Jump to content

Talk:Erika Steinbach

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Space Cadet (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 14 May 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To clear up who lived in Rahmel see following legal records: Kirchenbuecher, Legal records of birth, marriage, death of inhabitants of Rahmel, Westprussia since c 1650

There is nothing to read in the link. Only info about 2 communities:Catholic and Protestant.Cautious 00:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When this page becomes unprotected, can I suggest that 4 foreign language external links is too many. This is the English Wiki.... DJ Clayworth 05:38, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Except that sometimes there are primary sources available only in other languages and no equivalent English sources. Miguel 00:20, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach was born in occupied Poland

Erika Steinbach was born in occupied Poland. Poland didnt surrender in World War II and if you look at any english map of 1943 it will Say Nazi Occupied Poland. Her Father was a Nazi SS Officer that was transfered to Poland. This should return to my recent edit. 24.2.152.139 05:24, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just go away, vandal. Why do you not find a Pole to edit, instead of vandalizing Erika Steinbach and Günter Grass? There is no need for your POVs and "discussion about place of birth". Nico 05:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just go away someone who shows disturbing tendencies towards being a Nazi apologist. So, to those who claim Rumia was in West Prussia after 1918, look at these two maps Rumia's location and Borders of Weimar Germany. Rumia is clearly outside the territory of Germany after 1918. Therefore to call it part of West Prussia in 1943 is a lie. It was Nazi-occupied Poland. However, by the same token to refer to her father as a Nazi officer is going too far without evidence that he was active in the Nazi hierachy. To say he was a Luftwaffe officer is quite factually correct, and bad enough in many people's eyes considering what the Luftwaffe did to many of the cities of Europe. David Newton 19:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rumia is a city in Poland, and in 1943 it was located in Nazi occupied Poland. Claiming that it was located in West Prussia and calling it with German name is insulting to Polish people, especially to those 12,000 Poles murdered in Piasnica Forest, thousands more expelled from their homeland and all the rest who were forbidden to use their language: Polish and Kashubian. Polish people were FORCED by the Nazis to use the German language, and those who refused were executed. It is a shame that such Nazi or Fascist practices are still tolerated in Wikipedia. We have to do something about it before the journalists will know about it. Gdansk 03:04, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Center against force migration

The article contains factual error in following sentence: One of her aims is to build a monumental center against force migration in Berlin, devoted to the ethnic cleansing of about 15 million Germans from Eastern Germany after the war as well as other victims of ethnic cleansing. She is a representive of the newly founded foundation Center against forced migrations (Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen).

There were never 15 milions of Germans in former Germany East of Oder-Neisse line. Rumia were not located at that moment in West Prussia. It was located on the area of Gau Danzig-West Prussia on occupied Poland.Cautious 00:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rahmel was located in the administrative district of Danzig-West Prussia, yes, but the geographical name is simply West Prussia. It was in Germany when she was born. And why are you deleting references to her positions in ZDF, Goethe-Institut and the Landsmannschaft Westpreußen? Nico 00:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At this particular moment, the admin division was Danzig-West Prussia, correct? And 15 milions makes no sense at all. Cautious 00:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Version deleted by Nico:

Erika Steinbach (born July 25, 1943 in Rumia, Poland then occupied by Nazi Germany) is a German politician (CDU). She is a daughter of a Nazi Officer who was stationed in occcupied Poland during WWII. She is now a member of the Bundestag (since 1990) and president of the Bund der Vertriebenen (since 1998), although some does not consider her an expellee herself, as she is the daughter of a Luftwaffe officer who was only stationed in Rahmel during the war.

One of her aims is to build a monumental center against force migration in Berlin, devoted to the faith of Germans after the war and other victims of ethnic cleansing. She is a representive of the newly founded foundation Center against forced migrations (Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen). This iniatiative was unanonimously condemned by Polish and Czech politicians, because it is allegedly aimed at rewriting history of WW2 to show Germans as victims and Poles and Czech as perpetrators.

Recently, Erika Steinbach in the name of Heimatvertriebene sued German journalist Gabriele Lesser for publishing articles explaining Polish point of view to German public. The questioned article was published Sep 19th 2003 in the daily Kieler Nachrichten.

Difference between POV and NPOV

I will also show you the difference between POV and NPOV

This is POV:

"She is a daughter of a Nazi Officer who was stationed in occcupied Poland during WWII. "

This is NPOV:

"she is the daughter of a Luftwaffe officer who was only stationed in Rahmel during the war."

-- Nico 00:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Unless you could document Nazi party membership, and then you could say a Nazi Luftwaffe officer or, preferably and more NPOV, a Luftwaffe officer and member of the Nazi party. Miguel 20:31, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
Any sort of memberships of Steinbach's ancestors are irrelevant in the article dealing with Erika Steinbach, and as far as I know was her father not a politician. However, if you think he was important enough to be included in an encyclopedia himself, his possible memberships of course may be mentioned there. Nico 21:19, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unilateraly annexation of Rumia was not recognized by any other country, then Germany and even there for not long. After 1945 revisionist talked about 1937 borders only. So her father was stationed on Polish soil. Luftwaffe was the Germany air forces of Nazi times, correct. Cautious 00:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unilateral annexation of Eastern Germany in 1945 was not recognized by Germany either, until 1990. Btw., the liberation (if we have to use propagdandisms all the time) of Rahmel certainly were recognized by Germany's allies.


I also suppose you would not call Polish occupation officers in Iraq SLD officers because this party currently is ruling Poland? Luftwaffe is the air force of Germany, and has been since the first world war. -- Nico 01:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There were no unilateral annexation of any part of Germany. The victorious powers moved Poland to fit between Curzon and Oder-Neisse. It was recognized by all countries except W. Germany untill 1970. The problem is, that there are no occupation officers in Iraq. There are stabilisation forces in Iraq. Polish army is no more politicised as it was in communist times and as it was in Wehrmacht times. There were strong ties between Army and NSDAP. What is important, that he was stationed on Polish soil and his daughter has no right to complain. Opposite is true, she should be ashamed by the fact, that shes father played such a role. By the way, do you know, that new candidate for German president, was born in Eastern Poland as the son of the Nazi times German settler?Cautious 01:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Poland attacked the Iraqi people illegally. Hans Blix just stated it: The attack was illegal. You were waging a war of aggression, just like you claim Germany was, and a war to plunder oil. Cimoszewicz even said it, see BBC's article. That's also why the German press call Poland the Trojan donkey in Europe.

As for the German army, it was apolitical just like the army of Poland in communist times. What is important, is that Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel in Germany. Finito. And why should she be ashamed because her father was a war hero who served his country? -- Nico 02:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • If she was born in Germany and lives in Germany, why she is a president of the Federation of Expelees?? She was not expeled herself. Soldier must move, where his duty calls. Poland didn't attack anybody. Cimoszewicz is an idiot. Cautious 09:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • "By the way, do you know, that new candidate for German president, was born in Eastern Poland as the son of the Nazi times German settler?"
    • So? Lech Walesa was a stalinist settler in Danzig in Eastern Germany, as far as I know. The wife of Putin is daughter of a stalinist settler in Königsberg. Etc. And etc. Nico 02:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Walesa moved into Danzig in 1967 as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned, the real difference is that colonisation of Zamojszczzna was the part of Nazi planes, together with Holocaust, and was supposed to give as many victims as Holocaust. Fortunately was aborted and there were only few thousands of victims, mostly children. Polish and Russian settlements were part of international arrangements, that adjusted borders in Europe. This was not connected with the genocid planes. Cautious 09:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • The settlement in Eastern Germany was part of a planned ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Germany that also included million of murdered people (=genocide). I see no difference. And what's wrong with this presidental candidate in question? Nico 06:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • What are you writing about? Genocide? Almost all casualities were effect of War, starvation or crimes commited by Soviet forces. Give me DOCUMENTED examples of Polish genocidal activities against Germans in 1945, please. Yeti

You apparently fail to understand that Nazi Germany is called so not because the whole country joined the NSDAP.Halibutt 01:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rumia, Poland

There are several issues to explain:

  • The city of Rumia was and is situated in Poland, and this should be clearly stated
  • In 1939-45 Rumia was occupied, annexed and renamed by the Nazi Germany - this occupation was not recognized by Poland or her allies
  • There was no West Prussia in 1943; the Nazi-German occupational administration district was called Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen

So the article should say something like this: Rumia, Poland, then ocupied by the Nazi Germany (see: Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen)

Mestwin of Gdansk 20:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nazi Point of View - violation of Wikipedia policies

In my opinion Nico is doing very bad work for Erika Steinbach, who is a controvercial but serious German politician. Nico's edits are clearly in violation of Neutral point of View policies. Wikipedia defines Neo-Nazism as any social or political movement that revive Nazism and postdating the Second World War. More and more Nico's activies makes us believe that Nico thinks that NPOV stands for Nazi Point of View. In my opinion Nico is doing very bad work for Erika Steinbach. - Mestwin of Gdansk 20:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact that many ethnic Germans moved to Germany as refugees around the end of WWII, or were deported, is a real political issue in modern Germany and deserves a dispassionate exposition, IMHO.

Also, the borders of central and eastern Europe have been historically very fluid (excuse me for the euphemism ;-). If I am not mistaken Poland was wiped out of the map several times during the 19th century, and there are many cities that have at one point or another been under Polish, German, Austriohungarian and/or Russian administration and do have German, Polish and Russian names. Gdansk/Danzig is an example. Kaliningrad/Königsberg/Królewiec/Karaliaucius/Regiomontium is another example. So let's describe the complexities of the situation and get on with it. Miguel 20:48, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

It's disturbing to see things like this come up again this way, though. But I guess we will have to deal with people that speak of "war heros" for quite some time... :-| TRauMa 04:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just to get the discussion going in the right direction...

So, what do people think needs to happen in order for the page to be unprotected? Miguel 16:46, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

Wik has declared on his user page that he will "revert upon unprotection", so I have asked to keep the page protected. I have shown evidence that her place of birth is called "Rahmel, West Prussia" in the official Bundestag biography, but Wik continued to insert his POV without any explanation. Nico 17:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is ample explanation on this talk page of the position that the city was under military occupation and should be referred to by its Polish name. Miguel 18:58, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own Rumia page says

The village named Rahmel was since 1770 a part of the German (Prussian) province of West Prussia until the end of the first world war, and was then located in the Pomeranian Voivodship of the newly created Polish state. During the WW2 1939-1945 reannexed by Germany to the province of Danzig-West Prussia. 1945 back to Pomeranian Voivodship. It became a city in 1954 when a few other villages, Zagórze, Biala Rzeka, Szmelta and Janowo, was joined with Rumia. In 2001 also the village of Kazimierz was included.

We do not have a page at Rahmel, but we should have one redirecting to Rumia. The German wikipedia, by the way, redirects Rahmel to Rumia even though the interlanguage link on the English Wikipedia is de:Rahmel. Is that confusing enough? Miguel 19:10, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

By the way, I regret not being able to read Polish so I can't really ascertain the differences between en:Rumia, de:Rumia and pl:Rumia or read the City History on Rumia's official web page. Maybe someone can help with this? All I can tell is that the page pl:Rumia does not mention any history from 1215 to 1870.

The Rumia/Rahmel controversy seems to be one of Nico's pet peeves, since he has also been involved in an edit war over Rumia. Miguel 19:27, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

Miguel, Rahmel was military runway, where Wehrmacht father of Steinbach garrisoned and village of 900 people. City of Rumia was found in 1960. Cautious 21:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From pl:Rumia. If I am not mistaken,
1954 - prawa miejskie - powstało z połączenia wsi: Rumia, Zagórze, Biała Rzeka, Szmelta i Janowo, a od 1 stycznia 2001 roku wsi Kazimierz.
means that there was a village called Rumia which was incorporated into the city of Rumia together with a bunch of other little villages. This page distinguishes "Rumia" from "village Rumia". It is not true that there was no Rumia/Rahmel before 1954. Miguel 22:17, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)
They glued few villages and took the name of one to name the city. Cautious 18:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The city was not under military occupation. It was a part of Germany, and the official name was Rahmel. We use Danzig when referring to the city when it was known as Danzig, and Gdańsk when referring to the post-1945 city. We also use Rahmel when referring to Rahmel. When Steinbach was born, a city called Rumia did not exist. Nico 19:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who recognized in 1943 Rumia to be part of Germany? Germany, Italy and possibly Japan. Maybe Vichy France and so on. In 1919 Germany recognized the border of Poland, that include Rumia. Cautious 18:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who recognized it? Germany did. Because it was part of Germany. If you were born in Upper Silesia in 1970, should we use the German name of the place you were born because Germany did not recognize it as a part of Poland? Nico 19:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From the point of view of international law, Polish Western territories were disputed by exactly 1 country before 1970. It derived from the deviation from the standard procedure to finish war: the borders after ww2 were drawn by the agreement of the winning powers in Potsdam. Nevertheless, there is big difference between disputed territories and occupied by war means territories annexation. The later is illigal. Cautious 19:47, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This (admittedly POV) criticism of Steinbach argues that "the little city was officially called Rumia since 1918". Miguel 21:00, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

LOL. From www.kommunisten-online.de (German stalinists). I think the Bundestag biography is more reliable than stalinist or fascist home pages. Nico 21:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will agree that is is legitimate for German sources (such as the Bundestag) to call the city Rahmel. This is the customary practice when a place has names in more than one language. The question is what the appropriate name is on the English wikipedia. And note that the German wikipedia redirects de:Rahmel to de:Rumia. Miguel 22:17, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia is captured by people like those kommunisten-online.de folks (=Polish nationalists or whatever), so the German Wikipedia is in principle completely irrelevant as a source of German usage. However, if you read the article, the German version starts with "Rahmel (polnisch Rumia)".

