Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:43, 19 January 2006

== Older discussion == This is getting ridiculous. I tried to compromise by letting HJ take it out of here and put it in Frauenburg. But it doesn't belong in both places, and I'm going to delete it from SOMEWHERE. -- Zoe

Cities often change their names. It doesn't make sense to have bits of information about those cities stored under each and every names. Instead the information belongs under the city's correct name, which is its current name. See for instance Danzig/Dansk, Thorn/Torun etc. AxelBoldt

I'm all for making Frauenburg a disambiguation page for the reasons i wrote at the beginning of the article. There are lots of Frauenburgs, some of which were arguably more important that modern Frombork at different times in European history. Frombork is actually a great way of differentiating the one Helga likes so much from the others. HK

Right now the Frombork page reads poorly, IMO. Instead of having Frombork listed solely at the beginning, and then repeated instances of "Frombork (Frauenburg)" as it is now, I feel the following would read better and be more consistent with other eastern European cities (Gdansk, Szczecin):

Intro: "Frombork (German: Frauenburg)." All references to the city in the article would be as Frombork, with the possible exception of the founding of the city. Olessi 18:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Monument clarification

I have two questions about the monument section:

1. "stone monument to people from East Prussia that drowned in the Vistula Lagoon during the exodus in 1945". What is the exodus being referred to here?
2. "a memorial honoring Boy Scouts and people who took part in Operation 1001 in the years 1966-1973,aimed at rebuilding the town from enourmous devastation made by German occupiers". I recommend that "German" be changed to "Nazi", as by the time the town was destroyed during the war, it had been part of East Prussia and Germany for a long time. In addition, the town had also been damaged by the Soviets, not just the Nazis. Something like "a memorial honoring Boy Scouts and people who took part in Operation 1001 in the years 1966-1973, aimed at rebuilding the town after its wartime devastation" sounds much less POV to me. Olessi 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm the town was occupied by German forces, I don't think it was occupied by NSDAP party. " In addition, the town had also been damaged by the Soviets" There isn't anything like that that on the monument.It was established in communist era so I doubt it was the intention of the makers. --Molobo 20:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC) --Molobo 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It just reads odd to me. "Occupation" doesn't seem like the right word to have been used on the monument. "Garrisoned" seems to be a better word, as the town was politically part of Germany during the war and had not been annexed in 1939. "devastation made by German occupiers" indicates in English to me that the town was occupied like Warszawa or Kraków. Could you translate the exact text on the monument for the article? Also, what is the exodus in 1945? Olessi 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This one, erected in 2001, reads: "450,000 ostpreussische Fluchtlinge flohen ueber Haff und Nehrung gejagt vom unerbittlichen Krieg. Viele ertranken, andere starben in Eis und Schnee. Ihr Opfer mahnt zu Verstaendigung und Frieden. Jan.-Febr. 1945". --Wojsyl 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another monument

Here is the photo of the memorial. It was erected in 1985, and the language of the times was certainly "liberating", not "conquering" the town by the Red Army. If you look at the photo closer, the plaque there reads: "CHWAŁA BOHATEROM ARMII CZERWONEJ POLEGŁYM W CZASIE WYZWALANIA FROMBORKA", which means "Glory to the heroes of the Red Army who fell while liberating Frombork". If the monument was erected today, this would of course be phrased differently, but I doubt if there are many monuments dedicated to Red Army being built in Central Europe these days. --Wojsyl 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What if the text is changed to say 'monument praising soldiers of the Red Army who fell while "liberating" Frombork in 1945' (or variations thereof)? Olessi 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care. I only wanted to explain (or excuse) the previous wording. In the Soviet parlance, they were "liberating" everything, including Poland in 1939 and Berlin in 1945. It could be also read as "liberating Germans from the Nazis", which was also politically correct, as if Nazis were some other, abstract nation. --Wojsyl 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Commie doublespeak

Here we go again. The town was not "occupied" by the Germans until 1945. It was part of Germany until 1945, like the rest of East Prussia.

Poland, and many other places in Europe, were indeed occupied during WWII by the Germans, who did terrible things that the world knows about. But the Germans did not "occupy" East Prussia, which was part of Germany and previously part of Prussia, and was inhabited by Germans. How many times do we have to fight this absurd battle for historical honesty?

The Red Army conquered East Prussia, including then-Frauenburg, in early 1945. The southern part of East Prussia was given by the Soviets, with the acquiescence of the Western Allies, to Poland under the terms of the Potsdam Accords in 1945. The German inhabitants – those who had not fled – were expelled in 1945-49 and replaced by Polish people, many of whom were former inhabitants of the eastern part of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union under terms of the Nazi-Soviet "Non-aggression" Pact of 1939 and subsequently retained, except for Bialystok, by the Soviets at Stalin's insistence in 1945.

The continual mendacious effort by certain Wikipedians to portray all this well -known history in the language of pre1989 Soviet and Polish propaganda does not reflect well on their intellectual honesty or their basic humanity. People who are expropriated and expelled from their homes, whether they are Polish, German, Bosnian or any other nationality – have been deprived of their human rights.

The Germans by and large know that the territorial changes of 1945 were not fundamentally Poland's idea, and that the whole process was set in motion by Nazi Germany's aggression and atrocities. But please, do not distort and cover up the history of what actually happened when the Nazis finally were defeated. It's part of the human record.

Sca 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it all of course would be true if this statement ...(it) was inhabited by Germans. was true for 100% of inhabitants of Warmia. But before the partitions there lived many Poles in Warmia. Majority of them was invited there by Copernicus. Warmia was originally a bishopric, and under the partitions both its Polish inhabitants and the Catholic church were persecuted. Even after over 100 years of partitions, and wide immigration of Germans, about 30% of Warmia’s inhabitants were Polish just before WWII. So you may say that Germans were expelled from their land with violation of human rights, and I may say that Poles and Catholic bishops were persecuted in their own land that they owned for centuries, and their human rights were violated by Germans. For them the German occupation ended with WWII.--SylwiaS | talk 23:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept most of that. I know there were Poles and/or Masurians living in East Prussia before WWII – mostly in southern East Prussia, known among Poles as Warmia. But overall, as you seem to realize, the majority of the population of prewar (and pre-Nazi) East Prussia was German, and these people – or those who remained after the German defeat in '45 – were forcibly expelled from their homes. Many died.

I know how unspeakably criminal the Nazi occupation regime in Poland was, and I understand that this had a long-term effect on Polish attitudes toward Germany and Germans. However, even though some Poles may not want to admit it, Germans are human beings, too.

I do very often get the impression that many Poles would like to pretend that the German territories Poland was given in '45 were Polish all along, and that Poland was merely "reclaiming" what was "rightfully" its own. This does not correspond to historical realities. In reality, the changes were part of a huge act of inhumane power politics, orchestrated by Comrade Stalin, that ignored the people on the ground – as was, of course, the German aggression in '39 AND the Nazi-Soviet Pact. It was ALL inhumane.

Sca 00:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am most disturbed by your inpolite and racist comments towards Poles Sca However, even though some Poles may not want to admit it, Germans are human beings, too. Such statements violate Misplaced Pages Civility Rule. I also would see it good if you would be kind enough to study history of Germany in regards to Polish-German relations a bit more as your statements I know how unspeakably criminal the Nazi occupation regime in Poland was, and I understand that this had a long-term effect on Polish attitudes toward Germany and Germans. indicate you don't posses the knowledge of long standing persecution and dehumanisation of Poles under Prussian and later German rule that started already in XVIII century... --Molobo 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Molobo: If your position is that all or nearly all Germans always were "bad," and all or nearly all Poles always were "good," thoughout the long centuries in which East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania and Danzig were part and parcel of the German realm (to use a general cultural term), then we have nothing to discuss. History is more complicated than that, just as individual human beings are more complex than that.

And by the way, I assume you are aware that Copernicus was one of those German speakers who lived in East Royal Prussia. Sca 22:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Which of course was a Polish province. What are you trying to prove with this, Sca ? --Wojsyl 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm using East Prussia in the modern sense -- exactly when the borders of the province as it existed in 1920-39 were established, I don't know – post-Napoleon?. My point was that what is now Frombork was part of prewar East Prussia and was inhabited by ethnic Germans, including – arguably, at least – the fabled Copernicus, who according to what I've read here on Wiki spoke German as his native tongue.

Language is the primary criterion of ethnicity in Europe, and the basic Western concept of "Polish" is Polish-speaking. Fortunately, the era of the ethnically defined nation-state as the ultimate human entity is passing in Europe – or in Western Europe, at least. Sca 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Language was not a primary criterion of ethnicity until 19th century, when the whole concept changed. But even if it was, does the fact that I can speak English make me British ? Copernicus only used German when he addressed German-speaking people. Otherwise he wrote in Latin, similarly to other people in Poland at that time. --Wojsyl 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It was inhumane, but you also should be aware that this was what people in Poland were told and children taught at schools for over 40 years. This is over 2 generations. You know what "Ziemie odzyskane" means literally, don't you ? Now when this monument in question was erected in 1985, it natually used the language of the communist Poland as that was the only official possibility. Hence the monument is dedicated to "liberators of Frombork" and not "conquerors of Frauenburg". That's all. Assume good faith. --Wojsyl 01:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with writing that Germans were expelled from the territories that are now part of Poland. But I think it’s crazy to do it with every small town that was once under Prussian partition. Frombork has just 2,500 inhabitants. No one would even hear about it if not for Copernicus. There are history articles on Wiki about those times and those territories. Writing in every single article the same story seems Sisyphean task. Soon we’ll start arguing about the percentages of population in every village. Also, how are we to determine which inhabitants or Royal Prussia considered themselves Germans and were happy with being attached to Kingdom of Prussia? Speaking German doesn’t make one German unless we define all people living in Austria and a part of Switzerland as Germans. However, I agree that the Germans who later immigrated to the territories from Germany were Germans. Only how are we going to determine when and if they became the majority. I think it’s enough to make universal statements in the article and focus on events specific to the town’s history. It was previously written that Frombork “joined Poland in 1945”. We don’t have to change it to “its German inhabitants were expelled…” etc. You didn’t object another sentence that says that “in 1772 the area came under the rule of the Kingdom of Prussia”. Then why do you object writing that Frombork joined Poland in 1945? Also, you remembered about Germans being expelled and replaced by Polish settlers, but you forgot to write that the Polish settlers were also expelled from their homes. And how do you know they were Poles? Maybe they were Ukrainians or Belarusians. How far are we going to go with things like that in every town/village article? We can simply add a link to the relevant article about German expellees in ‘See also’. And if you wish, the situation of specific groups of people in the territories may be developed in more general articles, like the article about Warmia. (Please, don’t mess Warmians with Masurians, they are different people). Once more, I don't have a problem with writing about Germans, but then to be fair we'll have to write about the situation of Poles in every place. The same paragraph will be attached to every article. Seems pointless to me. BTW Didn’t Churchill think the resettlements a great idea?--SylwiaS | talk 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article should therefore represent what happened to both ethnicities (German majority which was expelled at war's end, Polish minority frequently persecuted beforehand). Olessi 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's space for improvement in this article. --Wojsyl 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As to description-I added simple,factual text that is on table.That shouldn't be disputable.If somebody contests the inscription he should address proper authorities. --Molobo 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Years of partition

Hello Molobo. Why are you insistent on including the exact number of years of partition for each city (Frombork, Toruń)? "With the end of war Frombork was returned to Polish state after 173 years of Prussian and German rule resulting from forced dismemberment of Poland, and was resettled by Poles, many of whom had been expelled from the parts of eastern Poland annexed by the Soviet Union." reads very awkwardly in English, and your additions cover material already mentioned and wikilinked. Olessi 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a suggested rephrasing: "In the Potsdam Conference after the war, Frombork became part of Poland again 173 years after being forcefully partitioned away. It was resettled by Poles, many of whom had been expelled from the parts of eastern Poland annexed by the Soviet Union." Do you have any problems with that? Olessi 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you want the information changed that Frombork was returned to Poland after it was forcefully partitioned ? There is nothing incorrect in the information, and it details the history of the city. Can I know why you are concerned with mentioning how long was the period of being partitoned and returned to Poland ?--Molobo 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind the inclusion of the number of years, but I do mind redundancy in encyclopedia articles. The article clearly mentions the city was part of Polish Royal Prussia, clearly mentions the Partitions of Poland, and clearly mentions its return to Poland. I have offered a rephrasing (which includes the number of years). Olessi 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In case Partitions of Poland are already wikilinked in the article I do not link the sentence aboutg "from forced dismemberment of Poland" to Partitions of Poland and leave it as simple text. Don't worry.--Molobo 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

have offered a rephrasing (which includes the number of years). Polish again 173 years after being partitioned-I want to know the reader that it was forceful event and that is why I added the sentence about "forced". Since the word Partitions was already used in the text, and as you I don't like the redundancy I used the word dismemberment of Poland which is often used and doesn't repeat the same word over and over again. The period of years before those cities returned to Poland is important becuse it reflects how t long was the Polish struggle to reverse tragedy that fell on Polish state during the Partitions. The significence of such long relentless struggle is reflected in Polish culture. There is even a term and Polish series called "The longest war in modern Europe"(Najdłuższa Wojna Nowoczesnej Europy) about Polish struggle to regain independendce.So the significence of how long Poles had to fight for Poland to be restored is important. However of course such long information shouldn't find itself in relatively small articles. A small sentence about the number of years it took before the town or city was returned to Poland is enough I think.--Molobo 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the problem isn't historic as we see, then is it just the grammatic structure you want to be changed ?--Molobo 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added "forcefully" to the alternative above, although the mere act of political partitioning indicates force to me. While the history of Poland and its people is one of the most lamentable in human experience, it is important to differentiate between ethnically German cities (Königsberg), ethnically mixed cities (Frombork/Frauenburg), and ethnically Polish cities (Warsaw). Your phrasing and its explanation on my Talk Page suggest to me, an American with English as my native language, that Frombork is in a similar case as Gniezno, Warsaw, or Kraków, ethnically Polish cities whose populaces uniformly desired independence from foreign rule. It suggests to me the city of Frombork unceasingly desired to be part of Poland for 173 years. As the city had a mixed ethnic population, I don't think the situation was quite like that. While Prussian/German rule was certainly forced for cities with a clear Polish majority, I am opposed to blanket statements like "forced Prussian/German rule" for ethnically mixed cities. That indicates to me opposition to German rule would have been uniform, and I find that position untenable. Would Warsaw have welcomed Polish rule in 1900? Certainly. Would Frombork/Frauenburg have welcomed Polish rule in 1900? I don't believe an overwhelming majority of the population would have; on the contrary, it is my understanding that the city's population in 1900 would have preferred German to Polish rule.

So, I have no objection to including the actual years of partition, I think including "forcefully partitioned" is acceptable but gratuitous, and I think "forced Prussian/German rule" should only be used in cases where such a statement is clearcut. Olessi 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Olessi-In my sentence there is nothing about ethnic groups, I don't know the ethnic composition of Frombork. I am only giving information I know is correct. That is that city in question was taken by force from Poland by another state, and returned to Poland after x years. The question of ethnic groups I have avoided, since its a problematic matter-after all the final ethnic composition of city that was returned after x years of forced Prussian or German rule was changed due to forcefull taking over by Prussia and heavy Germanisation campaigns that aimed at making the region German in nature by settling ethnic Germans,changing names of the cities, persecuting people who wanted to remain Poles.Thus the issue is within a whole other aspect of the region that currently is beyond my ability to study and describe it.But as I mentioned before I am not writing about ethnic relations but simple political facts-that is the fact that the city of y was taken by Prussia in forcefull partitioning of Poland, and returned to Poland after x years.I am not writing whetever the local population which resulted from x years of foreign rule accepted it or not. If you know any facts about populations reactions to the city they lived in being restored to Poland, you are welcome to add this information and I will not oppose it.--Molobo 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in ethnic composition of territories returned to Poland after WW1: http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg

Be however noted that the figures from 1910 include German military personal.--Molobo 13:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that it is not the actual information I am concerned with, but the way of presenting it. I think the issue is how adjectives like "Polish" or "German" are used in English, as they can refer to both a political status (Lublin is a Polish city in the sense that it is within the state of Poland) and an ethnic status (Lublin is a Polish city in the sense that it is populated by people of the Polish ethnicity). It has been my experience that English users generally think of the second case when a phrase like "Lublin is a Polish city" is used. With that in mind, can you see how With the end of war Frombork became Polish again after 173 years of Prussian and German rule resulting from forced dismemberment of Poland suggests that Frombork was an ethnically Polish city when it was partitioned? And that it suggests the population unilaterally opposed German rule? I believe that such a phrasing is fine for places like the aforementioned Gniezno, Warsaw, or Kraków, but it's not 100% accurate for many places in Royal Prussia that had significant German minorities. I rephrased the proposed alternative above again, please let me know what objections you have to it. Olessi 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about : With the end of war Frombork was returned to Poland after 173 years of Prussian and German rule resulting from forced dismemberment of the country. --Molobo 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I asked for your objections to my compromise solution. Please tell me what problems you have with "In the Potsdam Conference after the war, Frombork became part of Poland again 173 years after being forcefully partitioned away. Olessi 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the discussion on your (Olessi and Molobo) talk pages, and it's difficult :-). (discussion has since been combined on to one page)

Anyway, as for me, I would have nothing against the proposed wording. --_Lysy 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Potsdam Conference is just one of many legal steps made in order for territories taken from Poland by Prussia to be returned to Poland(Poland according to it was only administrating the region), and a series of moves would have to be explained that finally led to acceptence of the return of former territories of Poland from German control among others.So I think a simple sentence about how situation changed will be enough, with the legal process that was made later being presented in other articles fully describing the issue.

So are they any problems with the solution I proposed ? It doesn't use the term Polish which you objected to. If you have objections towards Prussian as according to you such words may imply ethnic meaning we can change that to 173 years of being ruled by Prussia and Germany as a result of forced dismemberment of the country--Molobo 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be fairly indifferent to all this, but how about:

With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again after 173 years of being ruled by Prussia and Germany as a result of forced dismemberment of the country

Still, it seems unnecessarily long. It is fairly obvious that it was ruled by Prussia/Germany, do we need to mention it ? --_Lysy 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Germany is almost often combined in view as Prussia then perhaps 173 years of German rule as a result of forced dismemberment of the country will indeed shorten it. However we should leave who ruled over the territory before it was returned to Poland, as without it the sentence would seem akward(returned from who? what?).--Molobo 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Can we please move this discussion to the article's talk page ? It would be easier to follow, and I think you're both very close to mutually acceptable version now. --_Lysy 20:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

History = change

Excuse me for kibitzing, but I strongly disagree with Molobo's entire point of view on this. Molobo seems to believe that national boundaries are or should have been immutable over all the centuries of human existence. But as we know many nations and national/ethnic groups have changed their boundaries or in the latter case geographic loci over the centuries. These changes are part of history.

To argue that the former East Prussia (including then-Frauenburg) had only been "occupied" in some illegal or temporary sense by Prussia in all the centuries in which a) Germans lived there, and b) it was later part of the Prusso-German state is to argue that history never should have occurred. Again, East Prussia was not "occupied" by Germany before WWII, it was part of Germany and had been for a long time.

Pan Molobo sees to believe that the only boundaries of Poland that ever were legitimate were those that existed at their greatest extent centuries ago. This is to ignore history. And of course, if one goes back far enough in history, Poles didn't occupy Poland at all -- they were somewhere else, in some pre-Polish West-Slavic form, to the east. Over thousands of years, these things have changed.

Any way you look at it, Poland was physically shoved a couple hundred miles west in 1945, and Germans, Poles and others were made to move to conform to the new boundaries. Whether that was a good idea or not (I think it was not) is another topic. The fact is, this is what happened. Sca 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And what has your rant to do with the sentence I proposed ? Nothing really, or are you suggesting Poland was never partitioned ? Nobody used the word occupation or claimed they weren't any Germans in those cities. I really don't know what relevance to the proposed sentence your rant has at all.

And stop using "Pan" when addresing people from Poland, it is archaic, silly and looks akward.

Again, East Prussia was not "occupied" by Germany before WWII, it was part of Germany and had been for a long time.

Actually it was part of Germany since 1871 ;)--Molobo 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

173 years

How can we change this sentence:

With the end of war Frombork was returned to Poland after 173 years of German rule resulting from forced dismemberment of the country

so that it is easier acceptable to everyone ? I quite liked this one:

With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again 173 years after being forcefully partitioned away.

but Sca removed it in a somewhat arogant way :-( How about:

With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again, 173 years after having been forcefully partitioned away. ?

--_Lysy 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets wait till Olessi moves the discussion back here.--Molobo 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) <smal>(discussion has since been moved)

I like the last one. BTW Removing a whole sentence as Sca did, is not a minor change, is it?--SylwiaS | talk 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, this sentence now is not clear: With the end of war Frombork was returned to Poland after 173 years of being ruled by Prussia and Germany as a result of forced dismemberment of the country. It sounds as if Frombork's return to Poland was a result of forced dismemberment. I'm sure it's not what you meant.--SylwiaS | talk 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure I will change it. --Molobo 20:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I really think the last sentence proposed by Lysy is ok. It's already clear from the context of the paragraph that it was under Prussian/German rule.--SylwiaS | talk 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, Sylwia, this change should not have been marked as minor. Lysy's proposal is an improvement, although I'm still concerned.

I still don't see the necessity of including 173 years. Wiki users are capable of subtracting 1772 from 1945. I don't see how Frombork (or Grudziądz, Bydgoszcz, Toruń, etc.) is any different from other cities that have been under different rulers and have had different ethnicities (Vyborg, Vilnius, Lviv, Strasbourg, Turku, etc.). There have been numerous instances of border changes throughout history- should the years of separation of a city to a polity be listed for every region/locality in Misplaced Pages?

Information about the partition should be dealt with in the 18th century part of the history, and including "forcefully partitioned" sounds gratuitous- does anyone know of any political partitions that weren't forceful? I understand it might be interesting to see how long an ethnically Polish city like Warsaw was under foreign rule, but I don't find it necessary to be included for an ethnically mixed city. Listing the years under German rule since the partition suggests to me a Polish "claim" on the city. Frombork being part of the Kingdom of Poland in 1772 didn't give the (People's) Republic of Poland any "claim" to the land 173 years later. What gives the Republic of Poland a "claim" to Frombork is that the citizens there democratically want to be part of the Republic.

I think simplicity is best for an encyclopedia, which is why I support a simple NPOV statement like "With the end of the war Frombork became part of Poland again through the post-war treaties, although settlement was not finalized until 1990" (based on Molobo's comments at Gdańsk).

Working with Lysy's proposal of With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again, 173 years after having been forcefully partitioned away., I would at least remove "forcefully", as it is gratuitous. Olessi 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "forcefully" could go, as far as I'm concerned. --_Lysy 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, but... I really don't think that the origin of this statement is POV, only that it's a struggle to NPOV the statement about German expellees. Of course, those are all facts. Germans were expelled, Poland was forcefully partitioned. The problem with POV here is not lack of facts, only the manner of presenting them. We have two choices. One is writing the history of the town – joining Poland, partitions, wars, then Frombork’s return to Poland. (A short paragraph with several dates.) The other is writing the history of its inhabitants – living under Teutonic order rule, joining Poland at request, defending against Teutons, forced Germanization of Poles, German expellees etc. If we want to present the situation of the people, we should present it in its entirety. However, I still don't think that the second way is needed in the city's article at all. There are other articles that deal with it. I agree that there’s no need to repeat it everywhere. So I have no problem with the sentence: ‘’With the end of the war Frombork became part of Poland again through the post-war treaties, although settlement was not finalized until 1990’’ as long as there is no mentioning about German expellees. Otherwise the article is POV until we add the full history. Actually I think Sca should do it, since he’s the one who has the time for adding the history of inhabitants everywhere.--SylwiaS | talk 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good observations. Instead of subtracting information about German expellees, it is better to have information about the ethnic composition of the town before partitions (which Molobo and I do not have figures on), Germanization policies of Prussian/German governments (which is not to say the population was completely Polish when part of Royal Prussia), the removal of the German-speaking inhabitants in 1945, and the resettlement of the city by Poles who had themselves been expelled. However, I'm not sure why you nominated Sca to add such information. Why would you think he has the time to add the history of inhabitants everywhere? Olessi 05:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Frombork being part of the Kingdom of Poland in 1772 didn't give the (People's) Republic of Poland any "claim" to the land 173 years later Olessi nobody here is speaking about any rights.What we have here is simple statement of facts.After 173 years of Prussian and German rule, which resulted from Poland being partitioned by force, Frombork returned to Poland. Nowhere in that sentence is anything about rights to anything. --Molobo 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need to duplicate information. The article already states the date of partitioning, states it was ruled by Prussia, states it was ruled by Germany, and states it was ruled by Poland again. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "forcefully" could go, as far as I'm concerned. I must disagree.I experienced some people believing actually that Partitions faced no resistance. We shouldn't give such impression, and after there is nothing harmfull in mentioning this simple fact. --Molobo 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Including "forcefully" should therefore be done at the first mention of the Partitions in the 18th century section, not while discussing the city's situation 173 years later. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think simplicity is best for an encyclopedia, which is why I support a simple NPOV statement What is POV in saying that after 173 years the city returned to Poland ? 1-it doesn't speak anything at all about etnic composition. 2-it doesn't distort anything.The count of years is correct. What constitutes POV in this sentence ? --Molobo 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems POV to me when the length of time is included with phrasing like "forced Prussian/German rule". By itself, it is not POV. I will strike out the original instance, however. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

should the years of separation of a city to a polity be listed for every region/locality in Misplaced Pages? Nothing stops them if it is important.Years under rule from different country are important after all in many discussions.For example they served as basis for important decisions during the Gdańsk vote.Therefore adding a count of years during different periods of rule is nothing more then educational move to help if debates develop. --Molobo 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind if I therefore changed part of the article to read something like "Resulting from the First Partition of Poland Frombork came under the rule of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772, 306 years after its removal from the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order."? BTW, Molobo, could you leave your signature on the same line that your text ends on? Having your "-- ~~~~" on a separate line can make moving conversations more complicated than necessary. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• The proper wording should be :

" Frombork joined Poland in 1466 after several cities rebelled against Teutonic Knight's rule.After 306 years since breaking away from the Knights in 1772 it was forced back under the control of succesor state of the crusading order-Kingdom of Prussia. --Molobo 00:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the feeling that this is not the place for our discussion anyway. It should be explained in History of Warmia and History of Masuria but not the Frombork article. --_Lysy 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are probably correct. For the record I am fine with the phrasing at Piła: "After the war Piła was returned to Poland after 130 years of Prussian and German rule". Olessi 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Editorializing

For reasons previously stated, I view the statement, "At war's end, Frombork returned to Poland, 173 years after having been forcibly partitioned away," as misleading nationalistic editorializing.

• "Frombork" (known at the time as Frauenburg) did not somehow "return" on its own; it became part of Poland as a result of Stalin's decision to move Poland physcally westward after WWII was over.

• Whether Prussia's acqusition of the Ermland in 1772 was justified or not – which could be debated either way on religous, political and ethnic grounds – is not an issue that should be raised in an article on the modern town.

• Since Frauenburg in 1945 was inhabited overwhelmingly by Germans, the verb "returned" is misleading.

• What can be stated unequivocally about the town in 1945 is that previously it was part of Germany and in 1945 it became part of Poland, and previously it was inhabited by Germans and thereafter it was settled and inhabited by Poles. This is what happened.

Sca 20:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Frauenburg-known as Frombork before- did not somehow "came" to Prussia on its own, it was conquered during the Partitons as a result of decision by despotic rulers of Prussia,Austria and Russia, who feared democratic and reformed Poland.
• Whether Polands reunification with Warmia in 1945 was justified or not – which could be debated either way on religous, political and ethnic grounds – is not an issue that should be raised in an article on the modern town.

•What can be stated unequivocally about the town in 1945 is that previously it was part of Germany as a result of aggresive conquest, and in 1945 the results of those aggressions were ended by returning territories of Poland to Poland.

--Molobo 00:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your points and feel you have summed up my thoughts above in a more concise manner. As I have stated above I don't see the need to mention the number of years, but I am willing to accept phrasing (for Frombork and for related cities) like "After the war Frombork became part of Poland again after 173 years of Prussian and German rule", if it will avert revert wars. I still ultimately find it unnecessary, however, as readers should be able to read and subtract by themselves. Olessi 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Online Encarta, Columbia, and Britannica to see how they treat the subject, but none have articles on Frombork. It was not listed in my 1961 print version of Britannica either.

Here is how they discuss Chełmno: Encarta: no article. Columbia 2005: "It was founded by Teutonic Knights in 1231, passed to Poland in 1466, and was included in Prussia in 1772. It reverted to Poland in 1919." Britannica 2006: only has Chełmno extermination camp. Britannica 1961: "In 1772, at the first partition of Poland, it was annexed by Prussia and remained Prussian until Jan. 22, 1920, when it was restored to Poland."

Here is how they discuss Toruń: Encarta: "The treaties of 1411 and 1466 signed in the city placed the Teutonic Knights under Polish rule. In 1595 and 1645 religious synods were held in the city. The city was under German rule for most of the 19th century and during World War II (1939-1945), when it was called Thorn. From 1919 to 1939 Toruń was the capital of the Polish province of Pomorze." Columbia 2005: "The city passed to Prussia in 1793 and again in 1815, after its occupation by Napoleon I. It reverted to Poland in 1919." Britannica 2006 only has a preview for non-subscribers. Britannica 1961: "The town was seized by Prussia at the second partition, was returned to the grand duchy of Warszawa, and again granted, in 1815, to Prussia, in which it remained until 1918. Germany seized Torun in 1939; it was returned to Poland in 1945." Olessi 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While published encyclopedias are going to be more concise than the expansive WP, none of them use terminology similar to that desired by Molobo. Olessi 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem ? Is the count of years not correct ? No. Is the fact that Frombork was returned to Poland after Prussia conquered the city 1793 incorrect ? No. It seems nothing is wrong. I am afraid that this seems more the result of sentiment amongst some German contributors to territories that were in the past conquered by their ancestors. We should let such emotions guide us. Are articles on colonial conquests by the France in Algiers facing similiar problems btw ? --Molobo 00:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As I think this discussion seems to be going in circles, I have mentioned this article at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography. Hopefully we will be able to to gain some outside perspectives on the topic who can aid in providing a good compromise. Olessi 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it very strange that a single factual statement consisting simply of the count of years before territory was returned to Poland is being object of such protests.I asked time and time again for reasons and further excuses were made, with none dealing with why the simple statement is POV --Molobo 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sca and I have mentioned why we have concerns with the phrasing (correct me if I am wrong, Sca). We feel your desired phrasing suggests that even after 173 years the city should have been and would have wanted to remain Polish, but we feel that after 173 years it is impossible to make such an assumption; you have disagreed with that interpretation of the phrasing and do not feel it is an adequate reason to see the phrasing as POV. Lysy and Sylwia said they were fine with "With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again, 173 years after having been partitioned away." I suggested "After the war Frombork was returned to Poland after 173 years of Prussian and German rule", using the phrasing you used at Piła as a template. Lysy and Sylwia have not given any objections to such phrasing. In this edit you stated you were not satisfied with the current wording, inferring you would still want to change it in the future. Because we haven't been able to come to a phrasing that everyone would accept, I inquired at RFC if outside parties would have interest in providing their opinions on the phrasing.

I do not know about Sca, but I am willing to compromise with "After the war Frombork became part of Poland again after 173 years of Prussian and German rule" or "At war's end, Frombork returned to Poland, 173 years after having been partitioned away", with "forcibly" added at the first mention of the partitions. Would you be willing to accept those or similar proposals for Frombork and the other cities you added the number of years to? Olessi 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, both are fine. What's worth noting is that all the encyclopedias you've checked seem to agree that the cities "reverted", or were "returned" or "restored" to Poland. Just for the record, as this seemed to controversial sometimes as well (not in this article, though). --_Lysy 08:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

or "At war's end, Frombork returned to Poland, 173 years after having been partitioned away"

Such sentence is acceptable. --Molobo 12:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Honesty is the best policy

Yes, I'm sure that formulation is acceptable to those Polish nationalists who would like to obscure the reality of what happened in 1945. Once more: "Frombork" did not "return" like some long-lost dog coming home. Its population was evicted, and the town was assigned – along with a lot of other German territory – to Poland to make up for or "compensate" for Soviet annexation of eastern Poland.

This was the price Germany paid for having started the war, inflicted all the atrocities, and then lost the war. Whether it was justified or not can be debated. I'm sure Molobo would say it was justified, and many people, especially Poles, would agree with him. Obviously, many if not most Germans would not, and some other people would agree with the Germans, arguing that the German people affected were not primarily those who inflicted all the misery. But this debate is not the issue here or in any of the other debates we've had about formerly German places transferred to Poland in 1945, the prime example being Gdansk/Danzig.

The issue is: What actually happened in 1945 and thereafter? In this case, it was NOT that poor little Polish Frombork "returned" to Poland after 173 years of Prusso-German "rule," a term that implies illegitimacy. It was that Frauenburg – which had been ethnically German for centuries – was emptied out and turned over to Poland by the U.S.S.R. – along with 44,000 square miles of prewar German territory that until then was inhabited by Germans.

Dear Polish friends, truth is the only way to reconcilation. No one in his right mind expects Poland to give the territories back. Just be honest about how Poland acquired them 61 years ago.

Sca 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you fail to understand two facts:

1. The nature of the partitions of Poland. Poland was not "Prussian" for the 173 years, but occupied by its neighbours.
2. Poland was a multi-national, multi-ethnic state. Poland had citizens of Polish, Jewish, Lithuanian, German, Ruthenian, Ukrainian etc. ethnicity that coexisted in a single state. Similarly Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews coxisted in the country. Where you are confused is when you're thinking of historic Poland in terms of a nation-state.

--_Lysy 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Poland was indeed a multi-ethnic state in earlier times, and this is relevant to pre-1772 Frauenburg, but not to the town in 1945. The problem from the Western and English-speaking point of view is the apparent desire of many Poles today to write about history as if such places always were "Polish" in the modern, i.e. ethnic sense, or always wanted to be part of Poland politically.

Danzig is the most salient example. While it's true that old Danzig was politically aligned with and to a degree subservient to the Polish crown before the partitions, Danzig in the modern era was in no way Polish in orientation, and the people of the Free City of Danzig were firecely opposed to incorporation into post-1919 Poland. This was true of all the prewar German territories east of today's Oder-Neisse border. (If the results of the 1920 plebiscite in southern East Prussia / Masuria / Warmia are any indiciation, that was even true of this partly Polish-speaking region, which voted 92 percent for Germany.)

So, would you say that the ground, the soil, the dirt of, for example, Frauenburg, yearned to "return" to Poland in 1945? It's certain that Frauenburgers – those who survived – didn't. That's why all this "returned" and "recovered" rhetoric is misleading and mendacious.

Sca 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "returned" wording is primarily used to signify the continuity of the Polish state and does not mean that particular citizens of Gdanzig in 1945 longed to become citizens of Poland. I agree that this can be misleading, though. For the record - you are wrong in that "This was true of all the prewar German territories east of today's Oder-Neisse border" as it seems you meant WW1 when you wrote this. --_Lysy 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Frombork" did not "return" like some long-lost dog coming home. Its population was evicted, and the town was assigned – along with a lot of other German territory.

I must wonder. Do British make fuss about losing India or French about losing Algiers and need to return to their home also as much as Germans towards colonial possessions they won thru genocide and conquests of local population in Prussia  ? I am sorry to hear many people treated German conquests as home, but as you said truth is the only way to reconcilation. And the truth is that this regions were only German as a result of aggresive and genocidal policy resembling the worst cases of colonisation known to humanity. No one in his right mind expects Germans to deny that they lived there.Just be honest about how they acquired them.--Molobo 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

it was NOT that poor little Polish Frombork "returned" to Poland after 173 years of Prusso-German "rule," a term that implies illegitimacy. It was that Frauenburg – which had been ethnically German for centuries Centuries ? Hardly. Just 173 years.Even less if you take into account that German state was founded only in 1871. As part of Poland 306 years though. "Frombork" did not "return" like some long-lost dog coming home The territory was not Part of Poland before ? I am unconcerned with the fate of descendants of and German settlers as they are mentioned elswhere.

is the apparent desire of many Poles today to write about history as if such places always were "Polish" in the modern, i.e. ethnic sense, or always wanted to be part of Poland politically. Really ? Care to give a scholary source on this confirming your opinion ?

his was true of all the prewar German territories east of today's Oder-Neisse border. Oh revising history now ? Guess Poznan was just making an uprising to support German Emperor as some German user with appearent strange sense of humour tried to write in article about Poznan Uprising.

If the results of the 1920 plebiscite in southern East Prussia / Masuria / Warmia are any indiciation, that was even true of this partly Polish-speaking region, which voted 92 percent for Germany.) Of course the fact that Bolshevik armies were at the entrence of Warsaw and Polish state was in opinion of many to be destroyed in a few days, or the fact of election fraud by German officials or the fact that local Poles were terrorised by Germans has nothing to do with it at all. --Molobo 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just be honest about how Poland acquired them 61 years ago. When the Allies prevented mass extermination of Jewish and Slavic people aimed by German Reich in WW and Allied conference gave back territory Poland lost to Prussian expansionism. During this process the consequences of Teutonic's Order genocide and Prussian aggresion were reverted by transfering German population (the settlement of which was result of those actions) back to its original homeland in order to prevent possible future expansionistic wars by German state motiviated by Lebensraum and Drang nach Osten ideology found in German culture.--Molobo 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing Communist or rather Nationalist Propaganda in Poland and in Misplaced Pages

A number of people like Molobo constantly vandalize Misplaced Pages articles with mostly false and always highly POV entries. Contrasting that are Frauenburg was founded in Prussia, was continously in Prussia, later called Eastprussia and was conquered 1945. Frauenburg was never in Poland before 1945, when Soviet Union gave it into Polish administration, who expelled the native inhabitants and called it Frombork MG

The city was under the sovereignty of the Crown of Poland from 1466-1772. However, it was not part of an ethnic Polish state until 1945. Olessi 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing like "an ethnic Polish state" until 1945. Poland was historically a multi-ethic country :) --_Lysy 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the city was in the exempt imperial Fuerstbistum Prince-Bishopric of Erm(e)land/Warmia, also see Thirteen Years War for none-application of Second Treaty of Thorn, for unsettled conditions (before, during and after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and onesided attempt by Polish Crown, to illegally annex (parts of) Prussia. Neither pope nore emperor gave their ok, which was required to make the 1466 agreement legal. But all these articles in Misplaced Pages are continously flooded with massive Polish POV and therefore often very imprecise and confusing. However, it was not part of an ethnic Polish state until 1945 is a very good description. MG

What "emperor" ? Poland was not governed by an "emperor" but a king. --_Lysy 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it was not part of an ethnic Polish state until 1945. Polish ethnic state ? First time I hear of such political entity. Poland was a mulitethnical state during the time, so such classification is absurd. Neither is is such today, with various minorities that posses certain priviliages such as better election rights.In fact I don't think there is any country calling itself a "ethnic x state", is it ? Such classifications are not the matter for us, since the sentence at the advise of Olessi doesn't speak anything about ethnic relations-anyway they would be misleading-for example I could easly classify as German due to one generation ancestry and usage of German at home, yet I wouldn't want my town to become part of Germany. --Molobo 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Frauenburg was founded in Prussia Incorrect.The settlement was originally founded by tribes of Prussians who were exterminated by Teutonic Crusading Knights. It was a long way before state of Prussia was formed. --Molobo 21:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do widzenia

Molobo:

1. I did not include Poznan in "prewar German territories," since I was talking about Germany within the borders of 1919-37. However, let me remind you that the prewar president of Germany, von Hindenburg, was born in Poznan/Posen.

2. I don't care to argue further with you, since I don't find your views to be rational.

3. I pledge never to respond to another of your comments on Misplaced Pages. Go ahead, have the last word. Do widzenia.

Sca 23:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)