Jump to content

Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Reasons all references to the city should call it "Gdansk"

  • Consistency is to be striven for
  • The city was originally called Gdansk, and has always been called Gdansk among certain sectors of the population of the region (not necessarily the city). If we are to call it "Danzig" for part of its history, it is difficult to determine at what point it should begin to be called Danzig.
  • It would cause chain reaction chaos on all other articles about cities with complex history.
    • given that there is currently no standard way of doing this, I don't see why this causes any more chaos than anything else. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The method of using different names for different periods of time is being proposed only for Polish cities. This is biased and unfair. Poland is being singled out and trated differently than other countries.
    • This is not true. We may note that many cities already use different names for different periods of time. I would also suggest that cities like Lviv (Lemberg/Lwow), Vilnius (Vilna/Wilno), Bratislava (Pressburg/Pozsony), Ljubljana (Laibach), Helsinki (Helsingfors), Oslo (Christiania), and so forth also be referred to by different names for different periods of time. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's why I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for the compromise. If we want to remain consistent, we'd have to use highly-offensive names. Lutzmanstadt for Lodz (1939-1945) is just an example from the top of my head, but Laibach and Pozsony work the same way for Slovenians and Slovakians, respectively.
Moreover, the city I live in would become a complete mess. As the name Warsaw is relatively modern in English, it would have to bear the name of Warszawa 'til the partitions, then Warschau for a short period of time, then Varshava (1831-1918), then again Warschau (1915-1918), and finally Warsaw (after WWI)...Halibutt 02:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think city names used as briefly, and controversially, as Lutzmanstadt, would really not fall under this. As to other examples, I don't think the idea is for the rule to be to use the name used at the time. The rule is to use the name that people use when writing in English about the city at a given time. "Warsaw" is just about always called that in English, so no need to worry. "Pozsony" is, I think, rarely used in English. Before 1919, "Pressburg" would probably be appropriate. "Laibach" was used, and I don't think it's fair to say that "Pozsony" and "Laibach," which were long time names for cities (the former of which was not, I think, primarily inhabited by Slavs at the time, and the latter of which at the very least had a substantial German population - my understanding was that there were very few Slovene bourgeois until quite late) are equally as offensive as "Lutzmanstadt," which was a Nazi invention. But, at any rate, the point is "How do English-speakers now refer to the city in the period under discussion?" In the case of Laibach/Ljubljana, for instance, the 1821 Congress held in that city is always called the "Congress of Laibach." It would seem odd to me for Wikipedia to call it the "Congress of Ljubljana," which is an utterly unrecognizable name. So, while what people called it at the time is in some ways important - especially if the city has no English name (not the case of Warsaw) - it is only important if it also represents what English-speakers call it now when referring to it at the time under discussion. Since using "most common form in English" is official Wikipedia policy in any case, this seems like a good way to go about it. Of course, in the case of some cities it would be hard to say. Is Lemberg or Lwow more commonly used for that city in the 19th century, for instance? Or, again, Pozsony vs. Pressburg (I don't think Bratislava is ever used to refer to that city before 1919 - that change is more in the manner of a name change than a mere translation change). This would also allow us not to use archaic foreign language names for cities that were once used in English, but aren't anymore - like "Mayence" for Mainz, or "Ratisbon" for "Regensburg" (both French names for German cities); or "Ofen" for Buda (a German name for a Hungarian city). Anyway, I still fail to see how such a policy is either particularly difficult to implement or particularly confusing. john 08:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The proposers of the "different period - different name" approach intentionally ignore the issue of the Polish cities annexed by Soviet Union in 1945.
    • Again, I would be happy to deal with this, although Lviv is an odd case, for instance, given that its official name was "Lemberg" for some time, despite the inhabitants still calling it Lwow. One might also note that Lwow/Lvov/Lviv are all pronounced approximately the same way in English. Danzig and Gdansk are not. At any rate, I'm perfectly happy to refer to these cities by different names over the course of their history. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • "Different period - different name" is based on strictly emotional and non scientific reasons, like "Fahrenheit would turn in his grave..." and so on.
    • Have you even read the many, many, many times I've explained that historians continue to refer to the city as Danzig for earlier periods? john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Leading encyclopedias use the name Gdansk consistently for every reference, and for any point in history.
    • Some encyclopedias do, others do not. Most non-encyclopedic historical works absolutely do not do this. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It is not an "extermination of German names" if you mention the German name in introduction of every pertaining chapter (in italics) and explain the details of its use.
    • I concur. I am not particularly concerned with the question of the extermination of German names, which is an overblown argument. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The "traditionally (...) German city" argument refers only to tradition from 1871, when the Polish Tradition dates back to 997.
    • This is nonsense, and based on the idea that the adjective "German" can only refer to a nation-state entitled "Germany". The city was ethnically and linguistically German, and thus its own inhabitants called it "Danzig," from a point in the late Middle Ages at least. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Gdansk is now the Official English name for the city. If the Official English name changes to Danzig again, we will use it consistently, throughout the ages up to present time, with Gdansk in parentheses in introduction.
    • The official English language name of St. Petersburg is St. Petersburg. Does this mean we should not call it Petrograd from 1915 to 1924, or Leningrad from 1924 to 1991? In the case of stuff like this, I think consistency ought to be trumped by usage. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reasons that the city should be called "Danzig" for at least some, if not all, of its history before 1945

  • This is what it was usually known as in English from the time that standard spellings arose.
  • This is what most of the actual inhabitants of the city called it, from at least late Medieval times until 1945.
  • This is what contemporary English-language historians usually call it for the period before 1945.
  • Many German (and other) contributors are offended by the extermination of German names in this traditionally overwhelmingly German city. Although expelled or killed, at least some respect for their history - and the history of the city - should be in order in the English Wikipedia. (added by Nico)

Feel free to add any others. Perhaps this might usefully enable us to come to some assessment of what, exactly, we are arguing about. john 05:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Danzigers population losses

I removed numbers from the following paragraph The official German history estimates that about 100,000 Danzigers — 40% of the city's pre-war population — lost their lives in the war, including the evacuation and Soviet capture of the city.

The reason I doubt the numbers shown. I read recently about 295 000 refugees from Danzig officially registered in W.Germany after the war. Taking into account pre-war population of 380 000 we have the gross deficit of 85 000, that might contain also postively verified Danzigers, that stayed. So the number doesnt look reliable. The second reason, I supose that Danziger means more citizen of the FSD then the dweller of the city. In this case 100 000 means 25% of deficit. Anyway the numbers are dubious. Cautious 20:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


With regard to the number of citizens of Danzig who were killed in the war and its aftermath, my estimate of which was questioned by 'cautious,' I offer the following excerpt from an academic paper I wrote more than a decade ago. By the way, let me state for the record that I am politically a liberal and philosophically a humanist, and I have lived and worked in Poland (and have visited what today is called Gdansk). 

    Djiekuje bardzo,

-- Steven C. Anderson, 15 March 2004 --

The official history, using prewar population figures, wartime estimates and postwar figures from both German states and Poland, concludes that 2,167,000 people from the Oder-Neisse territories died as a result of the war and the subsequent expulsions, but estimates that about 500,000 of these were military casualties, reducing the number of civilian deaths to about 1.6 million. To this it adds the deaths of 100,000 Danzigers and 217,000 German residents of prewar Poland, for a total of about 1.9 million civilian deaths. 101

No breakdown is given of the proportion who died in the flight from the Red Army, during the occupation or during the expulsions, but an analysis of the figures indicates that about a third of the casualties must have occurred among those who fled during the conquest; the balance apparently occurred during the period of expropriation and expulsion. Roos says approximately 7.2 million fled or were expelled from the Oder-Neisse territories put under Polish control, along with 380,000 Danzigers and 880,000 German-Poles. “Of these,” he says, death claimed about 1.2 million from the territories, 90,000 Danzigers and 200,000 German-Poles, for a total of nearly 1.5 million civilian fatalities, not including those in northern East Prussia. 102

Szaz mentions the 2.16 million cited by Schieder, which includes military casualties, but elsewhere says “over 1 million” of the 3.5 million expelled from the territories lost their lives. 103 From these estimates it is evident that 1.5 million to 2 million German civilians lost their lives in the Soviet conquest of eastern Germany and subsequent expulsions. In other words, one-sixth to one-fifth of the population died in the revenge of the East. ______________________

101. Schieder, Theodor, ed. Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe. Bonn (no date)., pp. 122-23.

102. Roos, Hans. A History of Modern Poland. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966, pp. 215-16.

103. Szaz, Zoltan Michael. Germany's Eastern Frontiers: The Problem of the Oder-Neisse Line. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1960., pp. 96, 126.Earlier discussion:

