This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
History_of_Poznań#Pozna.C5.84_in_Nazi_Germany_.281939.E2.80.931945.29 has a different account of the battle. The biggest difference is that that article claims that the major fights did not begun until mid-February ("The Soviets gathered their strength, not beginning the ground assault until February 18", when the city was flanked - or encircled?). The article on pl wiki about the battle is more detailed but not finished (goes only up to 24 January); it does mention that the Soviet failed to take the city during 'from march' and decided to flank it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree the article lacks detail and in aspects may be inaccurate. As I understand the history, most of the forts in the ring around the city had to be defeated; to my mind this implies deliberate assaults with sappers, etc. I think the "major fights" referred to above is actually the culminating assault on the Citadel. --
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Name
I am dismayed that you have moved the name of the article to include the ń character. I have nothing against the Polish alphabet - but this is the English language Wiki, and in the English language the city is known as "Poznan", and references to the battle written in English also use "Poznan". Ziemke and Duffy's works are examples of this. I kindly request you move article's name to the original title. "Battle of Poznań" would be good as a redirect for the occasional Polish user of the English Wiki. --
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Piotrus, that is disingenuous. This is an English-language Wiki. In English works, the city's name -is- Poznan with no characters used from other languages. See, for example, the article
Munich. The name of the article for the city is given in its English name which makes good sense for users of an English Wiki, even though the city's residents call it München.
Frankly, your name move is unhelpful and exactly the sort of thing that kicks off edit wars. I've seen very fine editing on your part and find it hard to understand both your edit and your attitude in this case.
And rest assured I know the Polish name for Poznan and many other Polish locales as well. I am no enemy of Poland. It is simply that are some rules that make sense for an English-language Wiki, and imposing foreign language characters on article names makes little sense. --
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion. My time here, however, is limited and I prefer not to spend it engaging Wikipedia processes in cases that in my consideration are fairly obvious. For the same reason, I find edit wars to be wasted time.
Naming disputes are created by people like yourself who insist on nationalisation of English Wikipedia. This is regardless of the fact that I will still type in Poznan every time because I am not going to change the keyboard layout for every instance I need to look at a location in Poland. However, there is such a thing called History, and it is recorded regardless of personal preferences of those who try to rewrite it.--
mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
There is no ń in English, or café for that matter. There is no need for a redirect if the title of the article is Battle of Poznan. Changing an English title into a Polish one is nationalising of the title.
WP:AGF and
WP:NPA have nothing to do with it! You are changing the spelling from English to Polish. What would you call it?!--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But you are only correct in Polish! In English, and we are editing in English Wikipedia, you are not correct. You would also not be correct in Russian, Turkish, Hindu, and Chinese to name a few. Do you see my point? You are imposing your own POV and spelling convention on the English language users, and using redirects for which there is absolutely no need.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
With all due respect Piotr, you have not shown anything! Please see here [
[1]] for use of accents in English and
English words with diacritics. I also refer you to the
English alphabet. If I choose to write cafe, no one is going to fault me for it in common English usage. It is just unreasonable to impose the need to have knowledge of all the different languages that use diacritics on the English language users of Wikipedia. That would be the result of what you are suggesting if applied consistently throughout the English Wikipedia projects. --
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
06:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed, the world is bigger then just its English speaking part. This is also why we have redirects. I don't expect most English speakers to know most diacritics. That doesn't mean they don't exist in English language. Ignorance is not an excuse.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 06:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Are you suggesting that non-use of diacritics is a sign of ignorance?! Not one school in Australia teaches it, and I got though a university degree without using it while being taught by lecturers from six different countries! Redirects are also used for disambiguation of English events (in this case) and the tag is {{R from historic name}}. However if you see the page
Wikipedia:Redirect#Alternative_names you will see the example Byzantium, Istanbul and Constantinople, and not {lang-tr|İstanbul}--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I wish I could misrepresent your arguments Piotr, because you haven't offered any other then to suggest that I am ignorant in the use of English language. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Poznań may have a different spelling outside of Poland, and in this case in an English language society. Would you have been so insistent if the similarity had been less apparent in another language, as in say Greek Πόζναν?--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I'm native speaker of Polish language, but it doesn't mean that I am specialist in writing foreing names in Polish. On the other hand I often use name of Poznań in dialogues with native English speakers. Currently the most spread form is "Poznań" in favor of "Poznan" and most rarely derived from German "Posen" (which is usually treated as "faux pas" if it is used in other that historical context)
Radomiltalk10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This was going to be my next avenue of discussion before Piotr decided he no longer wanted to participate. You see, at the time discussed by the article the city was still a part of Germany and was indeed called Posen. As it clearly says in the
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) "If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.", and that is Posen, so the article aught to be called the "Battle of Posen".--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
A great may places in Europe changed countries over the centuries. I am only concerned with what country's territory the city was located in during the events being described, not before and not after. I can not at this stage concern myself with every city in Europe, and prefer to keep discussion to one subject at a time.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
11:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
So let's keep them: Annexation of pre-war Polish territories was violation of international law. Non of neutral countries recognized this annexation. So using German name here would be invalid. According to international law Poznań in this time was Polish city under German occupation (as well like some cities in Western Europe, like Paris and others).
Radomiltalk11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think there is a different article that deals with the issue of German annexation of Polish territory and its legality or otherwise. Neither I, not this article is concerned with the wider issue of the causes of war or annexation of territories. It is only concerned with the events that took place during the combat in the given period. During that period the city was named Posen and was administered by Germany. Neither I nor you or anyone else can change that. Its what is known as irrevocable historical fact. It is documented by at least four state authorities, German, Polish and Soviet.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
If you would like to discuss the naming of the Battle of Iwo Jima, the the talk page for that article is probably the best place.
I don't really care what the "situation in occupied Europe" was. For the purpose of this article its immaterial. --
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
12:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I see that You don't care of any context. In this way of thinking Your proposition are also... immaterial. Why? Why not. As for now thats Your way of argumentation (Also I can write "German administration in this time is immaterial fact"). So what relevant arguments You have?
Radomiltalk12:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
You don't know anything about me, so don't make statements you may have to retract.
Retention of context is something I have consistently advocated everywhere I have edited since I begun this project. However, this article describes a tactical or maybe an operational military operation. The issues of international law, territorial annexation and rights and wrongs there of are at the context of strategic politico-military decision making. At the time of the event being described in the article these contexts simply do not apply. It is obvious that a war was being waged to defeat Germany which invaded numerous sovereign states, and not just Poland. This fact need not be restated in every
Eastern Front article that deals with the continuing military operations. It is a matter of historical fact that the city and its area was under German administration. In any case the
Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is linked to in the very introduction to the article. What else do you expect in terms of context?--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I suppose you can prove that most English speakers use Poznań when they write, and not Poznan? In any case, as you will see above, the name of the city during the period covered by the article was Posen, and I dare suggest there was not one English speaker in the area at the time.
I don't see it in either current or archived discussion. However I did find you questioning the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Official_name_takes_precedence_over_the_local_name.3F
The answer you received seemed fairly explicit: common English use of the official use during the period under discussion applies--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok, I found the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#What_about_a_person_born_during_occupation.3F
This is an entirely different case. A person can be born in a territory annexed by another country, in which case the birth certificate would be issued by the annexing country. A person born in the occupied territories will be issued a birth certificate by the civilian authority appointed by the military occupation authority.
Now the history of Poznań/Posen in question is that
"Poznań was the capital of the Greater Poland area when it came under the control of Prussia in 1793 and had its administrative area renamed to South Prussia. During the Greater Poland Uprising of 1806, local Polish resistance fighters rebelled, thereby assisting the efforts of Napoleon while simultaneously driving out the occupying Prussian forces. The city became part of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 and was capital of the Poznań Department. Napoleon's defeat led to the Congress of Vienna, where the boundaries of Europe were redrawn by the victors. Greater Poland was returned to Prussia and became the capital of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Posen."
Grand Duchy of Posen, autonomous province of Prussia, 1815-1848
Province of Posen, Prussian province, 1848-1918
Posen (region), the southern part of the Province of Posen
Posen-West Prussia, German province, 1922-1938
Reichsgau Posen, part of German-occupied Polish territory, 1939
I note that although last entry says "part of German-occupied Polish territory" in fact the Reichsgau Posen was occupied, annexed and directly incorporated into the German Reich. Considering that it had been a part of Prussia and Germany since 1815 until 1945, 130 years (over 6 generations) I would not call this a "short occupation" regardless of the fact that the population of Posen was 2/3 Polish. We are not talking about the 1939-1945 period here --
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok, so its 114 year and not 130. Spoils of war. In any case, during the events of 1945 Posen was a part of the German Reich, and not occupied territory, regardless whether it was right or wrong. Frankly its not something I'm concerned with in this case since the Soviet and Polish officers conducting the offensive would have used Poznan. What I object to is used of Diacritics where none are used in English to write the name.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Your still have some mistakes... Grand Duchy was oficialy bilingual, with majority of Polish speaking citizens and authonomy of Poles. Moreover Province Posen was also de facto bilingual. For instant, tram company in Poznań bncrupted because it was boycoted by Polsih majority due to only German signs. New owner of tram lines had to introduce bilingual signs.
Radomiltalk15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Undoubtedly very interesting historical information (I would have expected this given 2/3rds of the population was Polish) but very irrelevant for the purpose of this article.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
History_of_Poznań#Pozna.C5.84_in_Nazi_Germany_.281939.E2.80.931945.29 has a different account of the battle. The biggest difference is that that article claims that the major fights did not begun until mid-February ("The Soviets gathered their strength, not beginning the ground assault until February 18", when the city was flanked - or encircled?). The article on pl wiki about the battle is more detailed but not finished (goes only up to 24 January); it does mention that the Soviet failed to take the city during 'from march' and decided to flank it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree the article lacks detail and in aspects may be inaccurate. As I understand the history, most of the forts in the ring around the city had to be defeated; to my mind this implies deliberate assaults with sappers, etc. I think the "major fights" referred to above is actually the culminating assault on the Citadel. --
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Name
I am dismayed that you have moved the name of the article to include the ń character. I have nothing against the Polish alphabet - but this is the English language Wiki, and in the English language the city is known as "Poznan", and references to the battle written in English also use "Poznan". Ziemke and Duffy's works are examples of this. I kindly request you move article's name to the original title. "Battle of Poznań" would be good as a redirect for the occasional Polish user of the English Wiki. --
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Piotrus, that is disingenuous. This is an English-language Wiki. In English works, the city's name -is- Poznan with no characters used from other languages. See, for example, the article
Munich. The name of the article for the city is given in its English name which makes good sense for users of an English Wiki, even though the city's residents call it München.
Frankly, your name move is unhelpful and exactly the sort of thing that kicks off edit wars. I've seen very fine editing on your part and find it hard to understand both your edit and your attitude in this case.
And rest assured I know the Polish name for Poznan and many other Polish locales as well. I am no enemy of Poland. It is simply that are some rules that make sense for an English-language Wiki, and imposing foreign language characters on article names makes little sense. --
W. B. Wilson (
talk)
17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion. My time here, however, is limited and I prefer not to spend it engaging Wikipedia processes in cases that in my consideration are fairly obvious. For the same reason, I find edit wars to be wasted time.
Naming disputes are created by people like yourself who insist on nationalisation of English Wikipedia. This is regardless of the fact that I will still type in Poznan every time because I am not going to change the keyboard layout for every instance I need to look at a location in Poland. However, there is such a thing called History, and it is recorded regardless of personal preferences of those who try to rewrite it.--
mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
There is no ń in English, or café for that matter. There is no need for a redirect if the title of the article is Battle of Poznan. Changing an English title into a Polish one is nationalising of the title.
WP:AGF and
WP:NPA have nothing to do with it! You are changing the spelling from English to Polish. What would you call it?!--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But you are only correct in Polish! In English, and we are editing in English Wikipedia, you are not correct. You would also not be correct in Russian, Turkish, Hindu, and Chinese to name a few. Do you see my point? You are imposing your own POV and spelling convention on the English language users, and using redirects for which there is absolutely no need.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
With all due respect Piotr, you have not shown anything! Please see here [
[1]] for use of accents in English and
English words with diacritics. I also refer you to the
English alphabet. If I choose to write cafe, no one is going to fault me for it in common English usage. It is just unreasonable to impose the need to have knowledge of all the different languages that use diacritics on the English language users of Wikipedia. That would be the result of what you are suggesting if applied consistently throughout the English Wikipedia projects. --
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
06:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed, the world is bigger then just its English speaking part. This is also why we have redirects. I don't expect most English speakers to know most diacritics. That doesn't mean they don't exist in English language. Ignorance is not an excuse.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 06:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Are you suggesting that non-use of diacritics is a sign of ignorance?! Not one school in Australia teaches it, and I got though a university degree without using it while being taught by lecturers from six different countries! Redirects are also used for disambiguation of English events (in this case) and the tag is {{R from historic name}}. However if you see the page
Wikipedia:Redirect#Alternative_names you will see the example Byzantium, Istanbul and Constantinople, and not {lang-tr|İstanbul}--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target.
07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I wish I could misrepresent your arguments Piotr, because you haven't offered any other then to suggest that I am ignorant in the use of English language. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Poznań may have a different spelling outside of Poland, and in this case in an English language society. Would you have been so insistent if the similarity had been less apparent in another language, as in say Greek Πόζναν?--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I'm native speaker of Polish language, but it doesn't mean that I am specialist in writing foreing names in Polish. On the other hand I often use name of Poznań in dialogues with native English speakers. Currently the most spread form is "Poznań" in favor of "Poznan" and most rarely derived from German "Posen" (which is usually treated as "faux pas" if it is used in other that historical context)
Radomiltalk10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This was going to be my next avenue of discussion before Piotr decided he no longer wanted to participate. You see, at the time discussed by the article the city was still a part of Germany and was indeed called Posen. As it clearly says in the
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) "If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.", and that is Posen, so the article aught to be called the "Battle of Posen".--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
A great may places in Europe changed countries over the centuries. I am only concerned with what country's territory the city was located in during the events being described, not before and not after. I can not at this stage concern myself with every city in Europe, and prefer to keep discussion to one subject at a time.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
11:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
So let's keep them: Annexation of pre-war Polish territories was violation of international law. Non of neutral countries recognized this annexation. So using German name here would be invalid. According to international law Poznań in this time was Polish city under German occupation (as well like some cities in Western Europe, like Paris and others).
Radomiltalk11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think there is a different article that deals with the issue of German annexation of Polish territory and its legality or otherwise. Neither I, not this article is concerned with the wider issue of the causes of war or annexation of territories. It is only concerned with the events that took place during the combat in the given period. During that period the city was named Posen and was administered by Germany. Neither I nor you or anyone else can change that. Its what is known as irrevocable historical fact. It is documented by at least four state authorities, German, Polish and Soviet.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
If you would like to discuss the naming of the Battle of Iwo Jima, the the talk page for that article is probably the best place.
I don't really care what the "situation in occupied Europe" was. For the purpose of this article its immaterial. --
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
12:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I see that You don't care of any context. In this way of thinking Your proposition are also... immaterial. Why? Why not. As for now thats Your way of argumentation (Also I can write "German administration in this time is immaterial fact"). So what relevant arguments You have?
Radomiltalk12:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
You don't know anything about me, so don't make statements you may have to retract.
Retention of context is something I have consistently advocated everywhere I have edited since I begun this project. However, this article describes a tactical or maybe an operational military operation. The issues of international law, territorial annexation and rights and wrongs there of are at the context of strategic politico-military decision making. At the time of the event being described in the article these contexts simply do not apply. It is obvious that a war was being waged to defeat Germany which invaded numerous sovereign states, and not just Poland. This fact need not be restated in every
Eastern Front article that deals with the continuing military operations. It is a matter of historical fact that the city and its area was under German administration. In any case the
Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is linked to in the very introduction to the article. What else do you expect in terms of context?--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I suppose you can prove that most English speakers use Poznań when they write, and not Poznan? In any case, as you will see above, the name of the city during the period covered by the article was Posen, and I dare suggest there was not one English speaker in the area at the time.
I don't see it in either current or archived discussion. However I did find you questioning the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Official_name_takes_precedence_over_the_local_name.3F
The answer you received seemed fairly explicit: common English use of the official use during the period under discussion applies--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok, I found the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#What_about_a_person_born_during_occupation.3F
This is an entirely different case. A person can be born in a territory annexed by another country, in which case the birth certificate would be issued by the annexing country. A person born in the occupied territories will be issued a birth certificate by the civilian authority appointed by the military occupation authority.
Now the history of Poznań/Posen in question is that
"Poznań was the capital of the Greater Poland area when it came under the control of Prussia in 1793 and had its administrative area renamed to South Prussia. During the Greater Poland Uprising of 1806, local Polish resistance fighters rebelled, thereby assisting the efforts of Napoleon while simultaneously driving out the occupying Prussian forces. The city became part of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 and was capital of the Poznań Department. Napoleon's defeat led to the Congress of Vienna, where the boundaries of Europe were redrawn by the victors. Greater Poland was returned to Prussia and became the capital of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Posen."
Grand Duchy of Posen, autonomous province of Prussia, 1815-1848
Province of Posen, Prussian province, 1848-1918
Posen (region), the southern part of the Province of Posen
Posen-West Prussia, German province, 1922-1938
Reichsgau Posen, part of German-occupied Polish territory, 1939
I note that although last entry says "part of German-occupied Polish territory" in fact the Reichsgau Posen was occupied, annexed and directly incorporated into the German Reich. Considering that it had been a part of Prussia and Germany since 1815 until 1945, 130 years (over 6 generations) I would not call this a "short occupation" regardless of the fact that the population of Posen was 2/3 Polish. We are not talking about the 1939-1945 period here --
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok, so its 114 year and not 130. Spoils of war. In any case, during the events of 1945 Posen was a part of the German Reich, and not occupied territory, regardless whether it was right or wrong. Frankly its not something I'm concerned with in this case since the Soviet and Polish officers conducting the offensive would have used Poznan. What I object to is used of Diacritics where none are used in English to write the name.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Your still have some mistakes... Grand Duchy was oficialy bilingual, with majority of Polish speaking citizens and authonomy of Poles. Moreover Province Posen was also de facto bilingual. For instant, tram company in Poznań bncrupted because it was boycoted by Polsih majority due to only German signs. New owner of tram lines had to introduce bilingual signs.
Radomiltalk15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Undoubtedly very interesting historical information (I would have expected this given 2/3rds of the population was Polish) but very irrelevant for the purpose of this article.--
mrg3105 (
comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target.
15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply