Poland Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The sentence "when Poland lost its unilateral status as the most favoured nation in trade with Germany" is at best confusing. It makes it sound like Poland was the only country which enjoyed MFN - but the whole point of MFN is that it applies to several countries at once.

Looking below I see that what is probably meant is that the MFN status wasn't reciprocal. In other words, by the Versailles treaty Germany was required not to impose tariffs/trade barriers on Polish goods which were higher than the most favored nation Germany traded with. So if Germany had 5% tariffs on, say, French goods, it could not impose tariffs higher than 5% on Polish goods. But the Entente countries - not just Poland - where allowed to impose higher tariffs on Germany than they did on each other. What happened here is that German decided to single out Polish good for high tariffs in violation/expiration of the MFN clause of the V-treaty. AFAIR they did not raise tariffs, or drop the MFN towards other Entente powers. Volunteer Marek  20:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just more generally I think this article could use a more quality source than an article from Wyborcza. I'll try to find some journal articles and dig out a book or too. Volunteer Marek  20:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The export of Polish goods produced in the former German territories to Germany was (in general) tax free, and this wasn't reciprocal (btw, sorry for my language skills: what's the opposite of reciprocal?). This regulation (defined in the Versailles treaty) lasted until 1925 and Poland wanted to renew its privileges, while Germany wanted to use its economical power (40 % of Polish exports to Germany) to guarantee/strengthen the German minority's rights. Germany didn't "single out" Poland, the treaty's duration expired. Both sides' unability to compromise resulted in a trade war, rather simple.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "reciprocal" is a better term. As for the rest, not quite. The "tax free" is a bit more complicated, coal was still subject to a quota (which acts an implicit tariff) and even agricultural goods which were relatively untaxed still had a wide variety of restrictions. It's also inaccurate to describe this as "privileges", since like I said, these conditions applied, until 1925, to ALL Entente countries. I can't remember off the top of my head if Germany's MFN clause with other countries was renewed, but at the very least and obviously, there was no customs wars with France, Britain, etc.

So Germany very much singled out Poland in order to try and force political goals. The issue of "liquidations" - instituted by treaty of Versailles - was one issue but at the height of the war Stressman DID demand Silesia and the Corridor in exchange for ... the ability to sell Germans goods cheaply. Likewise, some of the other demands were pretty out there. A good chunk of German politicians were in fact betting that Poland would collapse and they saw the trade war as a way of hastening this outcome. Of course, things turned around in Poland and then other markets opened up and basically Germany overplayed its hand.

Also, again, off the top of my head, there was no unanimous support for the trade war within Germany. I mean, among politicians, there was. But I believe the unions supported the renegotiation of the agricultural aspects from pre-1925, while German farmers wanted cheap Polish coal. But at the end of the day they also supported the trade war for nationalist reasons.

I got a couple books on this but they're at the office and it's the break here so I don't know if i feel like making the trip. There's also a good bit available online if you got access to jstor etc. Yes, political demands played a role in Germany's conduct but they were motivated by revanchism and the desire to politically undermine the Polish state rather than any actual "mistreatment of German minority" which was 90% propaganda, of both the Weimar Republic and the later Nazi state. Volunteer Marek  08:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a primary source. Volunteer Marek  08:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Primary: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care,.."

The statement is clearly attributed to the German side, there's no reason not to use it. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"but only with care" - it depends whether the statement and source is used in a way which is potentially contentious. Volunteer Marek  10:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Please don't remove the tag without clarification. Size of German exports to Poland is only part of the costs of the trade war to Germany. Having to pay higher prices and costs by producing domestically what could be imported cheaply is another. Frankly, a lot of statements cited to this source seem a bit sketchy. Volunteer Marek  08:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article also lacks any "conclusion" or any description of what happened after 1925/6. Which was basically that the political situation in Poland stabilized, Polish trade diverted to Scandinavia and Great Britain and the restrictions more or less ceased to matter, while Germany continued to insist on political demands as pre-conditions for political agreement. The impact of the trade war on Poland is probably somewhat exaggerated (at least that's the sense I'm getting from the article) - the political situation in Poland was unstable (as it was in Weimar Germany) but that didn't start with the customs war. Germany tried to further destablize Polish politics through the customs war, but after Pilsduski's coup it really didn't have much of an effect.

Interestingly many economic history books/articles on both interwar Germany and Poland only mention this war in passing, mostly as an example of how trade relations deteriorated in the interwar period globally, between all countries.  Volunteer Marek  21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article also presented the info as the issues were connected to Germans without informing that it concerned a specific group that rejected Polish citizenship but took German one and were expected to leave Poland for Germany per agreements(so called Optaten). I read Lippelt and he makes that distinction very clearly. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it dubious and needs discussion? Look here: "Dominujące w mieście górnictwo węgla kamiennego po wojnie celnej z Niemcami w latach dwudziestych oraz upływie ważności umowy o bezcłowym eksporcie węgla górnośląskiego do Niemiec przeżywało okres stagnacji. Kopalnia węgla „Nowa Przemsza”, w dzisiejszej dzielnicy Brzezinka, uległa likwidacji." (source: http://www.myslowice.pl/gospodarka.php?t=kier_roz_02) or here: "Dodatkowo sytuację kopalni pogorszyła wojna celna 1925 roku pomiędzy Polska a Niemcami, która spowodowała odcięcie kopalń dąbrowskich od odbiorców węgla w niemieckiej części Górnego Śląska. Kopalnia "REDEN" w 1925 roku pracuje tylko 3 dni w tygodniu. Ilość dni roboczych utrzymywał się na poziomie 3-5 dni aż do zamknięcia kopalni w 1934 r." (source: http://dabrowa.pl/dg_zaklad-kopalnia_reden.htm). Tymek (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was slightly in the wrong place at the end of the sentence, rather than at the end of the specific dubious part. AFAIK Germany didn't just "decided to raise customs duty" on coal. They banned imports of Polish coal altogether - in the negotiations that would follow they were willing to implement a very low quota. The only part I might be wrong on is that this very low quota (100k tons or so) might have been in effect during the period before negotiations started, I'm not 100%, I'll have to look that up. Volunteer Marek  00:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts if this chapter is necessary. Or perhaps Molobo should stop adding information about German settlers and Germanization to all articles he encounters. This is not related to the topic in any way. Tymek (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information was added by user HerkusMonte not me(although he made false impression that measures were directed against all Germans, rather than just optants), the source provided(Lippelt) and others make connections between the war and issue of optaten.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then, my apologies. Still I do not think it is necessary. Tymek (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of this is not necessary. The only relevant part is about the issues of "Optaten" and "Liquidations" which were tied to trade negotiations. Most of the stuff on either side should be cut.

I didn't realize this was up for DYK. I keep meaning to make some edits on the economics of it, but have been putting it off. I'll try to get working on it. Volunteer Marek  23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly this edit here demonstrates HK has removed information that Polish optants were treated in the same way as German ones[2]. I am very disappointed in this behaviour, first we had misleading information suggesting that all Germans were treated in such way, now we have removal of information that shows Germans weren't singled out. This unfortunately suggests attempts to portray the events in non-neutral way. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.It's "Optanten" not "Optaten", please at least try to use the correct term.

2.The fate of Polish nationals in Germany played no role in the tariff war.

3.All German nationals were treated this way (don't mix up "nationals" and ethnicity).HerkusMonte (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]