Talk:Oder–Neisse line/Archive 1

message: Do we need this section? I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to NPOV-ify it, and most of the info seems to me to belong to the Heimatvertriebene article. Jor 19:56, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Today and the future' section 

message: As a rationale to reverting changes made byUser:66.47.62.78 I'd like to point out:
*borders in Silesia were decided by Silesian Uprisings after plebiscite's results were deemed unapropriate by Poles (plebiscite were held during Polish-Soviet war, so many people decided to vote for safe Germany, and mainland Germans were permitted to vote, providing they were merely born on Silesia and moved to Mainland later),
*Silesia would be more appropriate discussion of those changes,
*Poznan is Polish teritorry. It is a capitol of Greater Poland region for Merlin's beard! Przepla 21:37, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical facts 

message: The plebiscite vote in that part of Silesia by Silesians was 4 to 7 for Germany. Period. Then agitators arrived from Poland and stirred the ethnic Polish Silesians up.
------------------
I have no idea what Merlin's beard is supposed to reference to.
: I don't deny that. Silesia was at that time very ethnically mixed. 4/7 vote means that 57% voted for Germany, while 43% for Poland. Close call, one would say. Now, imagine allegations about falsifications, refusing of postponing plebiscite until after Polish-Soviet war was concluded, etc. No wonder that Poles revolt. You stated that vote was 4 to 7 and yet Poland get the land. In fact vote was 4 to 7 then Poles revolt, and Leauge of Nations due to uprisings gave this land to Poland. If vote went the other way (i.e. 4 to 7 in favour of Poland), I believe that the Germans would revolt. With such strong ethnically mixed population problems are unavoidable. To add problems to that picture, some significant number at that time asked if they are Poles or German would answer: neither of them, they are Silesians. So whole situation was nobody-wins one. Neverthless, this is beyond scope of this article. for Merlin's beard is my way of saying for God's sake -- taken from Harry Potter I believe. Przepla 01:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I don't consider myself new, since I am here since summer, but natuarally this is a relative matter and I am personally using Internet since 1998 and consider all who does not use it for more than 3 years newbies too ;-). So I am already aware of intrisincs of Wikipedia and conflicts which occur. I don't know if I am refering to the same problem as you, but Wiki's conflicts indeed are much less common now, than last summer. Regarding using German and English in Polish schools, those two languages are indeed taught at every level of education. I myself speak only English, as I was too old to catch up with current trends in education. Regading Harry Potter, I shall respond with this quote from C.S. Lewis: When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. I am 26 years old, by the way. Regarding Polish-German relations, I must say they are thriving. Szczecin's University (where I've got my Masters Degree in Law, and Bachelors Degree in Physics) have very strong relations with Rostock's University. My entire year had a 2 weeks interniship there and some significant number are studying there. One of my friends is even doing her doctorate in Rostock. As you are anonymous, feel free to use my talk page to further communicate with me. Przepla 14:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I separately want to address historical issues mentioned by you. You should be aware, that Korfanty is Polish national hero, for securing possesion of some parts of Silesia. Poland was at time non-existant for over 180 years, and it was crucial to further existence of nation, to have some economically important areas of Silesia. (My data are stating 29% of area and 46% of population). Within that conflicts there was no good side and bad side. Both sides were equally wrong, and I'd call Korfanty's led violence a NPOV title. Przepla 14:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I might add, that it is said that land trade restrictions were negotiated in exchange for 12 years restriction in unlimited Polish labour in Germany. Przepla 14:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These restritions in labor migration are 7 years. In fact, land sale restritions are more complicated. It's at most 12 years. Some types of real estate are less restricted.Poszwa 16:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, for clearing this up. I knew that there was 12 years for something, but wasn't exactly sure for what. Przepla 18:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: "territories lost in September 1939 and previous wars":  "previous wars" ???  Previous wars such as in the 11th Century ??  Who keeps a score card of such events, such as a list of battles from the 11th Century ??  How many cases have been brought up in the World Court, in referencing Geneva protocols, etc., over issues from the 11th Century ????  Before attending to such matters maybe the champions of such ideas as, pay-back for an 11th Century event, should determine what level of great-grandparent they had in place at the time of the 11th Century.  Getting distressed over perceived mistreatment of a 18th level or so great-grandparent is a bit absurd.  BTW, 1st level greatgrandparents number 8, and the number is doubled with each preceding generation (example, 2nd level g-grandparents number 16, 3rd 32; 4th 64; 5th 128; 6th 256; 7th 512; 8th 1024; 9th 2048; 10th 4096; 11th 8912; 12th  16,384; 13th 32,768; 14th 65,536; 15th 131,072; 16th 262,144; 17th 524,288; 18th 1,048,576; etc.). It would appear that many Poles and Germans are related to one another. JJ 
---------------
I just came across this propaganda by the previous writer  ref.-itz 
I suppose the person that wrote about the Germanised Polish names would insist, that the German language words: Sitz, Blitz, Witz, Hitze are all Polish- of course- ??
F(a)ctually: S-itz
Place, location, seat = Sitz in German  (such as in seat of government, a place to sit, to sit down = setzen (G), I sit = ich sitze(G)
Old German Saxon sete
You might be interested to find out,that modern German language words,such as:
 
Sitz = (seat or location), 
Blitz= thunder, lightning, 
Witz = joke, 
Hitze= heat
  
were spelled in c.1400 as follows: 
*Hitze = hiczcze  
*Blitz = bliczcze, 
*Zeh   = cze,  engl. toe
*Zahn  = czan  engl. tooth
So much for the 'Polish' place names -itz
------------------------
To Poszwa and Przepla,
I had written a long 10 point answer, but I guess it was too long, it disappeared before I could push submit. Will answer again at some other time.
Just short. You are welcome to start an article on Korfanty and his times. Yes, it was a terrible time in Europe, dictated by outside forces and hopefully the united Europe can better than previously withstand agitators from within and without.
On Oder Neisse line. Americans, many, are only interested in propaganda, feel-good, fast(food), easy, simple, simplistic answers and especially war propagandas( Lets blow-em all up). Book stores are still full of rows after rows  of Nazi 'crimer fighter' books  and only maybe feature one book each on the larger states of Europe. Hopefully Wikipedia, despite all its flaws can educate people a litle more. So far Wikipedia is still full of slanted material, misstatements and attacks by groups. There are some  pretty good articles, as long as they are not about any controversal material. There are very nice wikipedians, but there are a whole bunch of roughies and ganging up is constantly going on. I basically have quit contributing because of the often hostile environment.
---------
To 66.47.62.78:
Actually, my version of the history is:
As a result of the Allies (including Poland) winning the war with Nazi Germany, Poland managed to take back the territories lost in September 1939 and also some of the territory that was lost in the previous wars (some of them very long ago, some of the land might have never been Polish, it doesn't matter much). However, the legal pre-war government in excile wanted the pre-1939 borders only. Stalin  decided the eastern part of Poland, east of Bug river would go to the Soviets and decided that to compensate the loss, Poland would get eastern part of defeated Germany. After the war, Poland had to accept the status quo. The (communist) government propaganda sold it to the Poles as a good deal as a return of the land lost long time ago. Poland, however, got a net loss of the territory, from 388,000 sq km to 312,000 sq km. The country was devastated and several million people got killed, many were displaced. I would say that despite "winning" the war, Poland lost more than Germany (although I won't argue about it). The displacement of the peaple was a tragic consequence of the war and the resulting change of the borders. 
Concerning Polish/German names of the towns. The problem is not yet solved. Both Slavs and Germans borrowed names from each other. We know that Slavs lived on the present Polish areas from 6th century. We don't know what was before. Vistula for example is probably a Celtic name. Some of the names are certainly older and borrowed from earlier tribes. There is, however, no doubt that Poles (or other Slavic tribes) lived in most (if not all) area of current Poland around 11th century. This includes areas east of Oder-Neisse line. Some of the Slavs lived also west of Oder-Neisse line (see Sorbs). 
After that, due to loss of control, intrest from Polish kings, (mostly peaceful) migration of Germans and influence of German culture, some of the area got German inhabitants, in some areas the population was virtually all German. Some of the cities were build by Germans and the land has undoubtly strong German character. Some were mixed with mostly local populations who was neither strictly Polish not German. For centuries there were little conflicts between all the nations. Some conflicts started with partition of Poland in late 18th century as Prussians got control over areas with Polish majority. The 19th century among other inventions brought nationalism. Second World war was hopefully the last act of the conflict.
Poszwa 14:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Well said, sir! Przepla 18:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Historical facts 

message: I applied the new look to the article. Please limit yourself to edits about the border. Expulsions should go to Expulsion of Germans after World War II.
Attrocities to the world war II attrocities. 
Seaman 14:59, 5 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version: only about the border line! 

message: I am going to add Polish reaction to expelee demands, espacially i am thinking about "Wprost" actions (in short, we will pay compensation as soon as Germans will pay for destruction of all Polish villages, recompensate for lost lifes of almost WHOLE intelligentsia etc). Anyone objects to that? 
Also, Polish governmetn position IIRC was that only German government can pay compensation, because it recognised Polish borders with any consequences of that.Szopen
I am against. The new concept of Oder-Neisse line is that it is exclusively about the borderline. The demands of Expellees and reactions, belonged to German expulsion after WW2. Seaman 13:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soon to be edits 

message: "this made the border effectively into existence." please fix it. i'd do it, but i have no idea what is intended. Kingturtle 05:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  this phrase makes no sense 

message: I think this should be merged with Revision of borders of Poland (1945). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I have tried to clean up the English a bit, given the controversy that erupts so easily on these pages, I feel I should explain some of the changes.
left 2 exclaves on the other, eastern side of Poland (Free City of Danzig and East Prussia).  
:I feel my edit is georgaphically justified, especially in relation to the 1919-1939 boarders.
(exactly 188 000 out 388 000 were to be annexed) 
:188 000 out 388 000 of what? It look might be people, but then people aren't annexed, only territories.
including extremely brutal occupation and evacuation of 800 000 remaining dwellers of ruins of Warsaw  
:As I understand adjectives such as "extremely" should be used sparingly on wikipedia, I think that "brutal" is sufficient. Concerning "occupation", it is again territories and ppl who are occupied, in any case they had been occupied since 1939.
The following aught to be changed:
The prequisite to the shift of Polish-German borders, were German annexations in 1939 that exceeded German borders from 1914 and the decision of Sovet Union to annex the Eastern half of Poland, already approved by Western Allies. 
:This could be written better. It doesn't make too much snese and the chronology is all over the place. (when is "already approved"? is looks like it means 1914, which in any case aught to be 1919.)
Due to recent events in occupied Poland, 
:When is recent? What are these events? It goes on to mention the Warsaw Uprising, but I dont see how that has in itself anything to do with a lack of opposition to the annexation (of the "recovered territories"). --BadSeed 09:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Line 

message: Witkacy, could you please summarise what are your issue wuth Bdell version and what would you want to change to be acceptable? Szopen 08:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: My reasons to revert to "my" (and other) versions are: Please read the documents of Potsdam Conference. Then you will understand that the Western Allies didn´t agree with Stalin to shift the western border of Poland to the Oder-Neisse-line. Because they didn´t agree, they shelved this problem for a peace conference in the future. Until then they just put East Germany under Polish administration. The transfer of Germans - the expulsion started quite long before Potsdam - was ordered in an "humane and orderly way" out of Poland (!) - not out of East Germany (the Potsdam Conference clearly acted on the background of Germany in the borders of 1937 - they knew what is Poland and what is Germany). Well the emphasis of "ordering" is on "humane and orderly". This is what is written in the Potsdam Protocol, nothing more.
Wikiferdi 14:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source them. Perhaps the relevant orginal documents can be put on Wikisource, like Potsdam_Agreement already is. If not, please give references for your claims. This is adressed to both concerned parties. I would guess eventually wew will end with a consensus like 'there is a dispute between those who clam (source) and those who claim (source)'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikiferdi is technically correct, but I would note that the practical difference between an agreement to extend the western border of Poland versus the western border of Polish administration was small, primarily because Poland was not considered an occupying power like France, UK, US, USSR.Bdell555 23:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.
Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:
"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."
Under item  VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write:
"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."
Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."
So keeping in mind this facts sincerely it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli. 
Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration. 
(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too.)
-- Wikiferdi 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potsdam Declaration 

message: :Originally Germany was to keep Szczecin/Stettin and the Poles were to get East Prussia with Kaliningrad/Königsberg, but after Stalin decided he needed Königsberg as a year round warm-water port, the Poles were given Szczecin/Stettin as compensation. The Poles also insisted on keeping Lwów/L'viv in Galicia, but Stalin refused and offered Lower Silesia with Wroclaw/Breslau instead. (Incidentally many people from Lwów were later moved to Wrocław and to Gdańsk).
This doesn't make sense as Lower Silesia was already given to Poland. Or am I wrong? Meursault2004 17:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breslau-Lwów trade 

message: Are there any references to american responsibility for the border changes?
This U.S. plan from 1944 seems to have the oder-neize border as a fact, se first paragraph.  
Proposed post surrender plan
Is it not possible that the border change was caused by two facts, or possibly three.
1. Stalin wanted to expand to the west, more territory for his people.
2. The west (U.S. G.B.) wanted to continue the policy begun with the Versailles treaty and its teritorial changes, namely to weaken their economic competitor Germany industrialy by removing her natural resources of coal and iron, as well as industrial centres.
Se also Morgenthau Plan
3. An overcrowded Poland wanted to exchange worthless and uninhabitable swampland for fertile German agricultural teritory and industrial centres. 
:Not really. Poland wanted to get some territories in the west, but fiercily refused (Polish government in exile) to treat it as compensation for lost territories in the east. Szopen 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Henry Stimson thought that Alsace and Lorraine were part of the 1919-1937 boundaries of Germany??  What school did he go to?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re "This U.S. plan from 1944 seems to have the oder-neize border as a fact, se first paragraph.": The rejected Morgenthau Plan (1st para, Proposed post surrender plan) was only a proposal (& even then only talked of Southern part of Silesia).   "Overcrowded Poland" ??? Where does that come from?  Compare area vs population stats of present BRD with Poland. JJ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American responsibility for the border change 

message: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_2_transcript.pdf
W.M.(43) 53rd Meeting. 13th April, 1943.
II. Foreign Secretary’s Account of his Mission to Washington.
*A.E.
 
Politial ques. Main point U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. President troubled - feels Litvinov’s posn in Moscow less influential than Maisky: also troubled about his Amb. in Moscow: wants send Davies back when well enough to go. They don’t tell R. as much as we do abt. day-to-day dipl. events. I suggested eg. U.S. Amb. Moscow shd. give them full a/c our talks.
USSR. Terr. claims. Reconciled to Baltic States - fait accompli. Wd. like plebiscite as conscience clause.
Polish frontier. If P. got E. Russia (East Prussia?)& something in E. Siberia (Eastern Silesia?), P. wd. well to accept the Curzon Line. 
Tactics: we, U.S. & R. shd. agree fair solution & get P. to accept it: better than letting negotns between R. & P to get into mess.
Finland: no anxiety: thought terms reasonable. But Welles nervous re want assistce. pact ? Protectorate. I said take this up with R.
Public feeling in U.S. twds R. No sentiment as here, but on whole not unreasonable, even in Rep. Party. “We shan’t be any worse off for havg. tried to come to terms with them.” Hoover line is difft. - wd. like closer relations between U.K. & U.S. in order to keep away fr. R.
Our attitude to R. - v. curious about it.
French: 
Hull loathes de G. & intrudes him into every conversation. Much complaint too about our failure to put U.S. view on French. I concentrated therefore on future. One diffce - U.S., even if G. & de G. come together, don’t want to see one central Fr. authy. - prefer to deal with several. I said we wd. like one, even tho’ we don’t recognise it as a Govt. All the others came out as Govts., wh. puts them in diff. posn. Diff. see why U.S. take this view - unless because want to internationalise some Fr. possessions. Even if we go into Fr., they don’t want a Fr. authy. to go in they wd. prefer us to take responsib. for civil adminn.: i.e. opposite view to that on wh. they act in N. Africa.
Pol. side of mil. opns. - agree gone ill in N. Africa. State Dpt. don’t have our close relns. with C.O.S. etc. Agreed shd. try to work out machinery for closer contact. Cd. we send out F.O. man to help Dill? - said we’d consider. Change mainly reqd. is on U.S. side.
Trend of U.S. opinion - away fr. isolation. My contacts confirmed view of Pres. etc. Welles hoped Senate wd. pass resoln soon givg. Pres. more latitude in pursuit of his policy. Pres. thinks this is best development - avoid Wilson’s separation fr. Senate until faced with Treaty. Bringing Congressme etc., into Conferences. Eve of my departure I was shown by 2 members of F.A. Cttee of Congress draft of such a resoln.
Basis of U.S. co-opn. World-wide basis essential - also China wd. have to come in:
a) U.S. hatred of Japan (not same feeling v. Hitler): 
b) fears of China lapsing into chaos. 
c) China as counterpoise to R. in Far East.
(Pro-China feeling helps him to bring on opinion favouring war v. Hitler) Elaborn of organ. cannot be left wholly to U.K. & U.S. This leads Pres. to play up U.N. on every occasion.
Form. 
(1) Genl. Assembly, covering all, mtg once or twice a year = Assembly of L/N.
(2) Adv. Council - 4 Govt. Powers (incl. China) & 6 or 8 others to be chosen prob. by Continents. v. near Council of L/N.
(3) Executive of 4 Gt. Powers exercising wide powers delegated by (2). Attached to this an offl. like Sec. Genl. of L/N. “Moderator” Authy. to communicate with (3) or (2) on issues requiring their attendce.
Talked to Welles re Council of Europe. He thought room for this Sub-Cttee of (2). Subjects to be discussed - wd. they deal with
155
pol. ques: he felt prob. not. See no special diffy. except (3): I believe most will have to be done by (2).
Germany. V. tough attitude. Welles vehemently in favour of dismemberment. 
They’ve gone into it v. carefully. (P.M. “Liberation of minor components”!) In our mil. occupn we shd. proceed jointly in each area (BA.R.). G. wd. be broken up in mil. occupn into areas approx. to eventual break-down into parts. Pres. agreed, less vehemently. Hull hadn’t made up his mind. I agreed tht. this solution shdn’t be excluded & we wd. consider details. Argument (Welles) - G. bound to have a grievance: therefore give her a good one. “Don’t maltreat your enemy by halves.” (P.M.)
Barvaria: N.Western: Prussia (less E. Prussia etc.): Ruler under internatt. supervision.
Austria sep. at first, tho’ later with Bavaria: Saxony.
*P.M. 
Centripetal tendency of G. will be strong. Poss. ??? in time to implement other ideas. E.g. Confedn. of Danube, as central European bloc. If Wurtemburg joined, it wd. be poss. To go easier with G. states wh. close to Vienna via Berlin.
Czechs. wd. like to join with Poland, if they made proper arrangement with R. If not, they wd. turn twds. Vienna.
----
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf
C.M. 18(45). 7th August, 1945.
Review of Foreign Affairs.
*E.B. 
Berlin Protocol.
a) C.F.M. Vital need = good Secretariat.
e) War Crimes: Agreemt. to be signed to-morrow. Hope trials
h) Balkans: Commn on oil equpmt: powers of B. & U.S. repns on
b) Reparations. R. removals v. drastic. On percentages – had to
yield to R. pressure, largely because U.S. willing to make
concessions.
c) German Fleet. Subs. – satisf. solution.
Merchant Fleet: 1/3rd subject to U.S.S.R. satisfying Polish
claims.
d) Koenigsberg: Final settlement reserved to Peace Settlement:
but will be fait accompli before then.
will go on.
U.S.’s anxieties about Hess.
f) Austria: no reparations agreed.
g) Poland W. Frontier: discussions with repns of P.P.G. Want to
talk with C/R. & B/T. – insist tht. Poles live up to undertakgs: then trade ?exch will open from that area.
C.C.’s must see this new formula is carried out.
i) Transfer of Populations. V. serious problems. Conduct of
D.P.’s.
j) Inland Waterways. R. reluctant to duscuss. U.S. & B. think it important. But R agreed to serve on I.T.O.
*P.M. 
Was there throughout. Not much done before our return. E.B. did v.
well at short notice inpickg. up unknown threads. Diffy –
whatever your ideas the facts keep moving on – e.g. Poland’s W.
Frontier.R. ideas of repns – same delusions as we had in 1918. Don’t care,either, what happens to W. Europe.Not done too badly.
*E.B. 
R. pressure tht. Ruhr be declared part of Germany.
Many ideas about that – considered on A.P.W. Cttee.
Now to be examined by C.F.M. We shall have to watch our
security.
*E.Sh. 
Moscow agreemt. tht. 8 yrs. 50 m. tons G. coal to be ready for export.
Shall have to raise that issue.
*P.M. 
Food & fuel for Berlin this winter. Surplus food areas & Silesian
mines both under R. control. Got nearer to agreemt. with R. on
this – thro’ decision to treat G. as economic whole.
*A.B. 
Brutal behaviour by Czechs. in clearing out Germans.
*P.M. 
Cdn’t do more than we did on this – askg. Govts. to hold their hands.
Stor stark7 13:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random U.K. war cabinet excerpts 

message: The article specifies that "an estimated one million ethnic Germans still reside in Silesia and Masuria."  According to the last census, conducted in 2002, there were approximately 150.000 persons identifying themselves as "ethnic Germans" in the territory of Poland.  See the Wikipedia page on German minority in Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_of_Poland  Also, the minority is present mainly in the Opole Voivodship in the southern part of the country.  Therefore I am changing the sentence to read "approximately 150.000 ethnic Germans still reside in Poland, mainly in the Opole Voivodship, with smaller presence in regions such as Silesia and Masuria."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.106.101 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of ethnic Germans living east of the Oder-Neisse line today 

message: I've added some links, They are from the EU history resource. I expect there is more to be found there, but I settled for the relevant documents where there are excerpts of the U.S. foreign minister and of Churchill's memoirs describing how they reasoned when the decision was made to move Poland west at the expence of Germany.
I also added a link to a page of a professor at the university of Hawaii who researches ethnic cleansing. The link goes to a chapter that deals with the border change and resulting expulsions. I've added it to the expulsions article, so it was touch and go if it belonged here too, but I'll leave it here for now and if someone minds then I guess it will disapear. Stor stark7 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: *Closing The Ring Winston Churchill; Excerpt on the Teheran conference, from his memoirs. en.
*Speaking Frankly James F. Byrnes; Excerpt on the Yalta conference, from his memoirs. en.
*Triumph and Tragedy Winston Churchill; Excerpt on the Yalta conference, from his memoirs. en.
*Churchill's statement to the House of Commons 27, February, 1945, Describing the outcome of Yalta. en.
*Statistics Of Poland's Democide Democide Addenda By R.J. Rummel. Describes the humanitarian consequences of the border changes, and some context.
::*Closing The Ring; In the Teheran conference Churchill suggests to Stalin that he can compensate Poland for the curzon line by giving Poland a slize of Germany. Stalin liked the Brittish proposal.
<Blockquote>
Eden said he did not know how much the Russians were going to eat. How much would they leave undigested? Stalin said the Russians did not want anything belonging to other people, although they might have a bite at Germany. Eden said that what Poland lost in the east she might gain in the west. Stalin replied that possibly she might, but he did not know. I (Churchill) then demonstrated with the help of three matches my idea of Poland moving westwards. This pleased Stalin, and on this note our group parted for the moment.
</Blockquote>
::*Speaking Frankly 
<Blockquote>
Closely related to the reparations issue was the problem of fixing Poland’s boundaries. President Roosevelt said, at the outset of the discussion, that the United States felt that Poland’s eastern boundary should generally follow the so-called Curzon Line. He still held, he said, the view he had expressed at Teheran that it would be desirable to adjust the southern end of the line so that the city of Lwow and at least a portion of the oil fields should be inside Polish territory.
</Blockquote>
<Blockquote>
"(Stalin) I prefer the war should continue a little longer although it costs us blood and to give Poland compensation in the west at the expense of the Germans," he continued. "I will maintain and I will ask all friends to support me in this. … I am in favor of extending the Polish western frontier to the Neisse River."
Mr. Churchill doubted the wisdom of extending the western boundary of Poland to the Neisse River. He agreed that Poland ‘s western boundary should be moved into what had been German territory but asserted "it would be a pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that he will die of indigestion." He estimated that the taking of territory in East Prussia as far west as the Oder would necessitate the moving of six million Germans.
Stalin protested that the number would be much smaller because "where our troops come in, the Germans run away."
</Blockquote>
::*Churchill's statement to the House of Commons 27, Februari, 1945 Churchill describes what he had agreed to at Yalta.
<Blockquote>
Moreover, the three Powers have now agreed that Poland shall receive substantial accessions of territory both in the North and in the West. In the North she will certainly receive, in the place of a precarious Corridor, the great city of Danzig, the greater part of East Prussia West and South of Koenigsberg and a long, wide sea front on the Baltic. In the West she will receive the important industrial province of Upper Silesia and, in addition, such other territories to the East of the Oder as it may be decided at the peace settlement to detach from Germany after the views of a broadly based Polish Government have been ascertained.
</Blockquote>
I don't really feel that this is entirely in line with the current version of the article.
Stor stark7 21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teheran and Yalta conferences 

message: According to one the paragraphs,
It was Stalin who first insisted that Poland's western frontier be extended to the Oder at the Tehran Conference in late 1943. The Americans, however, were not interested in discussing any border changes at that time. (US State Department, Foreign Relations of the US: The Conference at Cairo and Tehran 1943, "Tripartite Dinner Meeting, 28 Nov 1943" pp. 509-14). British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden wrote in his diary that "A difficulty is that the Americans are terrified of the subject which [Roosevelt advisor] Harry [Hopkins] called 'political dynamite' for their elections. But, as I told him, if we cannot get a solution, Polish-Russian relations six months from now, with Russian armies in Poland, will be infinitely worse and elections nearer." (Anthony Eden, The Reckoning (London, 1965) p. 427).
The bolded texts, for example, show the citations. But wouldn't it be better if you use the "reference" function to make that clearer, putting the sources at the bottom of this article? I'm doing this in the Chinese version - even though Chinese wikipedia doesn't have a good function for this purpose, I still try to list them at the bottom.--User:Fitzwilliam 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, this would be preferable. It is just that nobody has gotten around to it, yet...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of sources 

message: I'm not convinced by the unsourced map of "Poland as divided up among the sons of Bolesław the Wrymouthed". It looks too convenient to be anything other than Communist-era pro-Russian, anti-German propaganda. I've reverted this page again in order to attempt to bring some discussion to this talk page, I shan't do it again unilaterally. Colonel Mustard 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess I just harbor a great deal of suspicion and cynicism about medieval history. Good to confirm that a source is kosher, regardless, I guess. Colonel Mustard 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The map is actually used on German wiki also. Maybe it is, in some article somewhere, but certainly not in the German Oder-Neisse line article. Stor stark7 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the book is about Poland, and you know that I know that, since i provided a link to the front page of the book where it clearly states that the book is about the political history of Poland! I was refering an introductory chapter in the book detailing the early whereabouts of the Slavs (a chapter I pointed to with another link), which you obviously failed to understand, or chose to deliberately missinterpret. --Stor stark7 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Then that reason should be explicitly stated in conjunction with the map, as a justification for its presence in the article! --Stor stark7 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion should be read in conjunction with the paralell discussion in Talk:Curzon_Line#Map of ancient Polish borders --Stor stark7 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious map 

message: I propose the removal of the map of medieval Poland from the article altogether. 
Presently the map, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the creation of the Oder-Neisse border, tends to dominate the article.
The only justification of the map lies in  its connection with the Polish term “Recovered Territories”” to which the article already has links, and where the map also features prominently. There is no need to feature the map in this article also. --Stor stark7 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. No source given for the image anyway, uploader only tagged it with "public domain because its copyright has expired".  --Matthead 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. The same holds for the fabricated "Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet" map that should go. Ideally, the article should be illustrated by maps of Poland and Germany in their old (1939) and new (1945) borders. --Lysytalk 08:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Weak support. On one hand the commies used to portray the line as historically justified by the Piast borders, so the map is 100% relevant here. However, if that causes too much problems then go for it. //Halibutt 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe add a proper comment to the caption, then ? --Lysytalk 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are oversimplifying here, the German population would be expulsed regardless of the map. --Lysytalk 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and as far as I remember the map in question was created long before the polnish government expulsed anyone. In fact these were created before the Polish government was established at all. //Halibutt 01:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition of Removal of medieval Map 

message: In this article someones adhere to "In November 1990, after the annexation of the GDR..." - What nonsense! Could someone explain to me what is all this good for? Haven't you seen the pictures of the population of the GDR which freed themselves in a peaceful demonstration from the Communist regime? (Ronald Reagen called upon Gorbachev: Tear down this wall! - And actually this happened as no Sovjet tank restrained the German demonstrators as they climbed the Berlin wall and began to tear down that wall.
Wikiferdi 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annexation of GDR??? 

message: Can I add the  in this article. The line is boundary between Poland and Germany. -Pika ten10 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I...??? 

message: I've restored the famous quote by Churchill "it would be a pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that it got indigestion."http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=531"
It was deleted under the summary "expanded" by , so I'm assuming it was a simple mistaken deletion.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo, regarding your repeated deletion, now with the explanation "A proper place is Wikiquote, this is encyclopedia, too much tabloid like style". It sounds as if you object on aesthetic reasons, but rest assured that it is in fact encyclopedia material, the phrase is included in Britannica too . Just search for Polish goose. :Looking forward to hearing your next argument.--Stor stark7 Talk 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Famous Churchill quote 

message: I removed this portion of text from the WW2 section of the article as it seems to present a biased POV and may not be relevant to the subject of the article:
This Polish view conceals the fact that this [[Ethnic Cleansing] was only the 2nd Stage in long-term Polish plans of Annexation of German territory: Polish-German tensions between the two World wars had sharpened after Poland had forced, together with the Allies at the Versailles Treaty, over 1 Million German civilians into a most hostile, anti-german Polish state [2]. Out of these 1 Million Germans in German Posen-West Prussia (1921: 1.058.000), over 750.000 had escaped their Polish-occupied German homeland within only 5 years due to Polish harrassment and oppression. [3] [[Poland's] crucial and aggressive role in triggering World War II is usurally concealed in Allied versions of history and hardly known, however verifiable [4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.78.62 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and relevance issues 

message: I am afraid we need to discuss this here, because I am observing a small edit war on this question. Once again it is about Polish and German names of cities. It appears to be undisputed (so far) that name1 should be the German and name2 the Polish. (In case of L'viv one has to shift the languages eastwards, conversely to the border shift ;-) 
Surprisingly, casus belli this time is the little word now. Some arguments were already conveyed in the edit summaries. I would like to stimulate the parties to stop reverting whatever is the current version, but debate here until we agree on one version. I think, in this case it should be possible to achieve consensus, or at least toleration of one stable version. 
From my point of view: I do not care! Your arguments, please. Tomeasytalk 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name1 ('''now''' name2)? 

message: i reached this page following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Commission and pressing teritorial changes , i found it weird that only polish borders were included there since the aftermath of WW2 created over 100 changes in borders.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.168.47 (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  more