Talk:Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia

Name

Shouldn't Reichsgau be translated to English? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so - it would normally be referred to in the German in English, I think. Certainly Gauleiter is never translated, for instance. john k 13:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yup, Gauleiter is left untouched just as fuehrer is. However, most units of administrative division are usually translated to either English or anglicized name (See for reference), perhaps except for Départements of Côte d'Ivoire. IMO this name should also be translated. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Unsourced and vague statistics

• ...the Reich's statistics show that out of 1,487,452 people in the region, only 210,000 were Germans in 1939,
• Danzig (348,000 inhabitants, 95% German (1923))...the population was still predominantly Polish before the Second World War.

Both have been removed...or their near translations...I started to make an edit and clean this up. However, it does not make sense in its claim that only 210,000 Germans were in the region, including Danzig which had 348,000 inhabitants but 95% were German. What? So how many people lived in the rest then? 5? No, Danzig was not predominantly Polish either, at least that is what I think this is trying to say. All in all , these are two very confusing sentences.--72.92.12.154 10:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

72.92., you are absolutely right. I removed this nonsence to talk. While German nationalist propaganda claimed the territory had significant German population which desired reunification with German state, Reich statistics show that in 1939 out of 1,487,452 people only 210,000 were Germans. Including Danzig (348,000 inhabitants, 95% German (1923)) the population was still predominantly Polish before the Second World War. Labbas 22 October 2006

---

Reichsgau West Prussia

When was the Reichsgau West Prussia (red link!) renamed Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, and what did this entail? I would guess that this occured in after Invasion of Poland when Reichsgau West Prussia was expanded with territories annexed from Poland and the Free City of Danzig, but would I be correct? This needs a ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Reichsgau "Westprussia" and "Danzig-West Prussia" are exactly the same, it was a mere name change just a few month after its establishment (Dec 39? Jan 40? Feb 40? Don't know exactly...). The former Provinz (not Reichsgau) West Prussia was dissolved in 1920, when the bulk of it became the Polish Corridor. The eastern remains of German West Prussia were attached to the Provinz of East Prussia as Regierungsbezirk West Prussia (Reg.-bez. = "government region", an administrative subunit of province), while the western remains of German West Prussia were merged to the German remains of the former Province of Posen and made a new province, Posen-West Prussia. The latter was dissolved in 1938 and its territory was attached to the neighboring Gaue, the Gau, initially a Nazi party administrative structure, had succeeded the Provinz as the state's administrative division under Nazi rule (Gleichschaltung), but basically means the same (province). When Poland was invaded in 1939, the Polish corridor was first made a German military district, and then merged with the Free City of Danzig and the eastern remains of the former Provinz West Prussia (= Regierungsbezirk West Prussia in the Gau East Prussia) to Reichsgau West Prussia. The western remains of the former Provinz West Prussia stayed outside the new Reichsgau West Prussia. A Reichsgau is basically the same as a Gau, but had some differences to a "normal" Gau since a Reichsgau primarily consisted of annexed territory and thus had a somewhat different administrative law and structure. Other Reichsgaue were eg Wartheland and Sudetenland. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated the article and hope this confusion won't arise again. Redirected Reichsgau West Prussia to this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated

Cut the overextened history section. Why can just as well start from Partitions of Poland or Prussian texts about Poles being animals printed in that era-but that doesn't seem to be useful-the article is about WW2 topic. I also added references and some numbers but the article can be greatly expanded, for example with information about German made plunder of Gdynia port.--Molobo (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As the paragraph above shows, the history paragraph was not over-extensive. If we'd start with the partitions of Poland, well that would be 150 years to cover, now it is 19 years. All events stated are vital to understand the 1939 structure, and none of them goes in more detail than needed. Eg Polish corridor is only mentioned and not discussed. I also reinstated the administrative division section you deleted. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Showing that Prussia "lost" something without explainin why is POV. To avoid that start with direct history is at best. Keeping claims about Prussian "lost" need balancing with explanation about the nature of the lost.Also why is extermination of Poles and Jews by Germans after Hitory section and not within it ?--Molobo (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The Nazis propagated the resurrection of the "lost" provinces and even gave them the same names. It is vital to show to what extend they were indeed similar of their alleged Prussian predecessors and to what extend they were not. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please answer why the extermination of Poles and Jews by Germany is not within the history section ? As to your statements they are OR-Nazis used racial concept of Lebensraum to justify their annexations.Your claims need to be backed up by reliable sources.--Molobo (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebensraum and reversion of Versailles do not exclude each other. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You continue to refuse to answer why the extermination of Poles and Jews by Germany is not within the history section. Could you state the reason for this ? As to your above answer-it has nothing to do with the topic as I asked you about sources that the main reason for annexation was reversing Versailles(obviously not as Lódż was not part of Prussian Partition of Poland) but the policy of Lebensraum.--Molobo (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Update 2

Updated on Selbstschutz, but article needs more updates as now it contains too much information not relevant to the article and too little on German atrocities and plunder of this region.--Molobo (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

This guy is tagged MergeTo since mid'09 but I'm not sure where the merge discussion is. Can we remove this tag then? --Hutcher (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the tag is a MergeFrom - to this article from the other one. This is one of perennial problems of Wikipedia. These tags, however justified the are, get scant attention since merging article is actually hard editorial work. So they stick around for ever. It's not good having the tag up there for all eternity but as long as the problem remains unaddressed it doesn't seem right to remove them either. Volunteer Marek  04:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Poles and Jews extermination

I tagged the article for POV, as the vast majority of RSes distinguish between the Jewish holocaust and Nazi atrocities towards Polish elites and dissenters. Our article presently formulates the two as equivelant which raises WP:REDFLAG for me. The cited sources for this are all in Polish - do they support this assertion? Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOENG, please provide a quote of the supporting source for this language, a translation, and justification as to why it is reliable. Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"dissenters"? What kind of absurd statement is that Icewhiz.Nazis viewed Poles as subhumans, their atrocities weren't directed against "dissenters"...Are you claiming Polish civilians, women and children murdered by Nazis were dissenters. I suggest you remove your claims limiting the scale of Nazi crimes immediately.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dissenters and elites. I will note that the fairly well written, and better developed, Polish Wikipedia page on this topic details extermination of Polish elites, expulsions, germanization, and conscription of Poles to the German army - and makes a clear differentiation between Nazi policy vs. Jews (who were killed almost immediately in this area) and Poles. Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you disputing Icewhiz? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In lede - During its short existence Poles and Jews living in this area were subjected by Nazi Germany to extermination as "subhumans".. In body - "Nazi German policy aimed at extermination of Jewish and Polish population.", "Nazi policy to exterminate the Polish and Jewish population was conducted in several phases; the first phase of extermination was in September 1939". The article should treat the Nazi policy of killing all Jews separately from the Nazi policy to completely Germanize the region (which included killing Polish elites, Killing of Poles, deportations of Poles, Germanization of Poles (including wide scale conscription to the Germany army (conscripts, however, treated with suspicion, dispersed, and discriminated against), and possibly other factors). We should describe the Nazi plans accurately. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Pomeranian vs Pomerelian

I changed a reference to Pomerelia to read "Pomeranian" - it seemed out of place to reference Pomerelia without any other such references in this article, but maybe there's some context I'm missing that makes it appropriate. If anyone wants to refer the edit, perhaps add a clarification on Pomeranian vs Pomerelian. Alexandriensis (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)