And the English name of the city when it was German is Rahmel. There is nothing more to say. Nico 22:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There were never any German city Rahmel. There were a village. How many times I must repeat it Cautious 18:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Sorry, no. The German wikipedia is in principle a relevant source, and a claim that is is biased needs to be substantiated by something other than your own claim, especially since a majority of people working on this page consider you biased. Miguel 23:52, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)


Sorry, your ignorance is not my problem. Are you the majority? I don't care about your ridiculous claims. Bye bye. Nico 00:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could anyone write what's going on with that suing Gabriele Lesser case? It is on several pages but we still know nothing on it. -- Forseti 10:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

She is a completely unimportant and irrelevant young person calling herself "journalist" and with little knowledge of history, whose awful activities now has come to an end - hopefully (at least in the Kieler Nachrichten). I do not agree that Wikipedia should include an article dealing with this ridiculous person. Nico 19:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Protected page

How about enforcing the new rule then? Nico reverted most, alone against 4 other people. Why protect his version? --Wik 18:35, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as it's always the wrong one. How about abiding by community norms and discussing things instead of annoying everyone with this childishness? Kosebamse 18:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's always someone's wrong version. But the new protection policy says sysops may decide to revert to the version disliked by the one doing the most reverts (in this case, Nico). As to discussion, been there, done that. Nico is just interested in pushing his POV and refuses to recognize facts, even as basic ones as that Prussia doesn't exist any more! --Wik 18:43, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
I have justified my edits, and proved what the name of the place was when she was born, and which name is used in the official Bundestag biography. You haven't justified your edits at all, you are only inserting your POV in the article. Nico 18:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wik, the word "may" is something of a keyword. :) Martin
Yes, it means you may choose to exhibit your bias by applying the rule selectively. I'm not surprised. --Wik 01:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
I always look into the contents of a page before protecting; in cases of vandalism I protect the unvandalised version, and in cases of differences of opinion I don't give a damn which party will accuse me of protecting the wrong version afterwards. And BTW you might wish to take your disputes about content to article talk pages where they belong. Kosebamse 18:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you look at the article talk page? Cautious and others have already said everything, do I need to add a "me too"? --Wik 19:08, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
An edit war is in itself justification enough to protect a page, and talk pages may or may not be helpful with the decision. They are inherently not too valuable in edit wars, as a sysop protecting a page is not to decide who is right. Although I usually have an opinion about which version is better, I explicitly refuse to discuss it in connection with differences of opinion (as opposed to vandalism). And again, this is not the place to discuss all this. Kosebamse 19:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User:Wik has declared (on his user page) that this page will be "reverted upon unprotection". Therefore, until he has changed his behaviour, the page should stay protected. -- Nico 18:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Rumia, Poland is the name that should be used in this article, as per Wikipedia policy on place names. You are the one contravening policy here, not Wik. Bearcat 01:03, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, I am not. The city was known as Rahmel, not Rumia, when Steinbach was born. It was not in Poland. See also Günter Grass. He was born in Danzig, not Gdansk. You are the one contravening policy here. The policy is to use appropriate historical names, so Leningrad for the Leningrad period (not St. Petersburg), Constantinople, not Istanbul, before 1930, and Rahmel when this city was known as Rahmel. Nico 01:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

German annexation

What's the dispute over here? The current version (Wik's, I think) looks fine. Mention both the current name of the town, and the name by which the Germans called it at the time. john 04:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The thing is, that the city was officially a part of Germany and officially called Rahmel, not Rumia. Rahmel is also the former English name. It was not a part of Poland when Steinbach was born. "Occupied" is not more NPOV in this context than it is today ("occupied German city", for instance). Wikipedia ought to use a neutral wording like "She was born in Rahmel, West Prussia (now Rumia, Poland)", not Wik's and Gdansk's POVs. According to the official Bundestag biography [1], Erika Steinbach was born in "Rahmel in West Prussia", not in "Rumia in occupied Poland". Nico 04:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this town large enough to be considered to have had any English name? I think that's highly questionable. Also, being born in an area which Germany annexed during World War II which had previously been part of Poland is rather different than being born in something which was generally recognized to be part of Germany. (On the other hand, I see lots of sources that discuss, for instance, Gotenhafen during World War II, and that situation is rather similar). That said, Nico, can you give any evidence of "Rahmel" as the former English name? john 04:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The city had no "English" name, but the official name was used. Rahmel had belonged to Prussia since 1772 and became Polish in 1919. It was reannexed and belonged to Germany 1939-1945. Wikipedia articles should not use terms like "occupied", "rightfully" etc. If this should apply to Rahmel/Rumia, it also have to apply to cities like Danzig. Should we say "Lech Walesa lives in Danzig in occupied Germany"? (remember that the official position of the German government was that Danzig was "occupied Germany" for decades after the war). Nico 04:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely if any annexation was invalid, it was the Nazi annexations of 1939-1945. At any rate, my understanding was that the West German government claimed the German boundaries of 1937 - that is, not including Danzig/Gdansk. john 04:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any point of view on the legality of the reannexation is not relevant here, the only point is to use a neutral wording. The annexation of Rahmel/Rumia was a fact, just like the Soviet annexation of, say, East Prussia. As for Danzig, you are correct. Sorry, my fault. Nico 04:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the annexation is not a fact in the same way. The German annexation of the Sudetenland would be, or of Austria, but I don't think the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia can be considered to be of the same nature. Annexations in wartime which are reversed immediately upon the war ending, are of a different sort. At any rate, I don't see why the name is all that important, so long as both names are mentioned, and the whole political situation is properly explained. john 06:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The annexation was absolutely a fact, and it should not be Wikipedia's concern whether it was "legal" or "not legal". If Rahmel in Germany anno 1943 should be described as "occupied Poland", today's Königsberg, Breslau or any other city occupied by Soviet after the war should certainly also be described as "occupied Germany". It's unfair to treat actions of one state different than actions of other states. Anyway, the Polish and American occupation of Iraq is not legal either. Nico 19:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nico, you do not understand or pretent not to understand. Brezlau was under Soviet occupation in June 1945. But in August 1945 this city was transfered to Poland by decision of allies. The decision was legal because Germany surrendered on 8th of May 1945. So according to international law the transfer was legal. Poland did not surrendered and in 1943 was a fighting part and annexation was not recognized by neither by Poland nor by its allies. Besides the German states recognized status quo in 1950 and 1971, as well as united Germany did in 1991. Comparison to iraq is very silly. I know nothing about annexation of any part of Iraq by US or Poland. It is simple for everybody but you.Yeti 19:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Also, if one wants to discuss the legal base of the annexation - all governments of English-speaking countries were not only members of the Allies, but also authors both the 1918-1939 and the 1945-now eastern borders of Germany. The fact that 1 (one) government disputed the border until 1970 does not mean that English wiki should support the claims and use German name.Halibutt 10:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We are not discussing the name of the present-day city called Rumia, but the city when Steinbach was born. Nico 19:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to add that East Germany did not dispute the border in 1970 only W.Germany did. 24.2.152.139 14:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The East zone did not represent Germany, according to the Hallstein doctrine. The western world considered Germany the single representative of Germany. And, alas, the Soviet world does not exist anymore. Nico 19:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Let me quote yourself then: :We are not discussing the name of the present-day city called Rumia, but the city when Steinbach was born. Nico 19:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
At the time she was born there was no DDR nor BRD yet. There was only 3rd Reich. None of the English-speaking countries accepted the annexation of any piece of Polish territory. Neither of the Allied states accepted (neither de facto nor ex post) any ethnic cleansing, names changing, forced migration or any other policy imposed on the newly-conquered lands. The only country to accept it was Nazi-Germany, whose government was later declared a criminal organization. Do you still insist that the Allies, who declared all anexations and pacts signed by Nazi Germany null and void, accepted them in the single case of Rumia? Please provide the respective paragraph of the peace treaty or any Allied conference. Otherwise we'd have to stick to Rumia.Halibutt 22:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are not in position to declare any government as "criminal". Personally I consider the Soviet and other Allied governments criminal, but this is an encyclopedia, and hence, both your opinions on which governments were criminal as well as my opinions on which governments were criminal, are irrelevant. Erika Steinbach was born in a country called the Deutsches Reich or Germany. It was the same state as founded in 1871. If Soviet annexations are recognized as factual in Wikipedia, also other annexations should. Rahmel was historically German, and historically known in English as Rahmel. English-speaking people generally used German names until most recently, even for places no longer in Germany. I doubt that Rahmel in English became known as Rumia to a general audience in the short period between the wars it was part of Poland. Also, Polish users seems to strongly insist on using local "official names" for cities like Danzig, even if the Germanic name may be more popular. Rumia is the current official name of the city we are discussing. Rahmel was the official name when Steinbach was born. Nico 22:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, it's not me but the Allies. Both NSDAP and the government of Nazi Germany were declared a criminal organization. Nevertheless, even if (if) the Allies decided that it was only one guy who was wrong and the rest of the NSDAP were ok, it doesn't change the fact that the annexation was not recognized in terms of any international law. The territory was not ceded by Poland in any peace treaty (since there was none in 1939) and no government recognized ex post after the war.
Also, if you insist that the city became known in English under its' German name - could you please provide any source that would back up your claims? Let alone the fact that the city did not exist at the time she was born there and was but a small village. Just provide any English-speaking reliable source referring to the village with the German name Rahmel.Halibutt 23:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop warring over word choice. ugen64 02:02, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that seems hypocritical. Those edits are not the best wording possible, namely because of the following: the term occupied is POV; currently, we could call the Iraqi Governing Council the leader of "occupied Iraq"; that makes it seem like we have militarily conquered, against its will (which is only partly true), the country of Iraq.
Second, the edits that have been proposed are gramatically incorrect. All I have done is changed the wording of a few statements to make it more gramatically correct and possibly less wordy (although I'm not sure if I've achieved the latter). ugen64 02:16, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


In 1939 Poland didnt surrender England and France declared war. The USA did not recognize the so called annexation of Poland. And if you look at any english map of the time it says Occupied Poland. Its not like the Germans were invited there. Would you rather have it say Nazi Occupied Poland ?? Like in the link below:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erika%20Steinbach

My wording conveys the exact same idea that yours does, just in more neutral language. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Erika_Steinbach&diff=3077137&oldid=3077130 is, IMO, acceptable enough not to fight over it... ugen64 02:23, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Nope you included "Now in" assuming that it wasnt in Poland Pre WWII. It was a Part of Poland then as it is now and was a part of the restored Poland since 1919. 24.2.152.139 02:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the city was previously located in West Prussia, and if you want to get technical, it was also a possession of Germany. If I said "the city of Rumia in Poland" then turned around and said "also the city of (I forget the name) in West Prussia", that looks confusing. So, I said "modern-day Poland", to illustrate to the reader that the city is now located in Poland. If you'd like, I can clarify the border situations of Poland; but that's hardly relevant. ugen64 02:29, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with ugen64 and Nico that "Nazi Occupied Poland" is POV and inappropriate here. It was a part of the German province of Danzig-West Prussia at that time. / Ertz

Note that http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erika%20Steinbach is a copy of this Wikipedia article at a given point. / Ertz

Just like people who were born in the Channel Islands in 1943 were born in Germany (now United Kingdom), right?Halibutt 05:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Being part of Germany and being under military occupation are two different things. While Rahmel officially was a part of Germany, for instance Denmark was not a part of Germany in 1943. Got it? Iraq is not a part of Poland either, but if a city in Iraq was declared part of Poland and resettled with Poles, Wikipedia should not take sides but respect that. Or will you prefer to refer to Breslau in 1970 as "occupied Germany", because Germany considered it occupied while the occupants did not? Nico 22:00, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So let's stick to the facts and I'm sure we can end this dispute in no-time just. If the occupied Poland was a part of Germany while other states were only occupied, then please simply post the name the peace treaty signed between Poland and Nazi Germany or, if you can't find it, some other international agreement that ceded any part of Polish pre-WWII territory to Germany. Halibutt 23:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Rahmel was not occupied Poland. It was de jure a part of a province of Germany. The opinion of the fascist ex-government of Poland in 1943 is irrelevant here. Anyway, a country called "Nazi Germany" does not exist more than "Stalinist Poland". Nico 23:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Should I understand that you can't cite even one good source to back up your version? Why do you insert it then?
Also, you're dangerously close to crossing the line. Please behave and consider yourself warned.Halibutt 00:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
See [2]: "I'm not responding to any personal attacks anymore. ". So I'm not going to respond to your last remarks either. Anyway, if you won't listen, I cannot help you. Nico 00:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So I understand, that you can not cite any sources to support your claims. So why do you start this discussion at all?Yeti 11:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, whatever, I concede. The only reason I reverted, anyway, is because of the HORRIBLE wording. For example: "in annexed by Germany part of Poland", and many other examples. If you're going to revert my edits, at least do it in a gramatically correct fashion. ugen64 20:53, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

How about:
She was born Rahmel, Germany (Polish Rumia before and after the war)...
In general, I think Nico is right here. If this piece of land was part of the Reich both de facto and (from the German POV) de iure, then we should write it was German. Just like we'd say that the Kuril Islands are part of Russia even though no peace treaty has been signed between Russia and Japan.
--Kpalion 03:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine. And of course Rumia should be linked, not Rahmel. Nico 03:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, we have got something like: born in 1943 in Strassburg, Germany (today Strasbourg, France or Nancy, Germany (today France) or born in Litzmanstadt, Germany (today Lodz, Poland) or born in Gottenhaven, Germany (today Gdynia, Poland). Sorry, but it looks really very, very weird.Yeti 11:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Beacause history itself is weird! --Kpalion 13:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Strasbourg has always been the English name of that city. Nico 12:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I certainly have seen Strassburg when referring to the city at earlier times. john 06:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Kuril Islands are part of Russia even though no peace treaty has been signed between Russia and Japan"

A treaty has been signed but the Island dispiute is not over and btw unlike in WWII almost every country in the world recognizes the islands as a part of russia. She was born in Poland and if we change this we should change everyone who was born in Paris in 1941-1944 to Paris,Germany. 24.2.152.139 22:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The case of Paris is different. It was occupied by Germans but the German gov't didn't officially claim that Paris was part of the Reich. --Kpalion 23:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You can't call it Nazi Occupied Poland. That's like saying the White House was once located in "Socialist Occupied Washington D.C." It doesn't work. I shall unprotect the page now. Make whatever edits you want, I'll only change horrid grammar that is inserted, as I have shown above. ugen64 22:30, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
There's a difference between [[Nazi Germany|Nazi]] (which is the case here) and [[NSDAP|Nazi]]. Halibutt 07:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
German-occupied is certainly better. john 06:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Nico, would you participate if I requested for mediation? Since you're the only Rahmel hard-liner here your acceptance of mediation seems essential. Halibutt 22:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point with mediation. 2+2=4 and not 6 in any case. In my opinion, if that city in 1943 should be called "Nazi Occupied Poland", we also have to refer to Breslau as "Breslau, stalinist-occupied Germany" when discussing Poles born in or living in that city until Herbert Frahm/Willy Brandt and his STASI-paid friends recognized the borders as factual. Is that fair, or should we just stick to refer to both cities in a more neutral way? What do you think about Kpalion's proposal? Nico 04:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico refused the mediation.Halibutt 05:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Mayby something like this. It is CLEAR statement of fact: She was born in the town of Rumia (German: Rahmel) in annexed by Germany part of Poland, Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, to a Luftwaffe officer who was from western Germany and was only stationed there during the war. For this reason, some do not consider her an expellee herself.Yeti 00:17, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about She was born in the town of Rumia (German: Rahmel), in the German province of Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, formed out of territory annexed from Poland and the Free City of Danzig in 1939, to a Luftwaffe officer..."? That's rather awkward, though...john 01:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At least better than Yeti's version. How about "Rahmel (Rumia)" or "Rumia (then Rahmel) in West Prussia (now Poland)"? "West Prussia" is the correct English name, I think. According to the official Bundestag biography, she was born in West Prussia. Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreußen was an administrative region but not necessarily the appropriate English geographical name. Nico 07:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you also want these removed? http://www.google.com/search?q=German-occupied&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org --Voodoo 08:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was certainly in German-occupied Poland. john 05:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then we also will refer to Breslau as Polish-occupied Germany when discussing Poles living in or born in that city until the recognition of the borders as factual in the 70-ies. Deal? Nico 05:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, it's not the same thing. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the whole world (except the Federal Republic) recognized Breslau/Wroclaw to have become part of Poland. The whole world (except the German Reich and its satellites) recognized Rumia/Rahmel to still be part of Poland, despite the purported German annexation. john 05:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Should this be arguments? And which "whole world"? Did not Germany's allies and friends, which includes pretty much of Europe, from Spain to Finland, from France to Italy, as well as large parts of southeastern Europe as well as Japan and Turkey, recognize the borders of Germany? Either we stick to POV in every cases or we stick to NPOV in every cases. You cannot make one rule for Germany and one rule for Poland. Also, Rahmel was historically part of germany and had been Polish only since 1919. Wikipedia shall not take sides in all these border shifts. Nico 05:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung's version

She was born in the Polish village of Rumia (then Rahmel in the province Danzig-West Prussia, recently annexed by the Third Reich), to a Luftwaffe officer from western Germany, stationed there during the war.

For reference, this is the previous version:

She was born in German-occupied Poland, in the village of Rumia (German: Rahmel), to a Luftwaffe officer from western Germany, stationed there during the war.

Besides style issues which I'll leave up to the english-as-first-language wikipedians, you've made the following changes:

  • replaced Germany with Third Reich - I have no problem with this other than that there is no need for this. Not much sense in changing this just to remove the association between Germany and WWII. Also, a small percentage of non-Europeans might not know what the Third Reich is (kids especially.)
  • added Danzig-West Prussia - no major problems if you don't confuse the reader about what it was. Your version however says that this region was annexed. It wasn't annexed, it was created as one of the administrative regions created after Germany annexed close to half of Poland.
  • replaced 'occupied' with 'annexed' - this I see no reason for, and I'm also not sure what you are trying to achieve here. In the context of WWII the word annexed is often used in the case of the western part of Czechoslovakia. The implication in the word 'occupied' is that military force was used, which is not clear with the use of 'annexed.' If you prefer the word because it has a more postive connotation, well it does, but exactly for that reason. You aren't just using more neutral words with the same definition, you're chosing words that are more neutral because they contain less information. The only other reason I can think of is that 'occupied' requires an object, in this case 'occupied Poland,' which means that you can't refer to it as 'Germany.'
I think it's silly to refer to all regions under German military control during WWII as 'Germany.' Those 'borders' were changing rather quickly. "Amelie lived in France most of her life, except for the brief period during WWII, when she lived in Germany (without moving.)" Don't you think that's a bit strange and potentially confusing? There is also no reason why some annexed parts of Europe should be reffered to as occupied-France etc., while others as 'Germany.' That would be even more confusing, and done without a good reason.

In short, all the changes are both unnecessary, less accurate, and potentially confusing. --Voodoo 01:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you would consider reading the talk page before answering? I'm pointing this out the very last time now: Danzig-West Prussia was de jure a part of Germany, as a German province. However, all occupied areas were NOT parts of Germany. Being a part of Germany and being under military occupation are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Northern France, or the General Gouvernment in Poland for that sake, were not parts of Germany, but Danzig-West Prussia was. Iraq is not a part of USA either; however, Texas is. In the same way: Not all areas occupied by Soviet became parts of Soviet, but those who did (from the Soviet point of view), i.e. the Königsberg area, are recognized as such in Wikipedia, because: It's not Wikipedia's concern whether an annexation was justified, legal or whatever. During it's history Rahmel has belonged to Poland at some times, Germany at other times. Rahmel was in 1943 located in a German province, and we are going to stick to that fact. Calling it "German-occupied" is just as ridiculous as calling it Prussian/German-occupied for the period 1772-1919, or Polish-occupied 1919-1939. Nico 04:14, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, would you consider Alsace-Lorraine to have been part of Germany during World War II? It was made into a Gau and administered as part of the Reich, but was not officially annexed. john 04:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Alsace-Lorraine/Elsaß-Lothringen should be considered a part of Germany during that time.

I did read the talk page Nico. Let's see, we have two possible ways of looking at this. Either look at the events and base a definition on that:

  • There was a country called Germany before the war.
  • There were various other countries in Europe.
  • Germany starts a war, gains military control of surrounding countries.

That's pretty NPOV, no one can argue with the events (well...very few people anyway.)

The definition you are proposing seems to be:

  • There was a country called Germany before the war.
  • There were various other countries in Europe.
  • Germany starts a war, gains military control of surrounding countries.
  • Some of the territories are now considered occupied, while others are part of Germany because....what? Hitler says so? That's supposed to be your NPOV definition? --Voodoo 05:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"*Some of the territories are now considered occupied, while others are part of Germany because....what? Hitler says so? That's supposed to be your NPOV"

Bravo Bravo ;)

24.2.152.139 13:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I congratulate you with your account, 24.2/voodoo. Try reading the talk page again. Nico 04:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, in one of your earlier statements on this page (13 APR 2004), you wrote Also, Rahmel was historically part of germany and had been Polish only since 1919. You admit that the village "R" was part of Poland. Germany unilateraly "annexed" that area only after the initiation of hostilities (WWII). Poland did not grant the region nor did it recognize Germany's claim to the region. Unilateral "annexation" by force of arms is not annexation, but occupation. The area was German-occupied Poland. I'm willing to grant you a sentence explaining "During German occupation the province was known as Danzig-West Prussia," but that is the most concession I can see making while retaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. SWAdair | Talk 08:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A quick voting on the latest proposal

She was born in German-occupied Poland, in the village of Rumia (German: Rahmel), to a Luftwaffe officer from western Germany, stationed there during the war.

YES

  • short, factual, nonemotional - Wikimol
  • agree Halibutt
  • Looks good to me. SWAdair | Talk 03:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Voodoo 05:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better than the "let's take Hitler's word for it" version. Tannin
  • Agree - as Wikimol said: short, factual, nonemotional. -- Forseti 12:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Am I non-sockpuppet, non-anonymous enough for you? ugen64 02:21, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

NO

ABSTAIN

  • Please do not change my comments. I'm not going to participate in trolling votes with sock puppets and anonymous users. Nico 05:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

COMMENTS

IMO nobody except Nico has principal problems with this version. Its short, factual, nonemotional. Who was her mother might be mentioned (I dont know, only its interesting).

There is no need to further discuss or change that paragraph. NPOV does not mean every extremist should be happy. 81.27.192.19 19:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you for making me to a "nobody". From my comments above, it ought hardly to be put in question that I see this proposal as lacking NPOV-wise. --Ruhrjung 22:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, that was unintentional. There isn't any comment above holding your signature, only section Ruhrjung's version, with some proposal, and some arguments against it. Wikimol 07:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, ...I see that you are actually quite correct.
( *Blushing* )
...but on the page history, I'd at least been verbose. ;-)
--Ruhrjung 08:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She was not born in Poland. You may say she was born in Poland, China, Canada or Russia as much as you want but it's still not correct and will never be. Nico 05:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And the people born in Berlin in 1946 were obviously born in the USA, Soviet Union or UK, right? Halibutt 05:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to explain this to you again. Sorry. Nico 05:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What is a trolling vote? Halibutt

How about:

She was born in the village of Rumia (German: Rahmel) in that part of German-occupied Poland which had been annexed to Germany as the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, to a Luftwaffe officer from western Germany, stationed there during the war.

