nazi Germany (see German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact). The link to Historical Eastern Germany is not completely accurate here, since ethnic Germans were then escaping from just about all of Eastern Europe, not only lands which were part of Germany (for one example of such an individual, see Horst Köhler).Balcer 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

still, <150 years is still 7 times longer than it was in Poland, and it has been discussed excessively elsewhere on wikipedia that the rural areas where dominated by Poles, while the majority of city dwellers were Germans, do you have any evidence that rejects this for Rumia specifically? you can call it whatever you want, but Germany was forced to give up the Corridor to Poland so that Poland had an "outlet to the sea" sure Germany recognized new borders at the end of WWI with the treaty of Versailles, but they had a gun to their head (metaphor), it was done out of necessity, see dolchstosslegende for what many people felt about it. We have already discussed that, please do not drag this discussion into the mud by claiming that, it is a conversation stopper. How is Historical Eastern Germany not completely accurate? it is a part of Historical Eastern Germany, for further reading add a link to expulsion of Germans after WWII at the bottom of the article, I would not have a problem with that.

--Jadger 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, you are forgetting the years before the partition. I hope we do not have to check Molobo's contributions to see when the German name started to be used.

Dolchstoßlegende? That is about 1918: the German troops being undefeated and occupying large parts of France and Belgium but being betrayed by the left politicians who started a revolution. Legends and their modern version the conspiracy theories are born whenever the human mind sees something that looks odd - though it is perfectly comprehensible when you see the whole picture. "Stabbed in the back by the left." However, this is not what this is about, what you are hinting at is another legend, defended often by the same people (but in fact in contradiction with the Dolchstoßlegende): that after Germany's surrender the bullies France and Britain (usually depicted in this without the support of the US, to further increase the perfidity) were using their miltary might and absolute control over Europe on the side of the Poles. Actually, when Poland and Soviet Russia were at war, there was precious little help that the allies could have given Poland, if Germany had started a war with Poland then over these territories. So, why did Germany not do it? After all, the army had returned undefeated? (see, you cannot have it both ways). Actually, Germany may have had the manpower, but the economy was in shatters (that is why it lost the 1914-1918 war, the home front was literally starving) and no one, except some extreme-right wing paramilitaries, had any stomach for a war even if it had been against Luxembourg only. Instead, during the Polish-Soviet war, the German government openly declared its neutrality, thinking that the fear of living in a country about to be beaten by Soviet Russia would give the German side an advantage in the plebiscites. And they were proven right. By the way, you seem not to have noticed that User:Balcer also mentioned Nazi Germany's treaties with Poland. Does the pistol on the jaw also apply to Hitler?

Personally I am in favour of the following treatment of the birth place: 1) birth: must include an explanation along the lines "she was born in Rumia (Poland), during the period when it was annexed by occupying Nazi Germany and renamed to Rahmel." 2) as a courtesy to German-nationalist POV anything that follows and refers to a date before April 1945 says Rahmel(Rumia) - we do not have any passage like that I think. 3)Anything after April 1945 says Rumia(Rahmel), except when it absolutely has to be used twice in a sentence, and then the second one should just say Rumia. I say April 1945, may as well be January 1945 - should of course be the time the Soviet Army reached the area, I do not know when that was for sure. Note that we have at present no indication at all whether Erika and her mother fled to Kiel from Rumia or from Berlin. The date too has been contested. So, using the flight only to introduce Rahmel(Rumia) into the text, should not be possible.--Pan Gerwazy 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about Germany having a gun to its head at Versailles displays a basic misuderstanding about the nature of war. The whole point of war is to defeat the enemy militarily and to hold a gun to his head, so to speak, so that he gives you what you want in a peace treaty which is recognized by the international community. This is how the vast majority of wars in Europe ended. Claiming that the results obtained by such wars are illegal and any territory obtained by them is "occupied territory" is, to say the least, highly original thinking, which would require a through rewriting of just about all European history books. Thus Silesia which Prussia obtained from Austria in 1740 would be occupied, since after all Prussia held a gun (or sword) to Austria's head to get it. Same for Alsace-Lorraine in 1871-1918, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Obviously, this is ridiculous. Just about all postwar treaties are unfair to the losing side (by definition), yet questioning the legitimacy of all of them because of this would be highly eccentric. Just to be clear though, temporarily seizing territory in wartime and unilaterally annexing it without signing a peace treaty with the losing side and without gaining the recognition of the wider international community obviously cannot be considered legal. Balcer 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the "Corridor" and your claim that it was only given to Poland to give it an outlet to the sea, please take a look at maps of Poland between 1466 and 1772. You will notice that the "Corridor" then belonged to Poland. Thus, given that the post-1918 Polish border was being reconstituted with the 1772 border as the basic guide (on the western side at least), giving the "Corridor" to Poland made perfect sense.

As for your point that only the villages were dominated by Poles, you are just blowing a giant hole in your argument since Rumia was a village in those days (it only became a town after the war). Balcer 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were you I'd simply stick to the original version, which seems pretty balanced: Erika Steinbach was born in Rumia, Poland, then under military occupation[1] by Nazi Germany. Her biography on the webpage of the German Bundestag, which presumably reflects her own view of the issue, puts it somewhat differently, stating that she was born in Rahmel/Westpreußen (i.e. Rahmel in West Prussia, or more precisely Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia)[2]. Her birthplace had been Polish and German at various times in history, and is also known as Rahmel in German[2].. Perhaps most of that info could be put into a footnote anyway, so it'd be Erika Steinbach was born in Rumia, Poland, then under military occupation[1] by Nazi Germany (and here goes the citation in a footnote). //Halibutt 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the version from the German Bundestag, it describes it better than any of us have. born in Rahmel/Westpreußen (i.e. Rahmel in West Prussia, or more precisely Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia)[2]. Her birthplace had been Polish and German at various times in history, and is also known as Rahmel in German[2]. that is exactly the point I have been trying to put accross, I was not the one to remove this.

BTW Balcer, I never said only villages where dominated by Poles, I said only rural areas are dominated by Poles, and Rumia was not a village, extrapolating population from the Rahmel article, it would be a rather large town. Commonly in geography, an urban centre is considered any town over 1000 people. Anything large enough to support a major military base like Rahmel did during WWII would have to not be rural.

Balcer said: All this talk about Germany having a gun to its head at Versailles displays a basic misuderstanding about the nature of war. The whole point of war is to defeat the enemy militarily and to hold a gun to his head, so to speak, so that he gives you what you want in a peace treaty which is recognized by the international community. My Point exactly, you claim it was land given to Poland, but the correct term would be taken by the allies and given to Poland. your claims that Germany did it Freewillingly is nonsense,

We all know that Poland owned Royal Prussia/the corridor, but it was a fief, and that does not mean that it was populated by Poles, pre 1772 is well before the concept of nation states had evolved. a nation state is a group of people sharing the same culture, language, history, etc. which the area did not have with Poland, it had been ruled by the Teutonic Knights before Poland took it in war. whereas like Germany, the German people were more populous, the German language was more common, and it shares a history with Germany (the teutonic knights and settlement of the east). Prussia did not appear as an exclave out of nowhere, and anyone that has read the history knows that they did not land in East Prussia by boats and settle it that way.

Just to be clear though, temporarily seizing territory in wartime and unilaterally annexing it without signing a peace treaty with the losing side and without gaining the recognition of the wider international community obviously cannot be considered legal. you are misconstruing this again!!! the polish gov't in exile is extinct, it never returned to power, even the allies who sustained it let it quietly disappear because it would not compromise with anyone, not even its allies. The losing side that cannot lose anything more is not going to sign a treaty!!! they would rather wait for others to proclaim themselves as its saviours and then make claim to the lands again (which it did). It was not known to be temporary though, and after conquering Poland it was not really considered wartime anymore for that region until the Soviets got there in '45. As for the international community, the British Empire alone makes up a fair chunk of the world (the sun never sets on the British Empire), it alone would easily be considered the "international community", let alone its ally France and all its dependencies, that is easily a large chunk of the world. whereas it was not unilateral, it was recognized by Germany, Italy, USSR, Japan, Slovakia, Hungary, all the axis nations, claiming the allied nations are the only "international community" is historical revisionism.

Er, you are forgetting the years before the partition. I hope we do not have to check Molobo's contributions to see when the German name started to be used. LMAO, you use Molobo as a credible reference? too funny

Pan:Actually, when Poland and Soviet Russia were at war, there was precious little help that the allies could have given Poland, if Germany had started a war with Poland then over these territories. So, why did Germany not do it? umm, think about it, the French occupation of the Saarland, the breaking of the Treaty of Versailles before they were powerful enough to defend themselves, the political turmoil inside Germany, of course they never helped the Soviets in their war against POland before WWII. and teh allies didn't aid Poland because they had already been condemned by their own public opinion for sending troops to help the white russians, engaging in another war so soon after such a bloody one would have been political suicide for the allies unless they had reason to, i.e. Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles.

P.S. I noticed Balcer, that you never added any useful point on the problem we are trying to fix, but only continued to argue. everyone else here has contributed and are trying to reach an acceptable ending

--Jadger 18:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

late edit: what I think is right is like what i quoted above from Hali's post of the German Bundestag, but Rumia must also be included.

--Jadger 18:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is any point for me to respond in detail to this rant. After all, the discussion is only expanding, with Jadger now expounding new theories about the legitimacy of the Polish government in exile, as usual without any references to back them up. Throughout his post he displays egregious ignorance of the relevant history. I will address some of his points only briefly, as it is not my job to educate him.

1. Royal Prussia, in which Rumia was located from 1466 to 1772, was not a fief but an integral part of Poland. (Ducal Prussia, a different entity which became East Prussia, was indeed a fief).

2. Rumia became large because of the influx of Polish newcomers settling to work in the newly founded seaport of Gdynia. Another argument in favour of its population being Polish. Before 1920 it was a small village, hence probably populated by Poles. In any case, there is no credible evidence of its having a majority German population. Not that it matters that much either way for our dispute.

3. No one can claim that Germany gave the territory of its own free will without coercion. But to claim that all territories lost in such a way must be considered occupied is nonsense.

4. It was Germany's choice to overrun Poland completely and destroy its statehood, leaving no government in place in control of some territory to negotiate with. If Germany had stopped advancing after reaching the 1914 border , maybe the Polish government left on the remaining territory would have been willing to negotiate a valid treaty for the new borders. Anyway, the lesson is, if you want a legal transfer of territory from your neighbour, don't destroy him first.

5. Steinbach was born in July 1943, and by that time the group of nations which recognised Germany's annexations shrunk to a truly pitiful remnant. (Italy just left the war, USSR repudiated all agreements with Germany in 1941). Who was left? Germany, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Finland and maybe Spain? Not a very impressive group, considering the countries grouped against it (for a list, see United Nations).

6. The legal status of the government in exile after 1945 is interesting, but not really relevant to this discussion. In 1943 the Polish government in exile still existed and was recognised as entirely legitimate by the Allies. Later on the Western Allies dropped its recognition in favour of recognizing the new Communist government, which was thus considered its legitimate successor.

Anyway, this discussion is getting ridiculous. I invite Jadger to propagate his theories in our Treaty of Versailles article, where at least he will likely meet competent historians who will blow his claims out of the water. I believe he gets away with them here, given how obscure this article really is.

As for Jadger's accusations of my lack of contributions and unwillingness to work towards compromise, he is also wrong. (see [21], where I created the compromise version which is currently proposed again by Halibutt) Balcer 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much banter here to respond without taking a gasp.

OK. You accuse me of bringing in Molobo. Let me stay civil and just say that Molobo had a source. Did you check it? You do not need to know Polish to understand what is written there. A name that looks like Rahmel suddenly appears out of the blue after 1772. OK. Where is your source?

The pistol against the jaw and the taking by the allies and given to Poland. Actually, Germany got off lightly. Look what happened to Austria-Hungary. Why did they go off lightly? Because Britain had expressly gone to war to preserve the existence of Belgium and declared as its main aim in the war: "stopping the Bloody Hun's evil empire building" (that is from George in Blackadder goes forth, by the way). Of course, compared to the British empire at that time the German empire was no more than a chain of sausage factories in Tanganyika, Ruanda, some obsucre Chinese port (that they later gave to Japan) and of course Papua New Guinea. Nonetheless, that was the aim, and that is why Canada, Australia and India were eagerly giving canon fodder being grinded into Flemish mud. The USA went into the war to "help the peoples of Europe to freedom and self-determination". So, yes, the Germans were humiliated -but found consolation in the fact that "their army had not been beaten". Germany did not suffer much territorial loss IN EUROPE, because that would have been contrary to the war aims of the USA and the British Empire, but just because of that, everything she lost was seen as an injustice. Oh, and when the second war was going on, many Western statesmen mused that "this time, we will not make that mistake again". Explains quite a few things. Why Berlin was split in four ('only when they see our uniforms in their streets ...') and perhaps why this time ther was big territorial loss as Poland was shifted westwards (strange analogy: in 1918 France had wanted Belgium and the Netherlands to shift Northwesterly at Germany's expense) - that way you made sure that "they would pay".

Of course, Germany could not do much in 1919 because it was in such a sorry state. And as Balcer said, that was the end result of the war, dude. Actually, again: too bad so many good people (Germans and non-Germans) had to die before the results of the naval blockade were letting themselves felt.

• Er, the French occupation of the Saarland was not really a threat or even meant as one; just one of those conditions of the Versailles Treaty, also binding on France, by the way. I hope you are not confusing this with the occupation of the Rhineland. That was later: [22]

As for my proposal, it does not differ much from Halibutt provided no one is going to add stuff like "Erika made her first steps on the cobblestones of Rahmel(Rumia) on August 5th, 1944."--Pan Gerwazy 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So is the Halibu's/Gerwazy's version is the final and the article is ready to be unprotected or we need to discuss more? abakharev 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Halibutt - problem with copy paste and those brackets - this time the macro did not work well. Alex, that version means explaining the legal situation of the area when we mention her birth place and using Rumia (Rahmel) afterwards (except for second mention in the same sentence). We haven't agreed on the wording of the explanation yet. It does not seem we can convince User:Jadger to look for a reasonable alternative. It looks like he wants to convince us that the Versailles treaty was unjust to Germany - a waste of time, since in such cases one ia always preaching either to the already converted or to people who will never be convinced. And if he puts this idea into the article, I suppose he will be guilty of WP:Point. Before unprotecting I would like a) to hear from Richard b) we need to hear whether there are objections to other points. User:Piotrus put some stuff in on the BdV, Jadger chose another page at the same website. I do not think have heard any Polish comment on that. So, basically, perhaps it is a bit early. I am not completely sure we discussed everything.--Pan Gerwazy 09:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, I am not the one to have taken this discussion into so many different areas, I only responded to each of your different "rants", I myself was frustrated with the length. as for the current version, so called "Hali-Gerwazy", it is inherently wrong, and the whole reason this was disputed in the first place. How come the solution I offer works on the Danzig/Gdansk, Stettin/Szczecin, Breslau/Wroclaw, articles but not here? I have explained why it should be Rahmel (now Rumia), but I have yet to receive an answer besides that it offends the extreme right nationalists in Poland, which I can hardly see as satisfactory reasoning. I never ever even thought of adding the Dolchstosslegende or this other stuff that has been gone on about in the article, stop putting words in my mouth. my offer of the other link is simple, it provides both sides of the argument on the display, why give two different links when it is summarized in one, not to mention much more unbiased.

--Jadger 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys. Chill down. Who cares if this is Rumia or Rahmel first, as long as both are mentioned? I'd rather we expanded the article, writing more about how this person is viewed in Poland, Germany and other countries, what is she doing, and other important issues, instead of writing kilobytes of arguments about naming order, 99.99999999% of people on Earth don't care about.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not necessarily about which one comes first, but when they write it with Rumia first, they create a lengthy POV "clarification" about how it was "rightfully and always Polish, no Germans ever had a right to live here, and we should wipe the German history of the region from history, except for when we determined the occupation illegal, then we can only talk about war crimes committed by Nazis", of course I'm paraphrasing, what they have written lately is: German occupied Rumia in Poland(renamed Rahmel and incorporated during the German occupation of Poland into Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia administrative disctrict by Nazi authorities) the problem I have with that is it shows the previous owner, which is okay if we show the previous owner before that, as 20 years of occupation by Poland can be seen as just as temporary as the later 6 years by Germany, whereas 150 years of German rule is rather more established, as under the previous German rule the composition of the region changed considerably, whereas very little during these "temporary" eras. stating it was in occupied Poland gives a POV, whiles stating it was Rahmel at the time, now called Rumia (in poland), deals only with the name and not the historical tensions that have been shown here on the talk page. I have tried to avoid these tensions, but some insist on forcing them into the article in order to push their racial agenda.

--Jadger 03:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, if we are to make any progress here, you have to accept that in mainstream view Rumia's possession by Poland in 1919-1939 was not an occupation. Now, I know by now what is your opinion on this subject and that I am probably not going to change that, but Wikipedia is not written based on opinions but on solid sources. So, would you please present modern, reputable, historical works which refer to the Polish possession of ex-German lands in 1919-1939 as an occupation. If you cannot find any, please stop using this term in the discussion, as it only inflames things.

Also, after what you wrote above (your paraphrasing), it is interesting that you complain of others putting words in your mouth.Balcer 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning. Rumia was in Prussia and leter Germany only because of the Partitions of Poland. Were they more legal than the Treaty of Versailes? I don't think so. One of the partitions was ratified by the Polish parliament with armed Russion troops present in the chamber during the vote (yes!). Versailes was comparing to this an example of nice diplomacy. ProudPomeranian 06:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, Versailles nice diplomacy, instead of signing the paper before people died (as in the partitions), we kill millions of people then we wait til there government dissolves then force the new non-representational "representatives" to sign a treaty. yes, very nice diplomacy, only tens of millions of people had to die this time, better than none in the partitions.

As for from the beginning, they werent only in Prussia/Germany because of the partitions, we must go even farther back to the northern crusades and the Teutonic Knights when the land first started its Germanisation. becasue the land was owned by slavs 900 years before does not give one rights to take it from others now, or else all of Europe should be ruled by the Basques.

Balcer, if you are not going to add anything useful to the discussion, please leave.

BTW: I noticed neither of you answered my statement, so I will repeat it again: stating it was in occupied Poland gives a POV, while stating it was Rahmel at the time, now called Rumia (in poland), deals only with the name and not the historical tensions that have been shown here on the talk page. I have tried to avoid these tensions, but some insist on forcing them into the article in order to push their racial agenda.

why do you avoid the "meat and potatoes" of my argument, and only focus on my POV which is not going to be included in the article, it hasn't been included by me before, and wont be after this discussion.

--Jadger 19:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating it was Rahmel at the time implicitly suggests that the German occupation was legal and accepted by most of the world, which is simply not true. It certainly is not NPOV. Believe it or not, sometimes POV can be pushed by not saying things which must be said.

One more suggestion. Since your user page shows you are a native English speaker, please show consideration towards your readers and use proper English. For example, it is commonly accepted that in English one starts sentences with a capital letter. This will enormously improve, if not the credibility, at least the readibility of your arguments. Balcer 20:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating it was Rahmel at the time implicitly suggests that the German occupation was legal and accepted by most of the world, which is simply not true no it does not, we use the name Danzig in the WWII period when it was illegally occupied by Nazi Germany, that does not implicitly suggest that German occupation was legal. and illegal and immoral are two wholly different things. It may have been illegal, but so would killing Stalin or Hitler be illegal, bringing German lands back into Germany may have been against the laws that were set up to limit Germany after WWI, but it certainly wasn't against what most people thought at the time (pre-war), that is: Germany should be appeased because she was too harshly treated by Versailles. POV can be pushed by not saying things, but that is not the case here.

P.S. my user page also says

AIM-4Dis d00d has a near-native understanding of da IM me! wordz!!!!!1111 :p

, so: this d00d is 2 kool 4 ritin da way u want him 2, i m not ur b1tch, dont tell me what 2 do. again, please keep this discussion on the actual topic, instead of trying to flame me. Tu quoque is a fallacy, and you have committed it on a horrendous scale in the above discussion. you do not hear me complaining about your writing, which is barely coherent at all, even if you had perfect grammar. but please, now that we have both taken shots at each other, lets get back to the point of the discussion, which is not to stroke our egos in a flaming war, but to find a solution to this problem.

--Jadger 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Danzig was a different case than Rumia. It did not belong to Poland in 1919-1939, it had only a few percent of Poles in its population, and its established name in English was Danzig. No one disputes that Danzig should be used as its name in that period. Sure, Nazi Germany annexed it in 1939, but that would be no reason to change its name.

Rumia, on the other hand, was populated by Poles (in some significant part, at least, we still don't have precise numbers), part of Poland in 1919-1939, and then illegally seized by Germany in 1939. This illegal seizure is not a good enough reason to start referring to it by a new name without any explanation. Anyway, please try to understand that places like Danzig, Stettin, Breslau and Rahmel each have significantly different histories, so trying to apply the same naming rule to all of them is simply inappropriate.

Now your point as to what most people thought in the 1930s. First of all, how do you know what they thought, you have some opinion polls you can cite? Furthermore, we are writing about history here, which is not determined by what people thought 70 years ago, but by what modern historians write about the issue now. I am still eagerly awaiting some references to modern historical works from you that would prove some of your points.

As for the writing suggestion, it was just that, a friendly suggestion. But it the end how you write is entirely up to you. Still, it is much easier to have a serious discussion if both sides make a serious effort to use proper English, especially if the discussion involves people for whom English is not a first language. Balcer 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Quit silliness, Balcer, and stop pushing your nationalist POV. Get yourself a blog or something if you want to present the world with your very personal opinion on historical issues. Steinbach was born in Rahmel in Germany which is now Rumia in Poland, end of discussion. Stettiner 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of people involved in this discussion and its length clearly suggests that I am not the only one opposed to the point you are pushing and it is not a silly opposition. As to the blog suggestion, I warmly suggest that you consider it yourself. Balcer 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stettiner, I am sure a lot of people would have no problem with your way of saying it if this was about some German scientist who was born there (presumably because his parents had been living there for some time). Now look carefully at the difference: 1) Frau Steinbach is not your random average German but Head of the BfV. 2) her family (on both sides) had no roots whatsoever in the area and 3) not only that, but they were there because her father was a member of the occupation forces. NOT to mention that there is a problem is, in any case, doing a mighty wrong to this article, which not too casually mentions that she is the head of the BfV. Besides that, the legal position TODAY and that is the moment when we are writing this, is for all (reasonable) parties concerned that that place was in Poland at that moment. So, would that also be the end of the discussion? --Pan Gerwazy 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It was legally part of Germany (Province of Danzig West Prussia) when she was born. German reannexation of Rahmel after 19 years of Polish rule was no less legal than Polish annexations of German cities, say Breslau or Stettin, or for that sake Danzig, after the war. There was no plebicite in Rahmel that voted for joining Poland after WWI. Stettiner 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can assert all you want that Rumia was legally part of Germany, and believe it 100%, but this does not change the fact that it is simply not true. As for the legality of other annexations, could we leave them out of this? This discussion is branching into so many forks that it is hard to keep track of it. Balcer 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can assert all you want that Rahmel was not part of Germany, and believe it 100%, but this does not change the fact that it is simply not true. No, we can not leave Polish annexations out. Annexations must be treated in the same and consistent way, especially German and Polish annexations and reannexations during history. No special apartheid rules for Germany! Stettiner 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Balcer, you have claimed it was illegal, but provided no proof of that. By your reasoning, Historical Eastern Germany (polish: the recovered territories) was not legally a part of Poland until 1991 when Germany gave up using the term German eastern territory under foreign administration. I am talking about the facts on the ground as it was called in that 1991 treaty between Germany and Poland, how were the facts on the ground any different during WWII. All that remained of the Polish government was a couple of old politicians in a office in London calling themselves Poland.

As for the legality of other annexations, could we leave them out of this? This discussion is branching into so many forks that it is hard to keep track of it. I already asked you to leave the "legality" of the German annexation in 1939 out of this as it is not of paramount issue, and it leads to one asking if the Polish annexation was really legal in 1920. If one takes back what was his from a thief, is it stealing? according to Balcer it is.

Now your point as to what most people thought in the 1930s. First of all, how do you know what they thought, you have some opinion polls you can cite? Neville Chamberlain and Didier both ran their elections on appeasing Hitler, see [[23]] and Appeasement of Hitler.

Balcer, you hinge your argument on legality, which isn't even an issue here.

I still have not received a suitable answer to why Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland) is not suitable when you include links to related things like historical eastern germany,recovered territories, etc. etc. like I have done.

