Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 6 December 2005

I've answered a certain, rather old comment of Yours on Talk:Ketrzyn

Arthur Schopenhauer

Hi. I have created a temporary version for Schopenhauer at Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp, trying to include as much info as possible. Comments are welcome. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Related to this conflict, I think that you are about as neutral as someone can be, you're neither german nor polish, you know a lot about history, and the only thing which could be interpreted as bias is that you lived in poland for a long time - and that would count as a pro-polish bias. I really hope the Schopenhauer problem can be solved, maybe even the danzig/gdansk problem. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 17:19, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Szczecin

Please do not start a revert war about Szczecin. The language you are using is quite POV and really against the very neutral tone of the whole article. "Repatriated" is a much better word to describe what has happened after the war to the German people living in Stettin and sure "conquered" to describe Red Army's liberation of the city is too strong a word. I will not revert the article to its former version yet, if you don’t agree with my wording please suggest what you would consider to be appropriate but please note I do not agree with the current version.--Roo72 01:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editing someone's user page instead of Talk page is VERY rude.--Roo72 20:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My response:

First, I am very sorry that I apparently screwed up your user page, and I do aplogize most sincerely. Whatever I did, it was a mistake, inadvertent and unintended.

Now, as to your comment on my user page (above):

Why is "conquered" too strong a word? Germany and the USSR were at war, savagely so on both sides. Germany was defeated and conquered by the Big 3 allies. Eastern Germany was conquered by Soviet forces. You can't really believe this constituted "liberation" for the residents of these areas -- unless you are an unreconstructed Stalinist, which presumably you're not.

Stettin was a German city at the time. (Not even Emax would contest this.) It was the capital of the German province of Pomerania (German: Pommern), the primary port for Berlin, and it was not close to any prewar border with Poland. As a result of Germany losing the war, Stettin's inhabitants -- all of them who survived -- were indeed expelled. I suppose we could say "transferred," which is a neutral word, but the action itself was obviously not a neutral one, so even this is glossing over reality.

In anticipation of something like this exchange, over the weekend I dragged out my old college textbook on 20th C. European history -- from a box in the garage -- and found the following entry about Stettin/Szczecin:

"In 1945 Russia unilaterally handed over the city of Stettin on the left bank of the Oder to the Poles, who soon converted it into the completely Polish city of Szczecin." -- C.E. Black, E.C. Helmreich: Twentieth Century Europe: A History. Knopf, New York: 1950, 1959, 1966, p. 696.

At the time this textbook was written, the information summarized in the above sentence above was general knowledge among historians and others concerned with the ramifications of World War II. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a simple statement of fact.

Since then the West seems to have forgotten about some of these details, to the point where one sees casual references to places that were indisputably German BEFORE the Nazi period, and within the 1919-37 borders of Germany, as having been "in occupied Poland." This should concern anyone interested in historical accuracy.

I don't know whether you're a native English speaker, but the use you are proposing for "repatriated" is inaaccurate. "Repatriate" is defined as: "To send back or return to the country of birth, citizenship or allegiance," and gives as it's most typical example "to repatriate prisoners of war." (From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the most often used dictionary in the U.S.)

Please notice the words BACK TO and RETURN. The residents of Stettin were not sent "back to" someplace they had been before or "returned" to some country that was different from the one which, until then, their city had been -- they were evicted from their homes in their own country. They hadn't taken these homes from Poles or anyone else; Stettin was their city. The Soviets took it from them and gave it to the Poles.

Whether that was justified given Nazi Germany's aggression, or as "compensation" to Poland for Poland's losses to the USSR (Wilna, Lwow, etc.), is another debate. The point here is simply WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the ground. If what actually happened is upsetting to Polish readers, too bad -- that doesn't change history. Sca 20:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about any "compensations" and I don't know why you mentioned them, I only care that the history is represented as it actually happened using words that are not biased and the previous version of that part of the article was IMO biased. We seem to have reached an agreement about "conquered", now let's talk about "expelled":

The verb repatriate has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: send someone back to his homeland against his will, as of refugees

Meaning #2: admit back into the country

and,

Military

repatriate

(DOD) A person who returns to his or her country or citizenship, having left said native country either against his or her will, or as one of a group who left for reason of politics, religion, or other pertinent reasons.

Care to explain why this word is not appropriate?--Roo72 20:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but as a 1) native English speaker, 2) writer, 3) sometime historian and 4) editor, I cannot agree to your use of "repatriate" in this context.

As outlined above, the primary and original meaning of repatriate is to return to one's country of origin. People who are evicted from their place of origin or residence, which until their eviction was part of their country of origin, cannot be described as "returning" to their country of origin. This applies whether those involved are Germans, Poles, Russians, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Chinese, etc. ad infinitum.

I've mentioned the Webster's definition of repatriate. Here are some others, including one that is irreverent but on the mark:

1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000: repatriate TRANSITIVE VERB: To restore or return to the country of birth, citizenship, or origin: repatriate war refugees. ETYMOLOGY: Late Latin repatrire, repatrit-, to return to one's country : Latin re-, re- + Latin patria, native country.

2. wordreference.com: repatriation the act of returning to the country of origin

3. freesearch.co.uk: repatriate verb {T}

to send or bring someone, or sometimes money or other property, back to their own country:

-- The government repatriated him because he had no visa.

4. The Urban Dictionary: repatriate "Politically-correct bullshit for DEPORT. The foreigner was repatriated to his home country because he tried to find a job so he could pay his medical bills.

One common use of "repatriate" in historical writing involves diplomats and other foreign nationals present in one country when their own country declares war on the host country. In WWII, Germans in Britain, Brits in Germany, Japanese in the U.S., etc., were "repatriated," usually by being transhipped via neutral countries to their countries of origin. (Some Americans in Japanese hands had other experiences -- as did some Japanese in the U.S.)

I will grant you that "repatriate" is sometimes used in the manner you are employing it, but usually to serve political or nationalistic propaganda. Using "repatriate" to refer to uprooting human beings of whatever nationality from their established homes is political doublespeak and cannot equated with historical accuracy; it is a corruption of the basic meaning from RE and PATRIA.

So, that's you

Nice to see you - at last. I don't know why (should ask my mom, she's a psychologist-to-be), but it's always easier to talk to someone who has a face :) ...

As to the other pics you've sent me - I really love these guys who spend half a day at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (have you read the article?). One of my friends from Kiev once told me that he was disappointed with the way the soldiers in Poland look and that the guys at the Red Square in Moscow could march much, much better, but still.~.. Those pals stay there, at the holiest of all places in Poland, and they do it voluntarily. That's really something...

And about the way the Polish soldiers look - I really miss the days when the Polish soldiers used the pre-war uniforms. Nowadays there are some plans to restore the Polish uniforms of 1936, but (as always) the army is lacking money... Fortunately, the founder of the Polish GROM special unit was not only a soldier, but also a guy with some taste, and decided to introduce the 1936 uniforms in his newly-established unit. Hopefully some day the rest of the Polish Army will follow.

BTW, from my words you could draw the conclusion that I'm Kierkegaards' "aesthetic man". That's right... Halibutt 03:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sca, I really seriously contend that the city at the head of the Vistula was predominantly Polish in the period from 1466 to 1793. Or rather it was a part of a predominantly Polish state, where the Polish language was one of the two official languages of the state (German was not the other one). As I told you already, I don't give a darn about the languages and cultures of the local inhabitants, since I don't like applying 19th century standards to 15th century people. The only serious criterion for me is the name used by the monarch when referring to the place. If so, the name should be either in Polish or in Latin. Halibutt 22:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

To ask you in a similar way: do you really believe that the city of New York is predominantly English nowadays? If not, then why do we keep referring to it with its English name? Halibutt

Dear Sca, apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. In my comment the adjective "Polish" refers to the Polish State (Poland-Lithuania, the Crown of Poland, Kingdom of Poland - whatever), not to the 19th century concept of the Polish ethnicity. In this context Gdansk was as Polish as Cracow, Posna, Kiev or Smolensk. It does not mean that most of the inhabitants of the city were ethnic Poles with Polish ancestry and/or speaking Polish as their primary language. It does, however, mean that the city in question was a part of Poland which used the Polish language as one of two or three state languages (the other being Ruthenian and Latin).

As to the American example: perhaps whole New York City is not the best choice here, but there are zillions of other places in the US of A that are inhabitated mostly by immigrants: Cubans, Poles, Russians, Africans... As long as Misplaced Pages refers to those places with their official, English names (not used by the local inhabitants who speak Spanish, Polish or whatever other language) rather than by the names used by local inhabitants, I believe we should use this scheme for all other places in the world. Official languages and official names should be followed at all times, not only when someone finds it plausible. Otherwise we'd have double standards here. Of course, one day the name of the Green Point area of the NYC might be officially changed to Jackowo - and then we could change the WP naming of that place as well. But as for now, the name used by the locals is completely irrelevant and could be mentioned in the article, but not as the principal name.

BTW, thanks for the postcard, it arrived the day after my birthday, so I took it as a gift :) Could you send me your address as well so that I could reply?

--Regards, Halibutt 02:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, as mentioned previously, I just don't understand your logic. To my mind, a city is named what its inhabitants call it. Period.

Sigh.

Sca 23:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrzeszcz

Vgeshch. "g" pronounced as in "massage", "protege" and "beige". Easy! Good luck!Space Cadet 21:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You couldn't have picked an easier name, could you. :) In IPA it's . In "English approximation" it would be something like "Vzhehshch" (V zh eh sh ch - sounds separated). I prepared an .ogg key for you - check the Wrzeszcz article. Halibutt 22:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there is an exact translation of "yikes". It all depends on the context:

• yikes (like oh wow!) - świetne (lit. it's great)
• yikes (like gosh) - rany (lit. wounds, as in for the wounds of Christ), rety (slightly old-stylish, like whoopsie daisies)
• and many, many more... :)

Cheers, Halibutt 22:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Thanks for the compliments. It worked out rather well. Of course, in retrospect i would have done some things differently (e.g. not mention vandalism on the enforcement vote), but otherwise it looks good. Many thanks also to User:John Kenney and you for keeping up the discussion on the vote page! Also, the Biographies section was a great idea of yours. That's why i have named you and John also as organizers on Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig. I am currently preparing the text for the vote results, see User:Chris 73/Work#In preparation for the ending of the vote if you are interested. Comments are welcome.

About editing user pages - it has happened to me, too, especially if there is only a blank user page. Guess we have to live with that. Best regards -- Chris 73 Talk 04:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Poles in Vilnius

Regarding your question in Talk:Vilnius about 18% of Vilnius population being Poles (with over 70% being Lithuanian or Russian). Compare today's ethnic composition of the city with any of the pre-war censae. Vast majority of the people living in Vilnius today were migrating into the town in this or the previous generation. I'm not claiming that this is good or bad, it's just the fact implied by these figures. Now, what happened to Jewish and Polish population, that constituted over 90% before WW2 ? Wojsyl 06:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

More on that: together with some Lithuanian contributors we've came to a conclusion that the majority of the present 18%-strong Polish minority must've migrated to the city from the surrounding areas and other parts of the Soviet Union, along with members of other nationalities (there are even Ukrainians there nowadays). This is most probably tied to the general trend of depopulating villages and urbanisation of cities. More on that you can find in the Talk:Vilnius archives.

Also note that not all Poles were forced to leave the area and some of them effectively opposed it (the same happened with Germans in post-war Poland). After all many people believed that a war between East and West would start soon and that the city will once again be returned to Poland, so they ignored the NKVD and all the Soviet terror and simply decided to stay. Others were forced to adopt Soviet citizenship because they were speciallists and were needed by the Soviet industry or were inhabitants of pre-war Lithuania and as such were not subject to the "population exchange" (according to Polish estimates there were ca. 200.000 Poles in pre-war Lithuania, Lithuanian censae place that number at 20.000). Finally, the push to expell the Poles was much weaker in the countryside than in the city itself. That's why the Poles still constitute the majority in several communes to the south and east of the city itself. Many of them might've simply migrated to the city somne time in the 1950's or 1960's. Halibutt 10:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Polish plumber

I thought you might find this article funny. Halibutt 18:41, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Belated welcome back

I noticed today that you have returned to WP in the last few weeks after an absence of several months. Welcome back! Olessi 19:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

schopenhauer

should the "poland" in the infobox at schopenhauer be changed? --goethean ॐ 18:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that was sad. After all the talks we had you're accusing me of being a moron or some short-minded nationalist unconcious of history... that's not what I expected of you, Steven. And I must say I'm quite sorry for what you wrote. Halibutt 02:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, don't let your own fascination with Danzig's German culture fool you. I have yet to meet a Pole to believe that the Germans of Danzig or Stettin were not Germans in terms of ethnicity. Yet, you accused me of such stupidity just because I took part in a discussion of political ownership of the city at the time Schopenhauer was born. Watch out for your own phobias before you accuse others of spreading them... Halibutt 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A statement about Danzig

(This is a comment I left on User Molobo's page in response to his attempt to suggest that Danzig was "occupied" by Germany in 1939 and "liberated" by the Soviet Union in 1945.)

This is an absurd argument. The city was separated from Germany, of which it had been part, in a political act by the Western victors in World War I. It remained the same city, ethnically German. When Nazi Germany "occupied" Danzig in 1939, the justification given by the Nazi regime was of course that it was being returned to Germany -- which was true.

