Talk:Polish Corridor

message: I think that the most common name in the English-speaking media in the 1930's was actually probably "Danzig corridor"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_Corridor_was_German_propaganda_idea
I added a terminology section. There I introduced the sources given in the discussion above. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should note that the term was most widely employed by the Nazi propaganda, and that Polish diplomacy preferred to avoid its use. Some refs: , ,  , , . Some interesting publications are listed here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't get me wrong. The term was used in Poland, and worldwide. But it seems that it was most important to and thus most widely used by German (later, Nazi) propaganda and diplomacy. As for why it was disliked by Polish diplomacy, I think Beck's quote is a sufficient ref. PS. Source question: p.319, beginning of the last para, should be highlighted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Note: the books at link no. 8 and at the first link in the comment above are available for preview only for US IPs.Baltaci (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about the Corridor being a "German propaganda idea" 

message: "It soon came into international use.[4][5][6][7][8]"
Which of the sources presented makes this claim ?--Molobo (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hartmut Boockmann, see also: Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_Corridor_was_German_propaganda_idea HerkusMonte (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: None of the sources provided seem to make that claim. If it will not be provided then they have to be removed as OR/Synthesis.--Molobo (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you show this quote ? And if so due to controversy it has to be marked that it comes from German historian.
--Molobo (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Since the subject is a matter of controversy, to present NPOV it is best to mark statements where they come from and not present them as objective statements.--Molobo (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research/Synthesis ? 

message: Major expansion of this article, it should take a day or so to complete so please have patience. Going to sleep for few hours. Will continue at morning.
--Molobo (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am making 

message: Poland refused to debate her new western borders
is sourced by:
Neal Pease, Poland, the United States, and the Stabilization of Europe, 1919-1933, Oxford University Press US, 1986, p.146, : Authorized by Jozef Pilsudski, the Polish envoy in the United States, Filipowicz, in 1931 pointed out to president Hoover that Poland would invade Germany if her provocations, that is the refusal to accept the post-war boundaries, would continue.
I am reading the book right now and there is no such text in it.
--Molobo (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The URL is . Skäpperöd (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: To present the Polish POV, I introduced a sentence: "Poland refused to debate her new western borders.Neal Pease, Poland, the United States, and the Stabilization of Europe, 1919-1933, Oxford University Press US, 1986, p.146, ISBN 0195040503: Authorized by Jozef Pilsudski, the Polish envoy in the United States, Filipowicz, in 1931 pointed out to president Hoover that Poland would invade Germany if her provocations, that is the refusal to accept the post-war boundaries, would continue. This ref of course only confirms the Polish POV for 1931. That's why I gave a short summary in the footnote text as cited above. The book gives additional information regarding the border issue and the Polish position that are not cited. Other refs are of course welcome, allegations not. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line is that you gave something completely different from the book and presented in a way that suggested it is a quote. Please don't do that again.--Molobo (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The bottom line is that the source does not cover the Polish POV of the whole period, which is indicated in the footnote as everyone can see from the quote I gave above, and which is not something "completely differnt". Skäpperöd (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer completely avoids the subject. You gave something that was not in the book, in a way that it suggested it was a quote. Such quote was not to found in the book. Please don't do such thing again.--Molobo (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False text alledgedly from source used. No such sentence in the book. 

message: Ludwig von Mises book "Omnipotent Government:The Rise of the Total State and Total War" is online here, please specify your reference (10). HerkusMonte (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludwig von Mises 

message: The Railway Crash caused some disputes between Germany and Poland in 1925 bundesarchiv.de, I'll try to find something more about it. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway Crash 

message: (copied from article:)"Gotthold Rode estimated 575,000. Polish authors note that a number of them were civil servants with no roots in the province and around 378,000, and this claim to lesser degree is confirmed by some German sources."
* The 575,000 estimate - for the corridor area or for Poland? Until 1923 or until when?
* Second sentence is not understandable at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Which part s of the paragraph starting with ""Restoration of old territorial border that existed prior to the First Partion of Poland" is a very misleading wartime opinion. The Feudal system under the empire made the Polish-Lithuania-Swedish- kings, many with Habsburg wifes..." is attributed to the source at the paragraphs end? Does the paragraph really reflect the source or the just the editor's oppinion? Could the editor please clarify? Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this bit for now - it seemed to be a result of two (or more) editors trying to argue their points in article space. I think a single-sentence summary of the situation - that the area in question had been under Polish sovereignty but effective Prussian rule - contains all we need to say here for the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History paragraph - clarification needed 

message: It needs to be sourced that ethnic composition was considered a reason for the creation of the corridor by the allies, else this paragraph will be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic reasons 

message: Some confuse Pomorze with Corridor-Corridor is in Pomorze but it is not the same thing, thus data is different.--Molobo (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Pomorze with Corridor  

message: 800,000 Germans had left Poland by 1923
For whole of Poland, Corridor or Pomerania ?
--Molobo (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number 

message: Will continue in the morning. Please have patience.--Molobo (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you restore the lead paragraph to something more like it was? The article is almost exclusively about the 1919-39 "Corridor", not the 1466-1772 one, and I don't believe the term "Polish Corridor" (or Gdańsk/Danzig Corridor) has ever been in widespread use to refer to the earlier territory - at least, nowhere near as widespread as its use to refer to the 20th-century one. The way the first paragraph is at the moment, readers are misled about both the topic of the article and the real-world use of the term. (Anyway, I'm off on holiday, so I wish everyone Wesołych Świąt, Fröhe Weihnachten and all other local equivalents, and see you all in the New Year!) --Kotniski (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the wishes. I am done for now, but I am sure to expand further. I corrected some things, removed too much focus on history that can be read in seperate subarticles, added additional sources. Removed some info that was not about the Corridor or not connected, sources that turned out to be unscholary but by "independent researcher", If you have any questions feel free to ask them, and best of wishes to you also. I will of course expand the article further, as I am much interested in German history towards Poles.--Molobo (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm updating the page 

message: Once again,we face a delicate matter were crucial points seem to be "forgotten" or with a lack of english sources. The forgotten part seems be the strong believe in Poland that they were able to win a war against Germany in 1939, which was one of the motives of polnish diplomacy resist any attempt to solve peacefully the matter (Cartier, v. Manstein, and nearly all serious historians credit these and even a cited pdf on the war crimes of the Wehrmacht says this). On the other hand, "The Prussian census of 1910 showed that there were 528,000 Poles (including West Slavic Kashubians, who had supported the Polish national lists in German elections" --- all 4 quotations are, strange, polish books... and we got: "n addition to the military personnel which was included in the population census, a number of German civil servants and merchants were introduced to the area, which influenced the population mix, according to Andrzej Chwalba" -- ouch, another ethic "claim" based on... polish books? Very STRANGE the LACK of ENGLISH books to support such important claims. Important, since it is the main claim of the polish right on those territories on the corridor, but well, this is wikipedia. PHWeberbauer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.161.6 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good poles and bad german, but rather just bad Nazis.radek (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Once again, the good poles and the bad germans 

message: which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, 
Why was this so important if the Corridor was lacking any modern port?--Npovshark (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Construction of Gdynia seaport was started in 1921 --Molobo (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: access to the sea

message: Regarding :File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg: the original sourcepage seems to have caption/description for this image, so how can we be sure anything? The accompanying text is not describing the picture as so much seems to be using the picture to illustrate it; "Błyskawicznie spadł nalot niemczyzny (liczby ilustruja % Niemców)" means "Advance of Germanization was quickly reversed (numbers show % of Germans)." The description found on Commons at the moment "Polish Progaganda resp. Anti-German Progaganda poster, stating that the percentage of Germans in the population of several former German cities had been reduced from majority in 1910 to single digit minority in 1931, as a result of the cities' transfer to the Polish Corridor by the Treaty of Versailles" seems very ORish. How do we know its really a Polish poster and not Nazi German propaganda? How do we know its from 1931? Why is it assumed its anti-German? I find Jacurek's caption "A 1931 poster of a Polish organization, showing the reversal of the German part of the population in selected cities of the area" better, but even for that I'd like to see a proof that this is "A 1931 poster of a Polish organization". Till this is found, I suggest using this instead: "A Polish language poster, showing the drop in German population in selected cities of the Polish Corridor area in the period 1910-1931". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be very difficult to proof an origin, year etc. of the poster..It could have been printed by some pre-war Polish Nationalists (I think it was) or as Piotrus suggested the Nazi Propaganda may have produced it. One thing I'm sure about is that the Commons description is biased, just written by somebody who wanted to be this way. I also like "A Polish language poster, showing the drop in German population in selected cities of the Polish Corridor area in the period 1910-1931". version better.--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree with all that is said here except for the possibility that it is a Nazi propoaganda poster. Most Germans are unfamiliar with the Polish city names, and a propaganda poster that must be translated and explained first just doesn't make sense. Agree with the proposed caption, I just had copied the caption as it was at commons. I'll ask the uploader for comments. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I find the "Polish language poster comparing the percentage of Germans in six cities which have been transferred from Germany to Poland in 1920, apparently according to the German census of 1910, and to the Polish census of 1931" suggestion acceptable, with minor rewording for style (I'd change "apparently" to "likely"). Perhaps you could expand the pitiful articles on historical German censuses? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish organization poster 

message: i propose deleting this sentence even though British and French politicians found the Corridor the most indefensible part and the one which most needed to be revised peacefully. or least find additional sources for this claim. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this should be sourced an if not removed.--Jacurek (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal 

message: The Free City of Danzig was placed under the protection of the League of Nations without consulting the local populace /without a plebiscite
Why was this sentence tagged with a "citation needed"? A plebiscite was only organized in  East Prussia, Upper Silesia and Northern Schleswig, I don't think this is disputed in any way. So what exactly is supposed to be sourced? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the facts are obvious to those who know something about it, but for some readers this article might be the first information ever about Danzig and the plebiscites. It is always better to have good sources, and if something is that obvious, that only makes it easier to find sources. I introduced one, a dispute here is completely unnecessary. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free City of Danzig 

message: The section on the establishment of the corridor should be renamed back to "Establishment of the corridor". The article is not about Poland becoming an independent state, though this is of course the background to the establishment of the corridor and already stated as such. The title of a section should reflect its content. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: What was established was the reborn Polish State, the area in question was simply part of Poland. That the Germans continued to call the area corridor doesn't change the fact that the corridor wasn't established nor it existed as a political or any other entity. Loosmark (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, "the Germans" did not "continue" to call this area "corridor". The term corridor was not in use before, simply because there was none. And other German geographical terms for this area, like "Westpreußen" and "Pomerellen" of course remained in use. The corridor had some very different features from the rest of the Second Polish Republic, and the establishment was not simply the "rebirth" of Poland, but the Allied desire to provide Poland an access to the sea. That is all sourced in the article. Also, the phrase of a "regain of independence" is in itself arguable. What was created after WWI was not a revival of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but a completely different republic. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For Polish people it was a great feeling to have their country again after centuries of German opression so yes it was like regaining independence again. The area in question was the Pomeranian Voivodeship and had exactly the same status as any other part of the country. Perhaps you can provide some reliable sources which state otherwise. Loosmark (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Support: The term "Corridor" was used already in March 1919 by the NYTimes, definitely not influenced by "the Germans" and became the common term in international usage of the 1920s/30s (see also Footnotes 5 and 7). As such the initial headline is just neutral and factual. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: There's no discrepancy. "Before" means obviously before it's creation in 1919. But maybe you could explain what you meant by "the Germans continued to call the area corridor" HerkusMonte (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Just to think about it: Why did Jozef Beck in a Sejm speech in 1939 argue the term corridor shouldn't be used (Fn 13)? Such an appeal would have been superfluous if it wouldn't have been used also in Poland. He addressed it to Sejm members, probably not influenced by "German propaganda". And do you really believe Germans used the New York Times in 1919 for their "propaganda"? HerkusMonte (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Establishment of the corridor" vs "Poland regains independence" 

message: ok in the spirit of trying to find a consensus acceptable for everybody how about a title for that section like the "corridor" becomes integral part of independent Poland? Loosmark (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: much too long for a headline. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Good idea, it sounds neutral and encyclopedic. Loosmark (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Not ideal but from my point of view the second one is acceptable. Loosmark (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise proposal 

message: A question about this gentlemen. Who is he and what are his credentials? Is he a  historian? He wrote In the eleventh century, they created an independent duchy, which is not provided by any other source. Let me just remind that questionable sources are subject to deletion. Tymek (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You refer to James Minahan, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000, p.375, . James Minahan  is writing for Greenwood Publishing Group , "a leading educational publisher", the book includes a foreword of Yale emeritus Doob , so peer review is guaranteed. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that anyone can be a freelance writer and independent researcher, as the page provided by you says. Still, what are his credentials? Tymek (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Minahan 

message: The source states that he was a member of the British Intelligence Bureau. Changed the text accordingly for accuracy.radek (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namier 

message: Why is it that Poland "subdues" and "conquers" but the Kingdom of Prussia "administers"? Maybe these should be flipped.radek (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  obvious POV 

message: Rather Pomorze.Xx236 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Korytarz polski" is the term referring to the Polish Corridor, which is distinctive in time period and area. "Pomorze" is a more general term, neither limited to the area nor to the time period in question. "Pomorze" in sensu stricto is Pomerelia, which not only includes the corridor, but also Gdanzig, and has had differently interpreted and variing frontiers over time. In sensu lato, "Pomorze" is the whole region of Pomerania, from the Vistula to the Recknitz. Thus, the term "Pomorze" should not be used as an equivalent/translation of "Polish Corridor". Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually Pomorze was the Polish name for that area between the wars, "Polish Corridor" is the term pushed extesively by Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine. Loosmark (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course "Pomorze" was a Polish name for the area at that time too, but not only at that time and not only for this area   . Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korytarz polski is used with quotation marks 

message: Ok, I've seen the reference to these individuals in this article.  The '300,000' refers to roughly that many people settled in Silesia, West Prussia and the Netze District. What most people don't realize is the devastation, and thus depopulation, to Silesia due to the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War.  According to the German Wiki, 500,000 Prussians died due to those two wars, while only 284,500 people were settled.  Granted, not all of the deaths were confined to Silesia or individuals from Silesia, nor were all of the settlers confined to Silesia, however its something one needs to take into context.  Rulers have long re-populated war-torn territories with people from other parts of their realms, or from neighboring realms.  Sometimes, such as in the French re-population of southern Alsace and indeed as in Silesia, it extends the territory of one ethno-linguistic group at the expense of another without the intent of eliminating one. I'd suggest removing that figure until one can find out how many were settled in Silesia, and how many were settled in the First Partition territories, given that there were only around 400,000 inhabitants in total in those territories in 1772.  Given the size of the 'settled' group compared with the population of the First Partition territories, one can draw false conclusions of how much of that territory 'became' German as a result of them. Prussia1231 (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fredrick II's '300,000' Settlers 

message: Lewis Bernstein Namier-he was born to Jewish family, not Polish one. Neither was he born in Poland but in Russian Empire. I understand that somebody found a mistake in a book, but that sometimes happens(for example I remember once a book being used to claim Kraków was part of Germany in Middle Ages). I suggest to editors not to restore this information. If somebody disputes this, a third opinion can be asked for.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Real" Poles aren’t Jewish and Jews aren’t “real” Poles? Honestly, I’m not going to discuss on that level. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Of course Jewish people can be Polish. Unfortunetely in this case it was impossible-Poland didn't exist at that time, and Namier wasn't a Polish citizen when Poland was rostered after WW1.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we follow that logic at Marie Curie or Henryk Sienkiewicz, who was actually born in the same town as Namier? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in both cases their citizenship is discussed-feel free to start discussion on them on their discussion pages, if you believe articles need changing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's your POV, not mine. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Bernstein Namier-an error 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I added request to provide source for the poster, since it now seems that it is unclear.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: Some parts of this article should be rewritten in a neutral language. 
According to Richard Blanke, an American historian of German descent ....
Is it really necessary to point put the descent of a historian? Burke is an American historian, who received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. The intention of this remark is obviously to discredit Blanke's publications because they do not suit certain people. What is this all about? Some people seem to promote a certain view of history that cannot be called neutral and balanced. Burke's book is really worth reading, it is not unbalanced and written in a very unemotional sober scientific language using a well-founded bibliography and original sources. One reason for the exodus of Germans was the quite rigorous treatment of unwanted national minorities by the newly established second Polish Republic which should not be played down and should be seen critically. --Furfur (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's still acceptable. But the article is slanted in many other ways towards a Polish Chauvinist point of view. It's also missing a lot. --105.8.2.26 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral point of view?

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. There are also neutrality concerns to be addressed (see above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: User talk:Volunteer_Marek keeps deleting the maps I wanted to add. What do other users think of it?
.
Der Eberswalder (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the fact that one is based on work of Nazi propagandist Walter Kuhn, who was involved in genocide and ethnic cleansing and the two others are from outdated 19th century sources likely influenced by prevalent atmosphere of nationalism at that era, I don't see them as valuable additions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Maps

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Polish Corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122132637/http://kki.net.pl:80/~museum/rozdz2,6.htm to http://www.kki.net.pl/~museum/rozdz2,6.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified