Talk:Erika Steinbach/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Naming

According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote: In biographies of clearly German persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany. Hence, the naming is Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland). Since previous namings lead to disputes, I changed it to the naming according to the vote. Please stick to that -- Chris 73 Talk 14:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Not in the case of occupied territories. Someone who was born in 1940 in Zamosc - was born in Himmlerstadt (now Zamosc) ? Rumia was NOT part of the 3rd Reich at that time. The city was occupied like the rest of Poland ... (Note: misusage of the voting results by Chris (the 2nd time)) --Witkacy 17:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems your wishful thinking has clouded your reading (again). There is no clause about occupied territories. The only statement is about place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany, which Rahmel/Rumia certainly does. Hence the naming is appropriate. If neccessary I can live with halibutts current suggestion for peace sake. However, if there is further trouble, i will revert the naming strictly according to the vote outcome (i.e. 'Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland). -- Chris 73 Talk 18:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your pathetic lack of history knowledge and the misusage of the voting results is not predicting the end of the edit-wars on Poland-related articles. Your and of some other German users behavior is disappointing. I never saw any Polish users vandalizing or provoking edit-wars on articles of German cities, etc. Some stereotypes will be never changed ... --Witkacy 19:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Rahmel was not occupied territory as it was not part of (the General Government of) Poland, it was part of Germany (specifically, the province of Danzig-West Prussia), being reannexed following 19 years of Polish rule in 1939. This is confirmed by the website of the German parliament [1] which states that her birthplace was Rahmel, West Prussia. Note also that the city had a German majority until it was annexed by Poland after WW1.

Of course the problem is that this "reannexation" was carried out by a criminal regime, all of whose top leaders were later sentenced to death or long prison terms by the Nuremberg tribunal, unless they were cowards and commited suicide before they were caught. In short, that annexation was totally illegal, and was not recognised by the rest of the world (except maybe by Nazi allies at the time). Since you are incapable of understanding this, further argument with you is pointless. Balcer 04:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Stating that a government was "criminal" is nothing but POV. Many people also believe the government of the USA (or Poland, for that sake) is criminal because of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Most governments of Eastern Europe were quite brutal dictatorships until 1990. The stalinists murdered some 50 million people. But if you refer to the government of the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of Poland, of the German Democratic Republic or of Czechoslovakia as "criminal" in Wikipedia, someone are going to revert to. And as I already said: It is confirmed by the website of the German parliament that her birthplace was "Rahmel, West Prussia", see http://www.bundestag.de/mdb15/bio/S/steiner0.html. This is a German politician, so please find an authoritative German source which back your ridiculous claim that Rahmel, West Prussia was actually in Poland. Also note that if Rahmel was in "nazi occupied Poland", we are going to refer to the areas occupied by Stalinist Poland in 1945 as "stalinist occupied Germany" until the peace treaty was signed (after the cold war). --83

The argument that Pilsudski-Poland didn't sign a peace treaty with Germany is not relevant. The peace treaty was first signed after the cold war ended. Should Silesia, Pomerania etc. all be referred to as "stalinist occupied Germany" in the years 1945-1990? Would you Poles be happy with that? 83.109.188.75 (talk · contribs)

Anyway, the problem is rather Polish users vandalizing and provoking edit-wars on German politicians. Nothing better to do in the old People's Republic? 83.109.188.75 (talk · contribs) Write some articles about PolishPoliticians, for example? 83.109.183.84 (talk · contribs)

The anon seems to be a good friend of Chris_73 or his alter ego...--Witkacy 04:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not know that user, and it is definitely not me. As for the edits, I actually like the non-anon version more, since it seems to be more neutral to me (providing the naming issue is adressed properly) -- Chris 73 Talk 05:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you mean. I'd be happy with prodiding the official name at the time (according to the Bundestag biography) and the current name as you suggested above, like "Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland). I tried to find a version more acceptable to the Poles by adding the information that the village had actually also had a Polish history before 1945, by writing "According to the website of the German parliament, she was born in Rahmel in West Prussia [2]. The village has been under Polish and German rule at various times during history, and is now again in Poland and known under its Polish name of Rumia." However, they didn't like this version, so I vote for yours instead.

