Misplaced Pages

Talk:Königsberg: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:06, 22 October 2006 editSca (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,981 editsm typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:22, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,150 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(581 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{infoboxneeded|Infobox City}}
{{American English}}
=== Koenigsberg Inhabitants Vital Statistics since 1500's ===
{{Old AfD multi|date=16 March 2022 |result='''speedy keep''' |page=Königsberg}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Cities}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=high|hist=yes|humgeo=yes}}
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|Crusades-task-force=yes |importance=mid }}
{{WikiProject Former countries|Prussia=Yes }}
{{WikiProject Hanseatic League|importance=Mid }}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Königsberg/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== post-war numbers ==
Despite centuries of recorded history there are constant crude attempts by some in Misplaced Pages to make it seem as if it was ever a Polish city


"Between October 1947 and October 1948, about 100,000 Germans were forcibly moved to Germany."
All inhabitants of Koenigsberg are recorded in birth, marriage death church records - Never in Polish language-
MG


Unfortunately the source isn't easily accessible, however, R.M. Douglas (https://www.google.de/books/edition/Orderly_and_Humane/DeOzUL-HXb0C?hl=de&gbpv=1, no page number provided, please search for "October 1947") gives the exact same number for the same period but refers to the region and not just the city of Königsberg. Could somebody check what Stefan Berger actually writes?
=== Write the same thing ===
I hate SOMEONE's manner of writing in every single article the same thing, which should be done once in one single entry. Not mention that it is false, NPOV and in contradiction to hisorical facts. I will change it, that is i will remove some paragraphs and instead i will put references to other entries, as it should be


The same problem occurs when talking about people of Lithuanian background. The source clearly refers to the whole Kaliningrad oblast and not just the city.("In the region that became part of the Soviet Union, there was only a very small number of people with some kind of Lithuanian background.") As this article is about the City, we should stick to the specific numbers for the City of Königsberg/Kaliningrad.] (]) 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
:Szopen -- many of us dislike it and are frustrated -- but as an English speaker, I know that in pre-20th century histories, we call it Koenigsberg. I think it's really important to make sure we leave most of what is there -- although it needs to be in better English and needs to be written better -- and add to it. I will be happy to help make sense of it, but think that much of your purposes can be achieved by filling in what's missing! ]


== September 2021 edits ==
ALso, I'm pretty sure we spell Ottocar Otocar or Otokar -- please don't link till I can check! Thanks


In re: the , Bernhard Fisch and Marina Klemeševa, Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung Bd. 44 Nr. 3, 1995, a source that's also part of the diff, write (assuming my translation is correct):
----
::''The previous calculations of the population of Königsberg at the time of the German surrender are obviously too high. There is a strong probability that it was 63000 at the time of the surrender or shortly after. An actual decrease of 47,000 from the German estimate of 110,000 to this figure is unlikely, even if one assumes a high number of casualties during the three-day battle for the city and as a result of the subsequent assaults; in addition, the flight must be taken into account.''  
=== History ===
::''(Die bisherigen Berechnungen der Einwohnerzahl von Königsberg zum Zeitpunkt der deutschen Kapitulation greifen augenscheinlich zu hoch. Es besteht eine starke Wahrscheinlichkeit,  daß  sie zum Zeitpunkt  der Kapitulation  bzw. kurz danach bei 63000 gelegen hat. Ein tatsächlicher Rückgang von den deutscherseits errechneten  110000 um 47000 auf  diese Zahl ist  unwahrscheinlich, selbst wenn man von einer hohen Zahl von Opfern  während  des  dreitägigen Kampfe um die Stadt und infolge der anschlissenden Übergriffe; ausserdem muss die Flucht im Richtung berücksichtigt werden.)''
''The Prussian Confederation was under the leadership of the Hanse cities Elbing, Danzig and Thorn. The Prussian Confederation had to appear before the emperor Frederick III in their case against the Teutonic Knights.
It appears that Kossert's numbers are not the agreed upon numbers in recent historiography. There's certainly a discrepancy. In general, there seems to be a willingness to use Fisch and Klemeševa for certain aspects (i.e. nutritional estimates), but not for others (i.e. initial numbers of residents). --] (]) 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
:] (1926-2020) was a Russian language teacher at a ] in ], ], and later on teached German language for foreigners at an agrarian school. He started to publish books about East Prussia out of private interest after he retired. He was not a historian. The number of 63,000 is based on Soviet post-war estimates. The passport office had officialy registered 23,000 Germans, another 40,000 were added by the ], based on estimatations. The uncritical acceptance of Soviet post-war statistics by Fisch is regarded problematic (https://ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/orte/koenigsberg-kaliningrad). In any case Fisch's numbers are not based on modern historiography but Soviet post-war figures and do not represent modern research.


:] (born 1970) studied history, politics and slavistics at the Universities of Bonn, Berlin, Freiburg and Edinburgh. A book based on his phD on the history of Masuria was a huge success in German bookstores, he was a visiting professor in Dresden in 2007 and worked at the ] from 2001-2009. He received several prizes for his publications, he is currently the leading expert in East Prussian history. His views are not outdated or obsolete but represent the current state of scientific research. ] (]) 05:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
It was arranged that Casimir IV and his wife Elisabeth would grant protection to Prussia. However, Casimir IV tried to annex Prussia and war broke out against him (1453-1466). When the Teutonic Knights could not pay the German and Bohemian soldiers, the soldiers took the Marienburg (Malbork) castle in lieu of pay and sold it to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, King of Poland. The Teutonic Knights moved out of Marienburg and moved their headquarters to Königsberg - Królewiec. ''
::Thank you for the clarification. --] (]) 17:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


== Lower Prussian name ==
Why this is false:
From this two paragraphs it appeared that German emperor ordered Grand Duke of Lithuania, to grant protection to Prussia, but instead the Polish king tried to annex it, so Prussian Confederacy had to fight it.
Which is false.


So the German version of this Article includes "(niederpreußisch Keenigsbarg)", or the Lower Prussian name being Keenigsbarg. However, on this version that information was deleted for lack of a source. Which one is it? Does the information need to be deleted too on the German version or will it be added here? ] (]) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
1) Emperor completely backed Teutonic knights and banned Prussian Confederacy.
2) Leaders of Confederacy, although they had earlier contacts with Polish court, now go to Poland and asked king to incorporate whole Prussia into Poland. Polish king did that officially.
3) Prussian confederacy leader was nobleman Bazynski (von Baysen. Gdansk, Torun and Elblag were leading cities in confederacy, but confederacy was established by burghers, clergy, and noblemen.
4) Lithuania did not participate in war, except for few raids, and in fact was effectively sabotaging Poland. It was the Polish forces (plus confederacy), the taxes paid by Poles, and the Polish king who won the war.


:Different language Wikipedias are their own projects. Articles are not required to conform to each other and may find different facts interesting or uninteresting, supported or unsupported. Here, unsupported material should be removed and citations are required when adding. As for German Misplaced Pages, we leave it to the German-speaking audience... ] (]) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
right? ]
::Could the following be used as a source then, cause I will absolutely add it as a source for the German wiki page as well if it can be. Otherwise a dictionary could also be used since it is a word translation and not an argument, fact, piece of data or otherwise: Dorch Keenigsbarg. Möt Riemelkes On 40 Holtschnettkes, Daniel Staschus, Gräfe un unzer Verlag, Königsberg i. Pr., 1924 ] (]) 21:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
-----------------------------------------------------
:::How would I know? I don't have a copy and don't know if it verifies the facts. It doesn't seem to have a page number, so I suspect you don't know for sure either. Get a copy, find the fact, then cite with a page number included, I suppose. ] (]) 21:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Pretty much. ]
::::This sounds like a troll- the source would be cited generally refering to the booklet, which is itself written in Lower Prussian, containing the reference at several spots starting with the title itself which I provided. ] (]) 21:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::That was an honest answer. I don't read Prussian. It seems you're the troll, then. ] (]) 21:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


== lousy map ==
---------------------------------------------------


The green regional map that appears with this article is 99% inadequate because it contains no lettering whatsoever. Which country is which is left for the poor visitor to guess.
The German name on former German city Warschau was removed from ]. I will ''not'' reinsert it, BUT: No Polish name in this article either! -- ] 21:06, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is beneath the standard that is expected of Misplaced Pages content. I ask, therefore, that either the existing useless map be revised or that it be replaced with one that has meaning.
----------------------------------------
] (]) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Fine, but can You convincingly explain why? After all it was a part of Poland, everybody in the city spoke at least two languages (the Great Elector himself is known to have been fluent in Polish), numerous protestant Lithuanians and Poles were settling there in difficult times, Polish aristocracy and nobility held public offices, city representatives were sent to the Polish Sejm (house of representatives). So why is the Polish version so wrong here?<br>
] 22:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
----------------------------------------------------
sorry that is a complet ultra-nationalistic-polnish bullshit. there was not even a polnish minority in the koenigsberg region, thats a historical fact.


:Not all Misplaced Pages visitors are Americans ;) ] (]) 15:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
=== Kaliningrad's former names ===


::Not all are Europeans either - how’s your African geography without any country labels?
The "former" names of Kaliningrad are:
::Names would be an improvement.—] (]) 22:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
#1255-1945 Königsberg
::if you cant read the '''''English''''' labels, then I guess you wont be able to read the '''''English''''' article. at the top of the talk page is is specifically stated that this article is in '''American''' English. ] (]) 00:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
#1945-today Kaliningrad
I don't believe that the Polish and Lithuanian names can stand as "former names".


== Flag and coat of arms ==
--------------


I agree, except from: The Soviet regime's name on the city was Kaliningrad from ''1946'', not 1945. PS: You should register a user name. -- ] 06:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) Would be nice to add the flag and coat of arms of Königsberg in the infobox, though I don't know how to do this here. ] (]) 15:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


== Language ==


"....From the thirteenth to the twentieth centuries on, the inhabitants spoke predominantly German, although the city also had a profound influence upon the Lithuanian and Polish cultures..."
----


The inhabitants didn't just "spoke predominantly German". They were Germans!
: This name war is silly. IMO, if '''ever''' in a city there was a minority of at least 10%, we should write the name of the city in that name. What do you think about this ? ] 11:59, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


This way it sounds like the people of Königsberg had some special national, not German identity. I mean it points out the Polish and Lithuanian influx. But why point out linguistics, instead of nationality.
I had a look at other encyclopedias, and as they mentioned the old Polish and Lithuanian names, I've reinserted them. My concern was that the intro shouldn't be too long - the city has an old name in Russian too , written in two ways (Kenigsperga and Kenigsberg, I think), which means that we eventually have to use at least 6 names (or more if we include names with Russian characters). In English the city is ''only'' known as Königsberg and Kaliningrad. Maybe the other names could be mentioned another place in the article? -- ] 12:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


It would be worth it to point it out, if they spoke a different language but German. ] (]) 08:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
--------------------------------
I would say that Królewiec is simply a direct Polish translation of Königsberg; that's a natural way to refer to a city that has been next to your border for more than a thousand of years and even was under your feudal dominion during a part of that time. This is a different version of the same name, and it differs from silly translation of "Regiomontium" (again, the same meaning) only by the fact that it has been used by a large population for almost a millenium -- it's not a different name on its own.

On the other hand, Kaliningrad has completely no ties to the original name, it is a result of the Soviet practice of renaming cities/mountains/etc using names of their party chieftains. If not for Putin's glorification of USSR, it most likely would have already been restored to the former name, just like it was the case with Stalinogród/Katowice, Leningrad/St. Petersburg or Pik Stalina/Pik Kommunizma/Ismail Samani Peak.
--] 00:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

=== New introduction ===

I think it would be better if the introduction was ''chronological'', like this, because Königsberg and Kaliningrad in fact are two different cities, referred to as both Königsberg and Kaliningrad in the encyclopedia (and this article is mainly about Königsberg too):

<blockquote style="border : solid #696 1px; padding : 9px; margin-left: 3em; margin-bottom:0.2em">'''Königsberg''' (in Polish ''Królewiec'', Lithuanian ''Karaliaucius''), a city on the east-southern coast of the ], was the former capital of ], after 1945 a part of Soviet and since 1946 known as '''Kaliningrad''' (''&#1050;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080;&#1085;&#1080;&#1085;&#1075;&#1088;&#1072;&#1076;'') after Soviet official ]. Today it is the capital and main city of the '']'', a small ]n ] between ] and ].</blockquote>

-- ]

: Perfect! ;-) ] 11:32, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:: Thanks. It would also be nice if other people gave their opinions. Cheers, ] 12:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


---------
I've protected this page to stop this silly edit war of umlauts and bolding. ] 17:35, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)


Please revert to a non Nico or My version of the page ] 17:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense. Changing Königsberg to "Konigsberg" is nothing but vandalism. I've asked a sysop to block 24.2.152.139 ] 17:40, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


This coming from a known agenda. Look at Nicos users contributions there isint one major Polish City he didnt try to rename. He even renamed warsaw once. And no nico its proper. Because if you look at all the Texts it has Konigsberg and I also added a link to Kalinin and redited the page to refrence the Kaliningrad name more. Konigsberg stopped existing in 1945. It was bulldozed to the ground and renamed and rebuilt totaly as a new city(With new city boundaries). But some people still consider it Konigsberg huh Nico ?? ] 17:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:: Ridiculous. His lies are unworthy to comment, I've never tried to rename Warsaw, but YOU, User:Kommiec, is a known vandal, according to RickK "seems dedicated to make sure that any city with a German name must be known only by it's Polish name". Remember? Btw, there are no "pre-Nico/you"-version, since I just reverted to the previous version after you vandalized the page. ] 17:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you remove the umlaut it should be Koeningsberg anyway - shouldn't it? ] 17:46, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
--------------
We have agreed on the use of diacritics long time ago. Besides, 24.2.152.139, why don't you wipe off "ó" in Królewiec, if you're so much into the English alphabet?
] 17:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Its in Italics and it refrences a foregin name. I dont see anything wrong with that. If he wants to say German: Königsberg in italics its fine with me ] 17:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Königsberg is English name when dealing with the pre-1946 city. ] 17:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whens the last time you seen ö in the english alpahabet???
] 17:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-------------------------------
Kids! To your rooms, now! Both of you!
] 17:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please see the 1911 Britannica:
- http://36.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KO/KONIGSBERG.htm

- It has been refrenced here before and articles have been corected on it. Please revert this page back to a decent version.] 18:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

::I'm coming in late, but for the benefit of future readers: The referenced Britannica text is a ''very'' badly OCR'ed version that has many errors even in the English text (it even skips a few lines at the end and continues in the middle of an unrelated later article. The OCR used does not recognize umlauts at all, as can be seen in the rendering of "Grune Brhcke" (a proper name, should be "Grüne Brücke"). To put this to rest, it would be nice if someone with a paper copy could double-check this.--] 13:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is staying exactly as protected. Until you all calm down it is staying like this. ] 18:01, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)


Your not being a npov sysop then. I showed my proof on the change wheres nicos ??
] 18:02, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
:Nonsense - wherever I protected it one side would complain. I protected it where it was - I didn't revert. 30 seconds later it would have been your version. ] 18:12, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)


In the 1911 Encyclopedia ''many'' Polish cities have other names than those you prefer! ] 18:09, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First Kaliningrad is not a Polish City. Second Poland didnt exist in 1911. So of course they have diffrent names. Kind of hard when everything was renamed to nationalize the poles to some other country.... Now Nico where is your Proof that Königsberg is an English name ???
] 18:10, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
--------------
Nico's proof is in every other encyclopedia, published in this century! Go to sleep, or go play soccer!
] 18:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


But Space Cadet this century just started and it is Kaliningrad :)

] 18:20, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

''Not'' when dealing with the pre-1946 city. It was never the capital of East Prussia as Kaliningrad. ] 18:46, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
----

I was going to update the reference to Poland and Lithuania and the EU, which in this article sounds entirely hypothetical, to mention that they will both be members as of May 2004. However, it's a protected page. ]
-----
Anyone who suggests that the city that existed prior to 1945 on the site of present-day Kaliningrad was ever generally known either to its inhabitants or to the rest of the world as anything other than Königsberg is either dreaming or an intellectual charlatan. Königsberg was founded as Königsberg in 1255 by the Teutonic Order and remained Königsberg until it was taken over (and largely destroyed) by the Soviets in 1945. The Polish and Lithuanian names mentioned above are simply translations of the German name, which means King's Mountain or King's Hill. (It was a rather ambitious term for a small hill.) Nowhere outside Poland and Lithuania was it ever known by these translated names, and their inclusion in this entry is a total red herring.

Space Cadet, what's your interest in this? This place was NEVER Polish. Before the Teutonic Knights arrived in the 13th century this area was inhabited by the Old Prussians. They were causing problems for Poland, which had other problems in the east to take care of. Did you forget? – That's why Conrad of Masovia asked the Order to come in and clean up on the nasty Old Prussians. And don't forget that the Teutonic Knights were a Catholic order and that their mission to the Baltic was endorsed by the papacy.

"It was a part of Poland" – Smieszny! Even the Lithuanian association with northEASTERN ex-East Prussia, where Lithuanians were a minority, is more substantial than your Polish dreams. (The first Lithuanian book, a catechism, was published in Königsberg.) Immanuel Kant is rolling over in his tomb in Kaliningrad when he hears you prattle on. Give it up! Treat everyone fairly! Get real!
] 29sep04

----

I'm just curious -- how is that two Soviet cosmonauts born in the mid-'30s, a decade before Königsberg was conquered and became Kaliningrad, are "from Königsberg"?

] 29nov04

== NPOV? ==

I think I'm finding the wording on the Soviet Union section somewhat objectionable:
''"At the end of World War II, in 1945, the city was annexed by the Soviet Union"''
I don't see similar wording being employed for any of the other consequences of the Yalta agreement. I'd rather say that,a s a part of such, it became a part of the Soviet Union (or rather, of the Russian Federation and therefore of the USSR, which would explain more clearly why, after the collapse of the Communist regime it remains part of Russia).

''"uch of the historical records were destroyed during the communist period. The communists tried to create the idea that Kaliningrad was historically a Slavic land."''
I'd like to see proof of this. Many of the records perished in the war (as the offspring of an expatriate Polish family who spent some time looking for his own family records, I should know), and the direct link posited between communism and Slavic nationalism is unduly provocative.

The description of the partial razing of the city and the treatment former residents received needs fixing, too. Even if it was not a top example of humanitarian action, the qualifications go quite beyond what's been said about American interventions in Nicaragua or El Salvador, for example.

In short, I'm planning to rewrite some of this. However, as it used to be a hot topic, I thought I'd check the rest of the usual editors before.
--] 08:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

+_+_+_+_+_+_+

This text was edited out. Puting it here for discussion purposes.

"Many surviving expellees and refugees in Germany joined the ], whereas many other former inhabitants were scattered around the world. The Soviets destroyed many of the remnants of German and Prussian culture, including the ruins of the castle where the House of Soviets was built in its place. Though much of the historical records were also destroyed during the communist period, the city museum of ] contains a small collection dealing with the history of Königsberg."


As mentioned in the editing note - unsourced, giving serious occusations in a onesided manner

--] 3 July 2005

:What exactly do you doubt: that German/Prussian culture was destroyed there ? or the Königsberg Castle ? --] (]) 3 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

"Kaliningrad was particularly important to the USSR, and is now to Russia, as a Baltic port that is ice-free year round."

A reminder that Kronshtadt, Leningrad, Tallinn, Riga and Klaipeda also were Soviet Baltic sea ports during the same period, so "particular" may be oversugarcoating.

--] 3 July 2005

:How about removing this sentence, which imho is disputable. --] (]) 3 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

== Votes for deletion/Königsburg - survival ==

See ] for voting and discussion

] 17:44, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

== Exclave ==

Surely it has been an ] of ] since it became part of the Federation (presumably 1945)? ] 10:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Bridges ==

Isn't there the famous Königsberg bridge puzzle? Isn't it worthy to go here? --] 20:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

................................

Bonkers arguments.

A very interesting discussion page. Some of the suggestions being made are simply fatuous. Konigsberg was never anything other than a Teutonic Knights/German city until 1947 when it was formally annexed by the Soviet Union. Stalin had said that he wanted it for its port which did not ice up like Russian ones. As no-one was in a position to refuse him what could anyone do? This is similar to the arbitrary placing of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia, &c., in the hands of the Lublin Polish communist 'government'. Truman (read his Memoirs - "Years of Decisions")had already protested (at Potsdam) that zones of occupation had already been agreed and that Poland was not one of those to whom zones had been allotted, only the Soviet Union. Stalin just ignored him.
It is also interesting how the European Union, UN, USA, etc., bang on about ethnic cleansing today, whilst they simply sat back and accepted the Soviet diktat to ethnically cleanse 10 million Germans from their ancient homelands.

I note also that someone calling himself 'Space Cadet' insists on inserting into the text on Konigsberg that the Teutonic Knights "exterminated" the ancient Prussian population. This is an old Polish myth attempting to demonise the Order. (Not unlike the 1938 Soviet film "Alexander Nevsky" where the knights of the Order are simply called 'Germans' and they are busy throwing babies into fires). There is no concrete evidence of this in any reputable publications (notably Prof.Eric Williamson's brilliant "The Northern Crusades"). In wars and campaigns, notably in the Middle Ages, many were killed in battle, and the heathen Prussians fought well. But extermination was not on the books of a religious Order acting under the authority of a Papal Bull, and especially when virtually every campaign had at least as many non-German knights in it as Germans.

We certainly have a serious problem with the Space Cadet poster. He blatantly attempts to rewite history, and moreover he is obviously not an English speaker because his grammar is appalling. Worse still, when it is corrected, he re-edits it back into the previous awful mess. Can something not be done about this individual who still talks about "western propaganda"?

Christchurch] 18:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

................................

Alexandr Nevski fought against ].
] 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Brandenburger Tor in Koenigsberg? ==

The external link takes the reader to Berlin. There is nothing in the Brandenburger-Tor-in-Berlin article that provides a clue as to why this link may be relevant in the context of the Königsberg article. Does Königsberg have its own Brandenburger Tor?

:Yes, Königsberg have had Brandenburger-Tor, and it still exists in modern Kaliningrad. See picture

]

] 13:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


:::Many thanks! Have supplemented your constructive approach by removing the link to the Brandenburger Tor in Berlin from the Koenigsberg article and instead provided there a link to the pic you so kindly provided. Hope that's ok by you. 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
::::Question. Was this picture taken when the city was German or Russian? I can't really tell. The picture looks old, and so I think it may be during the period of German rule. But the script in the back looks Russian. Can anyone help? Thanks. ] 21:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Based on the script and the automobile, I would definitely say the photo was taken since 1945 ] 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed. Volkswagen Golfs were not manufactored when the city was still in Germany of course, the cyrillic script was not on walls and, undoubtedly, the cars did not bear modern Russian licence plates. In fact, this picture is not that old at all - it is taken after the collapse of the Soviet Union (as is proved by the modern Russian licence plates and the modern western-manufactored car). ] 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==Possibility of reverting to the old name==
The article mentions that there have been ongoing public debates on whether to follow the trend of reverting to pre-Communist names (e.g. ] and ]). Can anyone add more on these developments? Very fascinating! =J ''//] 09:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)''

:There are no considerations or discussions for renaming Kaliningrad. It is fine as it is. --] 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Soviet Union ==

Kaliningrad was a part of the Russian Republic in the Soviet Union. It is why Russia inherited it,
] 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== The most optimistic see a future where Kaliningrad could become a "Hong Kong of the Baltic Sea". ==

And I could become Arnold Schwarzenegger but I don't excersise exactly like Russia doesn't allow Kaliningrad's economy to grow.
] 14:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:I agree completely. Just check the BBC article which is linked to at the bottom of the page. We should incorporate some of that info into the article. Russia isn't paying enough attention to the region. ] 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree (and removed the section) - because the same could be written about many cities and regions. E.g. some imagines ] as a region of future, others have arguements why ] could be one (Abramovich, etc.); every city wants to be more important than it is, and it is not only restricted to Russia - it is so elsewhere in Eastern Europe and probably the world; the cities creates campaigns where they promotes their position and hires scientists that claims the city could become a "regional capital" and so on. If we will write that about every city about which there are such opinions, we would have to write that about every major city or region. Besides, Misplaced Pages Is Not A Crystal Ball as the policy says. ] 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

== The name ==

The Polish, Lithuanian and Latin names might be written in brackets, as that is useful and a common practice in Misplaced Pages (example - ] article, articles on other Eastern European cities). It is useful for some old maps and such. However, I must note, that an attempt to write "Krolewiec" everywhere in brackets after Koenigsberg, or even "Kroliewec (known in German as Koenigsberg)", is completely not appropriate - the city was never called that way, it did not belong to the Poland directly, its main language and nobility was always (prior to World War 2) German. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that either Kroliewec, Karaliaucius or Regiomontum were historical names. I reinstate the mentioning of the names myself, but please don't add "Kroliewec" everywhere, this is not logical. ] 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:While I do not object the presenting of these names in the way they are presented now, I believe this issue is not worth all these revert wars. However, currently this issue is perhaps the place where Misplaced Pages is the most not in order. I mean, yes, the cities which you have noted indeed has Russian, Polish and so on names of them written in brackets. But, e.g. ] does not even though there lives much more Russians in Riga than does in e.g. ] or ] for that matter. Arguably, historically Riga was more imprtant for the Russian Empire as well. Now however it seems the situation is like that: there are a few people from almost ebvery nation who tries to remove foreign language names from their cities and add their language names to the foreign cities. Currently, Polish have been the most active editors here - thus we have Polish names for Kaliningrad Oblast cities (even ones where Polish never lived), Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Belarusian, Ukrainian cities and so on. I think revert wars definitely are not the solution here - a one and cooperative decition on policy must be done. We can do a vote in this talk page, but it would not be very useful, as then it would be only about Kaliningrad and would be misinterpreted similarly to the Gdansk/Danzig vote. I guess we need a policy for what names would qualify for brackets in general; I'd guess that would have to be related to how much the culture of that nation flourished in the city, how much people of that ethnicity lives/lived in the city, but I am not sure, other opinions would also be interesting. ] 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::I think it is more better to simply add a heading in the history of the city about former names including Koenigsberg (maybe leave that in the heading as well) and be done with it. Have a look at ].--] 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I'll let it be, because as I said I don't want to fight a revert war on such issue. However, in my opinion, the previous version is more typical not only to Misplaced Pages but to encyclopedias in general (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica), it takes less space than entire chapter on names and such; it seems that for some city articles such chapters were written in the past, but in some cases it was decided after all to use the more typical version with brackets. And I looked at ] - it has Russian and Polish names written in brackets, even though Minsk was never a part of Poland... ] 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::::"was never a part of Poland"? Huh! --] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::In the interbellum Minsk was in the Soviet Union. Before the ] it was in the ]. Here is exactly what is disputed for the accuracy of the Polish name in thsi article as well: it seems the Poles considers *whole* Commonwealth, its both fiefs (], ]) and even the Courlandian colonies in ] (]) and ] to have been ]. This is, in my opinion, clearly wrong. East Prussia was as much Poland as e.g. ], ] or other ]s are ]. ] 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

] - yes! ] - somewhat. Moldavia - no! Tobago and Gambia - try to be serious! ] 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding previous edit: Kenigsberg is just a retransliteration of Кенигсберг, which is, in turn, a transliteration of Königsberg. To my knowledge, Кенигсберг was an official name briefly between the capture of the city and before it was renamed Kaliningrad, but prior to 1945 the German name Königsberg was official one. ] 16:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

] is a long-running attempt to come to a standard for city name inclusion. Please feel free to contribute your own thoughts to the discussion. ] 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

== Merger ==

This article has a ''lot'' in common with ], perhaps they should be brought together. If not a distinction should be made as to how the two articles differ in subject. ] 08:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

:That article is about a region, this one is about the capital city of that region; it is not an eligible merger. Some information that is about whole region might be moved from here to there or adapted so that it would primarilly concern the city rather than whole area though. ] 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
:Opposed, same reasons. `'] ] 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

== Königsberg vs. Kaliningrad ==

The title for this comment is misleading - it's not the same as the previous name wars. Here, I am saying that we use the current name of the city more often. I understand that it was previously named Königsberg, and that in the history section of that time the name of the city should be Königsberg rather than Kaliningrad. But on the more current basis, we should be using Kaliningrad. For example, the "Famous People from Königsberg/Kaliningrad" section should just be "Famous People from Kaliningrad". I've corrected this and several other things. After all, Kaliningrad ''is'' a Russian city now; the people speak Russian, the religion is mainly Russian Orthodox, and the city is on Russian soil, not German. We should pay respects to the old Germanic history of the city, but also realize that times have changed, and the city is now firmly Russian, never to be German again. An interesting thing about myself is that my ancestors came to Texas from Königsberg and Memel, German immigrants who came in the 1800s. But I know that Kaliningrad and Klaipėda are now Russian and Lithuanian respectively, and shall be so from now on. Please put your input on this subject. Thanks. ] 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
:What do you mean "never to be German again"? Your ancestors must be turning in their graves. ] 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
:Logically, I don't see where it will turn back. The former German sections of Poland are now firmly Polish (although technically they were Polish in the first place), as are the sections of Russia and Lithuania. How will it become German again? If Germany just decides to take over the land, the Russian citizens of Kaliningrad will retaliate. They don't want that to happen. And on an international level, governments will condemn this act all around the world. And Russia isn't just going to tell Germany, "Here, take this," and hand over Kaliningrad like that. So I think it's firmly Russian now. ] 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
::Logically, you're right, of course. But with this kind of ancestry you have to have faith. ] 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::It will be just "Famous people from the city" from now on, so that this revert war would end. As I imagine the Poles would probably add in Kroliewec in that sentence soon otherwise and such. ] 19:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Very funny! Are you trying to be cute or something? The Poles can speak for themselves. Save your rude insinuations for your retarded friends, if you have any. And it's spelled Królewiec, not that ridiculous medley of letters, you came up with. ] 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

:If the city had separate Königsberg and Kaliningrad articles like ], ], and ], I could certainly understand exclusively using one term for each article, Stallions2010. However, since there is only one article at the moment, it is important to differentiate between the different historical periods of the city. Many people (rightly or wrongly) view the city pre-1945 and post-1945 as separate cities, and suggesting that German inhabitants such as ] came from Kaliningrad is very misleading. The city is not like, for instance, many towns in Warmia-Masuria that continued to go by their historical Polish names (], ], ], etc.), but instead received an entirely name and population. That is why it is important to either list both Königsberg and Kaliningrad in the Famous people section or not list any name there and just use "Famous residents". It also is not correct to say that Królewiec is the Polish name of Kaliningrad, as Królewiec is the Polish name for Königsberg. Like in German, the Polish name for Kaliningrad now is Kaliningrad. ] 00:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC).

Going on what the first poster in this section has said, one should ask if he also feels that if this were, say, 1990, all references to St.Petersburg should have been obliterated and replaced my Leningrad? One has to be realistic here. Konigsberg was a German city from its foundation until 1945. Throughout the world it is known as that, and every history book mentions this famous city.

One of the principal reasons the Second World War commenced was the argument that sovereignty was sacrosanct and that there must be no annexations by Hitler. I wish someone could explain to me, therefore, how all the post-war annexations can be justified (not to mention the expulsions). From an English point of view this all seems to smack of hypocrisy. ] 08:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:With all due respect this is not a political forum. If you insist then there are several reasons, some explained clearely in the article which I take you have read. Strategical location most of all, westernmost military base. Then compensation for the suffering that the Soviet Union paid to defeat the Nazi German invaders which took 27 million of our people...Finally the Soviet annexation of East Prussia was not the only territory annexed from one country to another when the post-war borders were drawn...Nor was it the only territory where the local population had no choice but to pack and go. So what makes Kaliningrad special?--] ] 15:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Might someone else comment here? Is this really political, or just factual? Numerous people have invaded Russia over the centuries: the Golden Horde (didn't they murder vast numbers by the standards of the time?), the Swedes (who got all the way to Poltava), the French (whose trail left well over one million dead and severa; burnt out cities not to mention destroyed towns and villages), and, of course, the Poles (who annexed a large chunk). (Let us not forget also the Russian 'absorbtion' of most of Poland at the end of the 18th century).

::Well look who is politising it? ''Russian 'absorbtion' of most of Poland at the end of the 18th century'' Yes the ethnically Polish lands of Minsk, Volhynia, Polesia and Lithuania... Not to mention that Russia was not the only country to take part in the partitions.--] ] 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The point outlined above is very clear is it not? One foul activity should not justify another. Otherwise, surely, that places you in exactly the same position as the aggressor? You're then no better. Many might also argue that the Soviet ''de facto'' annexation of all of eastern Europe, and the manner in which Russia bled them dry until 1991 was sufficient compensation. Not sure about your (official Soviet) death figures, but given that estimates as high as 70 million Russians who died at the hands of the Bolsheviks, Stalin, etc., make one shudder at Russia's losses in the 20th century. But let us not forget that Russia had already had a war with little Finland and annexed part of that country, and then joined forces with its ideological enemy to carve up Poland. Russia is not without dirty hands in all this. Also, Stalin's purge of the officer class before the outbreak of the war caused the Soviet army to endure huge losses in the first few years. But returning the issue at hand, none of the Western Allies annexed anything after the second war. It was clearly demonstrated after Versailles that this was a cause for future conflict and achieved nothing, apart from all and sundry world-wide eventually saying that ALL such annexations were wrong. We await the verdict of history in the east. ] 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:#''the manner in which Russia bled them dry until 1991 was sufficient compensation.'' - Bleeding dry might include how the USSR restored all of their industry and cities, how the USSR used its own budget to ensure that their living standards were higher than its own...bleeding dry that is...
:#''estimates as high as 70 million Russians who died at the hands of the Bolsheviks, Stalin'' - Your estimates? Or maybe the fact that at least half of that number if they lived now would be over a hundred years old... Amusing :)
:#''Russia had already had a war with little Finland and annexed part of that country'' - So, ethnic Karelian land, besides in the forerunning to WWII Finland was a clear Nazi enemy and that ''part'' was a crucial buffer to ensure the safety of Karelia and Leningrad
:#''joined forces with its ideological enemy to carve up Poland.''
:#''none of the Western Allies annexed anything after the second war.'' But they did not mind the Partition of Czechoslovakia before the war and to adress the previous point. Stalin offered clear support to Czechoslovakia, but the Poles refused to allow Soviet troops to pass through its territory. So if that is how useless the allies were prior to the war, it was wise to take back the ethnically non-Polish territory creating another buffer, going by the old saying keep your freinds close keep your enemies closer. BTW my wife is from that western Ukraine. Hardly anyone there would deny the 1939 Soviet liberation from the Polish yoke
:#''Also, Stalin's purge of the officer class before the outbreak of the war caused the Soviet army to endure huge losses in the first few years.'' Not as much Stalin's fault but Voroshilovs the People's Commissar of the Army who thought to prolonge the German attack by not showing any agression or preparations for defence. People's Commissar of the Navy, Kuznetsov on the other hand a few days before the German invasion put all of the forces on alert...In the massive attack on the Navy in the first few days...all survived. Baltic, Northern and the Black Sea Fleets, and managed to fight until the end of the war...
:#''It was clearly demonstrated after Versailles that this was a cause for future conflict and achieved nothing'' Well it depends on how one annexes what. If you annex a territory you must make sure that you can hold it permanentely, historically us Cossacks played quite a role in that matter.
:#''We await the verdict of history in the east.'' And what might that be? Return to the pre-1936 borders? maybe pre-1914...???
--] ] 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

Sad. Here we have a brainwashed Soviet apologist. Pure and simple.] 07:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

::Well what do we have? A brainwashed western apologist. Pure and simple. but please ] :)--] ] 08:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


*Yeeesh! If ever one needed proof for the old saying that "History never dies in Europe," this talk page alone is sufficient! This debate between Königsberg vs. Kaliningrad is trivial and rather pointless. The Soviets very purposefully "de-Germanized" and fully "Russianized" the German city in 1945-46, and it's been Russian ever since. That's the undebatable historical fact, so Misplaced Pages should reflect that. I think that the best way to (mostly) resolve this dispute is to divide the subject into two articles: one on "Königsberg/Koenigsberg" and one on "Kaliningrad". When I first came across this article, I was actually looking for particular information on the old German city and was surprised to find myself redirected to the new Russian city that has replaced it. As far as which spelling to use for the German city, it "macht's nichts" as the Germans say, but I would suggest the umlauted rendering with redirects from "Koenigsberg" and "Konigsberg". (The reason the city's name often appears in English as "Konigsberg" is due to the lack of umlauts on English-standard typewriter keyboards and the fact that many writers unfamiliar with the German language are unaware that it has a proper "translation".) --] | ] 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

==Myth==

Is it only us English who can detect the fanatical Polish nationalism debasing these articles? Look at this: "Around 300 BC an Old Prussian settlement called Tvanksta was founded near the site of modern Kaliningrad. This settlement was conquered and destroyed during the conquest of Prussia by the Teutonic Order." Complete garbage, of course. Just name me ONE single atlas, set of maps, even ancient manuscript from, say, 1200, (we know the original Prussians had none) which show this "Prussian settlement". Such 'settlements' are well-known to have been collections of wooden huts very occasionally surrounded by fairly mudane stockades. The most amazing thing about all this is that today we have the Poles, in their fanatical hatred of the Germans, constantly attempting to re-write history, in this case in support of the heathen Prussians, conveniently forgetting that it was the Slav Duke of Marzovia who petitioned both the Pope and the Teutonic Knights to conquer and convert the Prussians! This is one of the Misplaced Pages's great faults: it is being used as a propaganda tool. ] 08:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:I would ask Kazak, Kosmak, Olessi and other experienced contributors to refrain from participating in this pointless discussion. We cannot revise the results of the WWII, no matter how hard some neo-Nazis would have wished it to be done. I can guess some Germans still claim Lorraine and half Poland as their rightful possessions and entertain hopes of winning them back in a WWIII. And some Russians consider Khruschev a blockhead for having presented Crimea - the land of Russian military glory - to Ukrainians just for nothing. If you want to discuss what should have been done, please go to soc.history.what-if usenet group. Please remember that this project is an encyclopaedia, not a chat room. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your pompous remarks about neo-Nazis are offensive in the extreme. This is a Talk page attached to an article. No-one is attempting to revert history. But if, as you say, this is to be a proper encyclopaedia the valid article points I have raised must be addressed. I am British, not German, and I have no German antecedents. Any suggestion that by raising valid historical points relating to an article one has somehow become a neo-Nazi is disgraceful (although I do understand that this sort of smear and slander is standard on The Left if they want you to go away). ] 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

::Offensive or not Ghirla is right, our job is not to defend a side but to give the facts as they are. Our opinions are irrlelevant and so far the article is more or less NPOV. You on the other case ... not impressed. Yet you accuse people of being neo-nazis and leave comments like that ... is that what Oxford education is about? Sigh --] ] 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response is confusing, to say the least, if it can be considered an adequate response. It was your friend making the accusations of neo-nazis, not I. On the contrary I was offended by such accusations. I agree that the remark I made to which you referred/linked probably was a little provocative, but it was probably made after the most tiresome perusals of endless twisted and re-written history which, in itself, is a provocation. History should not be written as you think it ought to be seen, but in a factual way and only then can it be seen as neutral. You may well loathe the Germans and we also fought them in two world wars. But you cannot deny them their correct place in history, nor their ancient territories. I am staggered at some of the articles I have read with a more than obvious intention or rewriting history to the glory of the nationality of the writer. ] 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:So you want to see Kaliningrad given back to Germany...? Original...but rather unlikely I would think...--] ] 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never really thought about it, I am more concerned with historical accuracy. You may be interested to know that as long ago as February 1981 our newspaper '']'' had a very large article entitled "Germans Compare Hitler's Crimes with Russia's Revenge". It doesn't make very pleasant reading. But to answer your direct question, you have to ask yourself whether or not Russia actually has a good claim to Konigsberg. If so, then England's claim for the restitution of Calais (and even some of our colonies) to its sovereignty should be internationally acknowledged. ] 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:Well in that case Russia should be fully compensated with territorial loss, like Crimea...but then what to do with the several hundred thousand Russian population in Kaliningrad? My answer to that is ...dream on...--] ] 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to me, from your very rude responses, that you are entirely unable to understand my various points or to give any kind of a proper academic response to them. If you must know, I am pro-Russian, and will never understand how they permitted their Empire to be broken up and fragmented following the demise of communism. ] 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:First you say that Kaliningrad should go to Germany eventually and then you say that you don't agree with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Once you have said that "the Slav mafia with their hilarious nationalist histories could simply write up the Kaliningrad entry, and educated intellects could complete the Konigsberg site" and now you claim that you are pro-Russian. Strange. And, I have to say that the Misplaced Pages talk pages are not discussion forums - they are not applicable for talking about such vague things as what should have been in your opinion or why something happened. Misplaced Pages merely documents what has happened, not discusses if it is good or bad or how it should have been instead; the talk pages are for discussing *articles* not the *events/places/things* these articles are about. ] 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

::I must apologize to everyone here. For several days I've been watching this discussion unfold. I simply said that we should use the word "Kaliningrad" more than "Königsberg", and it started this whole debate. Christchurch, I have to say that your views are extremely unreasonable, not to mention biased. Like I said earlier, most of my ancestors were German Königsbergers, and so do you think that I necessarily am happy that the city is now Russian? But the truth is that, Königsberg is no longer what it used to be; for several decades it has been a Russian city. The people are Russian there now. They attend Russian Orthodox church services. They speak Russian, not German. The street signs are in Cyrillic script, not Latin. Yet, it's the same old city it was a hundred years ago - the lifestyle may have changed, but it's still the same city. And that's the way it is and will be from now on. Personally, I think that Russia needs to pay more attention to Kaliningrad, but now my ancestral city overall is a thriving Russian city. And I am happy about that; in a sense, I as a person with roots in the city owe Russia much gratitude. Insulting the "inferior" Russians and championing the "superior" Germans (as well as English, as you seem to be saying throughout your posts) will do no good. And I agree with Burann and Kuban Cossack, Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. It tells the facts as they are, not how something should have went in your own personal opinion. Their responses are no more "rude" than yours. Thanks. ] 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear to me, at least, that you have all entirely misunderstood what I have been saying. I challenge you to show that I have said anyone was superior or inferior. That is an unfair slur.
As a historian I have correctly used these Talk pages to point out that much of the history being presented in the articles concerned is warped, with the facts twisted, etc. I stand by that. I have never proposed borders revision, etc., so you are reading something into my remarks which is not there.

The Misplaced Pages Talk Pages were created for comments and discussion on the articles. Sorry if you don't like that, but I don't need lectures on usage from a little team old enough to be my children. My quest is for correct European history. I am not finding it in a great many articles. What I am finding is that people with a nationalist axe to grind are using Misplaced Pages as a propaganda base. I have no doubt that you lot are capable of rounding up a whole host of fellow-travellers to condemn me, to re-edit articles back to fantasy etc. So I shall desist from further comment - unless, of course, I am unfairly attacked again. ] 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::OK in that case explain what is it that you see are problems with wikipedia and this article in particular?--] ] 15:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

==Silly==
More pointless bickering among extremists. ''Blödsinn.''

I've added an interesting photo link, to a site ''by a Kaliningrad resident,'' so hopefully I can't be accused of "revisionism." I'm thinking about a more even-handed description of the 1945 siege and surrender. ] 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
------------

== Königsberg 'Coats of Arms' made by a Misplaced Pages user ==
This pertains to the Misplaced Pages article ], therefore posted here by Labbas 20 October 2006

The following message was added to the 'Coats of Arms depicted on Misplaced Pages:
'''Note: The center 'Coat of Arms of Królewiec' is made up by a Misplaced Pages-user. It is not official or actually used coat of arms'''
This note was removed twice.
The 'explanation' by maker of the 'Coat of Arms' of Królewiec is below. There is no historical source given, other 'than that something similar to this was on internet'. This is original 'art'
original research

see sample of item in middle:

'''Koenigsberg, ]
'''Coats of Arms'''
<center><gallery>
Image:Altstadt.gif|Coat of Arms of Altstadt (Old town) of Königsberg, 1286
Image:Krolewiecherb.PNG|Coat of Arms of Królewiec, Polish name for Königsberg
Image:Kgd gerb.png|Modern coat of arms
</gallery></center>

Note: The center 'Coat of Arms of Królewiec' is made up by a Misplaced Pages-user. It is not official or actually used coat of arms.
-------------
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to ]. It is considered ]. If you would like to experiment, use the ]. <!-- Template:Test2-n (Second level warning) -->&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
---------------

:The nonsense is in the 'coat of arms made up by a wikipedia user
:http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Krolewiecherb.PNG<small>—

---------------
::Might very well be, I don't know. The point is, if you believe the image is hoax, you can:
::#raise the issue on the ];
::#raise it on the ];
::#contact the ] directly.
::What you ''don't'' do is slapping a warning right in the body of the article.
::Feel free to ] if anything is still unclear. Thanks.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
----------------
I don't like the term "made up" as in "invented". As I explain in the next paragraph the image was '''recreated''' not '''originated''' by me. Now I would like to see some explanations from the anonymous user as far as why he thinks the image is "nonsense" and never "official or actually used". ] 10:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC) <br> P.S. We have always accepted self made maps, including historical ones, dealing with delicate matters of borders between states and place names, and we don't call them "art" or "original research".

== Coat of Arms of Królewiec ==
I actually found this coat of arms about 3 years ago, while surfing the net. The find was completely accidental, since, if I remember correctly, the page was not even in any way related to Poland, Germany or Prussia. The original was however not in a condition to be published - small, blurred and with poorly visible details. I have reconstructed it as well as I could, using bigger elements, that were in my posession. About 2 years ago I stumbled upon a similar image, but with a different style of the White Eagle and with no city names. I strongly doubt that this would be a hoax. ] 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
------------
Space Cadet, thank you for answering, even though I had not even contacted you.
You write, that you saw something similar to what you made up, which is supposed to be a 'coat of arms' of the city named Koenigsberg, Königsberg, now Kaliningrad, which you labeled with Polish Królewiec. I admire your artistic talent, but it seems to me that Misplaced Pages now depicts this made up by you 'coat of arms' as historical 'fact. I would say, unless you can post a concrete historical version to back this up, it should be removed.
------------
Perhaps I was not clear enough the first time around. Let me try again. 3 years ago I found an image looking '''exactly the same''' as the one I '''recreated''': the White Eagle of Lesser Poland (which was the official symbol of Poland) holding the three shields with coats of arms of Knipawa, Stare Miasto and Lipnik, respectively. The image also bore all the four Polish names. Now, 2 years ago I found an image that was '''similar''' to the one I uploaded to Wiki. It had all the previously mentioned elements, except the White Eagle looked a tad more like the Greater Poland Eagle. I really don't see a reason why we should suspect a hoax, scam or machination. After all, Królewiec '''was''' a Polish city and all Polish cities (even those inhabited by non-Polish ethnic majority) had their Polish names and coats of arms. This '''is''' a historical fact. ] 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-------------
Is it possible to search for and provide a link to an online site or else a published document which references the design? That would be better than all this "one said, the other said". You might also be able to enlist the aid of the members of the ] to resolve issues about this device. ] | ] 15:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-------------

==Red herring==
Since pre-1945 Königsberg was never Polish and never inhabited by Poles, and Kaliningrad is not part of or claimed by modern Poland, the inclusion of a "Polish coat of arms" for the city seems a red herring. Based on the user's history on German/Polish naming issues, it seems a manifestation of a highly POV (read: ultra-nationalist) mentality. As everyone knows, Königsberg was named Königsberg from 1255 to 1946, and was known as "Królewiec" only among Poles.

I'm aware that that Ducal Prussia was enfeoffed to the Polish Crown prior to the Treaty of Wehlau in 1657, but that did not make it part of Poland, nor was it inhabited or ruled by Poles.

BTW, I also find it misleading to label all the non-German names for Königsberg as "historical names." To the casual English reader, "historical" implies that at some point in the past the city actually called itself by one or more of those names, which Königsberg never did. These names should be identified as "names in foreign languages," or "foreign-language alternative names."

] 17:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:22, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Königsberg article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Human geography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconPoland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages: Crusades Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Crusades task force.
WikiProject iconFormer countries: Prussia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconHanseatic League (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League

post-war numbers

"Between October 1947 and October 1948, about 100,000 Germans were forcibly moved to Germany."

Unfortunately the source isn't easily accessible, however, R.M. Douglas (https://www.google.de/books/edition/Orderly_and_Humane/DeOzUL-HXb0C?hl=de&gbpv=1, no page number provided, please search for "October 1947") gives the exact same number for the same period but refers to the region and not just the city of Königsberg. Could somebody check what Stefan Berger actually writes?

The same problem occurs when talking about people of Lithuanian background. The source clearly refers to the whole Kaliningrad oblast and not just the city.("In the region that became part of the Soviet Union, there was only a very small number of people with some kind of Lithuanian background.") As this article is about the City, we should stick to the specific numbers for the City of Königsberg/Kaliningrad.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 edits

In re: the recent addition, Bernhard Fisch and Marina Klemeševa, "Zum Schicksal der Deutschen in Königsberg 1945-1948 Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung Bd. 44 Nr. 3, 1995, a source that's also part of the diff, write (assuming my translation is correct):

The previous calculations of the population of Königsberg at the time of the German surrender are obviously too high. There is a strong probability that it was 63000 at the time of the surrender or shortly after. An actual decrease of 47,000 from the German estimate of 110,000 to this figure is unlikely, even if one assumes a high number of casualties during the three-day battle for the city and as a result of the subsequent assaults; in addition, the flight must be taken into account.  
(Die bisherigen Berechnungen der Einwohnerzahl von Königsberg zum Zeitpunkt der deutschen Kapitulation greifen augenscheinlich zu hoch. Es besteht eine starke Wahrscheinlichkeit,  daß  sie zum Zeitpunkt  der Kapitulation  bzw. kurz danach bei 63000 gelegen hat. Ein tatsächlicher Rückgang von den deutscherseits errechneten  110000 um 47000 auf  diese Zahl ist  unwahrscheinlich, selbst wenn man von einer hohen Zahl von Opfern  während  des  dreitägigen Kampfe um die Stadt und infolge der anschlissenden Übergriffe; ausserdem muss die Flucht im Richtung berücksichtigt werden.)

It appears that Kossert's numbers are not the agreed upon numbers in recent historiography. There's certainly a discrepancy. In general, there seems to be a willingness to use Fisch and Klemeševa for certain aspects (i.e. nutritional estimates), but not for others (i.e. initial numbers of residents). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bernhard Fisch (1926-2020) was a Russian language teacher at a Secondary school in Suhl, East Germany, and later on teached German language for foreigners at an agrarian school. He started to publish books about East Prussia out of private interest after he retired. He was not a historian. The number of 63,000 is based on Soviet post-war estimates. The passport office had officialy registered 23,000 Germans, another 40,000 were added by the Smersh, based on estimatations. The uncritical acceptance of Soviet post-war statistics by Fisch is regarded problematic (https://ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/orte/koenigsberg-kaliningrad). In any case Fisch's numbers are not based on modern historiography but Soviet post-war figures and do not represent modern research.
de:Andreas Kossert (born 1970) studied history, politics and slavistics at the Universities of Bonn, Berlin, Freiburg and Edinburgh. A book based on his phD on the history of Masuria was a huge success in German bookstores, he was a visiting professor in Dresden in 2007 and worked at the German Historical Institute Warsaw from 2001-2009. He received several prizes for his publications, he is currently the leading expert in East Prussian history. His views are not outdated or obsolete but represent the current state of scientific research. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Lower Prussian name

So the German version of this Article includes "(niederpreußisch Keenigsbarg)", or the Lower Prussian name being Keenigsbarg. However, on this version that information was deleted for lack of a source. Which one is it? Does the information need to be deleted too on the German version or will it be added here? Argacyan (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Different language Wikipedias are their own projects. Articles are not required to conform to each other and may find different facts interesting or uninteresting, supported or unsupported. Here, unsupported material should be removed and citations are required when adding. As for German Misplaced Pages, we leave it to the German-speaking audience... Skyerise (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Could the following be used as a source then, cause I will absolutely add it as a source for the German wiki page as well if it can be. Otherwise a dictionary could also be used since it is a word translation and not an argument, fact, piece of data or otherwise: Dorch Keenigsbarg. Möt Riemelkes On 40 Holtschnettkes, Daniel Staschus, Gräfe un unzer Verlag, Königsberg i. Pr., 1924 Argacyan (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
How would I know? I don't have a copy and don't know if it verifies the facts. It doesn't seem to have a page number, so I suspect you don't know for sure either. Get a copy, find the fact, then cite with a page number included, I suppose. Skyerise (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This sounds like a troll- the source would be cited generally refering to the booklet, which is itself written in Lower Prussian, containing the reference at several spots starting with the title itself which I provided. Argacyan (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
That was an honest answer. I don't read Prussian. It seems you're the troll, then. Skyerise (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

lousy map

The green regional map that appears with this article is 99% inadequate because it contains no lettering whatsoever. Which country is which is left for the poor visitor to guess. This is beneath the standard that is expected of Misplaced Pages content. I ask, therefore, that either the existing useless map be revised or that it be replaced with one that has meaning. LarryWiki115 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not all Misplaced Pages visitors are Americans ;) Synotia (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Not all are Europeans either - how’s your African geography without any country labels?
Names would be an improvement.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
if you cant read the English labels, then I guess you wont be able to read the English article. at the top of the talk page is is specifically stated that this article is in American English. 76.156.6.163 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms

Would be nice to add the flag and coat of arms of Königsberg in the infobox, though I don't know how to do this here. Synotia (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Language

"....From the thirteenth to the twentieth centuries on, the inhabitants spoke predominantly German, although the city also had a profound influence upon the Lithuanian and Polish cultures..."

The inhabitants didn't just "spoke predominantly German". They were Germans!

This way it sounds like the people of Königsberg had some special national, not German identity. I mean it points out the Polish and Lithuanian influx. But why point out linguistics, instead of nationality.

It would be worth it to point it out, if they spoke a different language but German. KingOfRay (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories: