Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rename or merge

Considering the term 'Historical Eastern Germany' is not used in English literature ([1]) or academic literature ([2]), and normal Google gives just about 600 hits, majority of them wiki and it's mirrors ([3])I think this article should be renamed, and possibly merged as discussed here. In addition, consider that de:Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches which is linked as the 'de' version of this article itself links and is linked to Recovered Territories and pl:Ziemie Odzyskane. I am not sure about nl:Voormalige gebieden van het Duitse Rijk in het oosten but although it links to this article, it also links to the Oste... on de and Ziemie... on pl; meaning that this article very likely has no equivalent on any other wiki. I'd strongly suggest merger, and at the very least, renaming into a non-OR heading.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This refers to a specific German political concept, just as recovered territories refers to a polish one. just because the German wiki links to recovered territories doesn't mean it is correct, for all we know that linking could have been done by a Molobo-like POV pushing character. It does not mean it should be merged, only that that link should be fixed. BTW, not everything is on google books.--Jadger 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If something is not on Google Books or Scholar, it seems like like WP:NOR violation. RT has quite a few hits ([4], [5].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

not everything is on the internet, you can't possibly claim it is original research just because you used a search engine and didn't find anything. What you are doing is actually called no research at all. and historical eastern Germany is a different form of the name that was used in West Germany in its early years "East German territory under foreign administration".--Jadger 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, go and read WP:NOR. This title fails all tests, this it is original title invented by the creator of this article; and such, it should be renamed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true that this article and Recovered Territories talk about the same area, although from different points of view, once as part of the history of Poland, once as part of the history of Germany. It is more of a context fork than a POV fork. I don't quite see how the articles can be merged other than by a complete rewrite. If this article needs to be renamed, "Former German territories east of the Oder-Neiße line" is correct and gets Google hits. "Former German territories" is a bit less exact, as it can include the former German colonies. Kusma (討論) 16:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support rename, as this term would be less POVed. On the other hand, 'Regained Territories' is POVed too - but at least it's academicly accepted POV, not OR wiki POV like this one. On the other hand, I think the best idea would be to merge this into RT, and instead of having a pro-Polish and pro-German POV forks we would have a single article. Would that seem acceptable?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the merged article is at a title that sounds to German ears like Polish 1940s propaganda ("Regained Territories" does), I do not think this is acceptable and certainly will increase, not decrease the usual edit warring. (Note that the academic works using this term stress that this is the Polish term). I can't think of a completely neutral title that would not be original research other than "Pomerania, Silesia, East Prussia and Gdańzig" or something like that. Another problem is the slightly different scope: not all former German territories east of the Oder-Neiße line were "regained" by Poland, a part of it was "regained"/"annexed"/"occupied" (choose your favorite POV here) by Russia. The German context for the article is that of expulsion, the Polish context that of ancient Polish history and the loss of the Kresy. I do not quite know hoe to merge all this into a coherent article. Kusma (討論) 07:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. In the light of your comments about Kaliningrad Oblast raised below, what about this solution: keep this article as a separate one, but rename it to Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. Recovered Territories would be a subarticle of that article and the Territorial changes of Poland after World War II discussing the Polish-German issue in more detail; while the 'territorial changes' would be free to mention stuff unrelated to Poland and Germany (from Kaliningrad to Kresy).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That title also means a rescoping of this article. I suggest to just use Former German Eastern territories, which at least gets a couple of Gb-hits. Kusma (討論) 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)\

To throw another suggestion out there, why not just merge everything into Oder-Neisse line? Olessi 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for title of new merged article

I agree with User:Kusma.

I think that there MUST be a merge but not from Historical Eastern Germany to Regained Territories or vice versa. Both titles are POV (one German POV, the other Polish POV). I would suggest something more neutral like History of territorial disputes between Germany and Poland.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the topic here should also mention the history of Kaliningrad Oblast, which is not a Polish-German territorial change or territorial dispute. Kusma (討論) 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma I do not quite know hoe[sic] to merge all this into a coherent article. I do not how it could be done at all, that is why I am opposed to it, the two articles should link to each other like see also but they are totally different things. We can't really call it "territorial disputes" as it wasnt just limited to land but peoples also. If they must be connected into one article I know of no suitable title, but I think they should be placed separately on the same page, without melding the two together except on points they may agree upon.

--Jadger 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And to add to the difficulty, consider the article Ethnic German which has a substantial section on the history of Historical Eastern Germany.

I think I dislike the title Historical Eastern Germany because it smacks of a POV claim that these territories were always "historically" German and therefore belong in a German state (i.e. Hitler's claim). TIf we include the Kaliningrad Oblast in Historical Eastern Germany, do we suggest that Kaliningrad always was and should be part of Germany? Or do we simply mean that it was part of Germany once but isn't part of Germany any more without opining as to what "should have happened in the past" or what "should happen in the future"?

How about renaming the article to a title like History of German settlement in Eastern Europe? I would be comfortable with leaving Recovered Territories and Ethnic German in place and then linking all three articles together in appropriate places.

--Richard 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I find Kusma's proposal above (Former German Eastern territories) shortest and best of all proposed, allthough History of German settlement in Eastern Europe is also usable - perhaps even more neutral, if longer. Would there be any objections to renaming the article to that?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear which article you are proposing to rename the article to. Looks like you are proposing Former German Eastern territories. I feel pretty strongly that the title should NOT be Former German Eastern territories. For one thing, the word order sounds awkward to the ear of a native English speaker. If anything, the title would be Former German territories in Eastern Europe

More importantly, because there is just a hint of arguing that the territories were once German and therefore should be part of Germany again. I think this would be considered inflammatory by some Polish and Czech editors. I prefer my proposal History of German settlement in Eastern Europe because no one can dispute that the settlers were Germans who settled in Eastern Europe. End of story. No POV so no argument. (Well, one can always hope!) --Richard 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Richard, this would be most neutral. Not denying the fact of German settlement and not advocating any should/should_not be German arguments. Also in fact much broader than the current article as it goes back much earlier than 1871 of course. On a second thought, I believe that "settlement" is quite vague in that it could (and maybe should) refer to both peaceful expansion but also military aggressions. --Lysy^talk 07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I reject

Teutonic Knights while creating the Historical Eastern Germany

I reject the claim to put Historical Eastern Germany into "Recovered Territories". Now thát would be Nationalistic, Pan-Slavic and revisionist, as if Poland ever prior to 1945 had a moral right on these territories! The "historical" adjective clearly illustrates, that that time is passé and it connotes no desire to "retake" these areas at all. That's merely what Poles read into it, indoctrinated by anti-German propaganda even today in 2006. I would only agree to have it renamed "Former Eastern Germany", but again, that could arouse confusion with the German Democratic Republic, which only no longer exists. I think Historical Eastern Germany is a perfectly acceptable title, while "Recovered Territories" is not. Should I make an article "Generalgouvernement" or "Wartheland" on Wielkopolska Region too? That would be nationalist, likewise is the titel "Recovered Territories". I can't even comprehend, how on the world wikipedia even allows such a nationalist crap concept to exist as an article supposed to be subjective. Already these articles are controlled by the Poles, as Germans (I am NOT a German) are too politically correct to withstand. It's like the pages on the Armenian genocide are controlled by the Turks. Likewise the Polish want to spread their nationalistic stuff and force it onto the world.Smith2006 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm deeply moved by your non-German pro-German patriotism. I believe the addition of this fitting painting will make your edit even more impressive. 200.45.54.138 09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so basically you are accusing me of IMperialism, while Poland and Stalin were Imperialistic after 1945? Of course you are a Polish nationalist. The illustration says all: the Germans are depicted as the Teutonic knights, while in fact Silesia, Pomerania and Danzig were "Germanized" through natural processes and because of the Piasts and the Pomeranian Dukes inviting German settlers to introduce their agricultural techniques. Certainly a few knights could not have spawned more than 11 million German souls, could they? Probably all Germans were Knights fighting the Polish. Yeah. Yeah. Dream on in your Pan-Slavic imperialism. Should I add a picture of the Great Migration Era of barbarous Slavic peoples driving towards the west German tribes? So as to illustrate why "Poland" is in fact part of Germany (after all, before 400 AD Germanic tribes lived there: Burgundi, Silingi, Rugii, Gothii). That would be equally foolish. At least Germans respect Slavic peoples, e.g. the Sorbians in the Oberlausitz. This respect is not mutual concering the Nationalist Poles!Smith2006 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Real archaeological evidence shows that original Germanic tribes and original Slavic tribes would have split present day Poland (Vistula would have been near the split). Shows that not all pre-1917 Germany was historically Germany, and not all modern day Poland is all non-Germanic in ancient times. And there were migratory times when Slavs moved as far west as the frontier of East-West Germany, due to Germans going west/east themselves. I hope they both learn to get along some day. Nonprof. Frinkus 10:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on best action

This is a non-binding informative staw poll. Please chose the option you find best, and feel free to indicate second best choice, or a strong objection, or comment. Also, feel free to add a new vote option.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This straw poll has been going on for almost two weeks with few additional votes in the last week. I propose that we close it and adopt the new title History of German settlement in Eastern Europe with appropriate subpages, especially Ostsiedlung.

Anybody who still has a strong objection to this proposal should speak up. --Richard 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do nothing. Current name is good enough.

1. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you strongly opposed to History of German settlement in Eastern Europe which has garnered the most support so far?

--Richard 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Recovered Territories.

• Rename to Former German territories east of the Oder-Neiße line.

• Rename to Territorial changes of Germany after World War II.

• Rename to Territorial changes of Germany in 20th century.

• Rename to Former German Eastern territories.

Support. Kusma (討論) 10:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It still bears the original sin of suggesting in the title that these territories were formerly always German. We need to get any POV associations out of the title. --Lysy^talk 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do with Recovered Territories? Kusma (討論) 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This term is used in English academic literature. Although I am not completly happy with it, POV is quite evident. If we could find an alternative short and popular term, it would be great.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with leaving Recovered Territories in place as an article about Polish history? Have it link to the relevant pages e.g. History of German settlement in Eastern Europe (1945-present) and let's be done with it and move on. --Richard 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it as a title for the article about Polish reaction to the changes. But if Former German Eastern territories is unacceptable and Recovered Territories is acceptable, we are endorsing a POV. I still think Former German Eastern territories is fine, especially as long as nobody volunteers to do the extensive rewriting and rescoping necessary for the "Histiry of..." and splitting options. Kusma (討論) 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Recovered Territories article clearly states in its first sentence that it about a political concept used in Communist Poland. Where do you find POV in this ? As long as your proposed Former German Eastern territories would not state clearly that it is about the (German) political concept as well, you cannot sincerely compare the two. --Lysy^talk 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The title is POV if talking about the territories, not about the political concept. It is perfectly fine to have an article about a propaganda term at the term itself. It is not so good as a title about the area. But perhaps we should just use Former German Territories under Polish and Soviet administration and explain how this used to be the West German POV until the 1970s. (In the 1980s, when I went to high school, the old maps in our geography collection in the borders of 1937 and displaying some allegedly German cities like Danzig, Königsberg, or Dresden already looked quite odd to me as a West German kid). Kusma (討論) 08:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

With all the past propaganda baggage of the both sides, it's really difficult to come up with a completely neutral title to name the territory. Maybe instead of the territory itself it would be better to focus on the historical controversies around it and name the article accordingly ? The proposed History of German settlement in Eastern Europe bears no POV bias to me. It's better to describe the phenomenon than discuss about the territory itself, which would have to lead to POV pushing either way. --Lysy^talk 08:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. That is a good title in itself, but not a good title for the present contents of the article. If somebody is bold and goes ahead and does the work and reorganizes all of the related articles, I won't complain. The problem is that just hitting the "move" button and using your proposed title is not enough. Kusma (討論) 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, it's not about only the title change alone, but a major (and quite challenging) effort. But maybe it is worth it, if we can only resist all the nationalistic attacks that one would expect. --Lysy^talk 11:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to Former Eastern Territories of German Reich.

• Rename to History of German settlement in Eastern Europe.

Support. First choice. --Lysy^talk 07:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Support provided that we include all such articles into that one and turn the others into sub-pages, say History of German settlement in Eastern Europe (1918-1944), History of German settlement in Eastern Europe (after 1944), and so on. Otherwise what Kusma wrote below is true. //Halibutt 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, Halibutt's idea seems to be the best.--Beaumont 14:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Support with Halibutt's expantion, but we would need History of German settlement in Eastern Europe (up to 1918) too, I think. I'd suggest renaming 'Ostsiedlung' into that, as I looked through first 20 hits on Google Print with this name and only one was English, rest German language.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per arguments made when I proposed this title. --Richard 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Object, the name indicates it would need to have Ostsiedlung merged into it. Let us keep two articles for medieval and modern stuff. Kusma (討論) 10:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Kusma, although Halibutt's idea has its merits. Olessi 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get Kusma's objection. We could keep Ostsiedlung as a separate article and just mention that it covers part of the larger topic which is History of German settlement in Eastern Europe. This approach works for all other subpages as I have proposed below (e.g. History of... (1918-1944) etc.) --Richard 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article can be turned into a History of German settlement in Eastern Europe article, but I would prefer to see it rewritten first so its scope fits the title before it is renamed. Kusma (討論) 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to Eastern territories of Germany (1871-1919)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed re-organization across multiple articles

It should be noted that the titles proposed above are not mutually exclusive. That is, some of the titles could co-exist.

I would propose two sets of articles. The first set would be organized around the history of territorial changes (i.e. focusing only on the changes in the borders) and the second could be organized around the history of the German people living in those territories (focusing on important events other than changes in borders, important people, changes in culture, etc.).

Thus, changes due to Versailles, Yalta/Potsdam would be discussed in the first set of articles.

Documentation of Immanuel Kant living in Koenigsberg, East Prussia would be discussed in the second set of articles.

My knowledge of German history is not strong enough to get the article titles exactly right so I am open to suggestions for improvement.

So, what you get is History of German settlement in Eastern Europe as a main article with the following sub pages

• History of German populations in Eastern Europe (prior to 1871)
• History of German populations in Eastern Europe (1871-1917)
• History of German populations in Eastern Europe (1918-1944)
• History of German populations in Eastern Europe (after 1944)

and

History of territorial changes of Germany with the following subpages

• Territorial changes of Germany (Versailles) (Is this article necessary?)
• Territorial changes of Germany (1918-1939)
• Territorial changes of Germany after World War II (covers Yalta/Potsdam + finalization of border at the Oder/Neisse line)

--Richard 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think we must distinguish between political concepts such as ziemie odzyskane and ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete and the geographical areas covered by these terms. It really doesn't make any sense to tell the story of the very same area in two different articles entitled with out-of-use Polish and a German political concepts, respectively. At best, this would create a great deal of redundancy between the two; at worst, it would make us adopt the propaganda of German and Polish nationalists vintage 1950. (I know there are editors on either side who enjoy doing just that, but we musn't allow them to force their little games on ourselves.) As a matter of fact, there simply is no objective geographical-historical entity comprising what is referred to as either Recovered Territories or Historical Eastern Germany. By lumping places as far apart as Wrocław and Kaliningrad or Gdańsk, which share little in the way of a common history, in one basket, we are reading their century-old history backwards from as late as 1945. I think we can leave the description of these territories and their long history to articles such as Silesia, Warmia, East Prussia, or Germany, Poland, and Russia on a more macroscopic level. The articles Recovered Territories and Historical Eastern Germany should then focus strictly on the post-1945 political concepts. (By the way I propose to rename Historical Eastern Germany Former German territories under Polish and Soviet administration. This is the wording per the Potsdam Agreement, but quickly turned into a German-only concept when the Polish and Soviet governments for obvious reasons refused to use it .) --Thorsten1 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Would a rose by any other name

I have moved the article back because there was no clear consensus to move it. However I think it should be moved to Historical eastern Germany unless someone can come up with a better name around which a consensus can be built. Former Eastern territories of the German Empire this implies only those territories which were part of Germany between 1871 and 1919 because common English usage does not use the term Empire after that date. I don't think this is what is meant as there is also the interwar and post World War II period in this article as well. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move - 14 February

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus to move the page. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany → History of German settlement in Eastern Europe – The current name has generated much controversy and also seems like OR. The new name has proven most popular in a recent straw poll. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - 14 February

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

1. SupportChanging my mind per points made in the "Oppose" section. --Richard 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Per nom and per prior straw poll. I disagree with Philip Baird Shearer that there was "no consensus". The consensus was not unanimous but there was a super majority. Put it another way, if this article was already at "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe", it would be difficult to get a consensus to move it to "Historical Eastern Germany". --Richard 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Support, being the nominator, per Richard and old discussions above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak support The present name is bad; Silesia and East Prussia were not even arguably part of Germany before the eighteenth century. The suggested name is not much better; such an article would include the Germans of the Volga and Transylvania. Eastern Germany, 1871-1919? Former German territories? (The PoV is in asserting that the governments of Kaliningrad and Wroclaw are only administrations.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   Nowhere was part of the German State because Germany as a state did not exist before 1870. The article does not suggest that the Kaliningrad and Wroclaw are only administration, but of course if you are using the term in the British sense that is what they are. However the article does not state that the current sovereign terrirorial integrity of Poland or Russia, is in any way not recognised by the international community. If it is then please point out the sentence which says this. Please see my comments below about English language names of various examples. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   • The comment about administration is of course only a recognition of Kusma's point below. Former German territories is not POV.
   • Germany (and German) have been used in English since the Renaissance; Germania is much older. We cannot assume that every reader will share PBS's PoV that they were meaningless before 1871. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Support it would be clarifying. Space Cadet 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   I don't quite see how moving a page to a title that is not connected to its contents is clarifying. Please enlighten me. Kusma (討論) 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

   Sure, to me the current one is not connected to its contents and is misleading.

4. Support per Kusma-Lysy discussion above (and Thorsten1 comment too). I agree that rearrangement would be beneficial. I do hope that moving the article would encourage development in this direction (willing to help). BTW, what about movig Recovered Territories to Recovered Territories (political concept)? --Beaumont (@) 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. The present title is intrinsically POV, suggesting that the territories were historically German. A POV title promotes POV content. --Lysy^talk 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

   what of recovered territories then?--Jadger 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

   As state of Germany only came into existance in 1871 it can not refer to territories before that date because there was no Germany for them to be historically attached to. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Support.As per above.Rex 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose changing only the name without doing the necessary merging and rewriting, as above. The current title is better for the present article. I support the new title once somebody volunteers to actually merge and redistribute the content in a proper way. The name of the article should fit its content. This article is about the Former German territories under Polish and Soviet administration (that's the West German POV term), not about the hundreds of years of history that the new title suggests. Kusma (討論) 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose the main thrust of the article is not about settlements it is about the regions which were provinces within Germany. This makes it much easier to write a NPVO article, because with the latter it can be said when and what territory was or was not part of Germany, using treaties to set the dates. The former is wide open to POV statements (I know because one only has to read the first copy of this article I edited to see how far it has moved from that). I agree with Kusma that the focus of this article is about the German territories that were ceded from Germany in the 1990 as it was agreed they would be under the Potsdam agreement. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per Kusma and Philip. "Historical E/eastern Germany" should be for former territories of the German state. Ostsiedlung concerns the eastward settlement of Germans (regardless of state). I do not see the relevance of mentioning the HRE in this specific article. Olessi 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose as per the above reasoning. --Jadger 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose as per Kusma. These are the former territories of "Historical Eastern Germany".-- Hrödberäht (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose The settlement in the new title is misguided, which seems to refer to the migration of Germanic tribes in about 4th Century CE; this article is not about settlement. Arnoutf 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Proposed name is misleading and not appropriate for the subject discussed within the article. Ameise -- chat 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Proposed name does not match article subject. Open to some of the proposed alternatives like "former eastern Germany." --Groggy Dice T | C 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose The article obviously refers to Historical Eastern Germany. As this is a fact and not POV, why change it? Unoffensive text or character 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Settlement has many meanings, and it implies that some Germans just had built a few houses in various places outside current Germany. How about renaming the "recovered territories" to "History of Polish settlement in Central Europe"? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I took this article off my warch list some months ago. Since then I see that there have been additions like: "...parts of the Holy Roman Empire from 1198 to 1806 ... About a fourth of this territory had belonged to Poland until its partitions of (1772, 1793 and 1795)" Which I think should be removed, or this article ends up as just another many sided POV ramble about how victimised the various groups in parts of continetal Europe are hard done by.

Having an article about the area east of the Oder called Historical eastern Germany is useful for linking into articles about World War I and World War II. It is also useful for links into post World War II treaties and international disputes. The name carries no more biased POV in English than an article called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Thirteen Colonies or British North America or British India or Rhodesia etc. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand and accept the points made by the Oppose voters. However, I don't like the current title because "Historical" smacks of the Nazi argument that these territories should be part of Germany because they had "historically" been so. I prefer Former German eastern territories. If, as Philip Baird Shearer says, this article is about the territories that were ceded from Germany in 1990, then the intro should be written to make that more clear.--Richard 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That title looks okay to me. Kusma (討論) 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm relaxed about either name and would not oppose a move to that name. But to show how one can manipulate language: it could be argued that territory is not necessarily the same as province (see it's usage in the US, Canada, Austrialia, etc) and could be taken to include areas outside the state's boundries, because German and Germany are not the same thing. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Germany (and German) have been used in English since the Renaissance; Germania is much older. We cannot assume that every reader will share PBS's PoV that they were meaningless before 1871. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But to use Germany to describe anything before political union is to use it to describe areas where Germans lived, more than likely under a government of a German speaker. The best common example I can think of in the C21st is the word Arab. There is a difference between the concept of Arabia and states that make up the area. If one uses that definition then there is no need to rename the article to "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe" because the term would already cover that meaning. That you think the need to rename the article suggests that you do not see Germany being used that way. By defining the name Germany to be the German state inside internationally recognised frontiers at the start of the article any problem a different interpretation are removed.

Oh, come on now. There was a Kingdom of Germany from Henry the Fowler until 1806; there was a German Confederation from 1815 to 1866. Neither was the "area where Germans lived"; both excluded the present Baltic States, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No there wasn't! if there was, perhaps you could provide a map from an authorative source that says either Kingdom of Germany or Königsreich Deutschland and is related to that time period. The Holy Roman Empire existed until 1806, not a Kingdom of Germany. the Holy Roman Emperor was also King of the Germans not King of Germany there is a very big difference between the two.

--Jadger 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sabrina Flanigan: Hildegard of Bingen:A visionary life (2004) p.17 The kingdom of Germany was comprised of five great duchies: Franconia, Swabia, Saxony (incorporating Thuringia), Bavaria, and Lotharingia.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

that is not a very reliable source. that is not a book on political systems of the Holy Roman Empire, but rather introduces a crash course on the basic happenings on the time period for laymen's purposes to introduce them to that person's life. perhaps another source that states more than a couple lines could be used?--Jadger 02:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article is renamed "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe" then what is the difference between this article and the Ostsiedlung article, (other than tacking on additional information to cover more recent centuries)? How does one then square the circle that in 1871 the international community recongnised parts of areas east of the Oder as more than German settlements and as parts of the territory of the German State, and to call them settlements at that point is to push a POV that despite the recognition that they were part of the German state, that they were only settlements? At the moment someone can choose to link from another article to Ostsiedlung or Recovered Territories or Partitions of Poland depending on the emphasis they wish to add to their particular article. For example there is little point linking to Ostsiedlung if one is writing about Ostpolitik. Much better that the link is to this article which is more tightly focused. If only one general purpose article exists, apart from endless POV arguments between editors, it makes it difficult for the reader to find the additional specific information they are looking for via the link from another article. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• i was invited. i read it. Nasz 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose closing this Requested Move as "No consensus"

This "requested move" has been open for 6 days. It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for the requested move. I would propose that we close this "requested move" to clear the way for alternate proposals such as those discussed in the section below this one.

If there are no objections by 21 February, we should close this Requested Move to clear the way for discussion of other alternatives. Please do NOT begin discussion of alternatives here. Only log your support or opposition to closing the Requested Move. (e.g. if you think keeping the Requested Move could geenerate enough support to overwhelm those who oppose it).--Richard 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The name should not contain the word "settlement" in it, as those against the move are generally agreed that this article is not about German settlements, but about provinces that were once in Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"International recognition" and "German recognition"

I'm a little confused by the "international community recognition" of these territories as part of Germany. Specifically, what "international community", when and by what act recognised them as such ? --Lysy^talk 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

what I think is meant is immediately after Napoleonic wars, the recognized borders then, as part of Prussia, later Germany. I don't think the lands annexed newly under the Nazi regime should be included as they are an aberration and had no basis for being added into Germany except as a greedy landgrab lebensraum. basically, we are talking about the lands lost between the start of the modern era and 1945, excluding those that had never been German pre 1939. aka 1914 borders compared to 1946 borders.

--Jadger 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysy you should not be a little confused by the term "international community recognition" You and I discussed it at length (See Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany/Archive_1#Partitions_of_Poland), It cuts the Gordian Knot over over the POV issue of whether the lands were part of Germany, in your words:

What I'm questioning is calling these territories German. This is POV again. Personally I would call them "occupied by Germany", but I think that "returning territories taken by Prussia in Partitions of Poland to the recreated Polish state" perfectly matches historic truth. Do you question that these ground were taken by Prussia or that they were returned to recreated Polish state ? If this is true, do you have any reason to pretend that these territories were German ?

and my reply

It is not POV to call the internationally recongnised "definite territory of the state of Germany" as they existed in 1914 German, than it is to call the "internationally recongnised "definite territory of the state of Poland" Polish. If someone was to write in a wikipedia article that Silesia is currently "occupied by Poland" you would object and if you did not I would. ... . Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC).

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Still this does not answer what "international community", when and by what act recognised the territories as part of German Empire. --Lysy^talk 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There can be positive international recognition and also recognition by remaining silent over changes to "facts on the ground". As a general rule which was codified in the UN Charter, States are reticent to interfere in the internal affairs of other states and they are very leery of changes to international boarders (despite article 73 of the UN Charter). International recognition is an important part of a state's existence and territorial integrity, particularly if they are not powerful enough to enforce their sovereignty on other states. To give some European examples from the recent past. German recognition of Croatia. [6][7]. Fairly recently along with other states, Britain has recognised Montenegro as an independent sovereign state,[8] and Kosova (admittedly a different case because of direct UN intervention) will not become an independent state unless and until the UN agrees that it can.[9]. Without this component in this article, then one can argue that none of the treaties and facts on the ground matter, the areas which this article discusses were always German or always Polish or whatever. Once one introduces the concept of international recognition then it is possible to argue that Treaty of Versailles made changes which were legitimate, Germany's unilateral actions in 1939 were illegitimate and Potsdam was legitimate, without lots of wacko POV arguments and rebuttals against these statements. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about German recognition of Polish border then ? Did Germany not "remain silent over changes to facts on the ground" after WW2 ? Why do we claim that West Germany did not recognize the border of DDR with Poland until 1990 ? --Lysy^talk 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Because, technically, the West never acknowledged Polish sovereignty over those areas. France stated that they considered the 1936 borders to be the legal borders of Germany, and the BRD only acknowledged the setup during Ostpolitik, and they only acknowledged the Polish sovereignty over those areas in 1990, as to speed unification of Germany -- even that upset, from what I understand, many Germans.

Technically, 'Historical Eastern Germany' refers to all the territory that was once legally under the German Government but are now under non-German rule since 1918. They would include Silesia, Posen, Pomerania, East and West Prussia, Memel... Ameise -- chat 00:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And similarly you could claim that, "technically, the international community never recognized the territories as a part of Germany" in 19th century. Let me try to have this reflected in the lead again, then. Also, technically, BRD had no border with Poland, only DDR had. --Lysy^talk 08:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another title

How about Eastern Territories of German Empire (1871-1918) ? --Lysy^talk 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense as far as it goes but I don't think it goes far enough.

What about my proposal earlier on this page titled "Proposed reorganization across multiple articles"? The problem with your proposed title is that it doesn't address how we would discuss German settlement prior to 1871 or the disposition of these various territories after 1918.

--Richard 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would match the content of the article best. Otherwise the proposed rename to History of German settlement in Eastern Europe would be more appropriate. --Lysy^talk 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They were also territories of the Kingdom of Prussia. That article name would imply that some then-nonexistent state of Poland controlled them beforehand. Ameise -- chat 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would it imply that? --Richard 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The title implies that they were ONLY part of the German Empire, and the logical part is that after 1918, they stopped being part of Germany, which is not true: Poland annexed the remainder of East Prussia (minus Königsberg/Kaliningrad), Silesia, and Pomerania in 1945, and the territories as said were parts of German states (Prussia) before 1871. Ameise -- chat 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we could have another article, covering Eastern Territories of Germany (1919-1945). --Lysy^talk 05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're moving closer to the proposal that I outlined in "Proposed reorganization across multiple articles" above. The basic difference is that my proposal focuses on "German populations in Eastern Europe" whereas your (Lysy's) proposals focus on "German territories". I like my proposal better because it sidesteps the hairy question of which territories belonged to whom and when. With my titles, we would be free to talk about any part of Eastern Europe that had a significant number of Germans living in it (not necessarily even a majority, just a significant minority is sufficient). If some of the territories were German, we say so. If some were under Polish control, we say that. If the territory was disputed, we say that. We can even cover the Free State of Danzig even though it was neither German nor Polish. --Richard 05:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your convention is nicer and more flexible but it would probably need to involve a major rewrite of the article, while mine is fast to implement. As evidenced by the RM survey above, many of those who opposed the move did so on the basis that the new title would not match the current content of the article and would require it to be changed. --Lysy^talk 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand but, frankly, I think that is a silly argument which has created more heat than it has cast light. That argument suggests that somehow the text of this article is in "near perfect" condition and that all that needs to be done is to find the "right" title for it.

I would suggest, instead, that the reason it has been so difficult to find and agree on the "right" title for this article is that it has been conceived poorly. As long as someone wants to talk about whether the territory was German (or "rightfully" German) as opposed to Polish (or "rightfully" Polish), the POV-pushing debates will go on and on. An NPOV approach would simply say "we are talking about areas of what is now called Eastern Europe that had significant numbers of Germans living in them during the period XXXX-YYYY". As I said, we describe the sovereignty of the various areas in an NPOV way, identifying territorial disputes without passing judgment as to which side was right. --Richard 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, now you got me confused. I assumed that you had withdrawn your support for History of German settlement in Eastern Europe based on the argument that it would not match the current content ? --Lysy^talk 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take it from the top...

If we have an article called Historical Eastern Germany, then people are thinking about specific pieces of territory and who claimed it at different points in hiatory. A big problem with this title is the sense that it is pushing the POV that these territories are somehow illegimately under Polish control and that Germany has some moral and/or legal claim to those territories. As long as the article can be construed to argue this case, there will be bitter debate here.

If we had an article called History of German settlement in Eastern Europe, then you would have an NPOV title but a very broad scope for the article. The scope of the title History of German settlement in Eastern Europe is broader than the current article which is one of the objections that was raised to the proposed move. We could expand the current article to match the proposed new title but no one seems to be stepping forward to do that.

My proposal builds on the idea of having a title called History of German settlement in Eastern Europe but having separate articles for different periods in history. Thus, we are not required to have one article cover all of German history from the first movement to the East through the 1990 agreement to finalize the German-Polish border.--Richard 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious about finding a name, Recovered Territories will have to be merged with it, as that name is both POV, refers to the same thing, and also refers to a political concept non-existent in English-speaking countries, and indeed any country other than Poland. Ameise -- chat 21:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Recovered Territories is an article about a political concept. Is is the same case here ? --Lysy^talk 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Recovered Territories is about a political concept only existent in Poland pertaining to these territories. Either it shouldn't exist or should be merged into a more congruent article. Ameise -- chat 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Recovered Territories may be a POV concept but that doesn't mean it can't be treated in an NPOV way. If we state in the article that the concept represents a Polish POV which is not shared by Germans, I think it will be OK to keep the article. --Richard 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The current problem with that article is that only in one place does it say that it is only existent in Poland; the rest of the article is a nationalistic free-for-all. Ameise -- chat 17:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard why does "Historical Eastern Germany" cause "A big problem with this title is the sense that it is pushing the POV that these territories are somehow illegimately under Polish control and that Germany has some moral and/or legal claim to those territories. " I don't see it any more that the title the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland implies that 26 counties in Ireland are illegimately under Irish control and that United Kingdom has some moral and/or legal claim to those territories. The state existed for about 120 years, but no one in their right mind would say that Betty has any claim over the 26 counties. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The word historical implies this clearly. --Lysy^talk 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "clearly". I would say it has "overtones" of a Nazi or otherwise irredentist claim that "historically German" lands should become once again German. It is argued that the desire to permanently render irredentist claims null and void was one of the primary motivations behind the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. The reverberations of the events of the first half of the 20th century continue to echo in the first decade of the 21st century.

I agree that "historical" doesn't mean the Nazi POV but it evokes it and that causes problems with some POV-pushing editors. I would prefer to avoid those problems even if we don't agree with the POV pushers.

--Richard 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Churchill said that "Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble,"[10] Lysy out of which dictionary do you find that word historical implies that the territories are somehow illegimately under Polish control and that Germany has some moral and/or legal claim to those territories. See this definition "Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past". --Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches

According to German wiki, these were the territories east of O-N Line that belonged to Germany by December 31, 1937. Why do we include the pre-WWI territories on English wiki ? --Lysy^talk 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they were part of the sovereign territory of Germany when the Germany state came into existence, and was recongnised as existing by the other major European and world powers. Why take an arbitary date like December 31, 1937 as the start of the article? If arbitary dates are taken why not 6 March, 1936, or March 11, or September 28, or October 9, 1938? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but these are not what is called "Historical Eastern Germany" unless we are doing Original Research here. According to German wikipedia, it comprises of territories lost by Germany after WW2, not WW1. So while e.g. Breslau or Stettin belong here, Posen or Danzig do not. The article is factually incorrect. --Lysy^talk 21:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Being that you are not a native English speaker (I can tell, trust me), I do not believe you are in a position to dictate what is and what isn't factual English terminology. Ameise -- chat 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not about "dictating". Do we have any references confirming the English usage of the term in the context as presented in the article ? --Lysy^talk 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no references, period, as it is not an accepted idea or concept outside of Poland. Tell someone in the USA or the UK about 'Recovered Territories', and they will be confused, until you mention the Oder-Neisse line. Ameise -- chat 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you agree with me, that there are no references confirming the English usage and that the article should be restricted to the territories lost by Germany after WW2 only, as it is done on German wikipedia ? Or what is your point here ? --Lysy^talk 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Consider also that there are no English sources using this name. Also, why are there no articles on Historical North Germany, Historical West Germany and Historical South Germany? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's simple Piotrus, because those areas haven't been annexed by foreign nations. There is an article on Alsace-Lorraine however.

--Jadger 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal based on "Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches"

Here's another possibility... how about History of the Eastern Territories of the German Reich? This title moves away from the word "historical" which has the overtone of irrendentist German claims to the territory. Instead, the article could simply state that the Eastern Territories of the German Reich (Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches) were blah, blah, blah.

The fact that the phrase "Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches" is not used in English sources is only a modest obstacle. We can explain the phrase as a German concept, providing the definition as it is understood by Germans and even note, if necessary, that the phrase is not commonly used in English soruces.

The article could then give a history of these territories, explaining that sovereignty over the territories changed over time. There would be five basic periods :

1. Pre-1870
2. 1870-1918
3. 1919-1936/38/39
4. 1939-1945
5. Post-1945

If we adopt the title History of the Eastern Territories of the German Reich, this would not preclude articles along the theme of History of German populations in Eastern Europe. The History of the Eastern Territories of the German Reich would be primarily a political history of changes in sovereignty and related diplomatic and military actions. The History of German populations in Eastern Europe would be more cultural and socio-economic in its treatment.

Also note that by using the words "History of" and "German Reich", we put the concept firmly in the past and thus avoid any problems with irredentism.

--Richard 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This name is unacceptable because in English neither the German Empire or the Weimar Republic are usually called reich. That term is only used for the Third Reich. Also it does not help with the post war political chapter which is part of the article.

If you read above you will see that most people that have suggested an alternative names along the lines of "Former German territories". Which is the name used in the Potsdam agreement with a long explanation of what is now known as the Oder-Neisse line. [11] So I suppose that one alternative is "Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line", or the shorter "Former German eastern territories". But techicaly that would only cover those territories under the administratio of Poland because the city of Koenigsberg and the adjacent area were covered by a different section of Potsdam Agreement. Also because of the tendency of people to want to drag history before 1871 into this article, (which I think is a mistake, because other article cover that and it brings with it lots of POV baggage) I think that the name proposed by Groggy is better: "former eastern Germany." as it does away with the word historical which some object too and keeps the word Germany instead of German allowing the article to keep focusing on the provinces of Germany and not the German people who inhabited the area (some of whom were outside the provinces and that brings with it lots of POV baggage). --Philip Baird Shearer 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Eastern territories of the German Empire, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See above #Would a rose by any other name --Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the word "Reich" is unacceptable to American English speakers, the article could be split into two instead: History of the Eastern Territories of the German Empire and History of the Eastern Territories of the Weimar Republic. --Lysy^talk 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? BTW it is not just AE speakers but also CE speakers --Philip Baird Shearer 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

All of these are former territories of the Weimar Republic; the Weimar Constitution was adopted five months before the signing of Versailles. Whether the Republic ever administered them is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

personally, I think Reich is better translated as "realm" or "dominion/domain" for instance, the word Königreich means kingdom, but using the translation of reich that means "king's empire" which makes no sense as the ruler of an empire is an emperor, not a king. So make what you want from this, perhaps this could help with creating a different title of some sort

--Jadger 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since both Imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic called themselves "Deutsches Reich", I think Eastern territories of the German Empire would suffice. Anonytroll 12:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They may have called themselves that but they are not commonly known as that in English. To do so would be confusing for most English readers as would calling the Third Reich the Third German Empire. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we stop trying to decide bertween "Reich" and "German Empire". Let's pick one (I prefer "Reich" because technically the Weimar Republic was a republic not an empire) and then resolve any confusion with the appropriate redirects.

--Richard 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not an either or choice. Neither is better than the current name. "German Empire" is only used for the German State up until 1919. German Reich is only used for the Third Reich --Philip Baird Shearer 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? I know quite some people who call Imperial Germany the second Reich. But I guess that's OR. Anonytroll 08:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction and sovereignty

Philip Baird Shearer latest edit [[12]] of re-adding a certain sentence, I did not see any talk specifically pertaining to it on the talk page so I thought I'd discuss it here. the statement when international recognition that Germany had any right to jurisdiction over any of these territories was withdrawn. But the Potsdam conference only gave temporary control of these territories to Poland, hence the term used in Germany "German Eastern Territories under foreign administration". Do we have any sources that say that it was actually recognized as not German, as in do we have any treaties? as so far it seems to be just defacto a part of Poland.

to respond to Lysy: Germany's 1871 borders were internationally recognized, Germany was established with its borders by the Treaty of Frankfurt following the Franco-Prussian War. And the Eastern territories had been a part of Prussia since the 1790s when the Partitions of Poland took place. the partitions were agreed upon by Russia, Prussia and Austria, and technically Poland ceased to exist when Stanislaw August Poniatowski abdicated. see note 11 on Constitution of May 3, 1791 article, he was elected with obvious intent as a Russian puppet in order to finish off the partitions. And if that doesn't work for you, all three partitions recognized each other's rule over the lands in question, so it was at the very least three-way international recognition of the dissolution of Poland.

--Jadger 06:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First point I have not changed the wording of the first paragrpah, I have mearly changed the links behind some of the words.[13]

I would also quibble with you over the use of the term partitions of Poland. Because the article on Wikipedia does no include the Congress of Vienna which in my opinion is more relevant. However as we have agreed not to discuss how we got to 1871 lets not dwell on this :-)

It is definatly de facto recognition if not de jure because the victors (who were the United Nations) declared it to be so, but note the word in the phrase is "jurisdiction", not "sovereignty". (The US Supreme court ruled that "the US Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Naval Base, which the United States occupies under a lease and treaty recognizing Cuba's ultimate sovereignty, but giving this country complete jurisdiction and control for so long as it does not abandon the leased areas."[14])

But it may well have been de jure as well because of the debellation of the German state and the 5 July 1945 deceleration that "The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not affect the annexation of Germany." Sovereignty over Germany passed to the Four Powers which was the reason why the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" had to be passed before Germany became fully sovereign. So it can be seen that The four powers acting as the sovereign power over Germany recognized the 1945 settlement up until the signing of the Final Settlement at which point and simultaneously the German state with its fully regained sovereignty did the same.

However as the wording is jurisdiction and not sovereignty, the above last paragraph is really just a diplomatic dotting of the "i"s and crossing of the "t"s over sovereignty and not relevent to "jurisdiction over any of these territories" which was made clear in the "Potsdam Agreement". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

well, it obviously causes confusion, can we not put it in more laymen's terms so that the common reader can understand it? after all, that is the point of wikipedia. if we use the word "jurisdiction" should we not also state that it did not give over "sovereignty" then?

--Jadger 08:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move

Historical eastern Germany → Eastern territories of the German Reich — per discussion above There has been some debate over "German Reich" vs. "German Empire" so I have created survey sections for both options. Please express your support or opposition to each option. --Richard 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer has expanded the options to include all the options that have been discussed recently. I agree that we should make all the options explicit. Please express your opinions below. --Richard 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If during the discussion another option emerges then anyone who wishes to can add it to the bottom of the survey --Philip Baird Shearer 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for keeping a running tally of !votes. The goal of this exercise, hopefully, is to start to forge a consensus for an appropriate title for this article. What the voting and discussion has shown us so far is that there is a general dislike for the current title but no agreement on what a better title would be. The running tallies help us see where a possible consensus might form. Discussion towards forging a consensus should be held in the "Discussion" section.

We do not need an admin to "close" this discussion. If we decide to move this article to another title, we can simply do so ourselves using the "move" tab. The issue is whether we can come to an agreement over an appropriate title for this article.

--Richard 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Leave the article where is at Historical eastern Germany

Tally 5/11

• Support This name matches the content of the article from start to finish --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support pretty obvious as Philip said. --Jadger 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article matches the content therein, as was stated by Philip. Ameise -- chat 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object - original research.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your objection seems to stem from the fact that this term doesn't appear in Google books searches. Did you check for other terms? Former German eastern territories seems common. Kusma (討論) 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be a slightly better name, yes. HEG is both original research, and POVed at that (with the implication of historical). As I said, this is as bad a title as historical western Poland :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Biased, misleading, non-NPOV, etc. Space Cadet 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per my own comments above; makes a claim of "historicity" which is misleading; for Poznan and Silesia extremely misleading - Silesia's longest historic status is as a land of the Bohemian Crown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either OR or POV title, depending on the interpretation. Neither is acceptable. --Lysy^talk 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

commentand the ones you have supported below aren't OR?--Jadger

• Oppose - ask 10 random (English-speaking) people what an article with this title would actually be about, and you would get 10 different answers. Johnbod 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For a reliable result try 1000. -- €pa 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

reliable for what? Johnbod 03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The eastern territories of the German Reich would mean ethnically Polish regions like Poznań which belonged to Germany during the partitions of Poland. But the article is mainly about ethnically German territories from which the Germans were expelled after WW2.--Al-Bargit 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object - As a German coming to this page with no prior knowledge of the discussion, I assumed based on the title that it would be talking about the DDR. Upon arriving here, I had a ooh, they mean "Ostgebiete", not "Ostdeutschland"-revelation. Therefore, I think the title is open to misinterpretation. If it stays, it at least needs to be disambiguated for East Germany. - tameeria 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another German coming along: Agree. "Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line" seems to me more appropriate. Add some redirects thereto. -- €pa 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose indeed sounds like DDR; but the eastern part of the Empire is meant. Arnoutf 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as tameeria said, this title seems to point to the GDR at first glance. -Bundesamt 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above, confusion with DDR. Balcer 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This name matches the content of the article from start to finish. German Reich vs. German Empire would be ambiguous, because some of the areas became German when the "Reich" was not existing. All of these areas belonged to Prussia which was once a state in its own right. I am surprised about other fellows from the former East Germany (GDR). I grew up there as well. Naming something in German history is always difficult. Yes, it is possible to mix it up, just Reich or Empire would not be accurate. People simpley have to read. Maybe the explanation in the beginning could make that clear. Uwe Langer 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lysy --Beaumont (@) 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: none (no hits in either Google scholar or JSTOR)
• Support as Philip said.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Clearly, no consensus on any better name exists, messing around wit hthings should require a clear consensus that the new is better than the old, since that fails to be the case here, let's leave the name alone. --Eivind Kjørstad 08:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Eastern territories of the German Reich

Tally 0/7

• Oppose This is not a term used in English, Other than for the Third Reich which is never styled Third German Reich --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Philip.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and per common sense. //Halibutt 08:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose English-speakers have generally only heard of one Reich, I'm afraid. Johnbod 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article talks about territories that were German also during the Weimar Republic. The timeframe covered in the article needs a more general page title. - tameeria 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Only used for 3rd Reich. Arnoutf 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason already given. Kdammers 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: 8 hits in Google scholar and 1 hit in JSTOR

Move to Eastern territories of the German Empire

Tally 2/4

• Oppose This term only covers the period upto 1918 --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Philip.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose (unless we split the article onto several sub-articles with names ranging from Eastern territories of the Kingdom of Prussia to Eastern territories of Nazi Germany. //Halibutt 08:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC
• Support. The article would have to be split into two, then. Otherwise it's not clear why these two are presented together, while other territories once controlled by Germany are not. --Lysy^talk 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article actually covers three time periods, the German Empire, Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany. I think having three separate articles might be overkill, which means this one should have a more general title. - tameeria 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Should be made clear it covers 2nd and 3rd Empire as well as Weimar republic. Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: none (no hits in either Google scholar or JSTOR)

Move to Former eastern Germany

Tally 3/9

• Support this would be my second preference --Philip Baird Shearer 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object OR, POVed. Why not current western Poland? ;p -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Because not all the territories went to Poland. Some went to Lithuanian and others to Russia. Some may even have gone to Slovakia (not sure) --Philip Baird Shearer

• Oppose per Piotrus. Besides, the name would rather suggest the non-existent East Germany. //Halibutt 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, "former" is true and not POVed. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer Former German eastern territories, which is less easily confused for the GDR. Kusma (討論) 13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Halibutt. Space Cadet 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support; Halibutt has a point about the DDR, but this is still better than the present name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. POV and ahistorical title. --Lysy^talk 17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose suggests DDR to me Johnbod 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - This title (and same for "Former East Germany") would suggest to me that it talks about the part of modern day Germany that formerly made up the DDR until the German reunification. At least that's what the corresponding German translation would most commonly refer to. - tameeria 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sounds too much like an article on DDR. Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, confusion with DDR. Balcer 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sounds like East Germany which I understand was the GDR. Uwe Langer 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: 270 hits in Google scholar (mostly in reference to GDR) and 4 hits in JSTOR
• Oppose sounds like DDR --Oliver Tölkes 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line

Tally 5/5

• Oppose This would be my third preference. Has the advantage that it is used in the Potsdam Agreement, but as it includes the word German instead of Germany it is open to misinterpretation --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Is an accurate description without the faint hint of POV that the current title has (although it is undeserved). The possibility for misinterpretation does exist, but is negligible. Anonytroll 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. I propose a better variant of that name below.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although it is a bit longish. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If I were forced to change the name of this article, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO DO, this would likely be the name that I'd support. Ameise -- chat 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose because this could also include areas only conquered between 1939 and 1945, but otherwise have no German history, that is not what we are referring to here. we are not referring to Hitler's lebensraum here.--Jadger 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. "German" is vague and disputable. --Lysy^talk 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - This title describes the page content more accurately, though it is a bit long. - tameeria 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support accurate but long description, German open to misinterpretation. Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - this title could include, for example, the territories inhabited by Germans in the Baltic States and even Russia, which is obviously not the intention here. Balcer 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem to make any improvements to me.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: 4 hits in Google scholar and 5 hits in JSTOR
• Oppose Doesn't seem to make any improvements to me.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line

Tally 8/3

• Support. Second choice. This should be less POVed and more correct ('territories of Germany' instead of ethnicity-implying 'German territories').-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This name COULD imply (though does not necessarily have such implication unless one were looking for it, but being that we are at that situation with the current name seems likely to happen) that no Germans were actually in this territory, and that it was wrongfully under their administration. C.F. Recovered Territories. Ameise -- chat 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. per piotrus Rex 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. More biased and misleading than the original one. Space Cadet 13:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - Goes along the lines of the title suggestion above, but to me sounds a bit awkward. That might be based on language preferences as I'm used to "Deutsche Ostgebiete" ("German eastern territories") rather than "Ostgebiete von Deutschland" ("Eastern territories of Germany"). - tameeria 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support neutral and accurate Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This doesn't bring about the associations with the GDR, and it's not POV at all, I think. -Bundesamt 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, above option would have to be deleted before being moved. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose territories sounds like a colony. But it was truely a solid part of Germany and/or Prussia not some funny addition. Uwe Langer 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, sounds neutral. --Beaumont (@) 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, seems to me the best out of the menu of choices presented. Balcer 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: none (no hits in either Google scholar or JSTOR)

Move to Territorial changes of Germany after the World Wars

Tally 6/4

• Support. First choice, based on the naming convention of Territorial changes of Poland after World War II. We can also consider splitting it into Territorial changes of Germany after World War I and Territorial changes of Germany after World War I, and we certainly need Territorial changes of Germany as a main article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, we are talking about the Eastern territories here only, not about Alsace/Lorraine and Eupen/Melmedy etc. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Kusma --Philip Baird Shearer 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we should talk about "Alsace/Lorraine and Eupen/Melmedy etc." Or, better yet: Territorial changes of Germany east of Oder-Neisse line. Space Cadet 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. No reason not to include Alsace in the article. --Lysy^talk 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as 2nd Best per Piotrus Johnbod 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Neutral as it suits Wikipedia Al-Bargit 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would change the article from being about a territory to being about historic events. As I see it, the article was intended to talk about the Ostgebiete, and while history is a large part of that, the new title would imply a much larger and quite different topic. So this would not be a page move, but rather a merge with other topics into a whole new article. - tameeria 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not truly the focus of the article, also includes Alsace and possibly even Namibia Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, no reason not to include Alsace --Beaumont (@) 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Territorial changes of Germany

Tally 6/4

• Support. More closely matches the content of the current article. Is in keeping with the naming convention of Territorial changes of Poland after World War II. We can consider splitting it into Territorial changes of Germany after World War I and Territorial changes of Germany after World War II later if necessary. --Richard 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, my first choice. //Halibutt 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, Because we would have to include Austria etc in the article. This raises all sorts of POVs which the current article sidesteps. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? What's wrong with Austria? The article has no problems discussing territories disputed with Poland, Czech, Russia, Lithuania...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is not the scope of the present article. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

comment: the article can still be changed, reformatted and added to, who says this article is a finished product? because it isn't in the article now does not mean it shouldn't be added. --Jadger 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suprisingly, I agree with Jadger on that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Per Jadger - the scope can be adjusted, and incomplete articles are nothing strange on Wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. See no problem with including Austria. --Lysy^talk 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support expansion of the article to describe border changes of "modern-day" Germany (since 1871). Olessi 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose this is just too broad a title. Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Also see my comments to the title suggestion above. This would imply a completely different topic and more general timeframe from what the article is about now. Significant expansion would be needed to even match this new topic. E.g. much of northern Germany used to be Danish for most of its history etc. This would completely shift the topic of the article with its current content part of a much longer and more general topic. - tameeria 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, we have many broad articles; in this case a broad context enables NPOV treatment.--Beaumont (@) 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Former German eastern territories

Tally 3/4

• Support per Kusma; second choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Kusma (討論) 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As this debate shows having German in the title is open to misinterpretation --Philip Baird Shearer 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Philip. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per PBS. --Lysy^talk 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per PBS
• Weak support - This is probably the most accurate translation of the German term (ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete), but I'm not sure if it would also be the most commonly used English term. It does sound a bit awkward in English. - tameeria 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: 14 hits in Google scholar and 7 hits in JSTOR

Move to Former eastern territories of Germany

Tally 7/1

• Strong support Euphony; less suggestion of the Ostsiedlung because territories of Germany clearly belong to a state, not individuals or private companies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  How does "Historical eastern Germany" not imply a State? Don't see how this proposed name has any advantages over the current name. Please explain in the discussion section. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support; the Googlebooks and Googlescholar tests strongly favor the one above. Kusma (討論) 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose saying "territories of Germany" only signifies 1871 on, and we are talking pre 1871 also here. not just "Germany" but "German". a better idea would be "Former German lands in the East"--Jadger 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - no mention of timescale, but is less POVed than current title.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support bit broad by lack of time scale, but neutral in toneArnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - Sounds better than "Former German eastern territories" in English and still is an accurate translation of the German term. It is a bit open by not specifying a timeframe. - tameeria 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak suppport, sounds neutral --Beaumont (@) 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly support: 1 hit in Google scholar and 2 hits in JSTOR
• Support --Richard 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support --Oliver Tölkes 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Territorial changes of Germany (1919-1945)

Tally 6/3

• Support This proposal is motivated by the map in the article that is labeled "German territorial losses (1919-1945)" and captioned "Germany's territorial losses (1919-1945). If you re-read this article, this is what the article is about so let's call it that. --Richard 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, fits my above proposal.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Precise and neutral. --Lysy^talk 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support best choice per Lysy; shortest unambiguous title. switching to next down Johnbod 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support should start to include Alsace. Arnoutf 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the same reasons as the other "territorial changes" title suggestions. The timeframe doesn't even match with the article content (starting 1871). - tameeria 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose East of the Oder-Neiße is missing in this suggestion and the time frame is wrong. Uwe Langer 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Uwe --Jadger 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, short, clearly neutral (Alsace would fit). --Beaumont (@) 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose,as per tameeria --Philip Baird Shearer 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Former eastern territories of Germany (1871-1945)

Tally 1/0

• Support - This would combine the most accurate/least POV translation of the German term, plus specify the timeframe. It would also clearly disambiguate it from "Former East Germany" referring to the DDR. - tameeria 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Clear, accurate, unambiguous Johnbod 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not clear or accurate (because the subject post 1933 and before 1990 is not clear or accurate). -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  CommentPlease explain this comment in the "Discussion" section below. What is it about 1933-1990 that is not clear or accurate? --Richard 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Former east German territories

• Scholarly support: 10 hits in Google scholar and 4 hits in JSTOR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tameeria (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
• Oppose It can be mistaken for the GDR and as it includes the word German instead of Germany it is open to misinterpretation --Philip Baird Shearer 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Ostgebiete

• Scholarly support: 75 hits in Google scholar (English-language publications only) and 16 hits in JSTOR (English-language publications only) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tameeria (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
• Oppose Use English --Philip Baird Shearer 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion for long poll

Add any additional comments:

Can we stop it with all the move requests? It's been repeatedly voted down. Ameise -- chat 07:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

More people support changing the title (5) than support keeping the current title (3). It is possible that there will not be a consensus agreement on a new title but there is some chance that there will be. Let's see what happens. --Richard 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have the feeling that if there is no consensus, another vote, and another vote, etc, will be brought forth until such a consensus is found? Ameise -- chat 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the best way argue against a proposed move is to assert that a consensus exists (based on a prior vote) to keep the current title. The really obnoxious thing is when minority POV pushers keep proposing a change even after a consensus has been formed. Determining consensus is a really difficult thing. Even if we voted 15-5 in favor of keeping the title, the fact remains that it would only take 5-10 people to overturn the assertion that a consensus exists. Only a massive vote like 40-10 would begin to suggest the existence of a true consensus. --Richard 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, it does not work that way there has to he a clear consensus if the name is to be moved to a new name. It is not at all clear that this is true. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really :( See how Władysław II Jagiełło was moved to Jogaila (33% supported Jogaila, but other variants were even lower, and the moving admin decided to move it, causing us never-ending problems... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comment surprising. While I can see arguments that a majority vote could justify a change of title, I would hope that we would work towards a consensus rather than ramming the majority opinion down the throats of the minority. --Richard 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a clear consensus before a page is renamed under WP:RM. It is not at all clear that this is true that a consensus to move the page to a specific new name exists. But one may yet emerge. BTW Richard which name do you prefer? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Philip Baird Shearer, can you explain your comment about Austria and POV issues? --Richard 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the article is focused on eastern Germany. If the article is to be about all of Germany since 1871 then there are lots of other issues like the 1938 Anschluss, the Munich Agreement, Alsace-Lorraine (which seems to be a baton passed from the looser to the winner of Franco-German wars) While all of these are interesting topics, they are not in this article and if they were to be included this article would loose its focus which is about those territories that formed eastern Germany for 1871 until 1945. It is useful to have an article which focuses on eastern Germany because when writing articles about World War I and World War II a link to this article puts the area into context for most English speaking people who do not realise that the current geographical East Germany is not the eastern Germany of the period from 1871 to 1945. In Chamberlain's words central Europe is "far away country [of which] we know nothing". If someone wishes to write an article about German territorial changes from 1871 to date and main template this article for a section on this region, that is fine by be, although I think such things should probably be in the context German History or some similar article. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Am I the only one noticing a small issue here: that basically the people who are claiming that 'Historical' is POV are not native English speakers, and native speakers such as me are the ones disagreeing... I'm not making any broad statements, that just seems to be the overall summary, not withstanding any people who do not fit within the generalization. Ameise -- chat 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No I noticed it too. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker and I am making that claim (admittedly because I have sensed this perspective on the part of Polish editors). --Richard 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So am I; I may not be as sensitive to it as some, but the shadow of "historic" = "immemorial" = "correct" is actually present. "Former" contains the force of "historic" in the senses that do not have this implication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Septentrionalis "Historic" does mean what you say, but "Historical" is a different word and means belonging to history. I can say there are many "historic houses in London" such as "No 1 London" where Wellington lived. But if I said "historic London" had many thatched roofs, it would imply that London was of greater historical significance before 1666 than it was afterwards, but it I write "historical London" (or "historically London") had many thatched roofs it would not carry that connotation. It seems from what you write that some are making the same mistake as those who argue that history is only about men because it is "his story" (see herstory) -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the move request is that there are still several distinct issues that people are trying to address. One is the claim that "Historical" asserts that these territories rightfully belong to Germany. I don't quite buy that (it is a bit like saying "historical British colonies" means that you do not accept the independence of the USA). Kusma (討論) 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So why isn't there an article called "historical British colonies"? Why isn't there an article called "historical colonies of the Spanish empire"? Is there an article on Taiwan or Korea called "historical territories of the Japanese empire"? Are the western portions of Turkey called "historical territories of Greece"? I could go on and on. It's plausible that there ARE other articles called "historical X". I don't know of any. Perhaps you could educate me. --Richard 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Just after writing the above, I realize that this line of argument suggests that the very existence of this article is POV. Does Wikipedia want to have an article for every territory that used to belong to country X but no longer does? I wouldn't think so. However, I won't try to fight that battle at this moment. --Richard 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a good way to merge and redistribute the content of this and all related article, please go ahead. But that is a different question. Right now we are operating under the assumption that we have a stand-alone article about these territories, and are trying to figure out how to name it. Perhaps this discussion shows that we shouldn't have an article, but merge this somewhere and replace this by a redirect to the appropriate section. I do not know what the optimal thing to do with this article is. Kusma (討論) 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard There is no article called "historical British North America" because there are no current British North America, if there was (say containing the western seaboard colonies) then there would be a need to identify the old eastern seaboard ones. But for example it is quite common to refer to the period in which the Thirteen Colonies were in the British Empire as the First British Empire This does not mean that the Empire still exists or that the British have a claim on the thirteen colonies. The only reason for using the term "historical" is because there still is an eastern Germany and always will be while Germany exists, (as there is in every state). But for example, there is an eastern Poland today and the lands beyond that could be called "historical eastern Poland". At the moment in Territorial changes of Poland after World War II there is the sentence "The eastern territories which the Soviet Union had occupied in 1939 (minus the Bialystok region) were permanently annexed, and most of their Polish inhabitants expelled: today these territories are part of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania." but there is no definition in the article of what those territories were, when they had become part of the Polish state etc. It would be quite nice and informative to have such information as this in that article or in another article specifically about those lands and if it existed it would need name like "Historical/Former eastern Poland", or "Historical/Former Poland east of the Curzon Line" --Philip Baird Shearer 21:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I don't agree. Based on other discussions on this page, I conclude that "historical eastern Germany" is a neologism (unless perhaps it is a translation of a German phrase?). Taking the examples that you give above, phrases like the Thirteen Colonies and First British Empire are generally terms that were in use at the time or are in use by historians today. Historical eastern Germany doesn't seem to fit either of these categories. Moreover the "It would be nice and informative..." argument suggests a WP:ILIKEIT argument.