I suggest we all back our claims with sources. I have backed my claim with the official Bundestag biography, which should be quite authoritative (this is a German, not Polish, politician, after all). The Poles have so far not cited any sources for the claim that Rahmel, West Prussia was not part of Germany when Steinbach was born and that the German parliament is wrong. Please cite your sources, guys!

Anyway, why is the information that Steinbach is a member of the national board of the CDU, and that she is chairwoman of the ZgV jointly with Peter Glotz, removed? The source for this is [3] and [4], respectively. --83

My dear, the problem is that the annexation of Poland was uni-lateral and was not accepted by any English-speaking country in the world. So any name changes were unilateral as well. As simple as it is. Halibutt 22:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt, the Polish annexations of parts of Germany were also unilateral and not accepted by Germany for decades. That means someone born in, say, Breslau, in the 60s, was born in "stalinist occupied Germany" according to you.

Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a Neutral Point of View. The German government claimed (as they still do) Rahmel was in Germany when Steinbach was born, Poland claims otherwise. But we should stick to the facts on the ground, which is actually the practice here (see for example Israel): Rahmel was in Germany at that time, whether you like it or not. Claiming otherwise is territorial-historical revisionism.

Also keep in mind that this article is about a German politician. So I believe the point of view of the German parliament is more important than the point of view of Poles. Ask yourself: Why are you editing this article about this particular German politician? How would you feel if some German editors insisted that articles about Polish politicians needs to be written from the POV of the German government? --83

Dear anon, you contradict yourself. If, as you say, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a Neutral Point of View, then why the hell the point of view of the German parliament is more important?

Also, we're speaking about Nazi occupation of Poland. Occupation, since that was what it was. And as such, it was accepted solely by Germany and the Soviet Union (the latter withdrew from the support in 1941). So it seems that it's the conflict between German POV and the POV of the rest of the world. Halibutt 22:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

We're not speaking about occupation but an integral part of Germany. The annexation was recognized by a bunch of countries, like Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria, Romania etc. Anyway, it is not important which contries who recognized it. Some did, some did not, just like some countries recognized stalinist Polish occupations (communist countries), some (democratic NATO countries like Germany) did not. --83

Anyway, your sources are still missing. --83

Exactly what countries, apart from West Germany, did not recognize the Polish post-1945 western borders? As far as I know the only such country was Germany. USA and UK were the ones who created those borders, so it would be hard to claim that they did not recognize it. But it's a completely different matter.

As to the sources: refer to the texts of the Conference of Ambasadors ruling on the future of Pomerania (1919), the German-Polish border treaty of 1920, the Anglo-Polish Alliance treaty of 1939, Franco-Polish Alliance of 1921, with ammendmends added in 1939 and 1940 and to the Sikorski-Mayski Agreement with the USSR of 1941, in which the Soviet Union declared all its pacts with Nazi Germany null and void. Need more sources?

Also, when exactly did Finland recognize the annexation of Poland? Halibutt 01:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I always find it amazing how people can get up in arms about issues like this. Someone says that Steinbach's resume on the official Bundestag website says "Rahmel", and insists on supreme authority for this source; however, German MPs can put whatever they want on their resume page - there is no "naming policy" or anything of that kind. The use of "Rahmel" as opposed to "Rumia" does not imply any endorsement for the former as "true" or "official", now or then, by any German government body; even less does it imply any territorial claims by Germany. On the other hand, people go about and tell us that the name must not be rendered German by any means - even in regard to a German politician, even when the town arguably has a German history, too - because, ultimately, Finland did not recognise the German annexation of Polish territory...!

To the German firebrands: Even according to the German Wikipedia's own naming conventions, the primary name used is de:Rumia, with the German (and now also the Kashubian) versions given the text; en:Rumia follows the same principle. Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to stubbornly insist on "Rahmel" in the given context. On the other hand, the Polish users' opposition to using "Rahmel" is unfortunately symptomatic of an almost paranoid, anachronistic mindset regarding place names - significantly, perhaps, the Polish article does not mention any non-Polish names - neither the German nor the Kashubian one. Note that contrary to what has been implied above, "Rahmel" is not an artificial ideological creation such as "Himmlerstadt" for Zamość or "Litzmannstadt" for Łódź, but the traditional name by which the town was known to its German-speaking inhabitants for centuries before World War II, even if it was restored to official status by the Nazi administration.

In the light of the above, I vote to retain the current wording "Rumia (Rahmel in German)", even if some of the arguments for this solution given above are ridiculously quixotic. --Thorsten1 09:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You find the German article under Rumia because it is policy at de: to use local names for the title unless their German names are significantly more used in German public (Danzig, Breslau, Warschau, Moskau etc.). Rahmel being a rather unknown small village, it is policy not to use the German name (although it is stated in the introduction). However, in all German historical contexts the German name is used in the article.

According to the vote results pointed out by Chris above, the city should be mentioned here as "Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland)", because it was then known as Rahmel and because Steinbach is a German person. --83

Well, I'm happy with the current version I proposed. As to the town being known to Germans as Rahmel for centuries - this is not true, since the town was created in... 1954. But that is of course nitpicking. As to the voting results - Rahmel is not Danzig, which was the topic of the vote. Halibutt 10:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

"But that is of course nitpicking". I couldn't agree more. --Thorsten1 12:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Toss a coin. Change depending on days of the week. Sheeez, *who cares*? Seriously, both sides arguments make some sence, but I am not willing to waste more of my time on this. As long as both names are mentioned in the lead, I don't give a... thought about which one is used later. I suggest you all go back to contructive editing and stop this silly game. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely second that. We could spare ourselves much fruitless discussion if we decided to assume good faith more consistently. As we can see here, the opposite is the case. I have now removed the huge, menacing Danzig vote warning at the top as it does not really apply here, poisons the atmosphere, and might deter other editors. --Thorsten1 12:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Protection again?

The current revert war is becoming annoying. As I understand it, exclusion from 3RR can not be extended to this page. --Wikimol 21:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Rumia

"Mit Inkrafttreten des Versailler Vertrages zum 10. Januar 1920 wurde der Kreis Neustadt i. Westpr. und mit ihm der Amtsbezirk Rahmel mit den Landgemeinden Rahmel und Sagorsch und dem Gutsbezirk Rahmel an Polen abgetreten. Seit dem 26. Oktober 1939 gehörte der Landkreis Neustadt i. Westpr. wieder im Rahmen des neuen Reichsgaues Westpreußen, später Danzig-Westpreußen zum Deutschen Reich. [...] Seit dem dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs ist Rahmel polnisch und trägt den Namen Rumia."

(Rahmel was ceded to Poland on January 10, 1920, and since October 26, 1939, it again belonged to Germany. Since the end of the Second World War is Rahmel Polish and known as Rumia.)

More information can be found at de:Rumia. --83

Corrections to history of Rumia

1) Rumia was a Polish village/township for centuries. In 1920 it was returned to Poland.

2) Rumia was and is a Polish city. The fact that it was occupied by the Germans during World War II, does NOT mean that it belonged to Germany. Rumia was just occupied by Germany, but it still belonged to Poland.

Corrections to "corrections" to history of Rahmel

1) Rahmel was a German village for centuries. In 1939 it was returned to Germany.

2) Rahmel was and is a German village. The fact that it was occupied by the Poles between 1920 and 1939, does NOT mean that it belonged to Poland. Rahmel was just occupied by Poland, but it still belonged to Germany.

