This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More thorough referencing would be needed for C or B rating.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 08:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the following two links here from the main page.
Yes, it is completely true that Danish doctors etc didn't treat German refugees in Denmark cordially, but during the last months of 1944 and the first months of 45, Germany had placed 250,000 German refugees in Denmark which at the time had a population of 4 million. So one in 16-17 was a German refugee, and this number doesn't include the German soldiers in Denmark. The soldiers left in 1945, but the British occupation zone in NW Germany rejected a Danish request to have the 250,000 German refugees transferred to the British zone. These people were hated because they'd been placed in Denmark by Nazi authorities and because they occupied a very large number of Danish public buildings, most importantly schools and community halls. Were these people treated like they would have wished? No, they weren't, but much of the story is that Danish doctors were afraid of being labelled as Nazis or pro-Germans should they treat the war refugees. In addition, many Danish doctors held a great grudge against all Germans since the Germans and the Schalburg Corps had raided Odense Hospital during the war and gunned down a number of innocent young doctors. Whenever I asked my grandparents about what had been the worst incidents during the war, they always mentioned these murders. A third aspect of the story is that the Danish government deliberately isolated the refugees from the general public in order to avoid young German women fraternising with Danish males since any Danish-German marriage would have given both persons the right to stay in Denmark according to contemporary Danish law. A fourth aspect was that some German doctors didn't wish help from Danish doctors. A fifth, that the calorie rations awarded to the Germans was taken from the tables used by the Germans during the war, and that this ration was met. This was done despite that if one had given the average man on the street the choice between giving food to German refugees or giving it to starving Dutchmen, French, Norwegians or Finns, he would have chosen anyone but the Germans. Denmark sent food to all four countries. In any case, Danes don't normally consider the German refugees an important event in national history. Rather, a Danish POV would have been that the refugees should have been glad they weren't simply expelled in 1945. The death rate among the German refugees was high, but it is hardly surprising given that these people were in very poor shape when they arrived in Denmark; women, children and old men, without adequate food and physically exhausted from the flight from East Prussia. This rate also needs to be compared to similar rates in Poland and Germany among people in similar conditions. This material really belongs under the occupation of Denmark article, but it can't simply be reduced to two external links making every reader passing by conclude that the Danish government and people committed genocide. Valentinian T / C 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Elsewhere I see that Denmark joined the EEC on 1 January 1973 along with the UK and Ireland, but this article says the Danish people voted in 1973 to join. What's the real story? — Largo Plazo 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that the map in this article containing the above title contains borders which are thoroughly inconsistent with the year 1800. In fact, it seems to be a map from the post-World War I period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryps5 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have used The loss of Eastern Denmark part of the article in this article: Denmark - Netherlands relations. I hope its okay. Ahmetyal 13:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It is stated in this article that the Danish monarchy is the oldest in Europe. This is not correct if Harold Blue-tooth is taken as the first King of Denmark. His reign began in 957. Aethelstan became king of England in 927, 30 years before. It may be argued that the Monarchy of England ended with Anne but it is clearly incorporated in that of Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corieltauvus ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldnt a stone dolmen, the oldest type of architecture found in Denmark, be a good image to represent Danish history? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the scope of this article should be include archeological prehistory going back to the earliest settlements of the territory that is today Denmark. This is the scope that the average reader will expect, and also the scope that is included in most generalist "histories" of Denmark. Starting abruptly in the 8th century because that is when written sources begin and the strict specialist definition of history is employed is not helpful to the reader. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
As an extra comment, I think it would be quite helpful to the future of this article, if it was specified more clearly how much the emphasis should be on Denmark as a nation vs. the geographical area we now call Denmark. It would solve similar problems down the road, it would probably also help making the article more cohersive in its content and focus. I don't know if there is any consensus on this in other "History of ..." articles? Personally I feel that a lot of detailed information on the nation of Denmark could perhaps be moved to the
Denmark page. But first of all, I believe it would be a really good idea to improve the
prehistory of Scandinavia page. It is written almost entirely from a Swedish perspective as it stands now. And it doesn't even do it in a good way in my opinion. I have had thoughts on this for quite a while, more thoughts than time I guess.
RhinoMind (
talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
PerV ( talk) 03:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
There has been a segment of text about St. Canute (Canute IV) loitering haplessly in the prior section, right after some text about Cnut the Great. It dates from the first appearance of this text, so is not damage from a subsequent edit. It's persisted for years unnoticed, but it actually makes no sense in the context in which it appeared, as if it were drafted elsewhere and misplaced before being pasted into WP.
The text clearly relates to Canute's final raid plans in 1086, not to Cnut's unifying kingship in the 10th c. As such I've relocated it without discussion, but I'm putting this here to explain myself. The fact that Cnut and Canute are similar (alternate orthographies of a common name) could lead anyone to overlook the error or to dispute the edit. -- dgc ( talk) 05:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More thorough referencing would be needed for C or B rating.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 08:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the following two links here from the main page.
Yes, it is completely true that Danish doctors etc didn't treat German refugees in Denmark cordially, but during the last months of 1944 and the first months of 45, Germany had placed 250,000 German refugees in Denmark which at the time had a population of 4 million. So one in 16-17 was a German refugee, and this number doesn't include the German soldiers in Denmark. The soldiers left in 1945, but the British occupation zone in NW Germany rejected a Danish request to have the 250,000 German refugees transferred to the British zone. These people were hated because they'd been placed in Denmark by Nazi authorities and because they occupied a very large number of Danish public buildings, most importantly schools and community halls. Were these people treated like they would have wished? No, they weren't, but much of the story is that Danish doctors were afraid of being labelled as Nazis or pro-Germans should they treat the war refugees. In addition, many Danish doctors held a great grudge against all Germans since the Germans and the Schalburg Corps had raided Odense Hospital during the war and gunned down a number of innocent young doctors. Whenever I asked my grandparents about what had been the worst incidents during the war, they always mentioned these murders. A third aspect of the story is that the Danish government deliberately isolated the refugees from the general public in order to avoid young German women fraternising with Danish males since any Danish-German marriage would have given both persons the right to stay in Denmark according to contemporary Danish law. A fourth aspect was that some German doctors didn't wish help from Danish doctors. A fifth, that the calorie rations awarded to the Germans was taken from the tables used by the Germans during the war, and that this ration was met. This was done despite that if one had given the average man on the street the choice between giving food to German refugees or giving it to starving Dutchmen, French, Norwegians or Finns, he would have chosen anyone but the Germans. Denmark sent food to all four countries. In any case, Danes don't normally consider the German refugees an important event in national history. Rather, a Danish POV would have been that the refugees should have been glad they weren't simply expelled in 1945. The death rate among the German refugees was high, but it is hardly surprising given that these people were in very poor shape when they arrived in Denmark; women, children and old men, without adequate food and physically exhausted from the flight from East Prussia. This rate also needs to be compared to similar rates in Poland and Germany among people in similar conditions. This material really belongs under the occupation of Denmark article, but it can't simply be reduced to two external links making every reader passing by conclude that the Danish government and people committed genocide. Valentinian T / C 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Elsewhere I see that Denmark joined the EEC on 1 January 1973 along with the UK and Ireland, but this article says the Danish people voted in 1973 to join. What's the real story? — Largo Plazo 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that the map in this article containing the above title contains borders which are thoroughly inconsistent with the year 1800. In fact, it seems to be a map from the post-World War I period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryps5 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have used The loss of Eastern Denmark part of the article in this article: Denmark - Netherlands relations. I hope its okay. Ahmetyal 13:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It is stated in this article that the Danish monarchy is the oldest in Europe. This is not correct if Harold Blue-tooth is taken as the first King of Denmark. His reign began in 957. Aethelstan became king of England in 927, 30 years before. It may be argued that the Monarchy of England ended with Anne but it is clearly incorporated in that of Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corieltauvus ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldnt a stone dolmen, the oldest type of architecture found in Denmark, be a good image to represent Danish history? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the scope of this article should be include archeological prehistory going back to the earliest settlements of the territory that is today Denmark. This is the scope that the average reader will expect, and also the scope that is included in most generalist "histories" of Denmark. Starting abruptly in the 8th century because that is when written sources begin and the strict specialist definition of history is employed is not helpful to the reader. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
As an extra comment, I think it would be quite helpful to the future of this article, if it was specified more clearly how much the emphasis should be on Denmark as a nation vs. the geographical area we now call Denmark. It would solve similar problems down the road, it would probably also help making the article more cohersive in its content and focus. I don't know if there is any consensus on this in other "History of ..." articles? Personally I feel that a lot of detailed information on the nation of Denmark could perhaps be moved to the
Denmark page. But first of all, I believe it would be a really good idea to improve the
prehistory of Scandinavia page. It is written almost entirely from a Swedish perspective as it stands now. And it doesn't even do it in a good way in my opinion. I have had thoughts on this for quite a while, more thoughts than time I guess.
RhinoMind (
talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
PerV ( talk) 03:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
There has been a segment of text about St. Canute (Canute IV) loitering haplessly in the prior section, right after some text about Cnut the Great. It dates from the first appearance of this text, so is not damage from a subsequent edit. It's persisted for years unnoticed, but it actually makes no sense in the context in which it appeared, as if it were drafted elsewhere and misplaced before being pasted into WP.
The text clearly relates to Canute's final raid plans in 1086, not to Cnut's unifying kingship in the 10th c. As such I've relocated it without discussion, but I'm putting this here to explain myself. The fact that Cnut and Canute are similar (alternate orthographies of a common name) could lead anyone to overlook the error or to dispute the edit. -- dgc ( talk) 05:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)