I assume that "Recovered Territories" is a term used in Poland. Is it also used in English sources as a translation from the Polish?

--Richard 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a neologism because it is a description of an area which existed, not a name for the area. It is also described as "former eastern Germany". "It would be nice to have an article on" See Wikipedia:Requested articles, or create a red link, or enter a term in the search box which lets one create an article or to ask for one, or create a stub, like Moscow Conference (1945) or Transit Agreement (1972), or write the articles like Council of Foreign Ministers, Romanian People's Tribunals, Four Power Agreement on Berlin...--Philip Baird Shearer 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The other is that "historical eastern Germany" is apparently rarely used in English language literature. The second problem is solved by using "former" instead of "historical". As I am not a native speaker of English, I don't know whether using "former" instead of "historical" would help with the first problem. To me, "former" means that these territories were once German and are now no longer German. I fail to see any POV claim that these territories should be German in that. It is clear that these territories are now Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, and Russian, and it is also clear that they will stay that way for the forseeable future. Other suggestions seem to be born out of avoiding "former" or "historical" altogether, but all of these mean a new scope for the article. Anyway, apparently we do not have consensus what is the optimal title. Can we figure out what issues we are trying to solve and which of the titles does it? Kusma (討論) 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only issue over the use of former is if it is used with the word German instead of Germany then it opens up the can of worms of what does German mean? It could be taken to be any area that had a settled German community (for example the Volga Germans), that takes us away from a clean definition we are using at the moment of the former territories of Germany and opens up the article to lots of Points of veiews outside the current article boundries. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I find the argument that 'Historical' implies some sort of POV ridiculous. Let's break it down:

Historical = it was at one time, but no longer is.

Is this a dictionary definition or are you just asserting that this is what "historical" means? --Richard 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

eastern = eastern

Germany = part of the nation or nation-state of Germany.

Each of those components is true, and none of them is POV. If I wanted it to be POV, I would say something similar to Recovered Territories. Ameise -- chat 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rarely=never. Correct me if I am wrong...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

comment: so? point being PManderson? one can thus presume from your premise that Poland isn't a "historical" nation then. that is your reasoning and not mine. why is it misleading? Silesia was a property of the Habsburgs (Germans) and then Prussia (German) for hundreds of years. how do people think the word history means present day claims? it means exactly the opposite, get a dictionary.--Jadger 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot stop any editor from presuming what he likes; but even for Wikipedians, this is an unusually silly conclusion; I trust it is not trolling. The Habsburgs held the Hungarian Crown as well; does this make Dalmatia Historical southern Germany? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I completely fail to grasp how people are seeing the word 'Historical' as being POV. Either these people completely fail to understand the English language, or are nationalists; this is not an attack, I simply cannot see any other way by which they might think that. An example of an article WITH a strongly POV title would be something such as Recovered Territories. Ameise -- chat 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to a comment made by Septentrionalis above, Jagder wrote:

comment: so? point being PManderson? one can thus presume from your premise that Poland isn't a "historical" nation then. that is your reasoning and not mine. why is it misleading? Silesia was a property of the Habsburgs (Germans) and then Prussia (German) for hundreds of years. how do people think the word history means present day claims? it means exactly the opposite, get a dictionary.--Jadger 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot stop any editor from presuming what he likes; but even for Wikipedians, this is an unusually silly conclusion; I trust it is not trolling. The Habsburgs held the Hungarian Crown as well; does this make Dalmatia Historical southern Germany? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is wonderful how the first thing you assume and accuse of is trolling; it fills me with great hope that with an attitude such as that, we may yet find a solution! That is sarcasm, by the way. Ameise -- chat 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed wonderful how Antman reads a careful denial of trolling, and a reminder to be civil, as a personal attack. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that you felt it necessary to imply even mention trolling implies that wished to convey the message that he may in fact be trolling. Ameise -- chat 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

was Dalmatia inside the territory of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation? NO!, was Silesia? Yes! I trust your rather PC way of accusing me of trolling is not a personal attack, and hope you will remain civil even though people may find your logic extremely faulty--Jadger 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Bohemia part of "Germany"? For that matter, was the Imperial city of Milan? Was Rome? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps you should read the title again Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.--Jadger 07:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you shoudld answer the question, instead of waving red herrings. Is it useful, appropriate, supported, or correct to call Rome part of Germany at any time, including the fifteenth-century vogue of "HRE of the German Nation"? 18:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors have expressed the opinion that it is "silly" to imagine that the phrase "Historical eastern Germany" could be POV pushing. Here's why I don't think it is silly to consider it to be POV pushing. (Disclaimer: I'm not Polish but Chinese-American so please don't accuse me of Polish nationalism.)

Yes, there was a period in history (47 years from 1871-1918) when these territories were part of Germany so yes, technically "historical eastern Germany" is a valid way to describe these territories. However, Taiwan was under Japanese rule for the same length of time (1898-1945). My parents grew up speaking Japanese fluently. Does anyone claim that Taiwan is "historically Japanese"? No way!

So, 47 years is only about two generations and not nearly enough to make a territory "historically" anything. Look at Jadger's argument above. It's not about the period of 1871-1918. It's about the Holy Roman Empire. We are talking about a much longer period of time than 47 years. And, that's what makes this phrase POV pushing. To really understand "historical eastern Germany", we have to understand the History of German settlement in Eastern Europe (how nice it is to have a Wikipedia article to reference!), especially Ostsiedlung. OK, that's one POV. But, unfortunately, the other POV is that these territories were not always "German". They were also under Polish sovereignty at different points in history. And, that's the other POV. You know, the one implied by the phrase Recovered Territories.

This is why I think it's better to change the title of the article and sidestep this whole POV mess by finding a better NPOV title.

At this point, I'm almost ready to suggest that we call it Territories ceded by Germany in 1990. That would be descriptive and, more importantly, highly NPOV.

--Richard 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard there is a big difference between "historic" and "historical". It can not be more than the period from 1871 to 1990 because the state of Germany did not exist before that date and after 1990 the whole debate was put to bed. They may or may not have had settled German communites but they were not part of the German State, which is why the current name is better than one that uses the term German in the title.--Philip Baird Shearer 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Tiawan would not be called "Historically Japanese", it would be called Formosa and as you will know there is an article called Taiwan under Japanese rule which seems a bit odd to me because it was not usually called Tiawan in English at the time. I think a better name for the article would be "Formosa (year-foo year-bar)" --Philip Baird Shearer 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given what some are calling POV now, there are some people here whom I believe would take that to mean that those territories were only taken in 1990. Ameise -- chat 19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And the Federal Republic recognized the Oder-Neisse line in 1974. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The borders were confirmed by the Treaty of Final Settlement in 1990. Ameise -- chat 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they were. So? It is difficult to "confirm" something not already the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(To Pmanderson) Oh, come on.

(I wrote that before I saw the edit summary to Pmanderson's comment above.) Fine. The Oder-Neisse line was the defacto German-Polish border from 1945 (?) onward, recognized by the FRG in 1974 and officially ceded by unified Germany in 1990. Nobody is challenging any of that. So, what's your point? Maybe that the titles along the lines of "Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line" are the best option?

--Richard 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for making two edits with one summary; the summary was addressed to the Great German assertions above. :) I would regret putting 1990 in the title, when it makes so disputable a claim. I don't think any mention of the Oder necessary. We should try to do this in no more than half-a-dozen words; but if consensus crystallized on the Oder, I would join it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

just a couple of points:

1. it was "German" before 1871 as I pointed out, Prussia was a german country, and it was Prussian from 1740, which is longer than 46 years (obviously). before that, it was property of the Habsburg empire, another German country. sure it was a part of his (the Habsburg's) possesions as King of Bohemia, but that doesn't make it Czech. it was ethnically German, as can be seen on any article or research you do. I have never seen a map of Bohemia/Czech nation that included Silesia.

But weren't parts of these territories "Polish" at some time before 1871 as well? Would you object to a parallel article calling these territories "Historical western Poland"? That's why I think the current title is POV pushing. Your argument that these territories were "German" before Germany existed suggests a title such as "Historically German territories in Eastern Europe" which, while accurate, might raise some hackles among our Polish friends. --Richard 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. no comparison with Taiwan can be made, as Taiwan was not ethnically Japanese then following the war the inhabitants were not forced from their homes and the land claimed by foreigners like Silesia was.

--Jadger 07:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but other situations that are more closely analogous exist. Western Anatolia which was Greek and then later Turkish comes to mind. Should we have an article called "Historically Greek cities in Western Anatolia"? Or "Historical eastern Greece"? The Megali Idea is an example of the irredentism that uses claims of "historicality" of a region. You can argue that no one today wishes to claim western Poland for Germany. But the memory of past German irredentism lives on and the current title evokes that memory.

--Richard 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't know of anyone who claims that Troy wasn't a Greek city. However, I don't think it needs to be called "Historical Eastern Greece" as it is commonly called "Ancient Greece". --Jadger 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Troy was not a Greek city.

I was thinking of Smyrna and other Greek cities on the west coast of Anatolia which had significant Greek-speaking populations during the Byzantine Empire. This continued until the population exchanges following the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). (Another article with endless POV pushing!) And yet, there is no article titled Historical eastern Greece.

I just hope some of the polemically Greek editors are not watching this page, or there may be. ;-> (But, in fact, see Ionia.) Unfortunately, there is no equivalent convenient collective title here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

well, if you want a article titled Historical Eastern Greece then you can always create it. You seem to be the expert on it, not me. Wikipedia asks its users to be bold just because a article doesn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't be created.

--Jadger 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is just too bad that the German rule was not in one particular era, so we can't say "Ancient Eastern Germany" or "Eastern Germany in the Enlightenment Period". I wish we could, as that would make this discussion irrelevant. The best thing I can think of would be "Pre-cold war Eastern Germany" but that obviously doesn't quite fit right.

--Jadger 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• weak oppose saying "territories of Germany" only signifies 1871 on, and we are talking pre 1871 also here. not just "Germany" but "German". a better idea would be "Former German lands in the East"--Jadger 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, History of Germany doesn't signify from 1871 on, so why should "territories of Germany" signify that? Kusma (討論) 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, if you read the article, there is darn little in the current revision of the article before 1919. If you want to argue that this article should discuss pre-1871, then add it. My opinion is that any pre-1919 stuff should be covered in History of German settlement in Eastern Europe if it isn't already. Jadger, if you think the scope of this article should be expanded, then please indicate how you think it should be expanded either on the talk page or by editing the article itself. --Richard 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Forging a consensus

First a bit of preaching: Consensus isn't just a majority vote. It's about compromising and agreeing to tolerate a decision which is not your "first choice" but something you can live with. Nuff said.

Here's a summary of the voting so far:

19.1.1 Leave the article where is at Historical eastern Germany - 3/1

19.1.2 Move to Eastern territories of the German Reich - no support

19.1.3 Move to Eastern territories of the German Empire - no support

19.1.4 Move to Former eastern Germany - 3/3

19.1.5 Move to Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line - 2/2

19.1.6 Move to Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line - 2/2

19.1.7 Move to Territorial changes of Germany after the World Wars - 1/2

19.1.8 Move to Territorial changes of Germany - 2/2

19.1.9 Move to Former German eastern territories - 2/1

19.1.10 Move to Former eastern territories of Germany - 2/0

I have to admit to being a bit flummoxed by these results. Not only is there no consensus, thre is little indication of where a consensus might be formed. If you consider that many of the titles come in pairs with similar wording, the major options seem to be

1) Leave the article where is at Historical eastern Germany - 3/1

2) Move to Former eastern Germany - 3/3

3a) Move to Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line - 2/2

Move to Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line - 2/2

4) Move to Territorial changes of Germany after the World Wars - 1/2

Move to Territorial changes of Germany - 2/2

5) Move to Former German eastern territories - 2/1

Move to Former eastern territories of Germany - 2/0

The key objections in the comments and discussion seem to be around the words "historical" and "German" (as opposed to Germany).

This suggests that we might be able to form a consensus around one of the following titles:

a) Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line or

b) Former eastern territories of Germany

Given that the current status quo is a stalemate, I would urge everyone to consider changing their vote to a title that we might be able to form a consensus around.

--Richard 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

why just those two choices? the current title has more support and just as many against it as the two you offered as consensus-buildable. --Jadger 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I said I was "flummoxed" by the results. It would have been over-optimistic to hope that a clear winner would emerge but I really hoped to see one option that would have a plurality (like 5-6 out of twelve votes). Instead, every options has just 2 or 3 votes as does the current title. Most people have an option that they like better than the current option but there is no option that stands out as having more support than the others. Aaargh!

The options that I proposed above are the ones that I think have some hope of garnering a consensus. I'd like to hear other people's opinions as to whether or not they could throw their support behind one of these. --Richard 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the two options that I proposed, you will see that the major difference between them is "eastern territories" vs. "territories east of the Oder-Neisse line". I would hope that these two phrases are close enough to each other that people could agree to give up one in favor of the other. Moreover, between the four variants of these two options, we have seven support votes (I haven't checked to see if any of these votes are duplicates from the same editor). This looks like the bare beginnings of a consensus. At this point, it would be great if we could find a single title that would have the support of at least seven editors.

--Richard 02:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have two successive RfM's one being current title vs Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line then the next RfM being the victor of 1st RfM vs Former Eastern Territories of Germany.

--Jadger 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because as Ameise noted, this article seems to be the subject of endless RM's. It would be better to hash it out now and then do a final RM if necessary. Repeated RM's won't change people's minds. We just need to get into a mood of compromise to forge consensus. --Richard 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some questions

I think there are some issues almost everyone agrees on. Please feel free to comment in sections below.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Adjective 'historical' is misleading and should be replaced somehow.
• 'Former territories' or 'Territorial changes' are better choices when compared to 'historical'
• Article on Territorial changes of Germany should eventually be created, and content of this article should be its subarticle
• Eastern Germany, an unprecise and general term, can be easily confused with East Germany
• Germany, not 'German', 'German Reich/Empire/Prussia' etc. should be in the title

There is still controversy over:

• should this article describe territorial changes of entire Germany or just its eastern part, and if the latter, how to refer to that former eastern part
• should the article describe changes in the period of 1918-1945 or have a broader scope

I agree with the four points Piotrus claims are consensus. Both of the last two points belong to Territorial changes of Germany — or possibly Germany (terminology) like Macedonia (terminology). But we need a title for this article, not a future expansion or recasting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The article as it is now is either too broad or too narrow in its scope. Both limiting to to the territories in the east and presenting two (pre- and post-WWI) persiods together in a single article is artificial. It should be either split or expanded and the title should reflect this. --Lysy^talk 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I entirely fail to see the adjective 'historical' as being misleading. I see any attempt to define it as such is simply pulling at straws for a reason to either weaken or change the subject of the article. Antman -- chat 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

New article - History of German settlement in Eastern Europe

During our discussions about moving this article to a new title, it has been objected that the scope of this article is not equivalent to the title "History of German settlement in Eastern Europe". Nonetheless, it has been my feeling for many months that we need an article titled History of German settlement in Eastern Europe. This started because I needed to provide the background of ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe for the Expulsion of Germans after World War II article. However, there was only room for a brief summary in that article. Clearly there is much more to be said about the topic than can be said in two paragraphs.

So I have cobbled a new article together this evening. It is far from finished. I readily acknowledge that the sections on the Hanseatic League and the expulsions after World War II are excessively long and need to be trimmed down into summaries of the subsidiary articles on those topics. Your feedback and assistance in improving this new article would be much appreciated.

--Richard 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

you may want to check the article Ostsiedlung, as it is pretty much on the same thing (ostsiedlung translated being "settlement of the east".

--Jadger 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I knew about the Ostsiedlung article. My article is more than just a "rewrite" of that article.

The History of German settlement in Eastern Europe article is intended to start much earlier (with the Migration Period) and continue on through the Ostsiedlung and Hanseatic League era into the 19th and 20th centuries, touching on the world wars and the expulsions. It's a grand sweep of 1700 years of history. A lot of work is still needed but I think this provides a good start.

--Richard 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a very good project, but will need more merging and editing (I don't think Drang nach Osten needs to be mentioned so early, for example). Perhaps a good overview article can help us decide later which subarticles are actually needed and which can be scrapped (not every single of the articles needs to give the whole history). Please continue improving this article. Kusma (討論) 18:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to start another debate over titles but I did want to ask about the word "settlement" in the title of this new article. As Jadger pointed out, "German settlement in Eastern Europe" implies "Ostsiedlung" and thus the scope of this article should end with the end of the Ostsiedlung. However, the current revision of the article extends up until the present day. This suggests that a better title for this article would be History of German populations in Eastern Europe. The idea is that Germans spread throughout Eastern Europe during the Ostsiedlung but, at some point, the populations were fairly stable and settlement no longer described what was happening. Instead of a process of "settling", you just had a number of German populations in Eastern Europe. The size of these populations dropped dramatically after the expulsions but a few small populations of German speakers remain in Eastern Europe to this day.

Your thoughts and feedback on this question are welcomed.

--Richard 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New article - Territorial changes of Germany after World War II

Based on the foregoing discussion about renaming this article, it seemed that there was support for an article about "territorial changes of Germany" although it has not yet been agreed whether this is all territorial changes of Germany (1871-1990), after the World Wars (1919-1945) or after World War II (1945-1990).

Some of the arguments in the above "rename" discussion have argued that a proposed title didn't fit the current article. Of course, the counter-argument to such arguments is that the scope of the article does not have to remain precisely what it is now.

Back in October 2006, I proposed the following framework of articles related to the "Territorial changes of Germany" The overview article would be History of territorial changes of Germany with the following subpages

• Territorial changes of Germany (Versailles) (Is this article necessary?)
• Territorial changes of Germany (1918-1939)
• Territorial changes of Germany after World War II (covers Yalta/Potsdam + finalization of border at the Oder/Neisse line)

I figured that I would take a first whack at what a renamed and rewritten article might look like. I have created an article titled Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. My current revision of the article provides background that stretches back towards Ostsiedlung but that is only for background. The primary focus of this article is the territorial changes of Germany after World War II.

Please take a look at the new article and give me your feedback.

I am open to renaming and rescoping this article to Territorial changes of Germany after the World Wars (1919-1945) or even Territorial changes of Germany (1871-1990). In particular, I am interested in hearing whether or not this new article should include the territorial changes resulting from the Treaty of Versailles.

Similarly, there are the series of annexations from 1937 onward that are "territorial additions of Germany" rather than "territorial losses". Where should these annexations be discussed?

I think the key difference between my vision for the "Territorial changes of Germany" article is that I am more interested in describing the changes and how they came about. Thus, I envision expanded sections that would describe how and why the Yalta and Potsdam agreements redrew the boundary lines of Central and Eastern Europe.

At the same time, I am less interested in giving a name to the collection of territories that were taken from Germany in 1945 and ceded in 1990. Thus, the phrase "historical eastern Germany" is notably lacking from the new article.

As always, your feedback is solicited and welcomed.

--Richard 09:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now, the only thing remaining is to move this article to a new name (to preserve edit history) and split/merge appopriate articles to fit the new names. I'd suggest moving this to Territorial changes of Germany after World War I. PS. I also would suggest splitting/merging parts of this article with Recovered Territories, and Antman has created a useful template: Template:German borders.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to merge the articles, I believe that there are a few people who would take offense to 'Poland' not being included in a possible title, so how about "Polish-German Territorial changes following World War II"? Antman -- chat 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have Territorial changes of Poland after World War II which describes Polish border changes both east and west.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the best setup would be to have a main Territorial changes of Germany article. The introduction should make it clear that the article(s) are only about the "unified" German state since 1871. The main article would summarize the territorial changes; Template:Main would be used for the applicable subarticles. Minor territorial changes such as Heligoland would be mentioned in the main article, while the more complicated post-WWI and post-WWII changes would be mentioned in respective articles. Brest-Litovsk could be included as well. Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany is another article to take into consideration (although the legality of it is rather dubious). Olessi 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:R9tgokunks

User:R9tgokunks just informed close to a hundred people about this vote on their talk pages, blatantly violating the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Canvassing. In light of this, I fear the validity of this vote is now in question. Balcer 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He has also informed me that the only people he contacted were those listed as participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, just possibly not the most neutral and balanced group when it comes to determining the outcome of this vote. Balcer 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He notified me, and I had already commented on this straw poll. and this was a straw poll in the first place, so I fail to see how his canvassing is bad in the first place, as their is not a mandatory outcome from the voting anyways. A straw poll is used to gauge user positions, not to change content.

--Jadger 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines are listed Wikipedia:Canvassing. While some small amount of notification is acceptable, flooding the talk pages of close to a hundred Wikipedians with a vote notification seems to me to fall clearly into the spamming and votestacking category. But I invite other, more experienced users to make that call here. Balcer 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

well, at best that means this straw poll must be thrown out with no consequence from it then. As now what can we ascertain from voting when it surely has been rigged? We surely can't act in opposite of R9's opinion just because he solicited votes, that would cheat everyone else who has voted fairly.

--Jadger 05:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this issue. It's more important to forge a consensus than it is to take a vote. After all this discussion, we have a vague notion of what might be able to garner enough support for a consensus and what will not. At this point, we should be looking for ways to consolidate around a single compromise than looking to count heads. If we can build a consensus, then R9tgokunks' canvassing will be a secondary issue. I haven't seen that many new votes from editors who don't normally hang out here so I wouldn't worry about it too much. --Richard 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far it's only been about an hour since he put up his notices, so it is difficult to say anything definite at this point about the influence this action has had on this poll. Balcer 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one who recieved the notice, I can say I'm grateful - I'm not sure I have a strong opinion to weigh in on the title, but it is fascinating to see what an emotionally and politically charged topic it is even today, and from (I assume) non-Germans. Amwyll Rwden 07:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Name of the article on Germany's former eastern territories Charles01 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are strong views. Both ways. If you understand (which I don't) Polish (Ziemie Odzyskane) you are linked to Recovered Territories which presumably refelects the way kids learned their history in post 1945 Poland. But in Dutch (and presumably among German historians) we have 'Voormalige gebieden van het Duitse Rijk in het oosten'. There is clearly no consensus, least of all amoung wiki contributors

As a starting point, it is (presumably) our job to describe the world as it is (or, in the case of historical articles, was) and not as we wish it to be (or wish it had been).

The article itself has very little on the eighteenth century carve up of Poland. That's a pity because it makes it hard for people unfamiliar with the so called partitions of Poland to evaluate usefully the relevance of the word 'Recovered' as in 'Recovered Territories'. 'Recovered' implies harking back to another period. But the period treated in the article was a period when these territories were integral to Germany. Referring in the title of the article to their former Polishness makes no more sense to the average English speaker than setting up an article on western Ukraine headed Historical Eastern Poland.

To be pedantic, there are two subjects here. They overlap massively. But Koenigsburg/ Kaliningrad did not revert to Poland and Stalin has ensured that the population there is overwhelmingly Russian speaking. The Sudetenland had only been part of Germany for less than a decade (and before that it was only part of Czechoslovakia AFTER Czechoslovakia came into being wuith the Versailles settlement). So was the reversion of the Sudentenland a 'recovery'. Sort of, but really it depends where you want to put the goal posts.

The dramatic use of the word 'Historial' in the anglophone title reflects the way we anlophones like to romanticise our history. Isn't 'former' less 'gratuitously exciting' than 'historical'... ? It seems to work for German and Dutch speakers. But 'Former German Territories in the East' or 'Former German Territories east of the River Oder' seems less contentious in terms of the territories' acquisition during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries up to 1945 than slotting in the adjective 'historical' to the title. And clearly for a separate but massively overlapping article 'Territories recovered by Poland after 1945' makes sense (unless you live in places that didn't get recovered by Poland). In fact, it makes sense to me to merge Poland's massive 'recovery' of territory at Germany's expense into a single article that treats also of her massive loss of territory to the east. Unless you learn your history from the Polish perspective, the extent to which Poles were subjected to massive "relocations" (a more neutral noun than the subject deserves in my heart) from the (former) eastern half of the country in 1945 gets far less attention than the western half of the piece, but presumably the motivation of Stalin, who orchestrated the whole thing, was the same for both halves of the exerecise.

So ... two overlapping articles. And substitute 'Former' for 'Historical' in a work aspiring to serious historical scholarship in the post Arthur Bryant era. Or?.... Charles01 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Simplify!

I've been asked to take a look at this discussion, presumably as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany. I confess I haven't waded through all 24,000 words of it (yikes!), but it seems obvious that this is another overly complex, flag-waving brouhaha similar to others waged on Wiki over German-Polish ethno-historical issues.

Most reputable historians would agree that prior to 1945, the terms "eastern Germany" and "east Germany" (and Ostdeutschland) meant Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia, whether they were part of Germany (the German Reich), the Kingdom of Prussia or Brandenburg-Prussia. True, the issue becomes more complex prior to the Partitions of Poland, when some of these areas were politically controlled by or allied with the Polish crown, but nevertheless most of these areas were inhabited primarily or significantly by Germans for five or six centuries — until the post-WWII expulsions.

This is precisely why "historical eastern Germany" is considered POV by some editors. The phrase mixes "historical" which, in this case, characterizes "German populations in Central and Eastern Europe over five or six centuries" as being the "eastern" portion of "Germany" which has only existed since 1871. This anachronistic admixture lends itself to the argument that these "eastern" portions of "Germany" have historically been German and therefore should be now or should have been in 1939 or 1945 part of Germany. Oops. That's exactly what German nationalists of the 20th century, especially Nazis were arguing. Titles which avoid even the faint suggestion of this argument avoid trodding on the sensitivities of those who would sense the argument lurking behind the phrasing of the title. --Richard 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the 1945-49 expulsions and the postwar border changes, these areas sometimes are referred to historically as "the German East" (die deutsche Ostgebiete), but only to designate their former status and ethnography — not to make any current political claim to them. Obviously, they are part of Poland and Russia today and will remain so indefinitely — until humankind moves beyond ethnic loyalties to higher, universal human values.

But there's not "historical" in die deutsche Ostgebiete. In any event, I wonder if Poles would take kindly to the phrase die deutsche Ostgebiete without the ehemalige prefix. --Richard 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For people not familiar with history, the terms "German East" and "East Germany" are confusing, since the latter can refer to both the 1949-90 DDR and its territory in the present-day Germany — where the terms "Ossi" and "Wessi" have no relevance to the old German East — but not to the German East as explained above. Consequently, the word "former" is appropriate in some contexts, and indeed the Germans typically use its equivalent, ehemalige, in references to the areas in question and to specific places in them. Thus, die ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete, or Olsztyn, die ehemalige Allenstein.

However, in the midst of sizeable historical discussions in which the time frame is clearly established, "former" may be confusing, since in such historical periods they were not "former," they simply were eastern Germany. Alles Klar?

Sca 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Another "historic" point of view

If I still had a chance to ask my late grandparents, they would probably say the page should be titled German homeland in the east (Deutsche Heimat im Osten). All four of my grandparents were Heimatvertriebene (expellees forced to leave their homes and any possessions they could not carry and join the refugee tracks at the end of WWII). I find it rather saddening that the term recovered territories made it into a Wikipedia article, but is not balanced by the German POV on the story. Why is there no article on German homeland in the east to balance the Polish POV with the German POV? I can only assume that it is because most of those who were forced out of those territories are nowadays dead and no longer able to tell their stories, much less create an English Wikipedia article about it. On the other hand, Poles living in those formerly German territories today have a continuing need to justify historic events that traumatized a great number of German people.

Having said all this, I think the article needs to list at least the Federation of Expellees in its "See also" section to balance the viewpoint presented in recovered territories. - tameeria 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So maybe you should write this article, keeping it NPOV, of course. How do you write an NPOV article about a POV topic? By not letting the text suggest that the POV is incontrovertibly "the truth". --Richard 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New (old) perspective which may help us find consensus on the article title

Many of the arguments about the title of this article have been based on what the scope of the article is or should be. As I see it, the problem is that this article has tried to serve too many different purposes.

First, we should acknowledge that it would be easy to conclude that a major reason for this article's existence is that it opposes the POV of the article Recovered Territories. As such, we have to ask ourselves if this article should exist at all since, in the context of opposing Recovered Territories, it is a POV fork. To help defend the article from the charge of being a POV fork, it would be good to emphasize the German and Dutch phrases which translate to "(former) eastern territories of the German Reich" (e.g. "Ostgebiete des deutschen Reiches").

Second, this article is both about putting a name to these territories OTHER THAN "Recovered Territories" and describing the history of territorial changes to Germany from 1919-1945/1990. Thus, all the alternative titles have been pushing towards characterizing the time frame of the article and a major candidates (arguably the ones most likely to garner consensus) are ones which center around some variant of "Territorial changes of Germany".

At the risk of being smug and self-congratulatory, I will point out that I proposed such a framework some time ago. I proposed that we have a set of articles with the following titles:

History of territorial changes of Germany with the following subpages

• Territorial changes of Germany (Versailles) (Is this article necessary?)
• Territorial changes of Germany (1918-1939)
• Territorial changes of Germany after World War II (covers Yalta/Potsdam + finalization of border at the Oder/Neisse line)

The implementation of this proposal has already been put into motion by Antman although he may not have meant his actions in this light. Nonetheless, he put together the Template:German borders which uses the structure that I proposed either deliberately or unwittingly. Recognizing this parallelism between my proposed framework and the Template:German borders, I have co-opted that template by changing the heading from "Territorial changes of Germany in the 20th century" to simply "Territorial changes of Germany". I have also made that heading point to a new article that I created Territorial changes of Germany. Thus, all the other articles in the German borders template can be considered subsidiary to the Territorial changes of Germany article.

At the moment, there is a lot of duplicated text between Territorial changes of Germany and Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. I expect that, over time, we will reduce the coverage of the WWII and post-WWII period in Territorial changes of Germany by summarizing the text and referring the reader to Territorial changes of Germany after World War II via the {{main}} tag.

As I see it, one of the next steps that we need to take are to consider whether we need additional articles such as Territorial changes of Germany (Versailles). Is there enough material to write an article about these changes in a new article that is separate from the Treaty of Versailles article? A similar question is whether there is enough material to write a separate article on the interbellum period i.e. Territorial changes of Germany (1918-1939).

And, finally, we need to decide whether we still need this article under the current title. If we do decide to keep the title, we will then need to decide what the scope of it should be given the existence of these recently created articles.

--Richard 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard have you read WP:POVFORK? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what a POV fork is. Historical eastern Germany and Recovered Territories are arguably POV forks of each other and therefore some people might argue that the two articles should be merged. However, I believe that merge proposal was shot down and I figure I'll leave that battle for someone else to fight. Me personally, I'm happy to keep both articles as long as they both maintain NPOV. They describe two different phrases, both encyclopedic in their own right, for the same land.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that any of the articles that I have created recently are POV forks, I would beg to differ. I have created these articles because I started to realize that one of the reasons that we have so much difficulty agreeing on a title was that many of the proposed title changes were not just about changing the title but really proposals to change the scope.

For almost every proposed new title, some editors argued against changing the title Historical eastern Germany on the grounds that the proposed new title would not match the scope of the current article. In other words, they were not just resisting a change of title but also resisting a change of scope.

The key insight that I got last week is that, instead of trying to change the scope of this article, we should instead create new articles that covered the parts of German history that were outside the current scope of this article.

Territorial changes of Germany covers a much broader scope article than this one. It covers all territorial changes from 1871-1990 not just the ones in the east (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine). It also covers the Anschluss, Czechoslovakia, Rhineland, Saar, etc.

Territorial changes of Germany after World War II is arguably a duplication of this article and also duplicates much of Territorial changes of Germany but this can be fixed by trimming the text in Territorial changes of Germany and expanding the text in Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. More importantly, Territorial changes of Germany after World War II is more about the territorial changes and less about the name "Historical eastern Germany". Historical eastern Germany could be rewritten (i.e. trimmed) to be mostly about the name and leave the detailed history of the changes to be covered in Territorial changes of Germany after World War II.

History of German settlement in Eastern Europe is really meant to be an overview article that starts back around 300 AD and running up to the present. A major difference between this article and Historical eastern Germany is that using "German settlement" instead of "Germany" allows the article scope to extend back before 1871 and also past 1945. One criticism of the proposal to change the title of Historical eastern Germany to History of German settlement in Eastern Europe was that Germany only came into existence in 1871. This argued strongly for an article to cover the period before 1871 and History of German settlement in Eastern Europe is meant to be that article. I have been pondering whether History of German populations in Eastern Europe might be a better title since the major settlement activity probably happened before 1600 and any history after 1600 is more about "German populations" already settled in Eastern Europe rather than about "German settlement" activity. And, of course, there is the "Central and Eastern Europe" question.

Finally, if anything is a POV fork, I would think that more people would now consider Historical eastern Germany to be a POV fork of Territorial changes of Germany after World War II than vice versa since the "Territorial changes" title is clearly NPOV and Historical eastern Germany is arguably POV (at least some people would argue that it is). So, if you put both up for AFD, Territorial changes of Germany after World War II would probably be kept and Historical eastern Germany might get deleted. (No, I don't have a crystal ball. That's just my personal prediction.)

--Richard 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for the continued existence of this article

You're saying that a "major reason for this article's existence is that it opposes the POV of the article Recovered Territories" and as such it is a POV fork. I have to strongly disagree with that. I think the major reason for this article is to give NPOV information on the topic. "Recovered territories" in itself is an extremely POV-loaded term, even stated so on its page: "Recovered Territories" ... was a political and propaganda concept..." As such, I find it completely inacceptable that "Recovered territories" should even be considered as a possible sole Wikipedia resource on the topic since it is essentially about an anti-German propaganda tool. Now, creating an article about German homeland in the east certainly could be a POV fork, if that's what you were talking about. I have to wonder though why the POV of German expellees should be treated different from the Polish POV. Maybe the two POVs should be combined into one article for proper POV balance. - tameeria 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You start your message arguing against what I wrote and yet your last sentence suggests that you agree with me in terms of what the ideal situation would be. Maybe it's my fault for not stating my position clearly.

Despite the desirablity of your suggestion, I doubt that we will ever get agreement to merge Recovered Territories and Historical eastern Germany into one article. Besides, it's unclear what we would call the merged article. So we are stuck with two POV articles which counter-balance each other. All I wanted to say was that we need to acknowledge that this article is performing that function. I do not see THIS article as NPOV while Recovered Territories is POV. Nor do I see Recovered Territories as NPOV while THIS article is POV. They are both POV by their very existence and the only hope we have is to mitigate the POV pushing by trying to write about these POV concepts in the most NPOV way we can. --Richard 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, this article is about all eastern territories of pre-world war Germany and not just the ones that are now Polish, and I fail to see how it functions as POV fork on a Polish propaganda term. That suggestion in itself seems like anti-German POV to me. Poland is not the only country now covering some of those territories that are talked about here, so the scope of the article is different. What this article needs, is an unambiguous and NPOV title, not having its existence questioned. - tameeria 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your point about this article being about all eastern territories and not just the Polish ones is well taken.

That notwithstanding... there has been a long debate about what the title of this article should be. As the result of the discussion, it has become clear that there is value in having some additional articles. I have created three of these: History of German settlement in Eastern Europe, Territorial changes of Germany and Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. There is currently a lot of overlap amongst these three articles and also with other articles such as Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

What we need to do is step back for a minute without getting emotionally committted to any one article or title and think about how to regularize and rationalize the content of all these articles according to a rational framework. The framework provided by Template:German borders is a good place to start. What we need to ask is whether this article belongs in the framework or if it no longer serves any purpose because of the creation of other articles that cover the same scope.

What exactly IS the purpose of this article? Why give all these disparate territories a collective name? Is this collective name important? To whom? To Germans? And what do the Germans call "Historical eastern Germany"? At least Recovered Territories is a translation of a Polish phrase. Should we not then use a title that reflects what Germans call those territories (things like "Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches"?) Why create a neologism which is not a translation of a German phrase?

I am not arguing that we should not discuss this topic in Wikipedia. I am arguing that we are now covering the topic well in a number of other articles. The only function left for this article is giving a collective name to a collection of territories that each already have individual articles. Is this important? Why?

So... once again, what is the purpose of this article? Why should it continue to exist?

NB: I really am exploring this question with an open mind. If I really thought it should be deleted, the thing to do would be to nominate it on WP:AFD. I just don't think we should assume that this article needs to exist in light of the newly created articles. Let's discuss it and figure it out.

--Richard 21:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely don't understand why the existence of this article is questioned. The eastern territories have been subject to controversial political discussions throughout much of German history in the so-called "German question" (de:Deutsche Frage). It has been an important factor of post-war German history and politics and played an important role in bargaining for the reunification of Germany in 1990. It has affected the Cold War. All of this can be read about in history books. Why not on Wikipedia?

Why not, indeed? My point was that this article was missing this kind of explanation of context; the absence of which was calling into question whether the article was adding any value to Wikipedia considering that most of the other content was already duplicated in other articles.

I have taken the liberty of inserting the above text into the article with some light editing.

--Richard 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as what to call the subject of this article, there seem to be reputable history sources simply using the German term "Ostgebiete" for it instead of translating the term:

• Farquharson J (1997), Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 32, pp. 23-42 [15]
• Kamusella T (2001), German History, Vol. 19, pp. 400-407 [16]

Maybe we should rename this article "Former eastern territories of Germany". That has garnered some support although not enough to argue that it is a clear winner. I think I'll wait for the dust to settle a bit and see how different editors feel about the various options before proposing this.

--Richard 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as recovered territories goes, see the sources that I've listed on its talk page that confirm the use of this term solely as a Polish propaganda tool, especially during the Cold War. That however is not the subject of this article here. - tameeria 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The compass has no POV

It's ridiculous to label the term "eastern Germany" (whether one puts "historical" in front of it or not) as being POV. It's essentially a geographic designation, such as the West (capitalized as a definite region) in the U.S. It's derived from the compass direction east, which is about as NPOV as you can get.

As explained above (see "Simplify!"), the areas in question simply were eastern Germany or the eastern parts of the realm of German settlement for a long period of centuries prior to 1945. That is how the term deutsche Ostgebiete is understood by Germans, and that is how "eastern Germany" should be understood in reference to pre-1945 conditions and events. What's hard to understand about that?

Today, the term "western Poland" refers essentially to what before 1945 was Lower Silesia (Niederschlesien) and Hither Pomerania (Hinterpommern) plus the intervening region known in German as Neumark (OK, with a bit of Brandenburg thrown in). There's nothing POV about the term "western Poland" when applied to current conditions or events, and by the same token "eastern Germany" when applied to the same territories is not POV in the context of pre-1945 topics. This is because — to state the obvious for those who seem not to understand -- THE GERMAN-POLISH BORDER WAS MOVED WEST IN 1945!!

This is a simple historic fact, along with the expulsions of the Germans from these areas and the settlement of Poles in them. There's nothing "POV" about the fact that these changes were made; what was previously German is now Polish.

Here's a small parallel: In the U.S. in the mid-19th century, Minnesota and Wisconsin (and maybe Upper Michigan) were known as "the Northwest." Later on, the addition of the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Territory and the Mexican annexations led to the term "Northwest" being applied to Washington State, Oregon and maybe Idaho. It is often, perhaps usually, further specified by being rendered as "the Pacific Northwest."

Today, the Minnesota-Wisconsin area (maybe with Iowa) is properly known as the Upper Midwest. However, the term "Northwest" persists in some usages in Minnesota and Wisconsin — where it is sometimes rendered as "the Old Northwest." You see it in names of schools and colleges, companies (such as Northwest Airlines, based in Minneapolis) and various other entities. (I know because I grew up in Mpls.)

Does this mean the residents of Minn. and Wis. are making a "POV" statement, to which those in Washington and Oregon should take offense? Ridiculous! You don't see any useless arguments about which "Northwest" is right on Wiki!

OK, so the analogy isn't direct, but the principle is there: There's nothing POV per se about "east" or "west." (Incidentally, I don't like the term "POV," but that's another discussion.)

Sca 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has a problem with "eastern". The POV claim is really about the combining of "historical" and "eastern Germany" in the context of the 20th century debate about whether those territories were "historically" part of Germany. We have discussed this at length above and you either agree or you don't.

The real problem, as I see it, is that Recovered Territories, even though it's POV, describes a phrase that is in common usage. I'm not convinced that Historical eastern Germany is a similarly common usage phrase. In fact, I wonder if it's a neologism crafted here at Wikipedia. (I'm not an expert and I haven't memorized all of the discussion on this topic so I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong.) However, I think the phrase that I have seen discussed as being in popular use is "ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete" or "Former eastern German territories". I would vote for such a title over the current title (especially since I've pre-empted two of the other popular proposed titles by creating articles with those titles).

--Richard 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Historical eastern Germany" is not a commonly used phrase in my experience, which includes a lot of reading in the topic area. I've never seen it anywhere but Wiki. However, its German equivalent, or some form thereof, is commonly used in German. But note that the German forms do not use the word "historical" (historisches), but rather the word "former" (ehemalige) in appropriate contexts — or when the context is established does not use it at all.

One clarification: Ehemalige does not literally mean "former," although that's the general import. Literally it means "in previous times." Ehe = previous or before; Mal = time or instance — or "once" as in "There once was..." (The archetypical German fairytale begins, Es war einmal ein kleines Mädchen... — "There once was a little girl...") Thus, what a German is saying in modifying a noun with the adjective ehemalige is "former-timely." Die ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete literally means "the former-timely German eastern territories."

One English phrase I have seen used in discussions of this topic is "the Oder-Neisse territories," meaning those formerly German territories east of the Oder-Neisse border. Usually, this means specifically those territories that were part of pre-1937 Germany, but it also can be taken to include the ex-Free City of Danzig, given that it was not part of interwar Poland, either. I don't think it usually applies to the post-WWI changes that resulted from Versailles, as those areas were de jure part of interwar Poland.

Anyhow, I would suggest that this article be titled "Former eastern territories of Germany," and that the introduction should explain that they also are known as the Oder-Neisse territories. I don't think this article should be lumped in with those on the expulsions of the Germans, as that occurred before these territories were discussed politically in the sense of the current article, and took place over a wider area than the Oder-Neisse territories annexed in 1945 by Poland and the Soviet Union.

Footnote: "Ethnical" is not a word in English; the word is "ethnic."

Sca 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources and references for Ostgebiete

I've looked through a couple of English sources I could find online and it seems many of them simply use the German term "Ostgebiete" or "Deutsche Ostgebiete" or even "Germany’s Ostgebiete" to refer to this region, sometimes combined with a translation or explanation.

Translations I found in English scholarly literature include:

• German eastern territories (several different authors)
• German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line
• Soviet Union (I think we can discount this one as patent nonsense...)

There are also articles that talk about:

• "Eingegliederte Ostgebiete" in specific reference to those parts of the Ostgebiete that were annexed into the German Reich during WWII.
• "Occupied eastern territories" (in translations for the Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete)

However, these would have to be seen as subtopics of a broader treatment of the Ostgebiete as they are much more specific in region and timeframe. This part of the topic appears to be covered already by Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany.

Scholarly sources and references I found:

Tomasz Kamusella (2003): Dual citizenship in Opole Silesia in the context of European integration. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology Vol. 2, No 10, pp. 699-716. PDF

• Uses: "deutsche Ostgebiete (German eastern territories)"

Tomasz Kamusella (2003): The Szlonzoks and their language: Between Germany, Poland and Szlonzokian nationalism. EUI working paper HEC No. 2003/1, European University Institute, Florence. PDF

• Uses: "deutsche Ostgebiete (German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line)"

Tomasz Kamusella (2001): Nations and their Borders: Changing Identities in Upper Silesia in the Modern Age. German History, Vol. 19, Number 3, pp. 400-407. SAGE Publications – also listed in Google Scholar

• Uses: "deutsche Ostgebiete"

John Farquharson (1997): Governed or Exploited? The British Acquisition of German Technology, 1945-48. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 32, No. 1, 23-42. SAGE Journals Online - JSTOR – also listed in Google Scholar

• Uses: "Ostgebiete" - defined as "Polish occupied territories to the east of their (the Russian’s) German zone"

Ruth Büttner (publication date unknown): Impact of National Socialist Rule: the Case of Estonia. (DAAD, Eriwan) PDF

• Uses: "German eastern territories (Ostland)" - in reference to German-occupied Estonia

Carl-Gustaf Thornstrom and Uwe Hossfeld (publication date unknown): Instant appropriation - Heinz Brücher and the SS botanical collecting commando to Russia 1943. Plant Genetics Resources Newsletter Issue No.129, page 54 to 57. HTML

• Uses: "Ostgebiete (Soviet Union)" (an example how easily patent nonsense makes it into publication, I guess the authors were more into botany than history)

Ulrich Raiser (publication date unknown): Mapping minorities and their media: The national context – Germany. Humbolt University Berlin. PDF - EMTEL II research on diasporic minorities and their media in the EU - Minorities Reports

• Uses: "the so-called Ostgebiete"

Adolf M. Birke and Günther Heydemann (eds): Grossbritannien und Ostdeutschland seit 1918. Prince Albert Studies, 9, Munich etc. Saur, 1993, 151 pp. HTML – see abstract 136)

• Uses: "Germany's Ostgebiete"

Other references published in English for potential use as sources in this and related articles (found through a search on "Ostgebiete" on the JSTOR scholarly journal archive – free access for academic users):

• Richard Blanke (1990): The German Minority in Inter-War Poland and German Foreign Policy - Some Reconsiderations. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 87-102. JSTOR
• Ihor Kamenetsky (1961): Lebensraum in Hitler's War Plan: The Theory and the Eastern European Reality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 313-326. JSTOR
• Geoffrey North (1958): Poland's Population and Changing Economy. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 517-527. JSTOR
• Katrin Sieg (1993): The Revolution Has Been Televised: Reconfiguring History and Identity in Post-Wall Germany. Theatre Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, German Theatre After the F/Wall, pp. 35-47 JSTOR
• John Borneman (1993): Time-Space Compression and the Continental Divide in German Subjectivity. The Oral History Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 41-58. JSTOR
• R. C. Raack (1990): Stalin Fixes the Oder-Neisse Line. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 467-488. JSTOR
• Aviezer Tucker (1996): Shipwrecked: Patocka's Philosophy of Czech History. History and Theory, Vol. 35, No. 2 (May, 1996), pp. 196-216. JSTOR
• Ludwik Gelberg (1982): The Warsaw Treaty of 1970 and the Western Boundary of Poland. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 119-129. JSTOR

In summary, it seems the German term has been used by scholars also in English literature and can be used successfully in searching scholarly archives. It appears to be most commonly translated as "German eastern territories" in the literature I found, if a translation is given at all. - tameeria 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've searched both the Google Scholar and JSTOR archives for the titles suggested above and added the number of hits. I've also added two more title suggestions that appear to be used frequently in literature. - tameeria 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, for what it's worth: Ehemalige dt. Gebiete is a subcategory on German eBay, within the category of collectibles and rarities (Sammeln und seltenes) — dt. being the abbreviation for deutsche. Sca 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Title proposals - trying to filter out a consensus between editors and scholarly literature

Below, I'm trying to consolidate editor support with scholarly support for the many title suggestions that were made and commented on above. Since an article on the territorial changes of Germany was created, I am disregarding titles going into this direction to avoid duplication.

Most cited in scholarly literature (striking those that have garnered at least 5 opposing editor comments):

• Former eastern Germany - in reference to GDR, therefore highly ambiguous - 274 publications - current tally 3/9
• Ostgebiete - original German term - 91 publications - current tally 0/1
• Former German eastern territories - 21 publications - current tally 3/4
• Former east German territories - 14 publications - current tally 0/1
• Eastern territories of the German Reich - 9 publications - current tally 0/7
• Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line - 9 publications - current tally 5(or 6?)/4

Most preferred/least opposed based on editor input (counting only those with at least 5 comments total, striking those that have no scholarly support at all):

• Former eastern territories of Germany - current tally 7/1 - used in 3 publications
• Former territories of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line - current tally 8/3 - no publications
• Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line - current tally 5(or 6?)/4 - used in 9 publications
• Former German eastern territories - current tally 3/4 - used in 21 publications
• Eastern territories of the German Empire - current tally 2/4 - no publications

Overlap between the two lists (if giving both the same weight) results in two almost equally supported title candidates:

• Former German eastern territories
• Former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line

The first version appears to have more support in scholarly literature (and basically presents a direct translation from the German term), the second one appears to have more support among editors (and possibly is less ambiguous because more precise). I think either of them would work fine and the other should be a redirect. - tameeria 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that when a "scholar" or for than matter when the Allies used the name German, they do not have to consider editors of Wikipedia who will take that to mean not just territories of the German state. If we go that way this article will become unfocused. If we do then we may as well stick with the name used in the Potsdam Agreement--Philip Baird Shearer 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's troublesome for those who think of "German" as being POV because the lack of certain terms using "of Germany" rather than "German" in scholarly literature demonstrates that those formulations would be neologisms coined here on Wikipedia to accomodate/avoid editor POV disputes. And you're right, scholars do not have to consider the personal preferences of Wikipedia editors. That's why I would consider those publications as more neutral. I don't see the problem with sticking to a published title (even a controversial one) if it's explained well in the first sentence of the article and properly cites reliable sources.

Since this article talks also about the territories that were subject to the Treaty of Versailles, I don't think we should focus on the Potsdam Agreement. The scope of this article is larger. Former German territories under Polish and Soviet administration would be the post-WWII Western-POV term (like recovered territories is the post-WWII Eastern-POV term) which would suggest two articles of opposing POV. I think though that this should be a neutral article based on fact (i.e. publications), not POV, especially since it is a POV-susceptible topic. The POV-titles should probably be pages discussing the terms and their use and significance in post-WWII propaganda and Cold War politics, but only briefly mention the territories they refer to. I think every statement in the article, including its title, should have at least one reliable source behind it. - tameeria 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you include territories affected by Versailles, you get into areas that were less thoroughly German ethnically, such as Posen-Neumark and West Prussia (Pomerelia). The eastern borders of Germany in 1920-37 actually did approximate ethnic preponderance in most cases (except, perhaps, Masuria on one hand and Danzig on the other). Also, the ethnic Germans living in the territories acquired by recreated Poland in 1920 weren't suddenly and totally expelled, as was the case with the Oder-Neisse territories after WWII.

My point is that the Potsdam territories were legitimately German on an ethnic basis, and had been internationally recognized as such, whereas the "Polish Corridor," Posen/Poznań and Upper Silesia did have Polish ethnic majorities (slim in the case of U. Silesia) and in 1920-39 were internationally recognized as legitimately part of Poland.

I believe the postwar expellee groups that argued for return of the territories to Germany targeted the post-WWII changes, not those made in 1919-20. Also, I suspect it was these Oder-Neisse territories that were the subject of the 1990 treaty — i.e. those that had been transferred under the Potsdam "Accords." Thus, it is those territories that constituted a potential issue between modern Germany and Poland. I think "Former Eastern Territories of Germany" most accurately delineates the topic.

This is only of academic and historical interest, since no one seriously expects any change, but it bears some relevance to current poltiical tensions between Poland and Germany. Sca 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article already contains the territories affected by Versailles, so if I'm making an argument for anything it's not for their inclusion, but rather against their exclusion. I don't see any reason to drop an important part of the content of the current article.

I can see that much of the POV argumentation revolves around "German" meaning "ethnically German" or "legitimately German" versus "German" simply meaning "within the borders of the state of Germany." My opinion on this: Since "territory" by definition has physical borders, I would always understand "German territories" as "within the borders of Germany." I fail to see why the term is supposedly POV or even ambiguous in this context. One thing is certain: Argumentation about regions being "legitimally German on an ethnic basis" can only lead to prolonged POV disputes. But that there were territories within internationally recognized German borders during a specific timeframe, either 1871-1918 or 1919-1939, that nowadays are no longer part of Germany is a historic fact.

Once again, the article already includes the 1871-1918 territories. I don't see a point in excluding them. There are many ethnic Germans around the world whose ancestors came from in these territories either during the German exodus from Eastern Europe after WWI or the expulsion of Germans after World War II. While the post-WWII controversy revolved of course around the later changes, the Versailles changes were a flashpoint in European history and are crucial to understanding German politics before and during WWII and even the beginning of WWII itself. Just because they are further back in history does not make them any less important in terms of historic impact. - tameeria 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Your points are valid but they are more applicable to the Territorial changes of Germany article to this one. Territorial changes of Germany from 1871-1919 would also include Heligoland, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Alsace-Lorraine, Northern Schleswig, Eupen, Malmedy, Sudetenland, Silesia, Rhineland, Saarland, Anschluss (Austria), Czechoslovakia, and Memelland.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all these changes be included here because, if they were included here, the expanded scope of the article would no longer match the current title or many of the proposed alternative titles. In fact, the expanded scope would fit the title of the Territorial changes of Germany article which is why I created it.

I think we must strictly keep the scope of this article to those eastern territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line and strictly to the time period 1871-1990. (It is reasonable to discuss the pre-1871 history of these territories but primarily as background information. The main discussion of the pre-1871 history of these territories should be treated in History of German settlement in Eastern Europe.

--Richard 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm confused about the scope of this article, it seems. Is it supposed to be talking about the Ostgebiete from a strictly post-WWII perspective or from the broadest perspective in which the term is used? Both the territories that were subject to the treaty of Versailles and those that were subject to the Potsdam agreement are mentioned in the article and out of these all those that were east of the borders of modern day Germany were referred to as Ostgebiete in Germany and by historians. According to the German Wikipedia, Ostgebiete in the widest sense includes the territories of the Province of Posen, West Prussia, the Hlučín Region and the Klaipėda Region, Pomerania, the Neumark, East Prussia, Masuria, Sudetenland, the majority of Silesia including Upper Silesia, and the Free City of Danzig.

I am confused by the assertion that some of those territories should not be part of an article about the Ostgebiete. Or am I misunderstanding something? I am equally confused by your mention of territories that never have been referred to as Ostgebiete by Germans due to their geographic location not to the east of Germany. That doesn't make sense to me. I wasn't referring to pre-1871 history, but to pre-1939 history. To specify it: The mere existence of the Ostgebiete and the "Polish corridor" which separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany after the treaty of Versailles was the reason for much political discord between Germany and Poland after WWI culminating in Hitler's invasion of Poland (1939) and thus the flashpoint for WWII. Later, Hitler's Reichskommissariat Ostland included the Reichministerium für die Besetzten Ostgebiete (occupied Eastern territories) of the baltic states and Belarus, led by Alfred Rosenberg and Alfred Meyer. Wikipedia even has an article about the Mundart des Ostgebietes, a Low Prussian dialect spoken in some of these baltic regions.

If this article isn't supposed to be about the greater area that can be referred to as "Ostgebiete" in German (possibly including Ostland), then I'm apparently misunderstanding what this was supposed to be about. As I said earlier, I think this article has a different scope from "recovered territories" as it includes territories that were integrated into the Soviet Union and Czecheslovakia besides Poland. Based on this, I concluded that this article was attempting to cover the topic ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete in its broadest sense.

Now on a side note, here's another title suggestion: "Former German territories in Eastern and Central Europe" (from Prussica-Sammlung Trunz in translation from the German Wikipedia "historische deutsche Ostgebiete") - tameeria 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this article is supposed to be "Historical eastern Germany". Germany, the state, came into existence in 1871, and this article is about mentioning that some of those territories which were referred to as Eastern Germany were removed by international agreement from Germany. As a tail piece, it is important to note that the German Government did not formally accept their removal until 1990.

It is not a neologism to use a page name that not referenced in scholarly literature. If that was a criteria then we would have to get move or delete thousands of articles. To make sure that there is no misunderstanding that this is not a neologism I am going to edit the introduction so that it is clear that it is not.

To the people taking part in the debate on this talk page although some of the details of this page may be hazy, at least the details are know. But for most English language speakers, there is little knowledge that the current eastern border of Germany was not the border in 1914 or 1939, or if it was how and why it changed. This article is very useful as a link from articles on the start of both wars, and the treaties which changed the borders. By sticking to the use of the words "of Germany" instead of "German" it stops the article expanding into yet another list of "the're really always Polish/No they were not" balanced POVs true, but unessary as Wikipedia alrady have lots of those articles. ("a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing [and don't care about]" is probably a good description of that type of stacked NPOV for most English speaking people reading this article, when it starts to pull in information from the article on the partitions of Poland etc.)

I think that there are seveal details which need to add to this article. The first is what changes did the Third Reich unilaterally make to the territories mentioned in Versailles and did they annex into Germany other territories which were not part of Germany in 1871. Also details of the changes made during the 1970s under Ostpolitik like the Basic Treaty (1972) and how that effected the Moscow Treaty (1970) etc. and so why it was important that yet more treaties over the eastern territories of Germany were perceived as needed in 1990. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "Eastern Germany" in the title is that this name is used very frequently (over 1000 hits on Google scholar for it) and mostly in reference to East Germany aka GDR or formerly-GDR territories of modern day Germany. These territories do not fit the topic. The current title therefore is highly ambiguous, besides being a phrase only used on Wikipedia to describe a region that has been called many things, but not the title under which it is presented here. - tameeria 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is. So long as Germany exists there will be a northern, eastern, southern, and western area of Germany. But "historical" describes an area that is not current eastern Germany but some region either east of west of the area that is now eastern Germany. This is different from "East Germany" (notice the captial letter "E") which in Engish means the region of Germany also previously know as the GDR.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem number 2 then is that the reunification of Germany in 1990 has rendered East Germany (GDR) as a state "historical" as well. So now we have two types of "historical East/Eastern Germany" to sort out. - tameeria 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No we do not. It is former "East Gemany" but it is still east/estern Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much!

Stop! If we start talking about all the places in central-eastern Europe ever inhabitated by Germans, it gets way too complicated and byond the scope of this article, which as I understand it concerns territories that were part of Germany prior to the post-WWII border changes (not, of course, including Nazi annexations such as the so-called "Wartheland").

At Postdam, the Big Three began their discussions about the western border of Poland based on the borders of 1937, although Stalin noted that this was "only as a starting point." (See Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy, Boston, 1953, p. 651; Charles Mee, Meeting at Potsdam, New York, 1975, p. 111.) Again, it's these areas within the internationally recognized borders of the German state in 1920-37 that were specifically transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union by Potsdam (although not de jure, but that's another story), agreed to by West Germany in 1971 and affirmed by the 1990 treaty on Germany unity. And it's these areas, plus for former Free City of Danzig, that usually and generally are under discussion today under the rubric "ehemalige deutsche Ostgebiete."

This term can be further clarified by translating it into English as "Former Eastern Territories of Germany" — the "of Germany" stressing that the territories in question had been internationally affirmed as part of the German state prior to WWII and the Nazis.

If we get into discussing every territory that was ever part of some German state or entity at some time, we hit a minefield of complexity and conflicting claims. Take for example eastern Upper Silesia, which had a sizeable German plurality and had been developed industrially by Germany, but which was assigned to Poland after the League of Nations plebiscite in 1921. A very complex topic, politically and ethnically. Or consider the case of Klaipėda/Memel, which had a German history dating from Teutonic Knights in the 13th century but was part of a mixed German-Lithuanian (and later, Russian) area ethnically. Ditto re complexity. And let's not get into the "Polish Corridor" or the Sudetenland; mention either and you'll ring Polish and Czech alarm bells, and start people arguing about who and what was or would have been "right" in this or that time in history.

Let's just stick to the changes made at (Yalta and) Potsdam. And I can't emphasize enough how important it is to explain the geopolitical rationale for these changes: "Compensation" for the Soviet annexation of eastern Poland.

Sca 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really compensation... Poland had annexed those territories in Russia in a war of aggression against the Soviet Union. Moreso, Stalin wanted to make sure Poland had to rely on Russia for defense, by making it so the Germans could still claim their territory back. A system of control, really. Antman -- chat 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved

Although another administrator has declared the discussion to not have achieved consensus here, I have decided to move the page to Former eastern territories of Germany. I don't think that's the best title possible, but it seems to be far less controversial than the current title, and I really don't want us to have precisely the same discussion again in a couple of months. I won't do anything if my decision is reverted, but hope that this title can bring us a little more peace than the old one. Kusma (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the POV-title template. Kusma (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this move. The consensus is clear that the current title has minimal support. If someone really feels that there is a better title, they can propose it and we can see if there is more consensus for that title than this one. --Richard 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)