Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany

Polish bias

The article just reproduces the "recovered territories" -- NONSENSE. This article must present the German side of facts and opinions. --Tino Cannst (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected the inconsistent labelling on one of the thumb-insert maps. But otherwise, the article does not (to my mind) misrepresent the 'German side' at all. The classification of part of these lands as 'Recovered Territories' is clearly stated as a specifically Polish perspective. But that does not necessarily conflict with the current 'German' perspective; that as the resident populations of the eastern territories incorporated into the unified Germany of 1871 - including some parts which had been considered 'German lands' before that date - are not any longer national 'Germans'; then consequently the lands they inhabit can no longer be considered to be 'separated' parts of Germany. The Federal Republic has repeatedly maintained this since 1990; has amended its constitution to state this, and has successfully defended this view in cases before the Federal Constitutional Court. TomHennell (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The article appears to me to have been subjected to a large amount of censorship of simple facts - presumably because these are unwelcome to one pro-German-viewpoint editor. I would hope an independent editor with a good grasp of the subject could undo some of this nationalistic damage.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

'simple facts' are not really the currency of Wikipedia articles; rather the article should report current notable scholarly opinions. So if there is a stream of current historical scholarship on the history of how these territories first came to be included in a united Germany, and subsequently came to be excluded from a re-unified Germany, then that scholarship should be in the article. TomHennell (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Slightly strange that User:TomHennell feels that an encyclopaedia should not contain "simple facts"! However, looking further at this and related articles, it seems that the problem is the complicated distribution of information between those inter-related articles. The result is that it is difficult for the reader to find information that they may be looking for. Consider the question "where did the post WW2 population of the Former eastern territories of Germany come from?" Before recent edits[1] this information was in the article. After some research, it is clear that this is in Recovered Territories. However, this is not at all clear from the Former eastern territories of Germany article. Yes, there is a link to Recovered Territories in the lead, but the section "Expulsion of Germans and resettlement" directs the reader to Polish population transfers (1944–1946), which does not contain the information from the post-war census.

The disappointment is that whilst there is clearly a lot of material on these various related subjects on Wikipedia, it seems to require a large amount of determination for the reader to actually find it. I understand how this might arise, as the editors who work on these articles know them in every detail. My remarks are an attempt to provide a reader's eye view of this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair points ThoughtIdRetired. On the issue of 'simple facts' I am reflecting the standard guidance Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Wikipedia is intended as a source of current published scholarly opinions. In general, the current range of scholarship may be expected to assert the 'facts' somewhere amongst them; but it is scholarly notability of the published cited sources that is the key criterion for inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia; even where the opinions cited include material that you are confident is factually 'incorrect' or dubious.

I agree that there could well be better signposting from this article to the counterpart article on Recovered Territories (and vice versa); but the general principle that this article relates more to the history of these various territories before 1945, and the other to their history after 1945, appears sound to me. Once all national Germans had been removed from these territories, the subsequent chronicles of their people's circumstances and events has ceased to be 'German', so is not properly the subject of this article. Whereas the subsequent chronicles of national Germans expelled from these territories likely is. TomHennell (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some of my edits had been too rash, I apologize. But, I stress, these represented scholarly German views from current publications. It is important to note that on the history of the lands both current notable scholarly opinions from PL and DE have biases. And remember, that the Polish side has the bias of the status quo. There is deliberate and non-deliberate misrepresentation of history going on here. This is not about false or wrong but on which facts to tell and in which order. --Tino Cannst (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TomHennell: To walk through the Polish bias, let's start here, from the current sub-text on Pomerania:

The Pomeranian parts of the former eastern territories of Germany had been under Polish rule several times from the late 10th century on, when Mieszko I acquired at least significant parts of them. Mieszko's son Bolesław I established a bishopric in the Kołobrzeg area in 1000–1005/07, before the area was lost by Poland again to pagan Slavic tribes. Despite further attempts by Polish dukes to again control the Pomeranian tribes, this was only partly achieved by Bolesław III in several campaigns lasting from 1116 to 1121. Successful Christian missions ensued in 1124 and 1128

So what are these successful Christian missions? German history tells that in 1128 Otto von Bamberg, this time supported by the emperor and German prince, undertook his second missionary trip, which took him to the Lutizian settlement area west of the Oder (taken from DE version of History of Pomerania). Hence: Polish bias here by leaving out, just telling passively "ensued".

Moving on: however, by the time of Bolesław's death in 1138, most of West Pomerania (the Griffin-ruled areas) was no longer controlled by Poland.

Now, no longer controlled by Poland exactly means what? DE: History of Pomerania tells: German dukes tried to gain the land, and in 1180 Bogislaw I joined the feudal association of the Holy Roman Empire. Hence: Polish bias here by leaving out.

Moving on: The easternmost part of later Western/Farther Pomerania[Note 1] in the 13th century was part of Gdańsk Pomerania and was re-integrated with Poland, and later on, in the 14th and 15th centuries formed a duchy, whose rulers were vassals of the Jagiellonian-ruled Kingdom of Poland, before it was integrated with Western/Farther Pomerania. Over the following centuries the area was largely Germanized, although a Polish minority remained.

Now, why suddenly did the Germans pop up, a reader may ask? No previous talk on the previous actions of German dukes in the area who equally tried to gain the land. Germans are made to appear as outsider who suddenly appeared and for unknown reasons became dominating by "Germanization". No talk on dukes calling in the German-speakers. The region "was Germanized" is biased language, presenting Germanization as some kind of external force which it was not, not at the time (!!). "Germanization" was German immigration and assimilation back then. Hence: Polish bias here.

Moving on: An Duchy under the House of Griffin was constituted in the area.

An independent Duchy under the House of Griffin? No, it was fief of the HRR, i.e. the Germans. Hence: Polish bias here by leaving out.

Moving on: By the end of the Middle Ages, by influx of Germanic settlers, the introduction of German town law, the influence of Germanic customs and the trade of the Hanse the area has been heavily Germanized, except Gdansk Pomerania.'

Aha, finally some info on where the Germans came from, muddled up at this place - what are "Germanic settlers"?

The region of Pomerelia or Gdańsk Pomerania became part of the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights in 1308, after conflicts [...]returned to Poland after First World.

Not much objection to the history of Gdansk Pomerania, here, focus on the Polish side is appropriate for Gdansk Pomerania. But why has the focus now moved to Gdansk Pomerania? What happened to Western Pomerania? DE: History of Pomerania tells: Western Pomerania was occupied by Denmark and then permanently part of HRR/Germany from 1227. Fact missing. Hence: Polish bias here.

To sum up: The current text reflects much of what German scholars observe on the Polish historiography of the lands, I have dozens of citations for this: Actions from the Polish side are told, actions from the German side are kept out, and if they are told at all, German actions are told in the passive; political associations with Germany are just left out; then Germans are suddenly presented as outsiders who "Germanized" the land. The other sub-texts on the territories are similar. --Tino Cannst (talk)

Agree with Tino, too much bias on Polish aspect of history ignoring the greater weight of German history.--HQGG (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am puzzled as to how this article meets the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. This question arises because we see, on this talk page:
This article must present the German side of facts and opinions
and, in an edit summary
focus on the German viewpoint[2]
Both of these suggest an intention to step away from one of Wikipedia's 3 policies. I appreciate that there may be an argument that a related article features a different point of view, but that is totally invisible to the encyclopaedia user. Because the requirements of the reader must always be considered before the opinions of editors, the structure of 2 different articles to represent 2 sides to a story is surely not permissible. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these are against Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I apologize, I do stick to WP:NPOV. My points are presented above. The current text has Polish bias. I should have told: "Moving away from Polish bias" --Tino Cannst (talk)

Seeing the current exchange of edits (e.g.[3]) I wonder if Tino_Cannst has read this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tino, too much bias on Polish aspect of history ignoring the greater weight of German history.--HQGG (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey account with like a dozen edits. You're editing in violation of the 500/30 restriction imposed by the ArbCom. I won't bother linking it because I'm pretty sure you're already aware of it. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm an editor like you. Stop pushing Polish bias, German history is strong in this region.--HQGG (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Didn’t even ask what the 500/30 restriction was. WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This proposed merge discussion was closed by Invinciblewalnut (the proposer) at 17:53, 17 November 2021‎. -- PBS (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Request received to merge articles: Recovered Territories into Former eastern territories of Germany; dated: October 2021. Proposer's Rationale: While the former eastern German territories refer to more than just what is part of modern Poland (e.g. Kaliningrad/Königsburg), I believe the article on the now-Polish territories would be better as a section or part of this article. There is already substantial overlap between the articles anyhow, both in their content and presentation. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are two different terms and describing Polish territories as German would push POV advocating one of the claims, mainly that they were indeed German.Also would be incorrect as current Recovered Territories are still Polish.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposed merge, because a more approproiate article for a merge of the article Recovered Territories is Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. The latter, although a descriptive name, is one which native English speakers might search. While "Recovered Territories" is a translation from a Polish name and without inclusion of Polish in the artile title it is too generic in English -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • PBS Sounds resonable, shall I end the discussion and repropose the move with those parameters then? Invinciblewalnut (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think this is as "snow" close anyway. So use the the templates {{Discussion top}}, {{Discussion bottom}} to make it clear that this proposal is closed. Also remove the templates from article space. Then if you think that the other merge is more appropriate then initiate another merge proposal on the appropriate talk page (which is not this one).-- PBS (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per arguments above - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prejudicial

... to put it mildly. "former eastern territories of Germany"... That makes it sound like this is some overseas territory, Samoa or something. It distracts from the fact that this is indeed German territory since Roman Times, which was added to Germany as a political unit during the Middle Ages. The occupation by Poland was/is rather dubious... It gets it's appearance of legitimacy from Germans either being murdered, expelled or gaslighted in to silence. Articles like this really need to be cleansed from the twisted fantasies of Polish Chauvinists as well as Post-German historians for German descent. 105.0.3.191 (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)