? john 06:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The sense is good but the English is a problem Try: She was born in the village of Rumia (German: Rahmel) in that part of German-occupied Poland which had been annexed to Germany as the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia. Her father was a Luftwaffe officer from western Germany, stationed there during the war. Tannin

The other two articles being the following:

both with inflamatory pov titles and content. Someone might be able to find more using this search: http://www.google.com/search?q=Erika+Steinbach+&hl=en&lr=lang_en --Voodoo 09:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

LOL, when did "CNN" became a reliable source? And AEI? Bartosz Jalowiecki? The whole point is that Polish nationalist POV is irrelevant here. Try the German Wikipedia instead:

Erika Steinbach, (geb. 25. Juli 1943, Rahmel/Westpreußen(heute Rumia, Polen)), ist eine deutsche Politikerin (CDU). Sie ist seit 1990 Mitglied des Bundestages und seit 1998 Präsidentin des Bundes der Vertriebenen.

Leben

Erika Steinbach wurde 1943 in die Familie eines Luftwaffenoffiziers aus Hanau, der in Rahmel stationiert war, geboren. Ihre Mutter, Angestellte, stammt aus Bremen. Im Januar 1945 musste sie 1½ jährig mit ihrer Mutter und ihrer 3 Monate alten Schwester Rahmel verlassen. Sie wuchs in Hanau auf. Nach privatem Musikstudium (Geige) und Orchesterkonzerten war sie von 1970 bis 1977 als Diplomverwaltungswirtin und Informatikerin in Frankfurt am Main beschäftigt. Seit 1974 ist sie Mitglied der CDU. Von 1977 bis 1990 war sie Fraktionsassistentin der CDU-Stadtverordnetenfraktion in Frankfurt. 1990 wurde sie über die Landesliste Hessen in den Deutschen Bundestag gewählt und ist seit 2000 Mitglied des Bundesvorstands ihrer Partei. Sie ist auch Mitglied des Bundesvorstandes der Landsmannschaft Westpreußen, des Goethe-Instituts und des ZDF-Fernsehrates.

Eines ihrer politischen Ziele ist die Errichtung eines Zentrums gegen Vertreibungen in Berlin, das (auch) dem Schicksal der deutschen Vertriebenen gewidmet sein soll; sie ist die Vorsitzende der zu diesem Zweck im September 2000 gegründeten Stiftung "Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen".

Nico 04:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To 24.2.152.139

Please explain exactly what you mean with 'RV: Stop inserting your POV this is the title that was aggread apon by everyone but nico and you....' — I simply inserted new info from the German article, and added a historic explanation of Rumia/Rahmel's placement in Poland/Germany. Rather than just reverting, try to explain what you believe is POV. — Jor (Talk) 16:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Look up to the points given by another user. It was German Occupied Poland and it was in Poland and called Rumia. You insterted a POV that it was annexed that no one but germany recognized. And this is the English Wikipedia and last time I checked not one english speaking country recognized the annexation of Rumia into Germany

24.2.152.139 16:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I take it English is not your first language. That Germany annexed the lands is a neutral term: the lands were taken from Poland, and incorporated into Germany. That process is called annexing in English, it does not imply it was legal to do so. But the legality really is not a discussion which needs to be rehashed again. In any case, if your problem is only with the exact wording 'annexed', there is no need to delete other info is there? — Jor (Talk) 16:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The neutrality of the word annexed was already discussed above. It depends on the context. If you use it to explain the orgin of the newly created administrative region, as John did, then that's one thing, if you are using it to change 'German-occupied Poland' to 'Germany,' and 'Rumia' to 'Rahmel,' then that's not exactly 'neutral.'
John, this is a minor point, but your sentence might give the impression that the annexation somehow ended the occupation, and that there was some change after Erika's birth. The word 'official' might also give the impression that there was some international recognition of that fact, and that was what ended the occupation. Erika was born after the annexation, and nothing really changed. Personally, I have no objection to the addition of info about the orgin of Reichsgau Danzig. I just saw the clarification by anon. I guess that makes it a bit more clear, except that now the article quality dropped a bit, as it does whenever you add the "some claim, other's claim, but other's dispute" etc. Also, this is now slowly becoming an article about Rumia. I still prefer the shorter version (though this is at least accurate, so I'm not going to revert.) --Voodoo 18:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The problem is the anon with IP 24.2.152.139 insists on removing data from this article as well as the Rumia/Rahmel article. — Jor (Talk) 19:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As for why I feel "no other country recognised the annexation" is nonsense, is that the word 'annexed' itself carries this meaning. The term is much more NPOV than 'German Occupied Poland' which the anon favours, as one could argue that the 1939 annexation of the Polish Corridor was "liberating" 'Polish Occupied Germany': until 1919 the lands were part of Germany. I believe that it is quite possible to write a paragraph without any picking of sides: remove the references to occupation and let the facts speak for themselves. — Jor (Talk) 19:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An "occupation" is when an area is militarily occupied by another country in the course of a war. The German rule over this region never occurred during peacetime, and so can be considered an occupation, in a way that the Polish annexation of parts of West Prussia after WWI (which was, of course, recognized by the German government in a treaty), cannot. At any rate, I do agree that "no other country recognized the annexation" is unncessary. john 20:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Versailles treaty was not called the 'Diktat' in Germany for nothing: Germany was given no choice in the matter, and in fact the assignment of certain areas was in violation of what the League of Nations was doing: various areas with a mixed population were denied a plebiscite and just taken from Germany. Lack of agreement with the treaty was one of the reasons the Weimar administration failed, and Hitler could come to power.

To Jor: Very non-orthodox and interesting approach. In my opinion this would be a valid alternative to globally accepted version, if the German invasion stopped after "liberating former German provinces" and peace treaty was seeked after that. This is not what happened. Poland was attacked from two sides by Germany and Soviet Union, it's territory split between invaders and it's population's mass extermination began. All of it was carefully planned years in advance. Mein Kampf clearly desribes planned physical elimination of "racially inferior" Polish nation and Nazi plans to inhabit Poland, Belarus and Ukraine with German settlers. "Liberation" was just Hitler's cheap excuse for the initial steps of his grandiose ideas of New World Order.Space Cadet 20:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with many of those points. But calling the area 'Occupied Poland' is equally as wrong as calling it 'Liberated Germany' would be: fact of the matter is that only after 1945 was there a clear border between Poland and Germany, and that only because anything remotely German was forcefully expulsed from the eastern side of the Oder-Neisse line. The annexation of former German provinces (Polish Corridor) into Nazi Germany did indeed occur during war-time, but it was seperate from the actual occupation of Poland ('Reichsgau Wartheland' etc.). A peace treaty was made impossible because Poland's allies immediately declared war on Nazi Germany, and it is rather pointless to speculate what might have been had England not taken the invasion of Poland as an excuse to declare war on their economic rival. As for a non-recognised annexation: Soviet Russia recognised the annexation, as it formed a part of Hitler and Stalin's pact to divide Europe between them.
Back to the article itself, I'd rather leave the entire 'what was annexed because of what reason' out of it, and since 'West Prussia' is a rather neutral term I think it's quite safe to use that. — Jor (Talk) 21:44, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jor says, A peace treaty was made impossible because Poland's allies immediately declared war on Nazi Germany, and it is rather pointless to speculate what might have been had England not taken the invasion of Poland as an excuse to declare war on their economic rival. What more needs to be said against the POV he's pushing? john 22:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are accusing me of 'POV pushing' based on a small historic speculation on a talk page? A-ha. I just like to consider 'what if' courses of history sometimes, but will not put that in the article namespace. The point of that speculation is just to show that Space Cadet's speculation as to what might have happened had a peace treaty had been signed directly after the Poland invasion is not easy to answer, and in any case not relevant to any real historic discussion. — Jor (Talk) 22:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
By the way, the anon and you have yet to clarify exactly what POV I am supposedly pushing. — Jor (Talk) 22:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

German POV

...the area Steinbach was born was liberated and reannexed to Germany during the war, as it had been German prior to 1919.

How to label that POV? I've just reverted Nico's edit that it is German POV. IMHO its not mainstream German, but far right wing / expellees opinion. At least I hope so.

Any opinions from Germany? Especially from other users than Nico and Jor.

Wikimol 21:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that I feel these issues have become far too politicized (or nationalistically charged) in Wikipedia. I think there would be every reason to take the Parliament's and her own view into account, as it is important and controversial with respect to her presidentship of the BdV — but on the other hand, if that leads to eternal problems with Polish contributors, then it's more important to be pragmatic and accept the dominance of the WWII-victors' POVs with the effect of supressing that POV she represents herself. However, I do find it to be a slap in the face of the expellees to chose a wording with regard to Polish feelings – instead of their feelings.


Germany's eastern border was never agreed on after WWI, and the re-annexation is in my opinion quite simply "factual" - that the enemies of the Third Reich didn't have any positive opinion of the annexation is fully natural, that's how it works in wars. The re-annexation should actually be a lot less controversial than the Soviet Union's re-annexation of the Baltic Republics lost in the end of WWI. The only effective difference is, that the Third Reich lost WWII – the Soviet Union won.

Don't however take my opinion as somehow truly representative of The Germans. I don't know if any such representative opinion exist, but in any case official representatives for Germany go out of their way not to offend the Poles. Personally, I hold most of the BdV-representatives to be nutcases, and it makes me angry when they appear revanchist and then say they represent me! But that doesn't make the feelings of the expellees less valid.
--Ruhrjung 22:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We could discuss it 'til the end of days. I see the legitimacy of borders as an effect of international law and international treaties. The matter is quite complicated as both European and German POVs are expressed in a totally different language. The Germans use their hearts while the rest of Europe uses their minds in this case. To me it looks like this:
  • Allied POV
    • Germany signed the Versailles treaty
    • Germany signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland
    • Germany broke both
    • Poland did not sign any peace treaty with Germany in 1939
      • Germany lost the war and signed the surrender
    • Therefore: the annexation was one-sided and, as such, never happened
  • German POV
    • Germany was forced to sign the unjust Versailles treaty
    • Germany liberated the land stolen by its' neighbours
      • Unfortunately lost the war and the Allies reannexed them
    • Therefore: the liberation happened, but then again all was lost
Get the point? There can be no compromise since both POVs are in a totally different language. However, I believe that the international law is at least something measurable while the sense of loss is something too personal to be considered a source for an encyclopedia article. Halibutt 23:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, there is international law and then, there are plain facts -- the area was actually in German hands in that time. Anyway, I have some general suggestions for a compromise wording:
  • German authority instead of German occupation
  • reannexed instead of liberated
  • East Pomerania instead of West Prussia
A compromise on the very name of the villagr is of course impossible. But I guess that signs outside the village read Rahmel in the time when Steinbach was born, so I'd say she was born in Rhamel (Rumia), not Rumia (Rahmel).
--Kpalion 23:42, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


(Thank you, Halibutt!) (If the Versailles treaty was just or unjust is beside the point. Germany lost. Period. The Germans felt entitled to reservations. They did. Regardless of what we think of that today. Level of war reparations, creation of German irredenta and of East-Prussian exclave were among the most important grounds for such reservations.)
But where is my misunderstanding, when I believe it to be more in accordance with NPOV-policy to include the references to Erika Steinbach's view on where she was born, than to supress her view? --Ruhrjung 00:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Because if that was enough, than any nutcase could claim he was born on Mars, and Wikipedia would have to accept that as fact --Voodoo 02:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But it's not me who is the one claiming she was born on Mars! Anyway, I naturally agree with Kpalion's proposal. Note that I never described the reannexation as "liberation", I only mentioned it as the German POV, contrary to the Polish POV (occupation). I think "reannexation" is quite neutral and only describing a fact, and that is what Wikipedia should be. Nico 17:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Voodoo's analysis

First of all I think the point we should start from is the assumption that both sides have at least somewhat legitimate objections to the wording the other side proposes. Describing this edit conflict in terms such as (paraphrasing) "we all know the truth but if it leads to eternal problems with the Polish contributors then it's more pragmatic...etc." or Jor's self-assured "*my* version is neutral" isn't going to get us anywhere. Don't forget that to a large extent, we are talking here about a difference between a world view vs. a uniquely German view (although obviously most of the rest of the world simply doesn't care.)

Second, I fully agree that the expellee's point of view should be included, as well as Polish objections to some of the language they use (of course what is an expellee and which group of Germans that word should apply to is itself going to be cause for another edit war.) There were plenty of German victims of WWII, and certainly those who were forced to leave their homes should be considered as such. All this belongs under the second or third heading however, and if you noticed, we are now still having a revert war over the naming conventions for the first sentence of the second paragraph which should simply state where she was born.

It's also obvious that both Germany and Poland had legitimate claims to sections of the so called "Polish corridor" (although I wonder what percentage of each population would share this view.) This issue isn't simple at all, and the fact that those areas were under Prussian or German adminstrative control prior to 1919 solves nothing. I haven't looked at a map lately, but most of those reagions were part of the Polish Kingdom before that, and most Poles consider the 100 plus years that began with the partions itself as a form of occupation. For that reason, claiming that West Prussia is a neutral term is just silly.

The claims part of the conflict here could be subdivided into the following:

  • administrative control during various historical periods
  • self-identity of the population, which could be farther subdivided into:
    • language spoken
    • genetic origin
    • culture
    • national allegiance

However, the claims part isn't the only aspect that should be considered. How those claims are resolved, and how stable that resolution is are both at least just as important, and in fact probably the main issue here, particularly when agreeing on the naming convention. Military action is not normally recognized as either a legitimate, or stable means through which territorial disputes are settled. Certainly not until the war ends, peace treaties are signed, and/or international recognition issues are sorted out. And this applies regardless of the legitimacy of any territorial claims. Had Germany been able to keep some of the territories under it's control during WWII, they would've been eventually referred to as "Germany" regardless of whether they were previously part of the "Polish Corridor," France, or Russia. That is one of the reasons why, as I said before, a distinction between different parts of the occupied territories should not be made.

The other reason is of course that making such a distinction based on the legitimacy of territorial claims gets very tricky. Just the self-identity part of the list above gives you a large number of potential combinations, never mind the administrative control aspect (how many years have to pass, and at what point in history do you start to count.) All theese issues could be simplified when left up to the local population and settled with a vote, but that wasn't done, such a solution isn't always accepted by the national governments even today, and even then it's not clear that an outcome favorable for Germany would automatically mean those regions should be called Gemany - not until administrative control is transferred, and certainly not when this happens with the use of force.

So, yes, I recognize the fact that Germany had some claims to that land, but even if that side of this issue was simple, which it isn't, doing so, and calling that region "Germany" are two different things.

If they weren't, what would you call the pre-WWII German territories that are now part of Poland? If Germany attacked Poland today and seized them, would you refer to it as an invasion, liberation, or occupation? How about if Mexico seized parts of California? Poland and Lithuania, or parts of Ukraine?

One more thing, no disagreement on the Baltic states, or the land that is now Ukraine. I think if, given the choice, most Poles in 1945 would rather keep the pre-WWII borders, we all know the whole thing was just a Soviet land grab. Of course this is now a non-issue. After 50 years, any border changes would cause a lot of damage, and have no benefits other than the satisfaction of a small group of extremists who are obviously still stuck in the mid part of the last century. As is anyone who thinks that increasing their countries wealth, status and influance in the 21st century can be achieved by increasing the amount of dirt it controls.

ps. It's almost 5 am in Warsaw, and I'm still awake, I've clearly become a Wikipediholic --Voodoo 02:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kpalion's idea (whatever the road signs read at the time)is great for making a movie, not for writing an article. Road signs were changing quite a lot in Europe, do you want to respectively use a German name for birthplace of anybody born in Nazi occupied Europe? Considering that rumors are that Erika is an agent for Russian security service, her current mission being the destruction of the credibility of right-wing parties in Germany through dumb radical talk, exposing them to ridicule, I'm not so sure if "what Erika's views are" should the deciding factor in the matter. Voodoo, I know you're trying to answer everybody, but what exactly is your closing statement? Rübezahl 03:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Following the town signs logic, we'd have to agree that anyone born in Berlin in 1945 was AAMoF born in Min niet or Hitler Kaput. (I saw the pictures). Halibutt 12:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its impossible to create some wording acceptebly for everyone, at least now. Thats clear. So problematic part of article should IMO look like

  1. short factual statement
  2. short description of situation from BdV/Steinbachs/German/? POV
  3. short description of situation from those, who problematize Steinbach beeing expellee

or 2. and 3. switched, which may be more readable. Short because this is en Wikipedia and hardly any reader is interested in paragraphs explaining Polisg-German history from middleages in article about Steinbach.

If I understand difference betwen NPOV and sympathetic POV right, her view should be described, but have no special right to be main view of article.

Basicaly my proposal is

Let She was born in German-occupied Poland, in the village of Rumia (German: Rahmel), to a Luftwaffe officer from western Germany, stationed there during the war. be the factual part.

it is problematic to call Erika Steinbach an expellee - expression of #3. Propably should be restyled, I admit in current order it looks preferred by Wikipedia.

...the area Steinbach was born was liberated and reannexed to Germany during the war, as it had been German prior to 1919. be the expression of BdV/Steinbachs/German POV?

I hoped that the last is not prevailng German oppinion. No territory could have been liberated by one of the worst totalitarian states ever. Also I hoped most Germans are happy Germany lost the war.

I'm affraid emotions of victims cannot be assigned too much weight. Everybody in CEE feels a victim. Czech history traditionaly depicts Czechs as victims of German expansion, small nation bravely fighting thousand years for freedom and independence, against germanization pressure. I'm sure Polish children learn how Poles suffered, beeing victims of four partitions of Poland, fighting with nasty aggressive Teutonic order etc. Finaly, Germans also feel victims, Versailles Treaty was unjust etc.

I dont want to go to details, but victimization of Germans in WWII is most problematic, because in 1933-1945 German was closely related to Nazi. Realy closely.

Wikimol 07:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: "I hoped that the last is not prevailng German oppinion. No territory could have been liberated by one of the worst totalitarian states ever. Also I hoped most Germans are happy Germany lost the war. "
These comments are simply ridiculous and awful. Noone are happy because their country lose a war and the most criminal regime in history, the stalinist Soviet barbarians, is occupying, destroying and ethnically cleansing their country and murdering million of people. My grandfather fought (well, at least as a military doctor) in the war, and I'm naturally proud of our heros, especially those defending East Prussia in 1945 (like former president Richard von Weizsäcker). Many Germans are. The Kriegsgräberfürsorge in Germany is rather popular, especially in southern states. Nico 18:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way we should say that this region was "liberated" by the Germans during World War II. Why not just say "the region was a part of Germany before 1919, and was reannexed to Germany following the German invasion in 1939"? That seems neutral and uncontroversial. john 08:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The word liberated is of course ridiculous, which also Jor and Nico seems to agree with above.--Ruhrjung 08:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have some problems to understand why you folks (Voodoo, Wikimol and others) are so very keen on emphasizing that the Germans did evil things like occupying Poland

IMO because ZgV proponents&like are keen to emphasize Nazi crimes and German suffering, preferably as two absolutely distinct things. Image that some evil Nazis did the crimes and than innocent Germans were victims of injust revenge and persecution IMO isnt correct.
Propably switching sometimes the labels from Nazi crimes, German persecution to German crimes, Nazi prosecution isnt the best thing which can be done.

instead of utilizing Wikipedia's advantageous linking-method by a link to the Third Reich.

Hmm. As Third Reich is redir to Nazi Germany, I dont see much benefit using Third Reich instead of Nazi Germany.
[[Nazi Germany]], [[Third Reich]] and [[Nazi Germany|Third Reich]] are all fine to me - it's almost only a matter or stylistic level and the flow of the prose which to prefer. However, Third Reich is slightly more preferable when the agent is the Nazi régime or government, Nazi Germany when the subject is the country in its totality.--Ruhrjung 10:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A less well-willing reader might believe you have a propagandist agenda, but that can't be the case, of course!

A touchy wikipedian may suspect anybody who edited Erika Steinbach article having some hidden agenda or be mad.
Touchy wikipedians stay away from article edited by neighbours.--Ruhrjung

To me it seems not only to be violating the NPOV-policy, but bordering to the interpretation that Germany should have occupied Poland, which remain literally false as long as [[Germany]] links to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Pardon? I'm not sure I understand? Is not Germany=Germany? Indeed you are correct that the official name of the country is a little different now, but there is no doubt that Italy participated in the war either, although the country not was called the Italian Republic before 1946. Many countries in Europe, Poland as well, have changed their names and also constitutions recently. Nico 18:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...but I do not have the energy to write thousands of words to repeat the points. Erika Steinbach or the BdV are clearly not worth such an effort.

Taking Voodoo's concern about Danzig-West Prussia not being an entity before the invasion of Poland, I would think something like the following would seem neutral (in the context of BdV) to me:

She was born in the Polish village of Rumia (then Rahmel in the province Danzig-West Prussia, on territory recently conquered and annexed by the Third Reich). Her father was...

--Ruhrjung 09:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMNSO, effort to write version acceptable for everyone, is futile. Task to describe various oppinions, and label them, is easier than settling all central european resentment. We should focus on that. Wikimol 10:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And you do not think I try?--Ruhrjung 10:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with Voodoo. And the version proposed by Ruhrjung seems fine to me. Perhaps the annexation part is not the best wording (it takes two to annex anything) but it's at least short and neutral. Halibutt 10:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is really only nitpicking, and I guess its background lies in our different mother tongues, but I would definitely argue that annexations can be, and not seldom are, made unilaterally. Think for instance of Israel's annexations. There is no Arab counterpart who have agreed on their annexation of East Jerusalem, for instance. What I would believe you are thinking of is cession which require a treaty between two sovereign states.
--Ruhrjung 12:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone asked for a closing statement to my long post from yesterday. I thought that was clearly in support of what I wrote earlier (above.) But still, just to reiterate:

  1. claims to disputed territory based on it's history and/or ethnic makeup of the local population
  2. statments by different governments involved in the dispute (Nazi government's annexation of parts of Poland)
  3. statements by non-involved governments (international recogintion)
  4. military control over territory
  5. peace treaties between warring nation states
  6. situation when war is over and borders stabilize


That is all you can use to determine what the naming convetion should be. At least I can't think of anything else. My opinion on the use of these is:

  1. shouldn't be used, to complicated, you'd have to go over every square kilometer to determine who the locals are, and what we refer to as either Germany or occupied Poland. And how do you figure out how to use historical borders, how many years have to pass? Remember, these territories were Polish for 20 years, before that German for 100+ years, before that Polish since 1454. This would be very controversial and POV, with no possible agreement on where the borders are, particularly since we no longer have the data.
  2. meaningless, very POV
  3. perhaps more important, but should be used in combination with number 6
  4. should not be used during wartime, otherwise Kuwait was Iraq etc. Only use durring peace time, which means that it's the same as 6.
  5. This is important, however should really be used in combination with 6, there are circumstances that could make this either very important or meaningless (is the country sovereing or a puppet state etc.)
  6. This is the most important part as it really is the NPOV part. However, this really becomes meaningful when combined with 3, 4, 5, and 6. Once you get 3, 4, 5, and 6, you apply the current name retroactively going back to the last stabilization of the borders. (Otherwise you would have to refer to a city as A before a peace treaty was signed and B after, even though no other change happened.)

So, you refer to the current Polish territories as Poland between 1945-current times, because 1945 is the last time the borders changed, and since then not only was there international recognition, but also recognition of the current borders by Germany. You refer to pre-war borders of Poland as Poland between 1919-1945, because the previous stablization of borders after change was in 1919, and these territories were also under Polish control, there was international recognition, and a recognition by Germany as well, even though the validity of that is disputed by some here (still that's just one issue, and doesn't outweigh the other variables.)

This, in my opinion, is the only way to solve this that makes logical sense. The only other possiblity would be to stop using any historical names altogether, ie. 'she was born in what is now Croatia, in 1950' etc. Not a good solution for obvious reasons.

ps. please don't butcher other editor's comments, and please put your response at the buttom of the page, or the buttom of a section (right above the next heading,) otherwise no one will find your response. I had to look at the history of the page just to figure out who said what. Thank you, --Voodoo 08:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One more thing, just to make sure everyone understands: just because you use this naming convention and refer to post 1919 Poland as Poland, doesn't mean that some of these lands from a moral and ethical or any other pov shouldn't be German. I'm not making a judgment on that, perhaps some of these areas should've been German, all I'm saying is that they weren't at the time, and Germany's attempt to make them German was unsuccesful. --Voodoo 08:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How do you do that, Voodoo? Each and every time you write something in this topic, I can fully agree with you. At first glance I even thought that we could make your points into a table, add "YES" and "NO" columns and resolve every wikiborder dispute with it. However, the second thought was much less pleasant since I realized that there will always be some Nico to revert to his version - no matter what. Anyway, I give up. I'm fed up with constant POV-pushing even if we reached a compromise. Therefore this discussion has absolutely no sense at all - as long as this article stays unprotected. Halibutt 11:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've come to the same conviction! And not only for this article. (But I haven't given up yet - not really.)
You may want to revise the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls
--Ruhrjung 12:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion as well. There are always a new User:Gdansk or a new Polish sock puppet who is not interested in NPOV, do not listen to any arguments and keep insisting that she was born in a completely different country than she actually was. It would be much better if these people at least continued their POV pushing in Polish-related topics. This is a German politican. Extremist Polish POV is less interesting. Nico 14:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Extremist Polish POV is less interesting"? Even less interesting than extremist German POV? We should be fair, all extremist POVs are equally uninteresting, from whatever country. Get-back-world-respect 23:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When to revert, when to reword

It is very easy to click/click/revert. It takes a little more time to rewrite something. Please take the time to rewrite when there have been multiple edits since the version you think is most correct. This way you will keep edits which you do not find particularly offensive (such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc) rather than just click them into thin air. If everyone does this, it will also cause each person to actually think about the content. Reverting is a nonthinking process which does not improve the article. Rewriting, even to refactor comments you disagree with, is more likely to produce a better article. SWAdair | Talk 08:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you want Ruhrjung? I just reordered the sentences; the question about her expellee status should be mentioned right after the fact that puts it in question, without the irrelevant orchestra membership intervening. --Wik 21:54, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I divided that section again. IMO the first paragraph should be expanded to brief CV. There is propably some gap between orchestra membership and parliament membership, which should be filled. Maybe someone can translate from German links.
The second paragraph should deal deal with her statuts as an expellee, objections, mention some Rumia details, her POVs etc. Facts put into question are her status as an expellee on one side and Rumia beeing part of Poland on the other.Wikimol 16:47, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I want that you, Wik, don't make changes without them being proposed and accepted in an ongoing discussion at the talk page – when there is an ongoing discussion over some controversy. This is not the first time I have given you this more or less friendly advise!
--Ruhrjung 19:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't expect that to be controversial. --Wik 19:29, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
In case of this article, just adding "re" in the right place is enough to start a revert battle  :)) Wikimol 20:01, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you had cared to read here, you would have seen the controversy at once. It's however particularly flagrant that you were informed with the words "Wik is kindly requested to follow and participate in the discussion at the talk page" but nevertheless reverted.
--Ruhrjung 20:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, I still don't see it. And I replied to your words with the above question. Now maybe you can finally tell me what your actual problem with my edit is. --Wik 20:19, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • That you didn't participate in the discussion,
  • that you reverted without participating here despite having been asked to,
  • that you didn't insert a wording which was discussed and more-or-less accepted, alternatively unopposed, here.
--Ruhrjung 20:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There was no discussion relevant to my edit that I could have participated in. My change didn't affect any of the issues in dispute (Rumia vs Rahmel, "occupied Poland" etc.). I just moved the sentence about her dubious expellee status before the part of her orchestra membership. Do I have to ask in advance before making a spelling correction too? I take it you have no actual issue with my edit, so stop blustering. --Wik 20:36, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
I have exactly that issue with your edit as I've stated.
--Ruhrjung 01:42, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There was no discussion explicitly about your edit. Now there is such disscussion, and I had explained why division to two paragraph version is better, in my opinion. (16:47, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)) Other reasons are
  • space to explain Steinbachs POV
  • space to explain why some claim Rumia was German
Wikimol 13:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment by 212.114.233.24

Rahmel was always a village in West Prussia, as history does not start in 1918. It was indeed occupied, but not in 1939, but in 1920. Before 1920 it was a german village for much more than a century.

I really do not have time for this war at the moment, so I give it a chance and am not going to touch the article now. But if I read " born in occupied Poland" in, say, two or three weeks, I'm going to revert the page again. The current version is ridiculous. "From her point of view, the region where she was born, had been a part of Imperial Germany before 1919" is really, really silly. Who is actually disputing it? Tell me. This is Polish revionism at its worst. Also, her father was not a soldier. He was an officer. Two completely different things. And how about this: "her suitability to head the Federation of Expellees, has been questioned and remains controversial". Really? By whom? Poles? Anyway, I will not tolerate that you make the article into pure anti-ZgV propaganda like this. Just keep it in mind. Nico 19:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She was not born in Poland. The village Rahmel was founded in 13th century by Germans, and under that name:"Rahmel". In this time, the region was part of the state of the Teutonic Order. After many wars against Poland, in 1466 the state of the Teutonic Order had to be divided into two parts: Rahmel becomes a part of Royal Prussia. In 1569, the King of Poland broke Treaty of Thorn and Rahmel becomes part of Poland by this. The village Rahmel was over 250 years old at this point. But Rahmel and whole Royal Prussia stayed to be inhabited by Germans, although in the following two centuries, the kings of Poland tried to make it a real polish province. In 1701, when the Duke of Prussia crowed himself to King in Prussia, the name Royal Prussia became obsolate, as the Duchy of Prussia was a kingdom itself now. 71 years later, Prussia was re-united when Rahmel and whole former Royal Prussia were liberated. From 1772 until the end of First World War, Rahmel was a absolute real prussian village again (148 years long). Being over 600 years old, Rahmel gets a new name in 1919: "Rumia". Some Poles in Versailles claimed Rahmel to be inhabited by Poles. Most of West Prussia, including Rahmel, became part of Polish corridor. But after only 19 years, Rahmel was liberated again when german soldiers came back. Only 3 years later, Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel. She was born in a german village. The village was over 600 years old at that point of time. From this 600 years, it was part of Poland for 203 years (1569-1772). This polish time period was 171 years ago when Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel. She was not born in Poland.
I am very interested in the info about Rumia/Rahmel, especially the information that it was found in 13th century by Germans/Teutonic Order. Seems quite impossible, since Pomerania was annexed by Teutonic Order in 1308 (14th century)Cautious 22:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay. I do not know much about the early years of Rahmel itself in special. It is said that Rahmel was founded in 1299, but I can not proof it. In contradiction of the Polish, who claim all areas between river Oder and river Weichsel to be Pomerania, I know there is a difference between Pomerania and West Prussia. Rahmel does not belong to Pomerania, but to West Prussia. The older name for West Prussia is Royal Prussia. Between 1278 and 1309 the area west of Danzig was a conflict between Brandenburg, Bohemia, the polish duke of Posen (Poznan) and the polish duke of Kujawien. Bohemia recognized this area to be ruled by the Teutonic Order in 1301, Brandenburg recognized this area to be ruled by the Teutonic Order in 1309, but some Poles kept claiming own rights in this area until1343 (July 8th, Vertrag von Kalisch).
I, for myself, do not think that Rahmel was founded by the Teutonic Order. They never founded small villages in areas which are not safe already, and there was no castle near Rahmel. Maybe it was founded by trades/settlers from Lübeck or Bremen. The area of Rahmel was at least since 1309 under effective control of the Teutonic Order, but the wars continues till 1343. 212.114.236.208 16:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Do you really want me to find some info on the exact number of people expulsed from the "Corridor" in the 1939-1944 period? Halibutt 00:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I do not want you to do so, Halibutt. But if you do, please explain also what this has to do with the over 600 years of history of a small Prussian village. Rahmel was a German village long before Hitler was even born. The reference on Hitler and his crimes can not change history prior to Hitler.
Instead, I want you to find some info on the exact number of people claiming themselve being German during census in 19th century. Also, there was a plebiscite in one part of West Prussia on July 11,1920. Can you find the exact number of West Prussians vote to stay German and not to become Polish? Can you explain why the people in one part of West Prussia were allowed to participate in a plebiscite while the people in the other part of West Prussia (including the village of Rahmel) were not allowed to do so? If the data of census from 19th century show that there was no difference in population of these two parts of West Prussia, why do you think that the people in the Rahmel Area would have vote different from the people in the Marienwerder Area, if they were allowed to vote? What was the exact result of the plebiscite in east part of West Prussia on July 11,1920? This was only 23 years before Erika Steinbach was born in West Prussia! 212.114.236.113 10:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Really... Lets list some facts: 1. Data from German elections (1907) in West Prussia in Kashubian inhabited area.
- Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Berent-Pr.Stargard (Preußisch Stargard, Berent, Dirschau)- Polenpartei: 62%
- Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Neustadt-Karthaus (Karthaus, Neustadt i. Westpreußen, Putzig): Polenpartei: 65,5%
Unfortunatelly, in Marienweder area Germans constituted majority:

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Stuhm-Marienwerder- Polenpartei: 38,2%. Do you require any more information? Yeti 15:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please. These are just elections, not plebiscites. It is about political questions, not about being german or polish. Many Germans voted for Polenpartei these days because of the Kulturkampf. That has nothing to do with wishing to be seperated from the German Reich. Polenpartei was never a party of seperation. It was about equal rights, nothing more. 212.114.236.113 17:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, the problem with the 1920 Prussian plebiscite is that at the moment of the voting, East Prussia practically did not have a border with Poland. To the south there were only Soviets and it looked as if they were about to capture Warsaw. People (regardless of their nationality) must've been really patriotic or stupid to vote for joining a country that was about to be swallowed by a brutal regime. However, despite Polish pleas, the LoN decided not to postpone the plebiscite. That's why it's so often questioned, both by Polish and German authors. Halibutt 22:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Do you really think that the plebiscite should be repeated again and again, until it brings the result you long to have? After all, that war was started by the Poles, not by the Sowjets. And the Poles started a war against Lituania as well. I do understand every Pole who do not want to be a citizen of a martial state like that, but it is his free choice. That is the sense of a plebiscite, Halibutt! 212.114.236.208 17:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To User:212.114.236.113. I understand that you do not know history of Polish political movements but you are wrong writing that Polish Party in Germany was not into separation from Germany. Of course the "serious" politicians coud not call it loudly (for example because of danger of delegalisation). But the only objective of Polish movement n Germany before 1918 was RECONSTRUCTION of INDEPENDENT Poland. In efect separation from Germany was the MOST IMPORTANT objective of Polenpartei. The Poles in Germany even did not regard West Prussia or Poznan Province to be part of Germany, but just parts of Poland under German occupation. It was no secret. Just think! The Polish Party was a strictly ethnic party. But Kulturkampf was basically targeted in Catholic Church. The Germans who would like to protest against Kulturkampf could vote for catholic Zentrum party. You have to remember that many Poles did not vote for Polish Party but for other parties: for example Zentrum or Social Democrats. In effect the total number of Polish population in this area was even bigger that this listed in elections. The Kashubians usually were proud to be part of Polish nation. However they were aware of their separate identity. For example Florian Ceynowa, creator of modern Kashubian ethnic movement was also Polish political activist. Beside, many German speaking persons (usually from Polish families) in West Prussia and Posen Privince considered themselve Poles. They also voted for Polish politicians even if Polish was not their first language. In the second part of 19th century there were many situations when German speaking from middle class families ceased using German as home language and started use POlish (often employing Polish servants as some kind of teachers). There was such situation in families of a few of my friends as well. I have got no idea what could be effect of plebiscite in West Prussia but there is no reason to think that it would not be favorable for Poland. When we talk about ethnic composition we have to remember that official censuses usually are not favorable for minorities because of many reasons. But in elections you do not have to reveal your identity, differently than in census for example. In effect you have no reasons to hide your true feelings.Yeti 22:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is nothing more than some fairy tales, Yeti. Would you also say that a German of today who votes for SSW is no longer a German? Do you know that the SSW gets some good results even in Holstein, where there is no Danish minority at all? Are these all some Germans who wishes to be seperated from Germany?
If you declare all those census, an the plebiscite from 1920 also, to be worthless, what do you think why the Poles don't want to have a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor? The Danes in North-Schleswig were not affraid of a plebiscite, but the Poles in the Corridor were!
Another thing: do you think there might be some Kashubians who do not want to be Poles? Do you think there might have been some in 1920? 212.114.236.208 20:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Let us say "she was born in former Royal Prussia". The Polish of that time (1569-1772) were able to cope with the name "Royal Prussia". But "West Prussia" is only the new name for Royal Prussia when the Duchy of Prussia became a kingdom itself. What is wrong in calling Prussia "Prussia"? 212.114.233.24 22:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Because it was not called West Prussia after 1920. We could say: former West Prussia and former Royal Prussia, but nothing more. It is not problem of opinion but just statement of fact. This discussion is weird itself because we discuss something what is not a problem. In 1943 Rumia was part of province Danzig-Westprussia created from a part of territory of Poland unilateraly annexed by Germany in 1939. According to me it is as simple as can be. Yeti 18:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! With such arguments, expect Wikipedians with a brain to agree with Space Cadet instead!
--Ruhrjung 01:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to call a Prussian village "Poland", "former Poland", "occupied Poland" or something like this. If you find it ridiculous to call a Prussian village "Prussian", what is your suggestion, then?
What about this:"Erika Steinbach was born in a village 30 km northwest of Danzig"? 212.114.236.113 10:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion is:

"...born in the [[Poles|Polish]] village R. (then Rahmel in..."

The annexation was made, and is in my opinion factual although pending a peace treaty of course not recognized by the Polish government or her allies. The annexation is relevant for the status of Steinbach as an expellee, but now I repeat myself, which is boring. Read above!
--Ruhrjung 10:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was not a Polish village. She was born in a Prussian village which today is a Polish city, but she was not born in a city, nor was she born in a polish village. 212.114.236.113 17:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Your attitude that you are right ("it was not a Polish village") and they are wrong ("if they say it was a Polish village") doesn't work here. You must consider how to establish an understanding and agreement with these Wikipedians (contributors / editors / whatever you'll call them) who you think are deluded. Hard facts and figures might be good. A real attempt to understand "the other side" probably works better!
--Ruhrjung 22:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
When I look at the history of the location where Erika Steinbach was born, I find all major parts of Prussian history: there is the Teutonic Order, there is Royal Prussia, there is the Kingdom of Prussia and the second Reich of 1871. On the other hand, I do not find the village of Rahmel connected to the history of Poland other than by history of Royal Prussia. In wartimes, I have to mention the Swedish, the Russians, Napoleon and his Frenchs. But I cannot explain the history of that location without telling the history of Prussia. That is the reason why I prefer to call it a Prussian village rather than call it a Polish village or a Swedish village. As I mention before, history does not start in 1918. All I can find here are people claiming Rahmel to be a Polish village just because it was occupied by Poland in the years between 1920 and 1939. But, as Gustav Stresemann always said: "There will be no Ost-Locarno". Gustav Stresemann, the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Peace, as all, really all goverments of democratic Germany between 1920 and 1932, would never accept Rahmel to be polish. If I have to decide between the opinion of Gustav Stresemann or the opinion of Yeti, I of course select the opinion of Gustav Stresemann. He knows better about the 1920s than anybody of us. Rahmel was occupied by Poland between 1920 and 1939, and this occupation was gone when Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel. Gustav Stresemann wanted to end the polish occupation of West Prussia by peaceful means, but in 1939 it was ended by force. Regardless of its, Rahmel was never a polish village before 1945. And if polish nationalists keep going on like they do, I am afraid over peace in Europe. Historical falsification is not the basis for a united Europe.
Can you direct us to some hard figures which tell us that it wasn't a (ethnically) predominantly Polish village? Ethnicity has to be separated from that unquestionable fact, that it was a Polish village in the meaning that Poland was given (i.e. de jure, although not accepted by the Weimar Republic–the Third Reich) and exercised (i.e. de facto) souvereignty before the invasion. I have accepted the assumption of its ethnic Polishness based on data for larger rural districts in West Prussia. But also as a means to circumvent the conflict between people who feel strongly about the annexation's validity or invalidity respectively. I have no personal interest in anything else than a result that doesn't provoke edits all the time. Would you be more happy with the following?
She was born during World War II in what Nazi Germany considered the village Rahmel 30 kilometers north-west of Danzig, in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, that however by the Poles was seen as the village Rumia, 25 kilometers west of Gdynia, in that part of Poland that was occupied and unilaterally annexed to Germany after the Polish Campaign 1939.
-Ruhrjung 11:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why not, let's add all of the village history :). However, I doubt anyone has any real data on the village prior to 1918, and most of the comments here on this page (from both sides) are but assumptions that the village must've shared the fate of either Poland or Germany. Halibutt 11:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ruhrjung, what do you think of the following:
She was born during World War II in what Germany considered the village Rahmel 30 kilometers north-west of Danzig, in West Prussia, that however by the Poles was seen as the village Rumia, 25 kilometers west of Gdynia, in that part of Polish corridor that was occupied and unilaterally re-annexed to Germany after the Polish Campaign 1939.
After all, it is not fair to call someone like Gustav Stresemann a Nazi.
Now, this was gross! Try to understand the point of people you argue with instead of using this kind of cheap demagogy! At the invasion of Poland Stresemann was dead since a decade, and it's not particularly likely that he would have supported a war of aggression. --Ruhrjung 02:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Now, this was gross! Ruhrjung, what was my point? Please, read it again. It was not about war or invasion, it was about who was consider this special village as being the village Rahmel 30 kilometers north-west of Danzig, in West Prussia. To make the point even more clear: Ruhrjung, as you teached us about the opinion of "Nazi Germany", can you please also teach us about the opinion of "Communist Germany" concerning this special village, and about the opinion of "DVP Germany", "liberal Germany", "DNVP Germany", concerning this special village? What do you think was Gustav Stresemann consider this special village to be? Do not talk about Stresemann's opinion about war, invasion, expellees and so on. Just try to complete this sentence: She was born during World War II in what Gustav Stresemann considered the village .... For comparison, this was your old sentence: She was born during World War II in what Nazi Germany considered the village Rahmel 30 kilometers north-west of Danzig, in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia. After all, I do not care much about the opinion of Nazis. I do care much more about people like Gustav Stresemann (repeat: "people like Gustav Stresemann"). As Erika Steinbach was born in 1943 and was never a member of the Nazi party, why shall we care much about the opinion of Nazi party in this article about Erika Steinbach? 212.114.232.55 12:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And West Prussia is not just a province, it is a landscape. Even when the province of West Prussia has vanished in 1920, there was still a district in the province of East Prussia called "West Prussia", because it was the remaining of the landscape West Prussia to Germany. The opinion and the name giving of the Nazis are of minor interest, don't you agree? 212.114.236.208 20:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think you should answer my question! Would you be more happy?
Personally I find these disputes on the wording on Steinbachs place of birth ridiculous, and the lengthier proposals the more ridiculous do I find it, but I try to get through the discussion in order to come out on the other side with a version that causes less controversy and hurt feelings and more of understanding for the points of views of ohters.
Would you, mr/ms 212.114.236.208, support, explain and defend a compromise after it's been established with your involvement, or would you perceive it as a temporary truce in need of revision as soon as someone else criticize it from a German Revisionist angle?
--Ruhrjung 02:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To answer your question again: No, I would not be more happy with the version "She was born during World War II in what Nazi Germany considered the village Rahmel 30 kilometers north-west of Danzig, in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, that however by the Poles was seen as the village Rumia, 25 kilometers west of Gdynia, in that part of Poland that was occupied and unilaterally annexed to Germany after the Polish Campaign 1939. ". Reasons: I am not much interested in Nazi opinions, and I do not like it to mention only the opinion of Nazi party. Also, I do not like it to use the official Nazi-Jargon "Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia" instead simply the popular "West Prussia". Also, I do not like this version to only mention the occupation in 1939, but not the occupation in 1920, as history does not start in 1918. I do not understand why the two letters between "annexed" and "re-annexed" are such a great problem for you. Also, if you use the term "part of Poland" in the Polish point-of-view, I want you to use the term "part of Germany" in the German point-of-view. But I prefer not to use neither the one nor the other term. And if you use the term "what Nazi Germany considered" to mark the German point-of-view, I want you to use the term "by the Communistic Poles was seen as" to mark the Polish point-of-view. But I prefer not to use neither the one nor the other term. Last but not least I doubt that the distance between Rahmel/Rumia and Gotenhafen/Gdynia is greater than 10 kilometers, and Rahmel seems to be north-west of Gotenhafen. And now you have to answer my question, please. 212.114.232.55 14:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

History of Pomerellen

To User:212.114.236.113. It is your problem and the problem of Gustav Stresemann, not my or anybody of Wikipedians if you can not to agree for Polishness of Rumia or any other town in present day Polish Pomerania. According to me your point of view is biased and unjustified. And you writing about falsification of history is just funny. For you Prussian and German means the same but it is not the same. And Royal Prussia was something entirely different than later Kingdom of Prussia - but the name of course. Beside, remember, that name of Prussia was stretched for areas West of Vistula not earlier than 1309. Earlier it was (eastern) Pomerania governed by Slavic speaking dukes and part of Polish Kngdom (Regnum Poloniae). Later, in 1454 Prussian burghes and Nobles asked king of Poland for protection and the area was joined to Poland. The eastern Pomerania was renamed as Pomeranian Voivodship. In 1569 the Royal Prussia was included into Great Poland province. With consent of local nobles. In 1772 Pomeranian Voivodship of Royal Prussia was not less Polish than Masovia or Little Poland. Besides talking about that times using modern categories is ridiculous. Remember, that in 17th or 18th centirues many German or Ruthenian speaking nobles form Poland-Lithuania considered themselves just Polish nobles. It was multiethnic and multireligious contry neverthless you like it or not. Rumia under Polish occupation? Sorry, but it is nothing more than YOUR point of view. The facts indicate something different.Yeti 13:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, we are not talking about the city of Rumia in present day, we are talking about the location where Erika Steinbach was born in 1943. When whole democratic Germany between 1920 and 1932, incuding the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Peace, Stresemann, does not accept Rahmel to be a Polish village, we cannot say it was only "the Nazis" who deny Rahmel to be Polish. To call a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Peace "a Nazi" is absurd!
I do not call nobody a Nazi. I'm just not interested in opinion of Stresemann about any Polish village.
Gustav Stresemann stands in this connection for whole democratic Germany. But okay, it's fine that you will not call nobody a Nazi. I will remind you of this if it has to. 212.114.236.208 22:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And I know about history of Pomerellen earlier than 1309 - but in Rahmel of the year 1943 that was over 600 years ago and of no practical consequence. By the way, that area was once the home of the Goths, a great and important Germanic tribe. Why don't you mention them??
What have the Goths to do with Germans? Their descendants are the Spanish and Italians. And the nearer language cousins - the Swedes. On the same basis the Poles could claim rights to some parts of Greece because these territories were inhabited by Slavic population. Please, this is silly.
Yes, Yeti, this is silly. But who did start this? What has the history of Pomerellen before 1309 to do with the location where Erika Steinbach was born in 1943? Do you really think you would understand the Slavic language which was been spoken in West Prussia before 1309? I bet I would rather understand the language spoken by the Goths! So please, stop being silly. Or accept that I will play the same card, then. 212.114.236.208 22:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Beside, not all Slavic speaking people are Polish, don't you know? In Germany and in Poland the modern form of Nation was introduced in 19th century. So the Germans in Royal Prussia do not worry about being protected by the Polish King, just because he is not German like them. Royal Prussia was not part of Poland, it was under protection of the Polish king, but autonom. The people in Royal Prussia do not name themself "German" or "Polish", they were proud to be "Prussians", as other Germans of that time were proud to be Bavarians or Saxonians. But on the other hand, the people in Ducal Prussian were named "Prussians" by the people of Royal Prussian as well as they name themself "Prussians". They were loyal attendants of the King of Poland, but this does not made them being Poles, and the Polish king don't mind that some of his attendants do not speak Polish, but German. So, there was always a big difference between Royal Prussia and Masovia. When Royal Prussia returned to the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772, they don't had to learn to be Prussians, they always were. But when Province Posen (Poznan) came to the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793, it was very difficult to teach them to be a Prussian!
Royal Prussia was a part of Poland of course. We could discuss about the period 1454-1569, but after 1569 it was a part of Crown of the POlish Kingdom without any doubts. Of course there was a selfgoverment. But every Polish voivodship had vast authonomy. As The meaning of "Prussian" had nothing to do with nationality. And inhabitans of Royal Prussia weren't any "other Germans". And Royal Prussia NEVER returned to Kingdom of Prussia. This kingdom was created in 1703. Before the only monarchs of Royal Prussia were Kings of Poland. This was the position of Prussian diet between 1454 and 1569. So why do you claim any rights to Royal Prussia for Hohenzollerns? You have to remember that overlords of Ducal Prussia were Polish Kings as well. And Ducal Prussia was to be joined to Poland after the Hohenzolern dynasty expire. And expired in 1918. I could say that with this moment Germany lost any formal rights to former Ducal Prussia. Your problem is also that you confuse meanings of Prussia and Prussian throught centuries. But it is ridiculous.
Yes, it was part of Poland from 1569 on, but this was a breach of contract by the king of Poland. So by this the second Treaty of Thorn was invalid now and Royal Prussia was free again? Or was just the incorporation of Royal Prussia into Poland from 1569 invalid, because it was against the second Treaty of Thorn? And the meaning of "Prussian" had nothing to do with nationality - until the 19th century. But today, all those Polish nationalists can not cope if we call a small Prussian village "Prussian", just because that means today that the village was not Polish since the begining of time. And Royal Prussia DID returned to Kingdom of Prussia, as the Kindom of Prussia is the legal successor of Dukedom of Prussia, which is the legal successor of the state of the Teutonic Order, which was the owner of later Royal Prussia until the second Treaty of Thorn. And if you start with overlords, I must remind you that Poland once (963, 1024) was a fief of Holy Roman Empire, which is a predecessor of the German Reich! And Hohenzollern dynasty did not expire yet, they just lost most of their power. But the dynasty still exists, and they still lives under the old dynasty rules. And on the other hand, in 1233 Prince Konrad of Mazovia gave Chelmno_Land as property to the Teutonic Order "for all times", if they would help him against the pagan Prussians. Yeti, we can go on like this for weeks, but where is the connection to Erika Steinbach and to the village where she was born? Please, stop being ridiculous. 212.114.236.208 23:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As you mention the 18th century yourself, do you know that the Elector of Saxony (August der Starke and after him his son) was also king of Poland between 1694 and 1763? If you would be consequent, you have to claim all Poles of that time to be Saxonians, not Poles! This means that in 18th century, Royal Prussia was under protection of the Elector of Saxony, as he was King of Poland. Practically Royal Prussian gets back its autonomy. 212.114.236.208 19:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We call him August II Mocny. And another confusion: We have to be prcise - Elector of Saxony was never a monarch of Poland (and Royal Prussia). The person of King was entirely separated from the state. He was barely a some kind of official. By the way: check the meaning of personal union. The August II Mocny could be Elector of Saxony in Saxony, but in Poland he was the King of POland and Great Duke of Lithuania, nothing more. And this does not make Saxony to be a part of Poland of course. :-).Yeti 21:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You do know about personal union, Yeti? But what is this discussion then all about? Of course the Poles do not become Saxonians, just because August II is king of Poland and Elector of Saxony in personal union. And the Saxonians do not become Poles, right? But on the other hand, August is not only by God's grace King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania and also hereditary duke of Saxony and prince elector (see here for detail), he is also Grand Duke of ... Prussia, but by this the Poles do not become Prussians, and the Prussians do not become Poles, right? And, even worst, this Grand Duke of Prussia has nothing to do with Ducal Prussia, but only with Royal Prussia, although he is only King in Poland, but Grand Duke in Prussia? Again: Yeti, the Prussians in West Prussia are not Poles just because their ruler is in personal union the King of Poland, right? 212.114.236.208 00:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


1. Yes, Yeti, this is silly. But who did start this?....

O, no! The difference is Germans have nothing to do with Goths, but language similarity - on the same basis present day Romanians could claim rights to Great Britain because it was part of Latin speaking Roman Empire :-). So any German claims on this basis are ridiculous. But Eastern Pomerania was a part of Poland (and also Polish fief) at from about 960. In 1296 Eastern Pomerania was inherited by duke of Greater Poland and later King of Poland Przemyslaw II on the basis of agreement with the last duke of E. Pomerania Mestwin II from 1281. So, please do not compare these situations.

2. Yes, it was part of Poland from 1569 on, but this was a breach of contract by the king of Poland....

You try to guess, but you miss.Below is the translated fragment of Treaty of Torun II from 1466. The translation is my, but I tried to do it as literally as possible. You can check with the German or English version if you like: „The Land of Chelmno (Culmen) with its towns (...), the Land of Michalow with (...), as well as the all Land of Pomerania within its ancient borders with all castles, towns (...) will be property of King Casimir and KINGDOM OF POLAND”. And: „For the mentioned His Majesty the King and kings and Kingdom of Poland will belong (from now) for all times the castles and towns mentioned on the basis of this agreement, will belong to law, property and title of KINGDOM OF POLAND and should remain the property (of the KINGDOM) for ever.”

1. According to me it is clear enough – the territories later known as Royal Prussia were ceded to Kingdom of Poland, so it was a part of Polish state from 1466, however with something what we could call authonomy or self-governement. It definitelly was not Personal Union because: - the country was ceded by Teutonic Order to the KING of POLAND as well as to the Kingdom. In case of personal union Casimir would be crowned as Duke of Prussia, but he did not. Prussia was subjuded to KING and KINGS of Poland. Personal union is between two INDEPENDENT countries that share the same person as their monarch. Because Royal Prussia was ceded to kingdom of Poland it defintielly was not independent. - there is lots of mess in your statement. King of Poland had many titles. For example: duke of Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Belz etc... But obvioulsy it did not mean that these territories were independent. Every monarch who joined a new teritory included it in his titulature. So being the King of Poland he was automatically ALSO the duke of Masovia etc. For example, the king of Poland in around 1500 was automatically the duke of Zator, Chelm or duke of Prussia, because these terrotories were parts of kingdom of Poland and all documents for these territories were issued by him as the king of Poland. But the same person in Lithuania was Grand Duke of Lithuania and all documetns for Lithuania were issued by him as GD of Lithuania. Do you see the difference? - the King of Poland was overlord of Royal Prussia as an institution, not as a person. We can not compare it with Personal Union between Poland and Lithuania (1385-1569) or Poland and Saxony, or England and Hanover because neither Elector of Saxony was the overlord of Poland, prince of Hanover was not overlord of Engand, nor king of Poland was overlord of Lithuania. They just shared „positions”. Is it clear? - the Prussian estates took part in political life of Kingdom of Poland from the beginning. For example the Royal Prussia had 8 seats in sentate of the kingdom of Poland from 1466. If you want argue about that please, deliver sources to support your claims.

2. In 1569 the Prussian diet agreed for the change of situaton, Prussian deputies received posts in Polish Parliment and the nobles of Royal Prussia willingly assumed the privileges of Polish magnates. It was a part of general change of political and administrative structure of Poland (Union with Lithuania). So, I do not understand your claims.

3. How can you claim that Royal Prussia returned to Kingdom of Prussia? It was never part of Kingdom or Duchy of Prussia. The Treaty of Thorn II was between Poland and Teutonic Order, not Duke of Prussia. The Order was dissolved in Prussia in 1525 and Duchy of Prussia – entirely new state - could not claim any rights as heir of the Order. The king of Poland GAVE the Eastern Prussia to Hohenzolerns as a fief. Besides, remember that the Order still exists. Any claims of Hohenzolerns to Royal Prussia had no founds. So writing about unification is ridiculous. Royal Prussia was just annexed by the state of Hohenzolerns. Nothing more.

4. Majority of nobles of Royal Prussia definitelly considered themselve Poles at least from 16th century, shared Polish („sarmatian”) culture and were part of Polish political nation. Yes, there was something like that, however being a Pole in this sense did mean to be Polish in ethnic sense. German speaking noble from Elbing area or Ruthenian speaking noble from Kiyev could call themselve Polish even if they did not speak Polish at home. For example there was very popular sentence from present day Ukraine describing it: „Gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus” – by blood a Ruthenian, by nationality a Pole.

5. There is no proof that Conrad of Masovia „gave” Chelmno Land as property to the Teutonic Order. The document giving it is regarded by majority of historians to be a forgery. Anyway, it has nothing to do with the problem.

This is nothing more than some fairy tales, Yeti. Would you also say that a German of today who votes for SSW is no longer a German? …

We do not discuss about SSW. The Polish Political organisations in pre 1914 Germany had the most important objective: reconstruction of independent Poland. The particular activists could support different methods but the aim was the same: INDEPENDENCE! It does not matter if you like it or not. Why do you claim that the Ploles were afraid the plebiscite? It was the decision of France, UK and USA, not Poland. You have to remember that Poland claimed for a plebiscite in Flatow/Zlotow area, but the powers refused. And another thing: there was one plebiscite in this area – in the village of Nadole in Lauenburg/Lebork district (Pomerania). The population (Kashubian) decided to join Poland even if there was no direct connections with territory of Poland (there was a lake between). I do not claim that plebiscite from 1920 was worthless, but that it was in some specific circumstancies. Halibutt explained you why: it was expected that Poland will be joined to Soviet Union. The Soviet troops were just a few miles from Warsaw! So basically, the choice was between East Prussia and barbarian Soviet Union! The Miracle on Vistula happened after the plebiscite. And of course there are some Kashubians who do not censider themselve Poles. For exaple in the census from 2002 around 5 thousands declared Kashubian nationality. But about 46 thousands declared Kashubian as home language and Polish nationality. The total number of Kashubians in Poland is 250-500 thousands. And the only data for the ethnic self-deffinition of the local poulation from the beginning of 20th century we have are electoral results: 65 percent (!) for Polish party. This is the fact, not opinion.

Anyway, the things I mentioned above have not to much to do with the article about Erika Steinbach.Yeti 11:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plans what to do

If her parents were not from there anyways, what is the point of an excessive discussion whether Rumia/Rahmel was Prussian/Polish/German or whatever? Why don't you just write Rumia (German: Rahmel), a city in today's Poland that had been occupied by the Nazis in 39 and that had been part of Prussia from x-y and part of Poland from y-z? I also think that it should be mentioned that she studied music but not amidst the controversy about her legitimacy to lead the organization of expellees.

That's reasonable! --Ruhrjung 11:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please remember: It's not reasonable to call it "occupied by the Nazis", unless you want to call eastern Germany occupied by Poland for "occupied by the stalinists". Then will "been part of Poland" be completely unacceptable as well. All POV or all NPOV. Your decision. Nico 14:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, but it is reasonable to move the sentence on music studies away from the midsth of the wordy nagging on the status of her place of birth! --Ruhrjung 01:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay to me. Move it away, Ruhrjung. Beside, she was also working as computer scientist. Maybe you can add this to the part about musician. 212.114.232.55 10:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nico, you repeat your arguments all the time, inspite that it was clearly stated why you are not right by many persons. As far as I know you even do not try to discuss it. Comparison to "recovered territories" has no point. I have already listed why. Do not make a fool of yourselfYeti 14:50, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You are the one making yourself a fool. A big one. Bye for now. Nico 16:41, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am really impressed with your eloquence.Yeti 17:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Why do you guys not spend your time in something more useful than edit wars, check my page and help me with my vocabulary project?

Some of us since we belive that the bellicose tendencies are to be moderated unless most sane contributors will be effectively chased away from Wikipedia. --Ruhrjung 11:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contributions in Polish and German are equally welcome. Maybe someone speaks Jiddish as well? Get-back-world-respect 10:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not every edit in previous days was edit war. Wikimol

page protected

Please work this out so that the page can be unprotected. --mav 10:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From my point of view it is very clear that the English wikipedia may name a town or village as it is called today in the official language of the country the town is located in (except there is a special English name which is not the case here). We have had the discussion about Danzig/Gdansk, especially about Königsberg/Kaliningrad in the German wikipedia, but there is a big difference: There are typically German names for former German and now Polish towns and villages. Therefore I would understand this discussion in the German wikipedia. In the English wikipedia I absolutey do not understand it because from my point of view, it would be most senseful to call the city Rumia (and to have it called Rahmel, if the Wikipedia had been in existence in 1917). I would like to stress that in the German wikipedia I would prefer the place of birth called 'Rahmel' anyway (indifferent whether a person was born there in 1917, 1937, 1943, 1969, 1971 or today), because 'Rahmel' seems to be the German name of the town (as Danzig for Gdansk or Prag for Praha/Prague); in the English wikipedia I would call it by its current name. --EBB 17:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Last sentence: I do agree with Nico in the disagreement on calling the town 'annexed by the Nazis'. 'Annexed by the Germans' seems indeed more senseful to me. --EBB 17:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay. But please call it 'Re-annexed by the Germans', as in 1939, when this annexion happened, this territory was only 19 years at Poland, but before it was German since 148 years (and more...)! She was not born on a just conquered enemy territory. She was born in a village where Germans had lived for centuries. 212.114.236.208 19:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Would you not be happier with re-conquered and annexed? --Ruhrjung 01:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, dear. The part about the history of Rahmel is, in my opinion, much to long, remembering that this is an article about the politican Erika Steinbach and not the article about Rumia. What is the advantage of 're-conquered and annexed' over 're-annexed'? 212.114.232.55 09:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet wrote: "(Note: According to German law, even people who left Poland out of their own will, anytime after 1945, and claimed german citizenship fall under definition of "expellees"). This is nothing but nonsense. I am sure Space Cadet did never saw any German law himself. Wikipedia is not the right place to spread a stupid rumor about German laws. Space Cadet can not name the exact law, so he has to stop telling lies. 212.114.236.196 21:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know who I am and how many German laws I know, so YOU have to stop spreading rumors about me, and YOU have to stop accusing people of lying! Who brought you up to be this piece of work you are, anyway? Space Cadet 23:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just name the law, or shut up, liar! 212.114.236.196 01:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I name anything? You prove to me that I don't know, or you shut up! And easy with the name-calling, we're in a public place, you know. Try to calm down first, then go to sleep and then come back. Or better yet, have sex with yourself some more!Space Cadet 01:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erika_Steinbach&oldid=3571277"