--Jadger 18:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We are not supposed to play lawyers here and decide what was legal or not and whether something was an occupation or not. We have to find sources to support our views. On that note, let me quote a passage from: Germany and the Second World War: Volume V/II: Organization and Mobilization in the German Sphere of Power, viewable on Google Print. This is one of the most significant and comprehensive historical works about Germany's participation in World War II, published in Germany and translated into English. Let me quote the relevant passage (I highlighted the key words):

5. The Annexed Territories: A Special Case

A number of areas formed a special case under German occupation rule: these were the territories such as south-east Prussia, Poznan as Reichsgau 'Wartheland', West Prussia with Danzig, and eastern Upper Silesia that were officially incorporated into the German Reich [...] Their fate had already been decided by Hitler, and they had become a field for trying out an occupation policy that after the expected 'final victory' was won would be practised to varying degrees in the other areas planned as parts of the future area of German rule.

So, here is the most solid reference possible that unambiguously establishes the fact that that Rumia and other territories incorporated into the Reich were under German occupation. I think this citation goes a long way to resolving the issue. Balcer 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"We are not supposed to play lawyers here and decide what was legal or not and whether something was an occupation or not". True, articles in Wikipedia are to be based on the facts on the ground. Jerusalem is stated as the capital of Israel, even if the entire rest of the world consider this not to be the case. Rahmel was in Germany. End of discussion. Go edit some Polish politician instead of making problems in articles on German politician. Why are you interested in the article Erika Steinbach? Stettiner 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I provided a solid reference which states Rumia was under German occupation. Until you provide an equally solid reference to the contrary, this discussion is over. Balcer 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/bio/S/steiner0.html - yes, the discussion is over. Born in Rahmel, West Prussia, according to the Bundestag official website. Not in Poland, China, Ukraine or Belarus. You haven't provided a single official source or reference, only your weird Polish nationalist POV. Stettiner 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I presume Balcer would agree to make a number of changes of biographies on Polish politicians. For instance, until 1991 Lech Walesa lived in Polish-occupied Danzig. Stettiner 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, this is an official website of a politician which will obviously support whatever views that politician is advancing. It is in no way neutral. Would you like our George W. Bush article to be written entirely based on what is said on his official webpage? How impartial, accurate or NPOV do you think that would be? Anyway, a solid, published book reference trumps a brief website entry any time. Please find a solid book reference to counter the one I provided, or this discussion is over. Balcer 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is already over. I have backed my claim with the official Bundestag biography, and unless new information become available, there is no point in arguing with Polish nationalists who does not accept the history as it was. Polish nationalists cannot be allowed to disrupt and sabotage articles on German politicians and other topics. This is not the Peoples Republic of Poland Wikipedia, but the English language Wikipedia, and it shall be based upon official and serious sources, not Polish nationalism. Stettiner 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The book I quoted was published in Germany and it was not written by Polish nationalists. It unambiguously establishes that Rumia was under German occupation in 1939-1945. When discussing Rumia, our article must incorporate this information. End of story. Balcer 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, our article "must" not incorporate whatever rant you may find. It should be based upon official and thrustworthy sources. Stettiner 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the official biography at whitehouse.gov says Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut, our biographical article shall accept that fact, even if some British nationalist claims the city was part of Britain or some native American person thinks the city should be called Uhallaliqq and be part of a native American state. Stettiner 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand, the book I quoted is one of the most authoritative sources on the history of Germany during World War II. Plus it was published in Germany, so it cannot be accused of Polish nationalist bias. It unambiguously establishes that Rumia was under German occupation. Hence our article must mention this fact.

Also, please point me to a Wikipedia policy which states that we must report information about politicians exactly as is stated on their webpages. There is no such policy, and why should there be? Bush is a bad example, because of course there is no controversy about which jurisdiction New Haven and Connecticut belonged to at the time of his birth. Balcer 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that the authoritative source for the birthplace of Erika Steinbach MdB is her official biography at the Bundestag website. The book you are quoting is only the POV of some left-wing writer. Tons of books and articles have been published on this topic, each of them presenting the POV of their author. Biographies of politicians are simply not the place for discussion of the legality of annexation (both Polish and German)! Stettiner 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

bundestag.de is not the website of Erika Steinbach, but the website of the Bundestag. Stettiner 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)