Talk:Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge[edit]

According to the large German minority in Poland, I just don´t get this sentence: "The expulsion of Germans was much more thorough than that of Poles in Poland's former eastern territories; today Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine still have significant Polish minorities.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.85.193 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See also an analogous proposal ate Talk:Territorial changes of Germany after World War II#Merge.

Territorial changes of Poland after World War II should be merged into the straight, Territorial changes of Poland. All the information in the WWII article is just copied from the Territorial changes of Poland article and the Territorial changes of Poland article goes into greater detail. Also, the article isn't really about Territorial changes of Poland after World War II its more Territorial changes of Poland after World War II to a few months after World War II as it does not go into the border adjustments of the 70s or those with Slovakia.

  • MERGE -- For simplicity sake -- Esemono (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - seems like a useful subarticle, but the content indeed is currently mergeable. Suggest announcing the discussion at WP:PWNB for more input. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom's rationale. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - of course the article needs work but i think we do need a separate article about the border changes after WWII. Loosmark (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Compromise. Instead of merging an article that people have strong feeling about just changing the name to reflect the subjects discussed. -- Esemono (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I've removed some trivia and marked the article NPoV - the final three paragraphs seem to be editorialising, and are uncited. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Potsdam 1943?[edit]

That's wrong, right? It shouldn't be 1943, right? Calle Widmann (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

changes of[edit]

This phrase isn't English. The English version is changes to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

math[edit]

Did the area of Polan decrease or increase after the west-shift?--Baruch ben Alexander - [ [User_Talk:borisbaran|☠☢☣]] 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


About the same but they changed areas witch where mainly russin ( Ukrainian, Bielorussian)and should not habe been under Polish rule at first, for areas witch where 100 % German with some Polish in upper slesia and the Mazurs. And it looks like that there was a coverd genocide there is missing the account for some hunderttausend German civilians witch now seen as Russian victims witch are more likley polish victims but that is sorrowly coverd up. JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.84.178 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misinform - Poland lost 77 000 km2, more than twice more than the area of Belgium.
Noone asked people in Eastern Poland what they wanted.
Many "Germans" were bilingual Slavs. Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

propaganda[edit]

"It's important to note that these regions were previously Polish and had been forcibly occupied by surrounding nations while Poland had been partitioned three times and lost 733,500 km2 of its territory between 1772 - 1775 to Austria, Prussia and Russia. " (1) The sentence sounds like Polish propaganda: "Its' important ...". why the stress needed that it is important? Sounds fishy. (2) It is wrong. Look at the map in Partitions_of_Poland. The Polish state that was partitioned had a similar territory as Poland of 1919 regarding the Western border, after Polish annexion of terrotory east of the Curzon line in 1921 also with respect to the eastern border. Former German eastern territories had been slowly settled by Germans since the 12th century, Silesia, Pomerania, have nothing to do with the partitions. They were settled by Slavic tribes in the 10th century, one could only refer to this fact for claiming the territories, as indeed Polish authorities do.

"The "Free City of Danzig" was the German occupied name, of Gdansk, which since has been renamed to the original." Same as above, this is plain propaganda. A careless reader might think that the name Danzig was only created by Nazi occupation, where in fact it was the name of a German city for 800 years.

Polish ?

Sorry but what Polen gained 1945 /1990 was never realy polish. Only a short while for 30 ore so years in the middle age it was belongig to Poland as fifedoms, that means the lokal governers paid some money to Warschau. Bacause Polen agressivly tried to integrate areas like Pommern ( Pomerania) they volotarely joint the holy empire and became slowly german, not only by settlers by change of the language too. Slesia ( Schlesien) is an other story because it mostly belong to the kingdom of Bohemia and Prussia was not polish at all in the beginning it was setteld polish under German rule probably the readen was the plage witch changed their the ethnikal strukture a lot JB

The eastern border was set in Teheran and Yalta[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in Polish could be probably replaced by an English one.
The page misinforms, the Eastern border was defined in Teheran and Yalta.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)