Talk:History of Poland: Difference between revisions
imported>Aleksander Stos |
imported>Richard Jensen (nothing natural about Europe) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::historically there were no "natural" boundaries. The maps show this. It was German East Prussia to the North that for a while was "part" of Poland. The article on Poland today is a bit more controversial. The Germans in East Prussia and in Silesia were all forcibly removed in 1945, and eastern Poland (as of 1920) was given to Ukraine. indeed the boundary was highly controversial until 1990. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:15, 28 December 2007 (CST) | ::historically there were no "natural" boundaries. The maps show this. It was German East Prussia to the North that for a while was "part" of Poland. The article on Poland today is a bit more controversial. The Germans in East Prussia and in Silesia were all forcibly removed in 1945, and eastern Poland (as of 1920) was given to Ukraine. indeed the boundary was highly controversial until 1990. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:15, 28 December 2007 (CST) | ||
"historically there were no "natural" boundaries." I agree (and I suggested so). Qualification "historically" does the job even better. I just think about the reader that is puzzled by two seemingly contradictory sentences. This should be resolved by proper qualification. Political controversies (of course I know this very well) do not seem to be relevant here. Do you suggest that "natural" imply "rightful and unquestionable"? BTW, the controversies concern(ed) mainly the west border, the "natural borders" on the north and south are/were not regarded as so controversial. I understand "natural borders" as "natural barriers as mountains or oceans". The present "geographically natural" borders can be seen on maps as well -- and in this sense the article on Poland today does not seem to state any controversial facts. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 03:06, 29 December 2007 (CST) | "historically there were no "natural" boundaries." I agree (and I suggested so). Qualification "historically" does the job even better. I just think about the reader that is puzzled by two seemingly contradictory sentences. This should be resolved by proper qualification. Political controversies (of course I know this very well) do not seem to be relevant here. Do you suggest that "natural" imply "rightful and unquestionable"? BTW, the controversies concern(ed) mainly the west border, the "natural borders" on the north and south are/were not regarded as so controversial. I understand "natural borders" as "natural barriers as mountains or oceans". The present "geographically natural" borders can be seen on maps as well -- and in this sense the article on Poland today does not seem to state any controversial facts. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 03:06, 29 December 2007 (CST) | ||
::the northern Baltic ocean boundary became "natural" only after the Germans were removed from E Prussia in 1945. Few European countries have "natural" borders. I recall decades back in elementary German one sentence was supposed to translate "Germany has 9 neighbors and that is Germany's problem." We all translated it, "Germany has 9 neighbors and that is the neighbors' problem." | |||
Revision as of 05:36, 29 December 2007
|
| Metadata here |
If you've any problems with what I've done here, just move it back :-) Denis Cavanagh 10:20, 16 December 2007 (CST)
- it's a good move--thanks! I think the lower case h in history is better. Richard Jensen 07:24, 28 December 2007 (CST)
Natural borders
A quotation from Poland, "Poland is predominantly open plains, with the natural borders of the Carpathian Mountains to the south and the Baltic Sea to the north."
A quotation from Poland, history, "Poland has no natural boundaries, such as mountains or oceans, so..."
Well..? My suggestion would be either past tense in Poland, history or some qualification of "no natural boundaries". Or just skipping the introductory sentence. But I'll leave it to the primary authors. Aleksander Stos 09:12, 28 December 2007 (CST)
- historically there were no "natural" boundaries. The maps show this. It was German East Prussia to the North that for a while was "part" of Poland. The article on Poland today is a bit more controversial. The Germans in East Prussia and in Silesia were all forcibly removed in 1945, and eastern Poland (as of 1920) was given to Ukraine. indeed the boundary was highly controversial until 1990. Richard Jensen 11:15, 28 December 2007 (CST)
"historically there were no "natural" boundaries." I agree (and I suggested so). Qualification "historically" does the job even better. I just think about the reader that is puzzled by two seemingly contradictory sentences. This should be resolved by proper qualification. Political controversies (of course I know this very well) do not seem to be relevant here. Do you suggest that "natural" imply "rightful and unquestionable"? BTW, the controversies concern(ed) mainly the west border, the "natural borders" on the north and south are/were not regarded as so controversial. I understand "natural borders" as "natural barriers as mountains or oceans". The present "geographically natural" borders can be seen on maps as well -- and in this sense the article on Poland today does not seem to state any controversial facts. Aleksander Stos 03:06, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- the northern Baltic ocean boundary became "natural" only after the Germans were removed from E Prussia in 1945. Few European countries have "natural" borders. I recall decades back in elementary German one sentence was supposed to translate "Germany has 9 neighbors and that is Germany's problem." We all translated it, "Germany has 9 neighbors and that is the neighbors' problem."