Talk:Wrocław/Archive 2

Main discussion page Archive 1

English Name: Wroclaw

Where's the source for this, isn't the city's name in English Breslau ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.241.73.130 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The source of corse is that the city is Polish. 78.8.83.170 (talk)PolskiNarodowiec1985~~ —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.84.47 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

City Mayor

Rafał Dutkiewicz is not an city Mayor. He is an president and each district has its own mayor.

wording of the intro paragraph

A page has been created under the Cities Project: /Names issues, for the purpose of creating a consensus agreement for the wording of the intro paragraph of all cities that had alternate official spellings. Please join us there and help us hammer out a wording that we can all live with, and use to prevent endless, eternal edit wars, not just for Wroclaw, but for all cities with alternate official spellings in "modern" history. Bwood 02:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tendentious language

I got the impression that this article is written in a tendentious language, especially when it comes to the 19th and 20th century.

Such statements as

In August 1920 Germans devastated Breslau's Polish School and burned its Polish Library, and in 1923 the city was a scene of antisemitic riots. Breslauers honoured Adolf Hitler with the title of honorary citizen of the city. and Most of the Polish elites also left during 1920s and 1930s, and Polish leaders who remained were sent to German concentration camps. By 1939 the city became almost entirely Germanised.

are tendentious language and show the intention to give a justification: the Germans deserved their fate and Poles had the right to take their land and property after the war. Hundreds of German cities honoured Hitler as honorary citizen in the Nazi era. I guess that many Polish cities honoured Joseph Stalin as honorary citizen during the Gomułka era and many North Korean cities certainly have Kim Il-sung as a honorary citizen. This is not very astonishing in a totalitarian regime. Breslau was not a Nazi stronghold before 1933. Politics was dominated by the social democrats who supported the Weimar republic.

I think a "neutral" standpoint should clearly acknowledge the following: Breslau (as it was known before the war in the English and French-speaking world) was an undoubtedly German city with an only small Polish minority (I don't know where the number of 10% Poles at the end of WW I comes from). The Nazi crimes and their stupid suppression of other traditions regarded as "un-German" are beyond any doubt. The expulsion and killing of hundreds of thousand German civilians alone in Silesia at the end of the war were the results of Red Army war crimes, stupid and irresponsible Nazi fanatism and Stalins refusal to hand back the Soviet-occupied Eastern Polish areas to Poland and his attempt to try to inflame permanent hatred between Germans and Poles in the future. The thinking was: Germans will never acccept the Oder-Neisse line, so the Poles will always be forced to align with the Russians and stay a satellite in the Russian sphere of influence. Even for many Polish politicians at that time it was unimaginable that cities like Breslau and Stettin would become Polish because it seemed unthinkable that so many million people could be forcibly expulsed ("ethnically cleansed" in modern terms).

To put it shortly: Wrocław/Breslau is now a Polish city but the Poles should deal honestly with history. And this history was clearly a German history between the Middle Ages and 1945. And the mass expulsion, killing and raping of hundreds of thousand or million German civilians should be named that what it was: an immense war crime and crime against humanity. This is also one of many aspects of the history of Silesia. -- Furfur February 12th 2007

"killing of hundreds of thousand German civilians alone in Silesia" - an example of German type honesty. Poles praized Stalin under Soviet terror, what was the name of the country which invided Germany in 1933? The Naziland? Xx236 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this and many other discussions about German/Polish historical topics. It's a real shame that there is so much nastiness and vindictiveness it them. I am a Silesian by birth, of a German (Ostpommern) father and Polish (Cracow) mother. My education has primarily been in Australia from an independent perspective, so I see myself as an objective viewer.

Discussing pre-19th century political history is very fraught since the notions of nationality didn't emerge until then - in medieval Hanseatic Cracow (eg) the majority of people may have been German ethnically and linguistically, but most likely saw themselves as Cracovites (i hope that's correct) first, and under the subjectship of whoever was the King of Poland at the time - even though the king was sometimes not Polish: Henry Valois = French/Swiss; Stefan Batory = Hungarian; the Vasas = Swedish etc. The same applied more or less everywhere. The Plantagenets were French, Tudors Welsh, Stuarts Scottish... Even to this day the British royals are actually ethnically a German family.

The point I'm making is that prior to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, ethnic nationality didn't count for much. Calling a city whose national provenance is controversial (like Gdansk/Danzig) Polish as opposed to German in a particular historical period primarily refers to royal belonging, not ethnicity or language. That's because the people at the time would overwhelmingly identify with that belonging rather than ethnicity. This is contrary to present day when such identification is primarily ethnic. That's why critique of pre 19C history aling nationalistic lines doesn't make sense.

There are really 4 dimensions to calling a place German, Polish or anything else. Ethnicity, language, geography and political belonging. You can call (eg) Prague a German city in some of these dimensions, and Czech/Bohemian in others.

There is too much nationalistic fervour in these articles and discussions. It is true that Polish authors may be unsympathetic to the cleansing of Germans postwar - that isn't necessarily their fault since such historical facts were largely glossed over in the Communist teaching of history. Likewise German authors understanably resent the postwar border moving to the Oder-Neisse. Neither is automatically being deliberately biased.

The point of WP is to state those views in an objective way. There is nothing wrong with an article including a section on differing historical views of a city.

I for one hope that the continuing integration of European countries in the EU will slowly assign to the past these nationalistically-motivated views of OUR JOINT history.

-- Gabe76 February 21st 2007

After mass rapes of the female German population. Who did rape - Poles or rather Red Army soldiers?Xx236 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi years

The article doesn't inform about the Nazi period - destruction of the Synagogue, concentration and forced labour camps, executions. At the same time the article suggests that pre-war terror was stronger than it was, maybe it's the result poor editing.Xx236 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the end, the only plane to use it was that of the fleeing Gauleiter Hanke

There are two other versions - the plane started near Jahrhunderthalle or Museum.Xx236 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that none of these versions is correct: Davies' history (p. 31) mentions an earlier evacuation using this airstrip. He cites page 500 of volume 4 of Gleiss's Breslauer Apokalypse 1945 (which sounds like quite a piece of reading :) ). Henry^Flower 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Second ethnic cleansing

Thanks, User talk:136.199.8.42, for your changes of 26 March; I assume you meant them constructively and have a couple of questions.

It is not entirely clear (to me, anyhow) how the closing of the school and the “second ethnic cleansing in twenty years”—I assume this time of Germans—are related. As the sentence stands, the closing of the school and the cleansing seem to be in a cause-and-effect relationship, but I think it was more probably the other way around: Germans (or German speakers) had become too few to support the school. Could you tell me whether:

• the school was closed by the authorities to suppress use of German, or because Wrocław’s German-speaking community had become too small to support the school?
• the Wrocław’s speaking German community had shrunk because the remaining Germans had assimilated into the Polish population, left the city on their own (e.g., by moving to the GDR or FRG), left city because of oppression (perceived or otherwise), or been forced out of the area by the authorities or the local non-German population?

If you can, please provide a source for the information (including if the source is the one already cited). Thanks for your help, Jim_Lockhart 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been entirely removed without comment... Jim_Lockhart 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Vincent's Benedictine Abbey and Peter Włast

Can't find anything on this abbey and I'm not sure that it's even styled correctly. Is it the church and monastery covered by this and this article and shown at right? If it is, I can fix the prose. Also, who was Peter Włast and why was he important? The German Wikipedia article on Wrocław does not mention him, nor does it mention the two settlements referred to in the section of the English article under discussion. (Can't find his name in the Polish Wikipedia article, either; but then I can’t read Polish!). Any help would be appreciated. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Włostowic (Włost) is in fact mentioned in Polish Wikipedia: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_W%C5%82ostowic

Yes, very nice. Thank you! There is a corresponding English article, so I may be able to source the information I need there. Could you tell me whether the church being referred to is indeed the one in the photo? Thanks! :) Jim_Lockhart 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no :) It IS a St. Vincent's church accompanied by former monastery (then German appellate court [1] and today faculty of Polish Philology Wrocław University) covered in the articles you mention, but it has nothing to do with Włast. As you can check for yourself, this church was founded 1232, while Włast died 1153. As stated here, [2] the (Catholic) church and abbey founded by him were destroyed 1529 by decision of the protestant city board on the pretext of approaching Turk army that could use it as a base, as it was located beyond city walls. The only artifact left after that complex is a Roman entrance [3] incorporated in 1546 onto the wall of Maria Magdalena church [4] --JJR PL (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

that of the fleeing Gauleiter Hanke

There are at least three other stories about the start of the plane - park, stadium or Castle Square. Davies isn't an authoritative source. Xx236 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 Memorial

I read on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 page there is a memorial in wrocław, maybe this should be mentioned somewhere on this page

Etymology

I doubt that the city´s name was Wrocław in the 12th century, as the letter ł didn´t exist then. --195.170.185.50 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Hartmann Schedel’s Nuremberg Chronicle

I checked the quote from Hartmann Schedel’s Nuremberg Chronicle (which you can find here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Schedelsche_Weltchronik_d_234.jpg), and the quote on this page here left out a few very important words. The full quote is:
"Doch ist ihenßhalb 8 adern die polnisch Zung in mererm Geprauch."
I'm a German but have problems to understand it. "ihenßhalb" is a forgotten word. I compared it with other pages in the Chronicle and it seems to be a geographic description, something like outside or above. I think the next sign is a 8, and "adern" means veins or wires. This doesn't make lot of sense. On other pages of the Chronicle the mysterious word "ihenßhalb" is often used in conjunction with rivers, which means that "adern" could also mean the river Oder, something like the 8 arms of the Oder(?).
I think this statement could also mean that Polish was spoken outside of the city on the banks of the river. But i'm no linguist. Since this is the opposite of the current quote its probably a better idea to delete this sentence... or ask a german linguist. Karasek (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Polonization after the war?

The destruction of the Polish School and Polish Library by Germans before the war is mentioned, but where is the destruction of the distinctive German culture by Poles after the war? As far as I know the city "enjoyed" a pretty extensive Polonisation, with the demolition of almost all german monuments, the removal and demolition of many neogothic and even baroque church interiors, the destruction of prussian architecture and almost all german cemeteries between 1970 and 1972? And not to forget reconstruction efforts which tried to recreate a certain "Piast style" instead of the situation before 1945. Karasek (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The city was a sea of ruins after the battle between Soviet forces and stubborn Nazi forces that refused to surrender, almost no building in Wroclaw remained undamaged if not even destroyed. A remarkable fact is that Poles restored some landmarks from German takeover times, despite the history of discrimination and opression native Polish people endured at the hands of German arrivals and colonists in the past(for example ban of Polish student organisations, mocking of Poles by University officials etc) .

--Molobo (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, are Karasek's statements regarding monuments, neogothic church interiors, and cemeteries correct, or not correct? Are they partially correct? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my statements are based on an article published in the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza. A polish source. I can't offer the original article, only the german translation (sorry): http://www.dpg-brandenburg.de/nr17/breslau.htm (note the quoted sources). Karasek (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and information. I'm still interested in Molobo responding to my question. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW: it seems almost impossible to add information from this source. The source clearly states that, for instance, the cemeteries were destroyed, yet everything which even suggests a destruction gets removed as POV. Wonder if the destruction of the Polish House (which I don't deny!) isn't POV either. Maybe it was just a temporary closing? Childish. Karasek (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the city was orginaly Polish the correct title should be De-germanisation.--Molobo (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No Molobo, the city was "originally" Moravian/Bohemian. Karasek (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Karasek, this perfectly known to me, thank you for agreeing that Germans never were the original inhabitansts. Now Poles as West Slavs in that time had little differences with what later would be described as Moravians and Bohemians, however it is true that for a time in WW1 the Czech politicians believed Wrocław should again become Czech(I can gladly source it if needed). Neverthless the original inhabitants of the city before Germans, Poles were the ones that reverted its Germanisation.--Molobo (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are still plenty of German buildings in Wroclaw. I walked from the Hauptbahnhof to the Ring this afternoon and saw at least a dozen. You can't mistake that Prussian red-brick civic architecture, or those art nouveau facades. The Landeshaus on Gartenstrasse (Pilsudsliego) is a fine example, although it now has a large Polish eagle on the front. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mixed ethnicity or pan-slavist ideology?

By this time the inhabitants of mixed ancestry had become predominantly german.

What mixed ethnicity? It was a almost entirely urban German population and German (or latin) speaking from its beginnigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.29.20 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This was my attempt to clarify things. The "inhabitants of mixed Silesian, Bohemian, Moravian, and often of Polish ancestry" were also colonists and settlers, and moreover, the "mixed Silesian, Bohemian an Moravian ancestry" could mean Germans too. And the "German colonists and settlers" weren't outsiders, at that time they were burghers of the city for centuries. It is tendentious and I tried to tone down the wording. Karasek (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Breslau in 1939

This is very interesting. Probably a private documentary made by a German officer in the summer of 1939. Excellent quality. You can see how the city looked like a few weeks (?) before the World War II. There's a view of Ostrow Tumski and a bicycle ride through the Krzyki borough. I put the film on the webpage of the Wroclaw local public radio:

http://www.prw.pl/articles/view/3447/zobacz-jak-wygladal-wroclaw-w-1939-roku

Radionauta (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be excellent to see how the burned down by Germans Polish House looked like and the events of Kristallnacht .--Molobo (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Germans returning?

Now that Poland has joined the EU and the Schengen zone, there is presumably nothing to prevent Germans returning to Wroclaw if they want to. Are any doing so? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK Germans aren't allowed to buy properties in Poland, and most Germans have no clue what's behind the Elbe anyway. Karasek (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• On your first point, when Poland joined the EU, did they get a specific exemption that allowed them to block Germans wishing to return to Breslau, Danzig etc? And even if Germans can't buy property, there is presumably nothing to stop them renting. I note that the article German minority in Poland says "Recently, more Germans acquired land and property in the areas where they, or their ancestors, used to live, and moved there."
• On your second point (and assuming you mean the Oder rather than the Elbe), that's quite untrue. There are millions of Germans whose parents and grandparents came from Silesia, Pomerania, and East and West Prussia. When I was last in Berlin there was an exhibition on "Old Breslau" and it was packed with Germans. I'd be very surprised if none of them were interested in returning if they could. As the article notes, there was still a significant German population in Wroclaw as late as the 1960s. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• On your first point: there is something like an agreement between Germany and countries like Poland and the Czech republic. Germans can't buy properties in these countries for 7 or 11 years after they joined the EU, and the Poles and Czechs can't work in Germany for the same time span. Regarding the German minority in Poland: that's only true for the Germans in Upper Silesia. Many of them left Poland in the 80s, made some money in Germany and move back. Most of them are legally Germans, but frankly neither real Germans nor real Poles. They have strong connections to Poland/Upper Silesia, something which isn't true for most other Germans.
• No, I mean the Elbe. Most Germans live in Western Germany, and many of them don't have a clue about Eastern Germany (the former GDR), let alone Silesia or Pomerania. These exhibitions are for educated and interested minorities, the majority couldn't care less about the former Eastern block. Sad but true. My complete family was expelled too, I live next to the polish and czech border, yet I did not know anything until some years ago. Most people here, for example, have never visited Silesia = Poland, even if it's just some 10 minutes away. Karasek (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I will be going there myself later this year and I will see for myself. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Wrocław

This article has seen a significant amount of reverting lately regarding its history section. Perhaps it would be good to create a separate History of Wrocław article (within Category:Histories of cities in Poland) for more detailed information, allowing the main article to survey the city's history. Olessi (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. It depends on how detailed the history between 1900 and 1990 is covered. The reverting will not end until the history between 1900 and 1990 looks a bit less distorted. According to the article until 1945 the city was more or less just a hotbed of antisemitism and antipolonism, whereas Polish Wroclaw was a paradise of reconstruction. Both wasn't the case. The German Breslau also had one of the biggest Jewish communities in Germany, a famed Jewish Theological Seminary and a Polish minority that wasn't as big as the article wants us to believe (many industrialized cities in Prussia had the same Polish communities). The Polish Wroclaw on the other hand was neither completely destroyed (there was no firestorm) nor completely reconstructed. That's visible for everyone who ever visited the city. The communist Polish authorities, like the German Nazis, had the same ideological approach to the history of the city. Both destroyed what they didn't like. That's referenced, and it must be mentioned. It must be mentioned in a balanced way. Writing about the devastation of a single Polish school while hardly mentioning the destruction of almost all German cemeteries (right now it reads "German cemeteries and many monuments of German architecture in the city were neglected or allowed to make way for reconstruction") and the Polonization of the city isn't balanced. If we use weasel words here we must also, for instance, write about the "temporary closing" of Polish institutions. That's not what I wan't. Karasek (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The German Breslau also had one of the biggest Jewish communities in Germany I have detailed study how it was mass murdered by Germans. I will gladly expand this in History of Wrocław article. Here a short mention about how this community was mass murdered is in order.

The German Breslau also had one of the biggest Jewish communities in Germany The city only became 'Breslau' in XIX century. It never was 'German'-the original inhabitants remained despite the heavy wave of Germanisation by colonists and immigrants.

that wasn't as big as the article wants us to believe (many industrialized cities in Prussia had the same Polish communities) Actually the article currently diminishes the history of the original inhabitants who became a minority in their own city. In fact we need to expand on that, including the rapid rise of Poles due to German use of Polish people as slave labour. Your comment about Prussia is completely akward. Most of industralised cities in Prussia weren't originally Polish so this is a different situation. The Polish Wroclaw on the other hand was neither completely destroyed (there was no firestorm) Since when a firestorm is required to talk about city being destroyed. The German Nazis who fought with such hard determination against Allies, at the same time executing "untermenschen" in the city laid the city to almost total destruction. To compare it with some reconstruction works that claimed signs of former Germanisation of the city is out of balance and POV. nor completely reconstructed Of course it wasn't. I am surprised you believe any city is being reconstructed in the same way. And really, of course Poles didn't care much about reconstructing monuments to Bismarck (with his slogan Polen Ausrotten !), Hitler, many German nationalists, or symbols of Germanisation of the Polish city. Likewise many Stalinist, Communists or Russian Empire monuments in Eastern Europe were demolished after those countries regained freedom. Would you expect people to rebuild symbols of their opression ? This is natural and must be described as such The communist Polish authorities, like the German Nazis, had the same ideological approach to the history of the city. Please stop. This is highly offensive remark. The German Nazis viewed Poles as race of lesser creatures to be exterminated and the city as Polish would be nothing more then nest of untermenschen with no culture and to be erased. Polish authorities never held any racial theories viewing immigrant German population as lesser animals.--Molobo (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a rant, not an answer. I repeat: we have reverenced facts (polish sources) that

• the town wasn't completely destroyed
• the communist authorities had an ideological approach to the history of the city
• this approach overemphasized the Piast part of the history and denied almost everything afterwards
• the consequences of this ideological approach were modification of churches by means of destruction, removal or partial reconstruction, the destruction of *all* German monuments (not only Bismarcks, but also poets or scientists), the destruction of explicit Prussian monuments and the destruction of almost or all German cemeteries.

I repeat again: these aren't my allegations, these are referenced facts, backed uped by Polish sources. They have to be included, and they must mirror the reference. Destruction means destruction. Karasek (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat perplexed why you insist on focusing on minor changes made during re-construction when when talking about destruction of the city, instead of what made 90% of the city destroyed. May we know the reason you think vanishing of a couple of ruined building in 70s is more important to this topic then Nazi's destroying 90% of the city when resisting Allied forces ? As to the fact that authorities had an ideology that is hardly strange. Every party per definition has certain ideology behind it. Polish communists had rights of the workers etc, German Nazi party officials had extermination of Jewish and Polish "untermenschen". No doubt both attitudes had consequences for treatment of history, and city population, that is undisputed. As to the claim that Poles focused on Polish history-that again is hardly an accusation. After years of being mass murdered by German state no everybody was fascinated by German history. As to your claim that the city was destroyed by Poles rather then Nazi's that is a very extremist POV going against known history and scholary sources. Some buildings and symbols of Germanisation were no doubt removed when the city was rebuilded. But 90% of the city was destroyed by German Nazi's fight, to focus on 1% or so of buildings removed during reconstruction goes against NPOV rules.--Molobo (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Synagogues

Jindobre from Wroclaw. Can someone tell me the adresses of the New Synagogue (Wrocław), the Breslau synagogue which was destroyed in 1938, and of the "White Stork" synagogue which still exists (http://www.isjm.org/jhr/no2/Wroclaw.htm) and was recently restored to the Jewish community? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This site shows the Neue Synagoge's Breslau address as " Anger 8"; Anger was just west of Tauentzienplatz (G6 on this map). The modern Polish name for Anger is "Łąkowa"; it is visible just west of "Plac Tadeusza Kościuszki" (formerly Tauentzienplatz) on this map. The Neue Synagoge is visible on this old map near the bottom just northwest of Tauentzienplatz. It is also visible here near the bottom- follow the route from Kaiser Wilhelm Straße north (becomes Schweidnitzer Straße / Świdnicka) to Tauentzienplatz. See also Google Maps.

The Stork Synagogue[5] or "Alte Synagoge" is on Pawla Włodkowica (formerly Wallstraße); see Google Maps. Olessi (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article needs a lot of work to achieve NPOV. It is full of nationalist and revisionist rhetoric that makes for a highly distorted account of history.Udibi (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is NOT how we do things around here. If you have a beef, please try to focus on particulars so they can be looked at together with supporting evidence. And please, do not throw around invectives. --Poeticbent talk 03:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Main sights"

The "Main sights" section seems a bit odd. Until now, it didn't even mention the Rynek or the Cathedral... On the other hand, it does mention a rather uninteresting place like Plac Grundwaldzki. I understand it underwent heavy development recently, but does that really make it a "main sight"? --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wiki has some really impressive entries for the main sights. Instead of endless discussions about the proper names in the Middle Ages we could be constructive for a change and translate these articles. ;)

BTW: it's interesting to note that the Polish Wiki cites a German book which was published during the Nazi era, something which would be deleted immediately here by some fellow editors. Karasek (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"we could be constructive for a change and translate these articles..." We could indeed, if we had the time... Thanks for taking care of the Market Square. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"it's interesting to note that the Polish Wiki cites a German book which was published during the Nazi era, something which would be deleted immediately here by some fellow editors.". I've often observed the editors over at pl. are more rational, perhaps because they don't feel they need to be on a crusade against Germans or the evil, anti-Polish universe. You can even observe Poles contradict Molobo there, something I've very rarely seen happen here. Anyway, let's see what happens. :D --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

General References

According to Thums "Die Fremde Stadt Breslau 1945" Mr. K.Maleczyński books are, literally, "over long passages pure propaganda", which he backs up with a Polish reference: "Prawda historii i racja stanu. Mediewisci wroclawscy o sredniowiecznym Slasku. Pol wieku badan", Marek Cetwinski and Leck A. Tyszkiewicz, Sobotka, 1999/2, page 147-164. I think we should delete Mr. Maleczyńskis books from the list. Karasek (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Scholars often disagree. That is not a reason to delete reference. Much more worrying is support for using Nazi-era publications on Wikipedia. Obviously they can't be used as sources and we shouldn't encourage reading them--Molobo (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to Maleczyński: according to Thum Maleczyńskis books weren't "education but a transfiguration of the past". His work is "polonocentric" and "apodictic". According to Thum the book "Wrocławia do roku 1807" by W.Długoborski, J.Gierowski and K.Maleczyński was the Polish standard work about Wroclaw only until the end of the People's Republic of Poland, when it became outdated. This book pursued a "propagandistic goal". It "dropped facts and distorted others".

I'm all for Polish sources, but they shouldn't be challenged by other scientists in such a way. That's all. Karasek (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I slightly disagree with you here, Karasek. It's commonly known that the later half of the 1950s, when Polish communism received a strong infusion of nationalism (or "patriotism", if you prefer), were the heyday of propaganda about the "eternally Polish Wrocław". I think we can expect readers to approach books with the necessary degree of caution and understand that each book is part of a particular zeitgeist. Thus, if a book is listed as having been published in Poland in 1956, this is already enough of a warning. Quite the same goes applies to any German books published between 1933 and 1945. Not everything published then is automatically a work of propaganda - therefore it's perfectly OK to cite the renowned German conservator de:Rudolf Stein's books, for example. (Unless substantial evidence to the contrary is produced.) We simply have to take for granted that whoever decides to read books because they're in Wikipedia is intelligent enough to recognize that they may contain concessions to their respective zeitgeist. If we were to assume we're writing for historically illiterate readers, we couldn't even get started. --Thorsten1 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's a good point... but: even in a communistic or fascistic society there were different truths: there was a truth for the public, which was often highly distorted, and there was a truth for the academic world. Between them were different shades of grey. Thum actually makes this distinction when it comes to Maleczyński. His work for the public was part of the propaganda, his work for the academic world was not (sadly these academic titles aren't listed here). The same actually applies to Stein (I own his books). He was conservator in Breslau and his statements about the *building history* of the city are usually unchallenged to this day, however when he meanders in the early history of the city he simply isn't trustworthy. I would cite him as a reference for the building history of Breslau, but never for the history of the city in general. And I would accept Maleczyńskis academic books, but not his books for the public.

I just don't think our references should contain titles which promote a certain agenda and twist, stretch and drop facts for it. Sure, people aren't stupid, but a) we can't take this for granted and b) why should we do this when we have plenty of other good titles we can cite? Karasek (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's pros and cons for anything. I don't know or have Maleczyński's or Stein's books, so I can't check to what extent removing them from the bibliography may be warranted or not. I would just argue against banning them based on the year of publication alone. Regardless of that, any discussion about whether or not Thum's criticism of Maleczyński justifies removing any books of his, is pretty futile: It's pretty unlikely that Molobo would ever accept the removal of a Polish author because a German author criticizes him, no matter how plausibly. (If anything, that would make the Polish author more valuable for him.) --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't argue with the date of publication but with the fact that two modern sources describe this book, and the entire non-scientific work of this author, as largely rubbish. That's why I prefer other, better sources. And I'm sure Molobo agrees with me, since he doesn't accept propaganda from a nationalistic, authoritarian system either when it comes to the Polish- German history. See [here]. Karasek (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No I was talking about the totalitarian regime of Nazi Reich, authoritarian regimes are of different sort. In totalitarian regime the ideology covers all aspects of life, authoritarian regimes usually are interested in controlling what information threatens their power. Fortunetly Poland was never totalitarian state. In above case disagreement between scholars is common, all views should be provided if expressed by scholars and in neutral way.--Molobo (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I added

On guillotine executions of Polish and Czech people during Second World War. --Molobo (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it would actually be more noteworthy if no Poles or Czechs had been killed in this city? What are you going to add next? It sometimes rained there "during Second World War"? --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I added on ban against Polish organisations in Wrocław

On ban against Polish organisations in Wrocław--Molobo (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More on history

I added more on history and more about other views besides one scholar.--Molobo (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. The phrase "quickly became the dominant ethnic group" does not exclude a Polish minority. Karasek (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete sourced information that presents history of the multicultural and multiethnic city of Wrocław.--Molobo (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Added on support for Nazism

Notable-one of the main support centres for Nazism in Germany. --Molobo (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish emigrants form Nazi Breslau

Many Jews were able to emigrate, even if robbed.

• Stefanie Zweig's family emigrated to Africa.
• Fritz Stern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinin (talk • contribs) 10:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• [6]
• [7]

Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added

On multiethnic character of the city.--Molobo (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

History after 1945 completely rewritten

I have completely rewritten the history after 1945 and referenced almost every sentence. I think it's necessary to explain the complex process of adoption of a foreign city by the Polish people a bit more detailed. I referenced almost every sentence since earlier attempts were softened and almost changed to the opposite. I used only this one source because this book ist the only book in German, Polish or English which provides a extensive overall view of the history after 1945. Karasek (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet has reverted these additions, with "Unsourced "reality and truth" removed." as his rationale. I am unsure of his meaning, as Karasek's additions had a number of citations. Perhaps SC is objecting to the removal of some previous sources, such as Kalicki. If so, can the text citing the previous sources be integrated with Karasek's additions? Olessi (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but Kalickis article is just a condensed version of Thums book. In many ways his article is also more poignant since it is a journalistic work, whereas Thums book is scientific and more balanced. That's why I prefer to cite him and deleted references to Kalicki. A link to a webpage also doesn't look as trustworthy as a book, IMHO.

PS: I added Kalicki to the article. Over time these additions were softened and changed to a degree which in the end didn't reflect the source at all.

PPS: I don't understand his revert either. And since I don't understand his reasons I will restore my version. Karasek (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much focus compared to other parts of article, focuses and special book by German author. Perhaps move there ? And too many opinions like "collective mind" of Poles. We are humans dear German author not hive mind ! Scaled down to sensible size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroclawianin (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was drawn by the size of the reversion, but on careful review I agree. The section had become an essay in its own right, and the length was way out of proportion for this article. I support the reversion. Perhaps the most salient facts (not analysis) could be rewritten into one, brief paragraph, and restored that way? Jd2718 (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At first I just added the facts. Referenced facts. Over time these facts were softened, changed, removed. That was the only reason why I wrote this "essay": to put these facts into perspective and to soften the laguage a bit. But remember what it means to transfer a city to a different country and to replace the entire population (and to live in a "foreign" city). That's propably the biggest turning point in the history of the town! This process should be explained.

I now added a shortened version of my "essay" to the article. Just the facts, like before. I hope these facts stay for longer. Karasek (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really so much better than before. I'd say it's still be a bit long, but that just needs some close editing, not wholesale reversion. Jd2718 (talk)

Some of the Thum cites seem intended to provoke. Is it a pro-German, anti-Polish source? If so, we may want to trim some of the broader statements, and stick with the specifics. Jd2718 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Thums cv: http://www.pitt.edu/~pitthist/faculty/gregorthumcv.html

I cite him because his book is, AFAIK, the only one which describes the time after 1945 in great detail.

And it may sound anti-Polish and pro-German for those who don't know and understand (or don't want to know and understand) the process which turned former German into Polish regions. Is the Nazi period section provoking and anti-German? Probably not, because we know and understand the greater context. That's the problem. I think the destruction of all German cemeteries is easily as important as the destruction of the Polish cultural centre by the Nazis. Karasek (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think including the degermanization is important. We now have the section, reduced, but restored. Perhaps it would be most useful now to discuss individual edits as they come up. There is one line in there, comparing one destruction to another, that does not seem useful and seems likely to inflame. I will delete it. Jd2718 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this sentence is necessary. In the public consciousness the Nazis bear the blame for the entire destruction of the city (the Festung was exploited by the Polish communist authorities as a proof that the Germans didn't deserve the town). If the following events destroyed the town even more than the war this should be mentioned somehow.Karasek (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Read Thum. No claim that Wrocław was destroyed by Poles in the book. Also the reason was Nazi German and repressive Prussia states, their effort to destroy Poles-bad memories.--Wroclawianin (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming of headings

OK, for a long time the heading "Piast era" was generally accepted since it described most of the early history very well. Until someone needed to change it to "Kingdom of Poland". That's fine with me, however now it's necessary to expand the heading with "Bohemia" and "independent duchy" since Poland owned the city only for a fraction of the described period. And I added "Between Bohemia and Poland" since both kingdoms battled for Silesia and the city switched sides several times. I think the heading is now much to long and complicated, but anyway. Someone now also changed the heading "Bohemia and Austria" to "Between Bohemia, Hungary and Austria". Which is wrong. The heritable principality of Wroclaw/Breslau became a part of the Bohemian crown and remained there. Matthias Corvinus received the city because he was the elected (but not crowned) king of Bohemia, the Habsburgs were elected too. There was no fight for Silesia and Breslau/Wroclaw between them, that's why "Between Bohemia, Hungary and Austria" sounds wrong in this context.Karasek (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Olessi (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's clear that the city changed hands, a confilict is not needed for that to happen. How about neutral naming for example dates  ?--Molobo (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What Karasek writes here is not egzactly true. In the period that this paragraph is talking about (it begins in 990) Czech rule over this teritory was only between 1038-1054 (16 years!). Wenceslaus II did not became the duke of Silesia, in fact he never took any of silesian lands directly under his rule. He just made most of the Piast dukes his Vassals (as well as other Piast dukes in other parts of Poland). His aim was to achieve the Polish crown, and not to annex Silesia to the Bohemian crown. Writing that the city switched sides several times between Bohemia and Poland is not egzactly true. In this period it was Polish since 990, than Bohemian for 16 years, and than Polish again. After that it was a Piast duchy, a part of the divided kingdom of Poland. The dukes of Wrocław were descendents of the oldest son of duke Bolesław III and therefore had the most serious rights to the Polish crown. In the first half of the XIII century they almost managed to reunite the country but battle of Legnica destroyed this possibility. In the late XIII Henry IV of Wrocław also tried to achieve the Polish crown and almost succeded.

On the other side In 1474 Mattthias Corvinus finally incorporated Breslau and Silesia in his dominion, which returned to Bohemia when he died. and that was 1490 wchich gives us also 16 years. What is also important there was a regular war between Bohemian Hussites, Hungarians and... Polish Jagiellonians over the Bohemian crown. In 1474 Poles and Hungarians decided to divide the state, and so Wrocław came under Mattthias Corvinus rule. So if we can write that the city was between Bohemia and Poland in the period 990-1335. Than as well it was Between Bohemia, Hungary and Austria in years 1335-1740.

In the end there must be mentioned that omiting the word Poland in the heading, even though the city was part of the country for most of that period, being even the center of the divided Kingdom of Poland in the first half of the XIII century, was a typical antypolish POV. If we use names of royal dynasties in the headings instead of names of the countries we schould do it everywhere. So insted of Austria: Habsburg, insted of Bohemia Přemyslid, Luxemburg, Jagiellonians. etc

If that is not so, than puting the name of the Polish royal dynasty - Piast instead of Poland makes a wrong impression that before Bohemians the city was ruled by some mystical Piast God nows from where.

Ther is an other error. If we are to be compleatly precise the city was never part of Austria, becouse untill 1740 there was no such thing as an Austrian state (except meaby Archduchy of Upper Austria and Archduchy of Lower Austria). Habsburgs ruled in various states under different laws with different paliaments. They were just kings of Bohemia, so that period schould be called only Between Bohemia and Hungary. Cheers, Gregory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.69.149 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The integration into Prussia brought greater religious freedom along.

Like ban on Polish language in church teachings in Silesia. This is seriously a very biased POV, even If brough by some Prussian admirers in published books. Can easly be sourced against. --Molobo (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To add-Polish resistance and secret organisations during German control of the city in the years 1939-1945

Sourced from the page of the city itself. [8] I will add information from this. --Molobo (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: New sections - separate History of Wrocław article?

The history seems disproportionately long for the size of the article as a whole. Economy, transport, demographics (is the city greying?), geography, culture are all short or absent.

Can we get 1) a proposed list of sections to be expanded, 2) a proposed list of sections to be created, and 3) a proposed summary of the city's history?

and also any objections to making the split/expansion at this time? Jd2718 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I was thinking about it myself. We need to divide it in order of importance and chronology. Several paragraphs about the Bohemian and Polish history are needed as it constitutes most of the chronological timeframe. Then some(2-3) paragraphs on ongoing Germanisation and persecution of native inhabitants during Prussian takeover. It was short in time so not much is needed. Then although it is chronologically smaller-we need perhaps two paragraphs on Weimar Republic and rise of Nazism. Of course the Nazi Germany section needs to be at least as large as the Bohemian and Polish section as it is extremly important. Then perhaps three paragraphs on restoration of the city within the Polish state.--Molobo (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point the history subsections (7 of them) are about 26k characters long, in over 30 paragraphs. That's over half the article. If there is a main article History of Wrocław, then the summary here in this article could become quite short, perhaps one fifth of the current length. Jd2718 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that the article needs to focus on modern city, its economy, population, culture and development. I will think how to shorten the paragraphs.--Molobo (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started History of Wrocław. I lifted the current history sections, copyedited a bit, pruned slightly, changed some headings. I'm tempted not to be bold here - rather than strip down the history section immediately, since there has been contention, I'd rather see adequate time for discussion first. Jd2718 (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks a lot. Karasek (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

History

I have substituted an abridged history section. The main article is now at History of Wrocław. Have at it, I guess. The section is still too long, but I had trouble cutting more. Jd2718 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New, revised sections

It seems plain that a city of Wrocław's size and history is missing some important sections: It has a rich architectural history, and that needs to be included. Several sections are little more than lists, including Sports, Main Sights (which really should be Culture), Education, Economy and Transport (which really should be separate). There is no geography section, and there should be. And there is no decent map. The lists of famous people should be sent to a separate article, while some of the individuals should be incorporated into the education section. To summarize

New:

• Architecture/ History of Architecture
• Geography (with map)

Convert from list to section:

• Main Sights (rename culture)
• Education
• Economy
• Transport

Break out into separate article:

• Lists of famous residents

These are ideas, they need input. Otherwise I will just start, bit by bit, to treat this as a to-do list. Jd2718 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Where's the main body of the article? Sca (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalized. I restored it. Jd2718 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Davies writes clearly that Polish consulate and school were demolished. User SCA changed that without comment to 'closed'. I restored the sourced version. Also Polish Library was burned down. In regards to occupation-Poland never got an occupation zone and claims that it occupies Wrocław are obviously not neutral.--Molobo (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wroman (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I expanded economy section

what historic institutions are?

Wroman (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC) can anybody define historic institutions? why only one institution is indicated?

There was also the Maria-Magdalenen-Gymnasium, which today is the Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Piastów Śląskich (but they have nothing in common). German Wiki has a good article about it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria-Magdalenen-Gymnasium Karasek (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

education

Wroman (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC) section on education should be more than just mere list of higher schools. some general figures on primary and secondary education needed.

"Breslaw"

Breslaw needs to re-direct here.--189.102.200.171 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What does "Breslaw" mean? Is it another name for Wrocław? Who uses it? thanks, —fudoreaper (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean "Breslau"?83.8.31.175 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"World War II and afterwards"

"Most remaining German inhabitants fled or were expelled from Wrocław to one of two German states between 1945 and 1949." - This is nonsense because both German states were founded not earlier than 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.127.43.185 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jews under the Nazis

The Jews were robbed and expelled: Stefanie Zweig (see Nowhere in Africa), Walter Laqueur. Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Brassel

Some articles about cities don't allow any alternative names in the lede, even the ones used by minorities (see Vilnius). I doubt it's a right place for a historical name. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's EXTREMELY trivial, at best, and completely non-notable. I've removed it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Post-Napoleon, did Breslau resume being part of Prussia? This isn't made quite as clear as it should be from a reader's point of view. TheGrappler (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrocław was subdivided into five boroughs

It "was", the articles about the boroughs should inform, that the division has a very little meaning now.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Culture section

I've deleted the culture section because all it contained was some trivial information about nightclubs.

I moved the information about the European Capital of Culture to the lead, where it is more prominent.

I'm currently rewriting the section to include museums, theaters, philharmonic, and events like Era Nowe Horizonty and Vrat. cantans.

Ip 87.99.45.74, I'm already working on it. I deleted your version because it was not very useful, and the English was poor. I will be mentioning the things you mentioned, except nightclubs, which don't belong in an article of this scope (Wikipedia is not a tour guide). Wrocław is not notable for its nightclubs.

By the way, I live in Wrocław.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

B-class review failed

This article barely failed the B-class review. It needs a proper culture section (currently it only discusses sports and education). Dominus, please feel free to request B-class re-assessment at WP:POLAND when you are done. For GA, this article will need increased citations density (all sentences should be referenced). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Polish falsification of history of Breslau

With the typical nationalist 19th and 20th century attempted wiki-Polonization of the history of Breslau in the Middle Ages, claiming that German settlement and foundation of the city of Breslau occurred only after 1241 (which is a known false statement), it is clear, that this article is highly POV. Breslau was never a Polish town until 1946, when the German majority was expelled. The Polish government of a decentralised Polish duchy in the 11th century over the West Slavs and Germans of Lower Silesia (with German towns like Görlitz documented as early as 965 in the March of Lusatia), did not mean by any way that the 'city was Polish' in an ethnic sense. Also, the history of Peter Wlast and others polonized to 'Piotr' and other Polish names (for the Silesian dukes, who considered themselves Germans after 1147 AD and allegiance to the Holy Roman Empire) indicates necessity to improve this Article and remove the Polish nationalist POV in history. From 1156 German coucnillors in Breslau are documented.Smith2006 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Economy

There is no source to the stated GDP per capita of Wroclaw. USD 27.755 is frankly way too high. Here are the regional numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Silesian_Voivodeship - so it's more likely to be around 20.000. I read that it was around 109% of the national figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.65 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)