Unprotecting

No discussion for ages, protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach and Molobo's changes

Poland/internationally

You deleted "Especially in Poland" of "Especially in Poland she has caused controversy for her aim to build a monument against forced migration" and put the sentence as the very first sentence (as if it were the most important sentence of her life)

As a German I've never ever heard of that German politician, as a Pole you did. Do you know the names of any German or Pole in their parliaments? Certainly not. The version history is full of Polish contributors, not German, so yes, after that Wpost propaganda that somehow didn't get that the German Chancellor is not a CDU politician, it became controversial ... in Poland. And anyway, how can you put such a redundant POV sentence as the first??? Bush is a very controversial character, even the most controversial character today (look at the vandalism of the page) but there's not a single sentence about controversy in his opening paragraph. And anyway It's just a monument, one political decision so small that it's hard to believe the German parliament actually cares.NightBeAsT 18:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The matter was indeed kind of popular in Poland and that's why many German politicians' speeches supporting the idea of the centre against expulsions located outside of Germany were equally publicised. BTW, that is one of the reasons why Schroeder at times is more popular in Poland than Merkel.

But anyway, her proposal and her vision of the Berlin-based Centre was critisized not only in Poland, but also in other states as well - Germany included. Among the critics were Schroeder himself, but also a plethora of other German politicians and journalists. The matter was reported by most of the German newspapers and there was a controversy going on (and was reported, among others, by the Polish ministry of Foreign Affairs in its' bulletin. Halibutt 19:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably you're right there but still you should not put allegations of controversy into the opening paragraph. What about Bush, Schröder or any other politician? Politics devide people making them all controversial in a way, and so are philosophers or newspapers or anything. It still doesn't deserve any mention.NightBeAsT 14:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Partially you're right. However, I'm afraid that the only thing Erika Steinbach is known for abroad is the BdV actions. And her project of the centre against expulsions is one of the best-publicised of such controversial issues. So, in other words, for most of the world she is known for being controversial. However, if you believe that the thing should be reworded - go on and be bold. Rewording the frase is better than deleting it and pretending she is not controversial. Halibutt 16:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Expulsed Poles

You added "As NCO Karl Herman didn't get any home taken from local Poles, which was reserved for higher German officers."

What does it mean?NightBeAsT 18:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

More or less: the houses of the expelled Poles were too scarce and were given only to the officers and Nazi officials. As Herman was a mere NCO, he had to live in a hotel and than in a rented room. BTW, that is why miss Steinbach is not one of the expelled - she couldn't be expelled from her home in Rumia since she never had one there. Halibutt 19:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So she lived all the time in a hotel there? Hard to believe. Do you have any reliable English sources? And anyway the sentence should be reformulated.NightBeAsT 14:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not in a hotel, her father was given a room in the house of a local family of Henryk Paulin. After 1943, when his girflriend left Berlin for good and joined him in Rumia, the two still lived in the same room, until January of 1945. That is why Erika was not born there but rather in the house of Paweł Obersieg, a friend of Hermann's. When Karl Hermann (steinbach's father) was sent to the Eastern Front, his pregnant wife (Erika's sister was born a tad later) lost any chance to get a decent flat in Rumia. The source is the article I mentioned, written by two of the historians from the Gdańsk branch of the IPN institute. I translated it to English some time ago, but someone deleted it and I have only a harsh translation at hand. Halibutt 16:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Escape

You changed "escaped with her children" to "decided to go back with her children"

You said "Her mother didn't escape but decided to go back long before there was any front nearby." as justification. How long? Do you have a reliable source?NightBeAsT 18:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the IPN bulletin article I translated a long time ago (a link should be somewhere in the archives), her mother left Pomerania in November or December of 1944, that is some 5 months before the Soviets arrived. Halibutt 19:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That would verify it.NightBeAsT 14:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)