Again we have the same hard numbers 380 000 prewar population of Frei Stadt, 295 000 registered in W. Germany after the war. Simple calculation give you 85 000 for all war casualties and people verified positively by Polish authorities. This number include Jews and Poles murdered by Nazis, victims of bombing, German soldiers killed in action, German POW kept in Soviet Union after the war, victims of the city capture, citizens of FSD verified as Poles after the war, victims of the Soviet orgy after the capture, victims of criminals after Polish take-over, and alleged victims of population transfer. In addition, possibly both those numbers have slight error. This makes statement about more then 100 000 of the city inhabitants died wrong and of course 25% is out of the question. Another point is confusion of the inhabitants of the city with the citizens of FSD. I am right. Cautious 09:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cautious, you have to remember, that people were born during war in Danzig too, some may emigrate into Danzig, so the number of casualties is not simply difference between those two quoted numbers. Szopen
This is understood. What I mean is, that nobody has seriously defended that 100 000 number. The number includes also factual error, since it is related to all citizens of FSD. I am favour of giving proper numbers if they are known. Cautious 11:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What was protected

Following text was removed by Nico:

On September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland, initiating World War II. On September 2 Germany officially annexed the Free City. The Nazi regime murdered the Polish postmen defending the Polish Post Office after the COF: this was one of the first war crimes during WWII.

Please restore the proper version.Cautious 22:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "proper" version is written from a strong Polish-nationalistic point of view, it is denying the deaths of a large number of (German) Danzigers, it is calling the Danzig Research Society "Gdansk Research Society" and has a number of typos. Nico 22:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not denying the fact that some number of Danyigers died. I dont see a point in puting 100 000 instead very great number, because 100 000 makes no sense at all, see above and 40% makes no sense at all accordingly. Typos are OK, but changing murdered in killed is a falsification. Cautious 22:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Article protections are arbitrary. I protected this article the moment I discovered the edit war. I don't take sides. I simply protect immediately. The current version will have to live until the article is unprotected. Kingturtle 22:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

taken from Wikipedia:Protected page

Which version was protected. It is what Nico tries to remove On September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland, initiating World War II. On September 2 Germany officially annexed the Free City. The Nazi regime murderedthe Polish postmen defending the Polish Post Office after the COF: this was one of the first war crimes during WWII.Cautious 22:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Article protections are arbitrary. I protected this article the moment I discovered the edit war. I don't take sides. I simply protect immediately. The current version will have to live until the article is unprotected. Kingturtle 22:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh no, not again! I thought we reached some sort of a compromise...Halibutt 00:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GUYS!! Again : what's wrong with version: Gdansk (Danzig) and Danzig (Gdansk) used respectively for deifferent period of times or Gdansk/Danzig???Szopen

Szopen, this time the problem is different. Nico insist to the number of German victims, that I critically discuss above. And he insist on using word killed instead of murder for Polish postman. Cautious 14:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unrelated to the naming issue

Hi, I just came here to add a link to St Mary's Church in Gdansk. I couldn't do it, so please, let someone do it as soon as the page is unprotected. I hope it won't take too long, I can see there's still a lot to write about here, epecially a list of major sights and this is blocked by that silly debate. Kpalion 02:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • typo: seperate needs changing to separate Richard cocks 17:17, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

What Gdansk is and was

Strange things happen to the Gdansk article, and especially to the initial paragraph. The encyclopedia entry about a city should tell the reader what the city is, where it is situated, and what is is famous for. Here is a couple of facts about Gdansk, that I consider to be essential Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk today

  • Gdansk is the 6th largest city in Poland with 460,000 inhabitants (2002);
  • Gdansk is Poland's principal seaport, and one of the biggest seaports on the Baltic Sea
  • Gdansk is part of the Tricity (Gdansk+Gdynia+Sopot) and also of the Gdansk Metropolital Area consisting of Gdansk+Gdynia+Sopot+Rumia+Reda+Wejherowo+Zukowo+Pruszcz Gdanski with some 1 million inhabitants
  • Gdansk is an important Polish centre of business, culture, education, politics, etc.
  • Gdansk is the capital of Pomerania (historical-geographical region; Pomerania in wider sense)
  • Gdansk is the capital of Gdansk Pomerania or Eastern Pomerania (historical-geographical region)
  • Gdansk is the capital of Pomeranian Voivodship (administrative and local government unit - Pomerania in stricter sense)
  • Gdansk is main city of Kashubia or Cassubia region inhabited by the kashubians - the 2nd most numerous etnic minority in Poland (400,000)
  • Gdansk is also the site of Kashubian-Pomeranian Association (Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie - the biggest non-governmental organization in Poland Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk is famous for

Historical Gdansk

  • Gdansk is famous as one of the oldest Polish towns (the stronghold built in 980 by Mieszko I, first historical duke of Poland
  • Gdansk is famous for Saint Adalbert, who baptized the citizens of Gdansk, and died later attempting to baptize the pagans in Prussia
  • Gdansk was the capital of the Duchy of Pomerania (Ducatus Pomeraniae) in 12th-13th centuries
  • Gdansk was the international trade city having inhabitants from various ethnic groups: Poles, Pomeranians, Prussians, Swedes, Danes, Saxons, Germans, Englishmen, Jews, French and others.
  • Gdansk was the biggest city (upto 70,000) of historical Poland in 15th-18th centuries
  • Gdansk was the biggest Polands's seaport accumulating upto 80% of Poland's exports and imports in 15th-18th Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternative city names

Gdansk is today inhabited mainly by ethnic Poles, but also by ethnic Kashubians or Pomeranians, and some ethnic Germans. Gdansk used to be and international city open for various nations, etnic groups, languages and cultural influences. Gdansk had also many alternative city names and spelling was changing in time.

Im my opinion it is necessary to state that:

The Polish name is most important as Gdansk is the Polish city, the Pomeranian/Cassubian name is second most important name as there are 400,000 Cassubians in the region; Latin name is the 3rd most important name as the Latin language was the official language of the administration for 800 years; German is the 4th most importamnt language as it was the alternative official language for 400 years.

So the standard headline will be:

Gdansk (Polish: Gdańsk, Kashubian-Pomeranian: Gduńsk, Latin Gedania, Dantiscum, German Danzig) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship.

Don't suggest that there is a separate English name, just because people often can't write diacritics. It should be:
Gdańsk (former German name Danzig; Kashubian-Pomeranian Gduńsk, Latin Gedania, Dantiscum) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship.
My Big Polish-English dictionary says that the Polish city of Gdańsk (with diacritics) has an English equivalent of Gdansk (without diacritics) or Dantzick - Mestwin of Gdansk 19:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik's is certainly better than Gdansk's version of it. I would, however, suggest that a) Danzig be bolded; and b) we make some indication that Danzig was the name by which the city was formerly known not only in German, but in English as well. On the whole, I'd prefer to simply have "Gdańsk (formerly Danzig) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship." And then detail all the various other names at a later point in the article, as well as explaining that Danzig was the German name. Can one argue that the city was not formerly called Danzig? john 00:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)
Kpalion 03:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion Danzig is the modern German name of the city. Former German name was spelled Dantzick or Dantzig. I don't like the idea of bolding only the German name and ignoring other languages. There are more Kashubians that Germans in the city, and the Latin language was much more importamt in the city's history. Mestwin of Gdansk 18:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this "former German name" one used hundreds of years ago? The Latin language was more important in the city's history? What utter nonsense. If it was used for official records there (as it was in other cities) that doesn't negate the fact that most of the actual inhabitants were Germans. You can try to pretend that "Danzig" isn't the name by which the city was primarily known in English for a long, long time, and isn't still the name by which it is called in English for much of its earlier history, but you aren't fooling anyone. john 19:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please stop calling a nonsense everything you disagree. Latin was the official language of Poland (including Gdansk) at least in years 1000-1795. Polish and German were also used first for private and trade contacts, and later, since the 15th century, also for official purposes. It doesn't matter how many times you continue to repeat Danzig it will not change the fact that the English name of the city is Gdansk. Mestwin of Gdansk 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It would depend what you mean by "English name of the city", I suppose. The name Danzig has been used as the English name of the city, moreso in previous years than recently. Most English writing that referred to the city prior to 1950 or so referred to it as Danzig, and almost never as Gdansk. This is clearly changing, but historically Danzig was the name most commonly used in English for the city, so it should at least be mentioned for those who may be more familiar with the older usage (which is a lot of people). --Delirium 20:04, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Delirium, it is more than this. Most English writing since 1945 that refers to the city before 1945 still refers to it as "Danzig". I have repeatedly demonstrated this, and repeatedly been ignored, but I still see no particular problem with referring to a city by two different names in the course of the article. john 23:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Most of the historical maps published in English and Latin before the partitions of Poland use double name for the city: Gdansk/Dantzick. The bilingual status of the city is clearly indicated. The German name of Danzig was enforced during the Prussian/German domination of Poland (1815-1918) and that's why it meets such resistanse: it's an enforces name.

How is it an enforced name? The vast majority of the population was indisputably German in the first half of the last century, at least. But, once again, this is irrelevant. The question is what name is currently used in English to refer to the city before 1945. And that name is Danzig. It doesn't matter what it was called in English at the time, or what it is currently called in German, or anything like that. All that matters is what the standard English usage is today. The standard English usage at present is to use "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945 and "Gdansk" to refer to it after. Occasionally, "Gdansk" is also used for the city's history before 1793, although Danzig still predominates. Since that is the case, the article should use "Danzig" for the period when present day English writing generally uses "Danzig." john 01:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Gdansk was not only the city, it was also a region around. Despite the fact, that official German statistics were proud of having only 3% Poles in Frei Stadt (later they were proud of having 0% of Jews in Germany), at least 25% of population of the city was also of local Kashub origins. It was a times of German chauvinism, so there is no doubt that people were afraid of being different then majority. It is how we got to those 3%. 3% were people, that were strong enough to say that they are Poles (and public enemies of the German state). In matter of fact, in peacefull times, Gdansk would have been mixed city with both names in use. As for the region around, there were clear Polish majority and Gdansk were used to call the city. Your statement, that in the first half of 20-century Danzig had vast German majority is only partly true. Therefore it cannot be the proof against anything. Todays Gdansk dwellers are proud of the ancient history of the city of double name (Gdansk/Danzig) hmm with notable exception of the 30-ties and 40-ties of 20-century. Cautious 09:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, point 1: this article is about the city of Gdansk, not the region. Point 2: my understanding is that the Kashub population of the region by 1900 generally considered itself German, and probably would have called the city Danzig (this occurring, BTW, before there would have been issues of Polish/German enmity). Point 3: this is irrelevant, anyway. The city is known as Danzig in English when referring to it before 1945, and everyone except Space Cadet has completely ignoring this. john 17:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where comes this assumption from? Kashubes elected Polish MP's in the period of Empirial Germany. Cautious 09:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hard data from the German sources?

http://www.literad.de/regional/dan_berent.html Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Berent-Pr.Stargard (Preußisch Stargard, Berent, Dirschau) 1907 1912 Nationalliberal 36,0 % 35,4 % Zentrum 1,2 % 2,3 % Polenpartei 62,2 % 60,9 % SPD 0,6 % 1,4

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Berent-Pr.Stargard (Preußisch Stargard, Berent, Dirschau) 1907 1912 Nationalliberal 36,0 % 35,4 % Zentrum 1,2 % 2,3 % Polenpartei 62,2 % 60,9 % SPD 0,6 % 1,4 Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Neustadt-Karthaus (Karthaus, Neustadt i. Westpreußen, Putzig) 1907 1912 Deutschkonservativ 28,0 % - Reichspartei - 26,7 % Zentrum 5,9 % 7,6 % Polenpartei 65,5 % 64,5 % SPD 0,5 % 1,2 % Zersplittert 0,1 % 0,1 %

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Konitz-Tuchel 1907 1912 Deutschkonservativ 25,0 % 20,7 % Nationalliberal - 2,9 % Zentrum 12,0 % 16,3 % Polenpartei 61,3 % 58,1 % SPD 1,7 % 1,9 % Zersplittert 0,0 % 0,1 %

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Neustadt-Karthaus (Karthaus, Neustadt i. Westpreußen, Putzig) 1907 1912 Deutschkonservativ 28,0 % - Reichspartei - 26,7 % Zentrum 5,9 % 7,6 % Polenpartei 65,5 % 64,5 % SPD 0,5 % 1,2 % Zersplittert 0,1 % 0,1 %

(and in case you also have doubts about Silesia, one example:) Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Pleß-Rybnik 1907 1912 Wahlbeteiligung 75,0 % 69,2 % abgegebene gültige Stimmen insgesamt 30.594 31.407 Reichspartei 6.992 6.988 Zentrum 3.205 5.652 Polenpartei 20.038 16.339 SPD 347 2.420 Zersplittert 12 8 

Cautious 09:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, if you don't want to go with common sense, let's again go to temporary agreement of "Danzig 1793 - 1945".
This proposal doesn't seem to have any sense, and is was not agreed as far as I know; There were three languages in use in the city in this period: The Poles called the city Gdansk, the Kaszubians or Pomeranians called it Gduńsk and the Germans called it Danzig'. The problem was that the German administration tried to enforce the German name, and forbid any altelnative names. The city was of no interest to the English speaking population except the WWI and WWII period, and unfortunately the only available maps were in German. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not true. Hansa-English trade was very important to both sides. To colonise America, English used Polish wood cutters. However, this doesn't chnage the fact, that Danzig should be used, when it is necessary. Cautious 21:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk/Archive_5&oldid=933424216"