Talk:Free City of Danzig

message: Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion
The English name of the city is Gdańsk so the English name of the political body is Free City of Gdańsk'
----
The English name of the city today is Gdańsk; the English name when it was a free city was Danzig. Ergo, Free City of Danzig is correct.
No English speakers referred to the city as Gdańsk before 1945. Nor did the inhabitants of Danzig. But the city of Danzig no longer exists – nor do its inhabitants, with a few exceptions (Cf. Günter Grass).
Sca 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free City of Danzig

message: For the current dicussions on the propoised standards 
plase also see also:
* Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(disputed_place_names)
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation
Mestwin of Gdansk 00:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non binding discussed proposal 

message: We've repeatedly had discussion over whether this article should be at Free City of Danzig or Free City of Gdansk.  The consensus was pretty strongly in favor of the former.  As such, it is extremely poor behavior to repeatedly revert to Free City of Gdansk without any discussion, especially since this amounts to a cut and paste move.  If you think it should be changed, feel free to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and suggest it, or discuss it here on the talk page.  I doubt you'll have much luck, but obviously you have every right to argue whatever position you want.  What you don't have the right to do is willfully ignore consensus and engage in a revert war in order to secure your preferred presentation.  Extremely poor behavior. john k 18:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shame on those trying to promote the name [[Free City of Gdansk]]

message: "One of the major tools of the program of mass expulsion were the so called Bolesław Bierut laws. The Bierut laws declared all mobile and immobile private property of ethnic Germans as Polish state property. Every inhabitant was only allowed to take a bag containing no more than 20 kg of private belongings, excluding watches, money and other goods of value. The Bierut laws also declared all crimes including rape and murder against Germans as legal.
[...]
Till today the Republic of Poland declines to prosecute these war crimes or to resturn stolen private property. Both crime complexes constitute a massive violation of the The Hague Landwar Convention (of 1907) which was signed by Poland in 1920."
This was added by Matthead. After removal, it was reverted back by Chris_73. The text above was taken from some German propaganda. Chris_73 is also known for many other controversial actions like removing information on Wehrmacht war crimes or renaming Polish cities names to German names. They both are from Germany. Unfortunately Chris_73 is an admnistrator, so there's nothing we, humble users, can do about the German pov articles. I know I'll be banned by Chris for this, but I had to get attention of English administrators.
(by User:Ak47K)
:The so called Bierut decrees issued on February 28 1945 with additional laws from March 6 1945, January 3 1946, and March 24 1946 declared all mobile and immobile private property of ethnic Germans as Polish state property. It is even mentioned on Bolesław Bierut, and described on Pursuit of Nazi collaborators#Poland. Maybe we should even have an article on Bierut decrees? I am not sure about the Hague Landwar Convention, probably every country in europe violated these during WW2, starting with Germany. However, removing the complete text related to the Bierut laws was not correct, hence I reverted you. BTW, the czech equivalent are the Beneš decrees-- Chris 73 | Talk 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the mentioning of the 20kg etc, since I could not find a reference. I also removed the Hague Landwar Convention sentence. According to the German Wiki article on the topic (which went through a lot of discussion on its talk page), crimes against Germans were also exempted, so I kept this sentence. Is this better for you? -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Hope this is OK with you -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bierut decrees 

message: *and it is estimated that more then 90 % percent of the pre-war population was killed or expulsed by Soviet and Polish troops on the end of the wa
Estimated by whom ? I want a credible researcher or comission with citations since it seems like German nationalist propaganda.
--Molobo 13:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: As of this moment, the article states, "In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local election in the city." This doesn't sound right. Typically, a party might win control with a certain number/percentage of seats in play, but a party does not win an election per se. The next sentence says, "they [the Nazis] received 57 percent of the vote," which suggests they won 57 percent of the seats in an unspecified body. What was the election in question? A city council? The Senate of Danzig (which is referenced in another article linking to this page)? The election details should be specified. The answer might be something like, "In May 1933, the Nazi Party took control of the Senate of Danzig in an election where it won 57 percent of the seats." However, not knowing the details and not having any reference books about this subject, I don't want to make the edit myself. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of this period and subject can edit accordingly. 207.69.137.207 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: at  several election results can be found. I'm wondering, in several elections 'Kommunistische Partei' is listed. Is that the KPD? In 1935 the result explicitly stated KPD. --Soman (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vagueness about the 1933 elections

message: Since this article currently covers two city states based around Gdansk, would it make sense to have two separate articles instead? As for article names, I suggest:
*Republic of Danzig - 1807-1815
*Free City of Danzig - 1920-1939
This article, in its current form, describes the 20th century state more than the one from the 19th. By splitting the article, both states can be given equal emphasis. - 52 Pickup 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, this is done in the Dutch Wikipedia: :nl:Vrije Stad Danzig (1807-1814) and :nl:Vrije Stad Danzig (1920-1939) - 52 Pickup 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I have created a separate article for the Napoleonic state. It can be found at Free City of Danzig (Napoleonic). - 52 Pickup 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: The article Government in exile mentions that there was a government in exile of the Free City of Danzig. But there is no indication of that in the article itself. Any clarifications? --Soman (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  exile government 

message: For Selbstschutz and Nazi organisation preparing to organise atrociites during Invasion of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added source on usage of Gdańsk as training center 

message: It is missing section here, but present at the Polish wikipedia article (there were de facto solutions only, federal government answer for parliamnetary question concerning current status of FDC can be helpful also: Antwort der Bundesregierung).Dotz Holiday (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indented line
oh god. ths beeing written by the "PDS" an party which is in Germany being monitored by the feds because of some of their tendencies against the constitution (Verfassungsfeindliche). 
this true that the former German territories including Danzig which were put under Polish control in 1945 were exactly that, put under their control not seceded to Poland. Poland being puppet by the Soviet Union used their powers to annex the territories. Now without deciding if this was right or wrong one should ask oneself thefollowing question: if somebody hit someone els, considered right by law to take away everything his family owns without compensation? And now consider yourself the person who for some reason be it right or wrong was the one which hit the other person....  
It should not be a question if one should revise the borders between Germany and Polandand if Polen should pay the victims and their families reimbursements. It should only be the question if it is morally right for Poland to finally admit to their actions and openly teach the truth in their classrooms that Poland annexed these territories. Of course most people voicing such opinions are unfortunately extremists and not people in their right mind. Luckily it is also the opinion of not just some Germans in their right mind but also of a small intellectual minority in Poland. at least there is to be hoped that one day both nations and their ethnic groups will not blame each other, but far more just admit to their past by saying: that's the way it was and is no more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.160.47 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Status after 1939 and after 1945 

message: ...inserted by an anon user.radek (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed nonsense... 

message: This: "Poland also protested the Free City's workers joining the International Labour Organization". The Wobblies (God bless'em) were a fairly radical labor union (banned in US for awhile I believe) so it's not surprising that a government or someone somewhere would object to them but it's unclear what is meant by "Poland protested" - the Polish government? The Polish workers? Additionally, was this significant or was it just opposition to radical labor typical of almost all European and North American governments of the time? The text tries to play this off as some kind of an ethnic conflict but in all probability it was a political one and it's not clear what parties exactly were involved.radek (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The International Labour Organization is not a Union or a radical political organisation, it's a branch of the United Nations/League of Nations and the question wasn't about single workers joining the ILO but about whether the Free City as an international subject is  allowed to join. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. The text was confusing. Thanks.radek (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear 

message: i'd politely ask HerkusMonte and the IP number 88.73.255.55 from Germany to discuss the changes before introducing a shocking number of 13 nationalistic POV edits like today. thanks. Loosmark (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the latest edits by the IP and User:Whatawho did not really improve the article, however I'm not sure why you adress the above to me. I tried to find a source for the ILO part and added it. I'd politely ask you to make clear whether you adress the term "nationalistic" to me.HerkusMonte (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry maybe i confused you with IP, but who removed this: Although the League of Nations courts decided in Poland's favor, arguing that, because of the Free City's economic status, its population could not join such organizations.? Loosmark (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "its population" to "it" (the city), because the ILO is not an organization to be joined by single persons or a group of individuals. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My appologies to you then, it was the IP who acted controversially. Loosmark (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please compare  the condition of the article as it stands now and how it stood after the edits of Radekcz, which all pertain to a Polish point of view by a) underplaying the binding agreements between Danzig and Poland, which without the native population's consent, divided duties in the city between Danzig authorities and Polish authorities b) making it look like the National Socialists of Germany had declared Danzig free when it was the Danzig government. c) Erasing the notice that the Danzigers did not want to be incorporated into Poland, which puts resistance to Poland in a different context rather than the one it exists in in Radekz's version of the text, where "German territorial revisionism" is the reason for Poland's actions. d) removing the mention that it was BOTH concern AND paranoia of German territorial revision that was most critical e) eliminating the note that the boycott of Danzig goods continued after Poland agreed to stop "promoting it" f) eliminating the Free City's opinion of the tariff war (just like the mention of the Free City's fear of Polish subversion was removed) g) eliminating the idea of fait accompli and the background as to what was going on when the Free City was declared part of Poland. I will not have my text be butchered and manipulated simply to serve as propaganda. Either we work together to share both points of views or I'm taking all of the text I added out. You can't simply call something "POV" because it shows the Free City view and "NPOV" when it shows Poland's point of view.--Whatawho (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? In case you have missed it, the Free City's politics were dominated by the Nazi party since the early 30's and wikipedia's NPOV can't be built by incorporating the Nazi view as some sort of balancing factor. Loosmark (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's right, I forgot: every view that does not support the holy sacred Polish view of the world is the "Nazi view", even if it doesn't come from Nazi sources, reflect a position held by the Nazis or have anything to do with the Free City's politics from 1933 onward. This article primarily focuses on what happened between 1920 and 1930, by the way. Seeing that you have worked on the embarassing, half-comprehensible and ridiculously POV article Bombing_of_Wieluń, and seeing how you called my edits "nationalist" for undoing a series of edits which transfered a balanced report into a biased piece of Polish propaganda, I would say the last sentence I wrote, on 1 Sept, is something you should think about, too...even if my comments were originally addressed to Radekcz--Whatawho (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "balanced report" as you comically call it was a far cry from being balanced. I'd also ask you to refrain yourself from ad hominem attacks against me. If you have any suggestions for the Bombing_of_Wieluń article, made them on the appropriate talk page. Loosmark (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: IP from Germany, I'd politely ask you to refrain from ad-hominem attacks like "your ridiculous polish propaganda POV" and similar. Also please avoid falsely acusing me of something I did not do - I did not call anybody a Nazi, I only said that the Free City's politics were controled by either right wing or later the Nazi party and as such their view can't be the ultimate base for wikipedia's NPOV.  Dr. Loosmark  20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest edits 

message: Principles underlying the status of the Free City of Danzig in constitutional and international law
Who added this? It was completely unsourced and full of fringe claims accusing Poland of "illegal occupation" and speaking of FCD as it was still in existance. I removed it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre section removed 

message: This edit  which created the Religion section really threw the balance of the article off. I'm thinking most of this is undue and too detailed for this article, though it would be fine in a spin off "Religion in the Free City of Danzig" or something like that. Additionally, the info is largely unsourced though a lot of it's detailed enough so that there probably are sources out there (there were/are a few gratuitous POV claims). I'm also going to hesitantly venture a hypothesis (which could be wrong) that some of this is a slightly cleaned up google-translation of some German source, at least in parts it reads like it. The one or two sources that are actually in there appear to be Primary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. This article might give a short overview about different religions in the FoD but details should be kept at the resp. main articles (Jewish Community of Danzig, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Gdańsk#history). HerkusMonte (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion section 

message: The last paragraph of the Lede was confusing. The first half of it was a single sentence that covered events around the Nazi party gaining control in 1933 and events after the start of World War II.
I am splitting it into two sentences based on the earlier revisions, but editing by those who know the history would be useful.
I didn't think the observation that the formation of the Reichsgau of Danzig-West Prussia occurred without the approval of Poland or the League of Nations belonged in the Lede. It's pretty obvious since it's a result of the invasion of Poland and it's not mentioned in the article (which the lede is meant to summarise) --Sailfish2 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph of Lede 

message: I deleted the bit about the polish POWs(?) from the post office being shot against international law, because
1) They were civilians and per international law at the time civilians taking up arms could be shot
2) The reference links to a pdf that references a verdict or rather a revision by the court in Lübeck which however was not due to illegality as such but because the penal code used to come to the verdict was not formally in power in Danzig before 19.11.1939. The verdict actually does not take a stance on the legal status of the polish defenders but only claims that they would have had to be jugded under Danzig law which did not include the death penalty.
3) As an extension of 1) the status of the post workers is not clear (or made clear) and as such we cannot say whether they were shot against international law.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.161.194 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shot against international law 

message: Could someone with access to the Henryk Stępniak source in the Population section please give some dates for the pop stats quoted Rsloch (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimates 

message: Re . First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself. Just because the other article says something that doesn't mean it belongs here as well. If anything, what it means, since it's uncited in the other article, is that the other article should be corrected. Second, I don't see any "without the League's permission" anywhere. So that part, at least at this point, is just original research. That's why I said it needs a citation.Volunteer Marek 03:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The need for a citation is not grounds for undoing. Wikipedia has a 'citation needed' tag for a reason.Rsloch (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "cn" should be used to be bring uncited material to editors attention. We're paying attention now. So is there a reference for this claim? Volunteer Marek 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Rsloch (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: If you feel that more context is needed then feel free to add it, if you think it is a minor incident explain why in talk, but don't just remove material because you don't like it. As you seemingly have no issues with the first part of my edit (the League allowing the garrison) why remove it?Rsloch (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things 

message: One of the reasons Wikipedia remains unacceptable in British academia is because of Polish nationalists like Marek who delete the facts and insert instead fantasies. It would be a mistake to think that these ridiculous pages all over Wikipedia which portray history as only Poles see it is not being laughed at. Polish 'history' books, fantasies in themselves, should not be permitted to be used on the English-language Wikipedia. 81.158.111.1 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish propaganda

message: It's rather strange that it is not mentioned with a single word in an otherwise rather detailed article, and this before even considering its rather important role as the immediate WWII trigger. How do editors propose to remedy this unacceptable state of affairs? walk victor falk talk 00:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "not single word" is hyperbolic. Actually the last 3-sentence paragraph in the sub(!)-section "German-Polish tensions" section is about that. But reading that, you'd think the events of the summer 1939 were just another Thursday of run-of-the-mill Polish-German bickering and not what was the immediate trigger of greatest war in human history. walk victor falk talk 17:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What also doesn't seem right is that nothing under Danzig Crisis is mentioned about the actual confrontation that took place. I don't know enough about the history to insert this myself, but I do remember reading that the semi-independent state of Danzig barricaded, fought, and held the German Army at bay for some time before surrendering under a white flag, and the German commander praised Danzig's General. I may have my facts mixed up, but I do think that a confrontation, even if it was not a violent conflict, took place, unless I am totally confusing this with another confrontation. Can someone comment on this, please??user_talk:Soco79   — Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Danzig Crisis

message: Minor note, naming all non-NSDAP parties as "Nazi opposition" is incorrect and actually a common mistake. DNVP was a nationalist, anti-semitic and anti-Polish party that supported and allied itself with the Nazis on more than one occasion. Catholic Centre Party often found itself in agreement with Nazis(while not officially allied) in regards to anti-Polish propaganda of Nazi Germany(it's is ironic but the Catholic Centre Party despite Poles being Catholics was often quite anti-Polish in its views).I have thus made necessary changes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: An attempt to play down and discredit the anti-Nazi opposition in Danzig, accompanied by deleting and grossly whitewashing the role of the Polish government. We are talking about Danzig and not Berlin, the Nazis won the absolute majority in 1933 and the oppositional parties soon faced violent suppression. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Nazi opposition is incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Free City of Danzig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214175104/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/partiii.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/partiii.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210072938/http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1925/1925.05.16_danzig.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1925/1925.05.16_danzig.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130209113525/http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1931/1931.12.11_danzig.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1931/1931.12.11_danzig.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130209135635/http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1930/1930.08.26_danzig.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1930/1930.08.26_danzig.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428123313/http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/01/05feature.html to http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/01/05feature.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the moment. section 2.1 is headed "Famous people born in the Free City of Danzig" and consists of a gallery of six photos of (currently) famous people from there. I've looked at a number of other entries in the category "People from the Free City of Danzig". Their various stories, their destinations and in some cases, their fates make for rather fuller and more illuminating reading. I've complied a list of about 30 people with citations and included photos of the six original people. I hope readers find the new list paints an interesting and historical picture of what happened to some of these people. 
ArbieP (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free City of Danzig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007112725/http://www.experiencepoland.com/gdanskhistory.html to http://www.experiencepoland.com/gdanskhistory.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is so much information upon this page which is factually incorrect and Polish and even communist propaganda. The page is supposed to be specifically about the Free City of Danzig. And that is what it should be about, commencing in 1919. The dressed up history by Polish nationalists before 1919 and after 1945 is irrelevant here as it is nothing to do with the Free State. Such "history" belongs on a general Danzig page. Thanks. 86.159.16.115 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The map included at the top of the page is incorrect. It refers to Weimar Republic (or Nazi Germany) as "German Empire"
Charlesthe50th, supporting monarchy to the ends of the earth. 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It should read "Germany" on the map. Both Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany were called Deutches Reich ("German Realm"). Reich is often mistranslated as "empire". The word for empire in German is Kaiserreich. Justass can you make this alteration?  --IACOBVS (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: "In 1938, the Free City's population of 410,000 was 98% German, 1% Polish and 1% other.[11][13][14] Historical estimates put the proportion of Danzig Poles between at between 10 and 13%.[15][13] In the 1920s and 1930s, the Polish population increased, and the proportion of Poles in the population of the Free City was estimated at around 20% in 1939.[16][10]"
How is it possible that in 1938 the Poles were 1% and in 1939 they were 20%? Can someone check these sources maybe? Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Population