![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 14, 2004, November 14, 2005, November 14, 2006, November 14, 2007, November 14, 2008, November 14, 2009, November 14, 2010, and November 14, 2011. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
First off, that source cited to back up that claim in the first sentence doesn't say that at all. The citation says page 398, but the google book it links to is only 372 pages long, including the index at the back. The paperback edition listed on book-selling websites (ie amazon) is listed at 408 pages. How did this important information not make it into the actual book but get thrown in on the back pages?
Second point (still about first sentence): claiming 10th-13th centuries is using a lot of weaseling, Mieszko I only conquered Silesia in 990, and the Polish state was fragmented since at least 1138. The statement used makes it seem like it possessed the lands for more than two centuries than it actually did, and that Poland was a recognizable unitary state, which it wasn't. In fact, for much of this period Poland was a vassal of the Empire.
2nd and 3rd sentences are weasel worded and not cited.
4th sentence, again a problem of a source not stating what is claimed in the article. As for the difference between what is stated in said source and this article, the source states that, after the Nazi rise to power, major investments were made in infrastructure and construction to ensure that the regions were seen as integral parts of the German state, and that this improved infrastructure was later used during the war. It says nothing of the region being militarized. As for the Germanization, it says it was a continuation of the previous policy. Not to mention that this source states even more damning things that make this revanchist historical excuse look even more absurd. This source states that Polish plans were to also annex lands all the way up to Berlin, and incorporate the Sorbs into their nation. It also states that claims of Poles living on the Oder since time immemorial was pure propaganda (page 9).
5th sentence has nothing to do with this article.
2nd paragraph is just atrocious, makes it sound like the treaty of Versailles decided things ad hoc, but much of the post WWI border was decided by plebiscite.
Now, some problems by way of omission that I see with this section: 1) It skips from 990 to 1914, no mention of anything that happened in the almost 900 years between those two dates. Seems odd that a section titled historical border between Poland and Germany would not have any description of any of the historical changes in the border preceding 1914. 2) It is decidedly one sided, bordering on non-NPOV.
And that's just this section, I'm not even going to touch on the rest of this abortion of an article yet.
-- 142.166.216.112 ( talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
My edits in my major re-write went along the following lines.
I also thought that these changes would settle the issues noted 2014 with the "undue weight" flag, so I removed it.-- 2001:A61:260D:6E01:493A:3631:689B:C016 ( talk) 14:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Who is equating "legal" with "provisional" in the following?: "Soon after the agreement was signed clarification needed which one?, both the US and Soviet Union accepted the border as de facto the legal border of Poland, for instance in U.S. Secretary James Byrnes's Stuttgart Speech the Western Neisse was accepted as the provisional Polish border. [1]"
I made an edit to change "enthousiastic" to "enthusiastic", but it was reverted. Should it have been? I'm not aware of the former as an alternative spelling for the latter. Localdenizen ( talk) 05:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1949, one of the reasons that Bonn only re-affirmed Berlin as the German capital was because they believed it soon enough wouldn't be as close to the border as it now was under the imposed 1945 settlement. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 10:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Many German people who lived in nearby towns were held in the camps and died due to lack of food and medical care. They were forced from their homes and many were young children, not only soldiers. 216.126.34.73 ( talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 14, 2004, November 14, 2005, November 14, 2006, November 14, 2007, November 14, 2008, November 14, 2009, November 14, 2010, and November 14, 2011. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
First off, that source cited to back up that claim in the first sentence doesn't say that at all. The citation says page 398, but the google book it links to is only 372 pages long, including the index at the back. The paperback edition listed on book-selling websites (ie amazon) is listed at 408 pages. How did this important information not make it into the actual book but get thrown in on the back pages?
Second point (still about first sentence): claiming 10th-13th centuries is using a lot of weaseling, Mieszko I only conquered Silesia in 990, and the Polish state was fragmented since at least 1138. The statement used makes it seem like it possessed the lands for more than two centuries than it actually did, and that Poland was a recognizable unitary state, which it wasn't. In fact, for much of this period Poland was a vassal of the Empire.
2nd and 3rd sentences are weasel worded and not cited.
4th sentence, again a problem of a source not stating what is claimed in the article. As for the difference between what is stated in said source and this article, the source states that, after the Nazi rise to power, major investments were made in infrastructure and construction to ensure that the regions were seen as integral parts of the German state, and that this improved infrastructure was later used during the war. It says nothing of the region being militarized. As for the Germanization, it says it was a continuation of the previous policy. Not to mention that this source states even more damning things that make this revanchist historical excuse look even more absurd. This source states that Polish plans were to also annex lands all the way up to Berlin, and incorporate the Sorbs into their nation. It also states that claims of Poles living on the Oder since time immemorial was pure propaganda (page 9).
5th sentence has nothing to do with this article.
2nd paragraph is just atrocious, makes it sound like the treaty of Versailles decided things ad hoc, but much of the post WWI border was decided by plebiscite.
Now, some problems by way of omission that I see with this section: 1) It skips from 990 to 1914, no mention of anything that happened in the almost 900 years between those two dates. Seems odd that a section titled historical border between Poland and Germany would not have any description of any of the historical changes in the border preceding 1914. 2) It is decidedly one sided, bordering on non-NPOV.
And that's just this section, I'm not even going to touch on the rest of this abortion of an article yet.
-- 142.166.216.112 ( talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
My edits in my major re-write went along the following lines.
I also thought that these changes would settle the issues noted 2014 with the "undue weight" flag, so I removed it.-- 2001:A61:260D:6E01:493A:3631:689B:C016 ( talk) 14:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Who is equating "legal" with "provisional" in the following?: "Soon after the agreement was signed clarification needed which one?, both the US and Soviet Union accepted the border as de facto the legal border of Poland, for instance in U.S. Secretary James Byrnes's Stuttgart Speech the Western Neisse was accepted as the provisional Polish border. [1]"
I made an edit to change "enthousiastic" to "enthusiastic", but it was reverted. Should it have been? I'm not aware of the former as an alternative spelling for the latter. Localdenizen ( talk) 05:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1949, one of the reasons that Bonn only re-affirmed Berlin as the German capital was because they believed it soon enough wouldn't be as close to the border as it now was under the imposed 1945 settlement. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 10:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Many German people who lived in nearby towns were held in the camps and died due to lack of food and medical care. They were forced from their homes and many were young children, not only soldiers. 216.126.34.73 ( talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)