A vast majority of the ethnic-German residents of Danzig would have welcomed being returned to Germany whoever was in power in Germany. That it was Hitler and his criminal regime ultimately was to prove tragic for the Danzigers, who after this world war were to lose not only their political status but also their hometown itself. And of course, a fourth of them lost their lives.

Nazi Germany occupied Poland and many other places in Europe during the war, but it's ridiculous to say Germany "occupied" Danzig -- it reclaimed Danzig (for four years).

To argue that ethnically German Danzig was "liberated" by the Soviets, who kicked the Danzigers out and gave the city to Poland, is just total BS – unless it's your view that Danzig had been "occupied" since the 14th century by Germans, which would be a confession of hysterical Polish ultra-nationalism.

Tell me, Pan Molobo, do you also consider L'wow and Wilna to have been "liberated" by the Red Army in 1939?

In American English we have a humorous usage of "liberated." When someone steals something, he may jokingly say he has "liberated" it. This is exactly the sense in which Danzig was "liberated" in 1945, though in a violent and bloody manner.

Now just don't accuse me of being pro-Nazi. This is just basic logic. The Soviets in 1945 stole Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia from Germany and gave most of it to Poland to "compensate" Poland for their having stolen eastern Poland in 1939 in the deal with Hitler. The fact the it was Nazi Germany that started the war in the first place doesn't change the nature of what happened to the territories affected and the people living in them.

Sca 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "returned" territories

For anyone who's interested, I posted this statement on User Space Cadet's page regarding the Polish tendancy to refer to the Oder-Neisse territories as "returned territories."

It would be one thing if some province or provinces of Country A were occupied for a relatively short time by Country B, then returned to Country A, as was the case with Nazi Germany's occupation and (attempted) annexation of the so-called "Wartheland" in 1939. This area was indeed returned to Poland, only 5 years after it's detachment. Although the Nazis persecuted the Poles living there and expelled quite a number of them to what remained of Poland at the time (the so-called "Gouvernement General"), the area didn't lose its Polish character, and this act of geopolitical theft was not accepted internationally, as it was an act of aggression.

It's different when an area goes from one country or national group to another gradually over a long period of time in which the area develops in accordance with the later country or national group's culture and economy, and becomes thoroughly populated by the later nation. This was the case with the parts of Germany annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union at Stalin's insistence in 1945. They had been gradually Germanized over a period of centuries beginning in about 1250.

In the modern era, Germans from these areas contributed much to German culture and commerce. Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia were distinct regions of the German realm, and their loss was for Germany like an amputation of limbs from the body. I realize that this cataclysm was set in motion by German aggression and atrocities, but that does not change the fact that what happened to the Germans of this region was in every sense an act of ethnic cleansing, and the second-largest example of it in recorded history. This should not be ignored.

My analogy with the former Mexican states of the U.S. is not a perfect one – all analogies break down somewhere – but it does offer one notable parallel: When part of Mexico, this area was thinly populated; after it became part of the U.S., it developed quickly and within half a century was home to growing cities that became important to the U.S. economically and culturally. Today California is the most populous state in the U.S., with a population over 30 million. When it was Mexican, it had perhaps a few hundred thousand inhabitants.

In broad terms, development of a similar magnitude occurred in Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia during the centuries they were within the German "reach." Major German cities developed – Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, Königsberg – and before WWII the territories were home to about 10 million Germans. In relation to Germany's population, this was roughly comparable to the proportion of Americans who live in the ex-Mexican states today.

Space Cadet, please understand I am not suggesting the territories should be given back to Germany now or ever, nor do any Germans outside the lunatic fringe suggest that. I'm just saying that this whole episode was a very major geopolitical and ethnographic upheaval in recent times, and should be known along with all the other horrors of the WWII era.

Sca 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I thoight I explained that to you. Too bad you didn't listeb and concidered me a random example of a Polish anti-German nationalist. Perhaps one day you'll learn to listen to other people instead of listening to your own thoughts only. Hopefully. Halibutt 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Hello there. I'm currently going through a RfA process and thought you might want to cast your vote there. Especially that people already mentioned that I'm anti-Russian, anti-Polish and anti-everything, but nobody so far mentioned my anti-Germanness. Halibutt 06:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Holy Mother of God, did you read your comment on my talk page before posting it? I guess you should have...

1. I have not deleted your comment. I simply moved it to one of my archives, along with the rest of messages related to my failed RfA. (User:Halibutt/Archive10#Niewiarygodny). Sorry to dissappoint you, but I did not want to spend time on deleting anyone's comments, be it yours or of anyone else.
2. What was a rhetorical figure is a grave offence to you. I don't care if it was 60 or 60,000 years ago - a past is a past and I'm mostly interested in the present times and present outlook of those places - Gdańsk as well. As I told you a hundred times, the historical section, while important and interesting to me as a history fan, is no more important than the section on transportation or artistic life. Apparently for you every single mention of the city should look like this: Today Lechia Gdańsk (which until recently was a German city with German inhabitants) is playing against Pogoń Szczecin (which until recently was a German city with German inhabitants). Seems strange that you can't even stand a thought that someone might not share your passion for the German past of places in the world. Not to mention that you apparently can't treat people who are equally interested in the Polish past of certain places the same way you want to be treated. For you they are wrong no matter what and you are right. Indeed, I took part in the discussion on Gdańsk/Danzig issue and I'm really happy with my votes. And I did not cast my vote because the town used to belong to Germany or because the town had Germans living there, neither did I do so because the town is Polish now or because the town used to belong to Poland some zillion years ago (count the years if that pleases you). It's not important to me. It's as important as the fact that the locals wore bear skins in 10th century. Might be interesting, but still a part of the past. What is important is that I had a beer there and enjoyed the experience. I liked the city as I saw it last year and, while being there, I didn't think of the Germans, Poles, Teutons or Hindu. Nor did I think much of them when voting for calling the city with the name it was called by its rulers. Ethnicities are not as important to me as they are to you.
3. I indeed voted for calling the city with its official name in the period in question, as I still believe it's the easiest way to avoid endless quarrels on how to call cities in historical context. Similarily, I would vote for calling Lviv "Lemberg" for the period between Austrian annexation and creation of Galicia. And I would vote for calling New York with the name of New Amsterdam in historical context. Yes, now you can call me anti-Unitedstatesian, anti-Ukrainian and anti-Polish. However, contrary to what your Germanocentrism tells you, there was nothing pro- or anti-German in my vote. I simply stated my oppinion and I still believe it would be a better solution than having to discuss the ethnic and political pattern of every single redneck village in the world before we write a section on its history.
4. And your latest comments only assure me that what I wrote on your talk page is true. You can't stand a situation, when someone does not care about the Danzigers. For you the German past of Prussia or Pomerania is the axis of the universe, for me it's not. For you apparently people having their own mind on the naming issues are not entitled to their own views as they seem offensive to you. And the most funny part is that it was me to be called a nationalist... Halibutt 22:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

SCA's reply

Halibutt, I have NEVER suggested that articles about present-day events in Gdansk or any other ex-German, now-Polish places reference historical names unless such are relevant to the specific topic. For example, "Danzig" would be irrelevant to an article about the shipyard in Gdansk – UNLESS that article went into the entire history of the shipyard. Certainly, no article about Lodz should include whatever the spurious Nazi name was, because it was never generally known by that name.

On the other hand, "Frauenburg" is completely relevant to an article about Copernicus's work there, because that was Frombork's name when he lived there.

My main point all along has been that Poland in 1945-89 and many Poles (even today) have sought to conceal or obscure the true history of the ex-German areas of their country. My secondary point has been that some of these places were known to most of the world by their German names for a long time, which should be explained where RELEVANT. This is especially true of Danzig/Gdansk, given its unique history in the interwar period and internationally high profile politically.

I find all this important in an encyclopedia because, at the popular level in the U.S., the transformations of 1945-49 remain largely an untold story. It's important because it's part of the savagely inhumane story of WWII and its aftermath. The entire history should be known.

Now to my "obsession." The topic is fascinating, to me, because Prussia is the German Atlantis – a civilization, if you will, that has disappeared beneath the waves of history. I am reminded of the title of a German Jew's book about Königsberg: "Zeugnis zur Untergang Königsbergs," which in literal English is "Witness to the under-going of Königsberg." Prussia (and by extension German Silesia and Pomerania) has sunk out of sight, has "gone under." But, as is the case with the "Titanic," the "Bismarck" and the "Wilhelm Gustloff," not without a trace – as any visitor to certain parts of Poland, and Kaliningrad, will discover.

Beyond that, the story of the German "Catastrophe," as Friedrich Meinecke called it, should be important to every human being. It is the ultimate object lesson in the evils of nationalism, ethnocentrism, racism and despotism. And the territorial/ethnic results of Hitler's war should be an integral part of that story.

Is that reason enough for you?

Sca 20:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

I don't think we have met before on Misplaced Pages, but I thought I might introduce you to the reference desk - you might find helping out there quite rewarding. See you around! --HappyCamper 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you a Pole? :)

I thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo. Just search for your username. If you would like a 'honorable Pole' badge or something, I think you have just qualified ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ghirlandajo seems convinced you are a Pole :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)