Talk:Königsberg

Koenigsberg Inhabitants Vital Statistics since 1500's

Despite centuries of recorded history there are constant crude attempts by some in Wikipedia to make it seem as if it was ever a Polish city

All inhabitants of Koenigsberg are recorded in birth, marriage death church records [1]- Never in Polish language- MG

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

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! JHK

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

---

History

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 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.

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.

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.

right? szopen

---

Pretty much. Space Cadet

---

The German name on former German city Warschau was removed from Warsaw. I will not reinsert it, BUT: No Polish name in this article either! -- Nico 21:06, 13 Nov 2003 (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?
Space Cadet 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.

Kaliningrad's former names

The "former" names of Kaliningrad are:

1. 1255-1945 Königsberg
2. 1945-today Kaliningrad

I don't believe that the Polish and Lithuanian names can stand as "former names".

---

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. -- Nico 06:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

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 ? Bogdan 11:59, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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? -- Nico 12:31, 16 Nov 2003 (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. --KiloByte 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):

Königsberg (in Polish Królewiec, Lithuanian Karaliaucius), a city on the east-southern coast of the Baltic Sea, was the former capital of East Prussia, after 1945 a part of Soviet and since 1946 known as Kaliningrad (Калининград) after Soviet official Mikhail Kalinin. Today it is the capital and main city of the Kaliningrad Oblast, a small Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania.

-- Nico

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

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

---

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

Please revert to a non Nico or My version of the page 24.2.152.139 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 Nico 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 ?? 24.2.152.139 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. Nico 17:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you remove the umlaut it should be Koeningsberg anyway - shouldn't it? Secretlondon 17:46, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Correct. It should be rendered Königsberg or Koenigsberg. I don't see what the problem with using umlauts is. If you look at articles on Poland or Polish cities, all the correct accenting is used. So why now use the correct accenting here? I suspect it has something to do with American keyboards lacking the magical ¨ and is just an excuse for laziness. Landau7 15:25, 14 March 2007 (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? Space Cadet 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 24.2.152.139 17:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

Whens the last time you seen ö in the english alpahabet??? 24.2.152.139 17:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have over two dozen British- and Amercian-produced atlases from the pre-war period and all but one refer to the city as Königsberg. Landau7 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Kids! To your rooms, now! Both of you! Space Cadet 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.24.2.152.139 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.--Stephan Schulz 13:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Your not being a npov sysop then. I showed my proof on the change wheres nicos ?? 24.2.152.139 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. Secretlondon 18:12, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

In the 1911 Encyclopedia many Polish cities have other names than those you prefer! Nico 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 ??? 24.2.152.139 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! Space Cadet 18:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

24.2.152.139 18:20, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not when dealing with the pre-1946 city. It was never the capital of East Prussia as Kaliningrad. Nico 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. Moncrief

---

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! User:sca 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"?

User:sca 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).

"[M]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. --Taragui 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 Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen, 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 Duisburg contains a small collection dealing with the history of Königsberg."

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

--oshistory 3 July 2005

What exactly do you doubt: that German/Prussian culture was destroyed there ? or the Königsberg Castle ? --Lysy (talk) 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.

--oshistory 3 July 2005

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

Votes for deletion/Königsburg - survival

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Königsburg for voting and discussion

Courtland 17:44, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Exclave

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

Bridges

Isn't there the famous Königsberg bridge puzzle? Isn't it worthy to go here? --IvanP 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"?

ChristchurchChristchurch 18:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Alexandr Nevski fought against Livonian Brothers of the Sword. Xx236 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

Kneiphof 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. Stallions2010 21:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on the script and the automobile, I would definitely say the photo was taken since 1945 Olessi 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). Burann 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. Titograd and Leninakan). Can anyone add more on these developments? Very fascinating! =J //Big Adamsky 09:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

-- thanks for that!! Named after a scumbag murderer by a scumbag murderer in Stalin. No harm in St Petersburg is there and thats German sounding. Konigsberg should be the name of this city regardless of soverignty.

Soviet Union

Kaliningrad was a part of the Russian Republic in the Soviet Union. It is why Russia inherited it, Xx236 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kaliningrad was part of the Soviet Union, as an anexed german territory. Russia inherited it because the Baltic Fleet Command is located in Kaliningrad (also there are heavy military complex), and only because of that: power of the gun. - PHWeberbauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.116.21.37 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (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. Xx236 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. Stallions2010 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 Krasnoyarsk Krai as a region of future, others have arguements why Chukotka 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, Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball as the policy says. Burann 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 Wikipedia (example - Vilnius 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. Kaiser 747 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 Wikipedia 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. Riga does not even though there lives much more Russians in Riga than does in e.g. Vilnius or Liepaja 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. Burann 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 Minsk.--Kuban Cossack 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 Wikipedia 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 Minsk - it has Russian and Polish names written in brackets, even though Minsk was never a part of Poland... Burann 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"was never a part of Poland"? Huh! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interbellum Minsk was in the Soviet Union. Before the Partitions of Poland it was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 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 (Courland, East Prussia) and even the Courlandian colonies in Tobago (New Courland) and Gambia to have been Poland. This is, in my opinion, clearly wrong. East Prussia was as much Poland as e.g. Canada, Australia or other Commonwealth Realms are United Kingdom. Burann 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ducal Prussia - yes! Courland - somewhat. Moldavia - no! Tobago and Gambia - try to be serious! Space Cadet 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. Burann 16:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) 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. Olessi 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger

This article has a lot in common with Kaliningrad Oblast, perhaps they should be brought together. If not a distinction should be made as to how the two articles differ in subject. 194.106.54.42 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. Alcatel 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, same reasons. `'mikka (t) 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. Stallions2010 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "never to be German again"? Your ancestors must be turning in their graves. Schwartz und Weiss 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. Stallions2010 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Logically, you're right, of course. But with this kind of ancestry you have to have faith. Schwartz und Weiss 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. Burann 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. Space Cadet 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If the city had separate Königsberg and Kaliningrad articles like Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul, 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 Kant 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 (Olsztyn, Ostróda, Elbląg, 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. Olessi 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. Christchurch 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?--Kuban Cossack 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.--Kuban Cossack 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. 213.122.51.82 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 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...
2. 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 :)
3. 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
4. joined forces with its ideological enemy to carve up Poland.
5. 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
6. 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...
7. 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.
8. We await the verdict of history in the east. And what might that be? Return to the pre-1936 borders? maybe pre-1914...???

--Kuban Cossack 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

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

Well what do we have? A brainwashed western apologist. Pure and simple. but please WP:NPA :)--Kuban Cossack 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 Wikipedia 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".) --Askari Mark | Talk 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

100% agreed with the above post. Also keep in mind that there is precedent on Wikipedia for articles on cities like the old Königsberg. There are articles on Constantinople, New Amsterdam, and many others. Why shouldn't Königsberg be the same way?Nsfreeman 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because some folks would rather bicker than observe WP:NC(GN). You may have noticed there hasn't been much activity here since they ran out of steam last October. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 26 March 2007 (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 Wikipedia's great faults: it is being used as a propaganda tool. Christchurch 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. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 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). Christchurch 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 [2] ... not impressed. Yet you accuse people of being neo-nazis and leave comments like that ... is that what Oxford education is about? Sigh --Kuban Cossack 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. Christchurch 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So you want to see Kaliningrad given back to Germany...? Original...but rather unlikely I would think...--Kuban Cossack 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 The Daily Telegraph 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. Christchurch 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...--Kuban Cossack 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. Christchurch 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Burann 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, Wikipedia 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. Stallions2010 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Christchurch 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?--Kuban Cossack 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. Sca 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Königsberg 'Coats of Arms' made by a Wikipedia user

This pertains to the Wikipedia article Kaliningrad, therefore posted here by Labbas 20 October 2006

The following message was added to the 'Coats of Arms depicted on Wikipedia: Note: The center 'Coat of Arms of Królewiec' is made up by a Wikipedia-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, Kaliningrad Coats of Arms

• Coat of Arms of Altstadt (Old town) of Königsberg, 1286
  Coat of Arms of Altstadt (Old town) of Königsberg, 1286
• Coat of Arms of Królewiec, Polish name for Königsberg
  Coat of Arms of Królewiec, Polish name for Königsberg
• 
  Modern coat of arms

Note: The center 'Coat of Arms of Królewiec' is made up by a Wikipedia-user. It is not official or actually used coat of arms.

---

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Kaliningrad. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The nonsense is in the 'coat of arms made up by a wikipedia user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krolewiecherb.PNG—

---

Might very well be, I don't know. The point is, if you believe the image is hoax, you can:

1. raise the issue on the article's talk page;
2. raise it on the image's talk page;
3. contact the person who uploaded the image directly.

What you don't do is slapping a warning right in the body of the article.

Feel free to contact me if anything is still unclear. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 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". Space Cadet 10:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
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. Space Cadet 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 Wikipedia 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. Space Cadet 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology to resolve issues about this device. Askari Mark | Talk 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."

Sca 17:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since 1466 (unofficially 1454) Królewiec was a part of Poland, whether it fits your POV or not. Not only was it inhabited by Poles, had a Polish garrison, but during the reign of Władysław IV Vasa it was directly ruled by the Crown Chancellor Jerzy Ossoliński. It's very sad to see that in lack of valid historical names you just go into complete denial and resort to calling me highly offensive names. For your information I'm not a skinhead, but a liberal, I love minorities and my blood is very mixed. So why don't you save your unsubstantiated and highly inappropriate insults for your friends and leave me and other objective and neutral editors alone? Space Cadet 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That last sentence was very rude. And what for ? --Lysy^talk 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure! And him calling me an ultra nationalist was not? Space Cadet 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was offensive but not rude but even if it was, you are responsible for what *you* write, primarily. --Lysy^talk 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, all right, maybe I freaked out a bit, but he really infuriated me. Space Cadet 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any historical evidence for the issuance of a Polish coat of arms for Königsberg during that 15th-century Polish regnency? If so, there should be a description of the arms, even if there remains no illustration. If not, then the illustrated one would most likely be spurious. Askari Mark | Talk 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to include to CoA in the history section, but if it is controversial, I see no reason to have it in infobox/lead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good news!

I have done some major research on the subject and it turned out that the three coats of arms of Altstadt, Kneiphoff, and Löbenicht were united and assembled into one coat of arms only in 1764 by the Prussian king. So there is no way that in the time of Polish rule, the coat of arms would look like the one I uploaded. Apparently the image I recreated was somebody's well meant idea of how the coat of arms should have looked like. Don't believe everything you find on the internet, especially if it's something you woud like to see! Space Cadet 09:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Outcome

Well, in any event, we have gotten rid of the historically spurious item in question. Thank you for that.

Regarding "Królewiec" having been "a part of Poland," I understand the political pretext for this claim but find it unconvincing, and I simply don't believe Königsberg, as the city then was named, ever was inhabitated primarily or even significantly by Poles. In all my reading about Prussia, which is considerable, I've never seen anything to substantiate or even suggest it.

Of course it's possible and even likely that some Poles lived in Königsberg at some time, and I realize that southern East Prussia (Masuria) was home to many people of Polish ethnicity. But everything I've ever seen indicates that Königsberg always was essentially German ethnically and culturally — until, of course, dear old Uncle Joe got his mitts on it.

I sincerely don't believe my phraseology above was insulting, but I'm glad to know (from a message on my talk page) that the user in question is "not a nationalist" and "despises nationalists, racists, fascists, bigots, etc.," as I do — and I hope he is enjoying złota jesień, as I am trying to despite difficult personal circumstances.

Sca 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll agree that in this part of Europe the ethnic composition of a town told little about the country it was in. Thinking in ethnic terms of countries of Central/Eastern Europe, especially when dealing with pre-19th century times is a common mistake. Poland was not a nation-state until 1945. --Lysy^talk 20:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I think it's too broad a generalization and more applicable to places that had historic ethnic mixtures, such as Vilnius / Wilno or Strasbourg / Straßburg. And as I've tried to explain before, in the West, particularly in the U.S., people do think in ethnic terms, about Europe anyway. Königsberg a) always was ethnically German, and b) never was de jure part of Poland, i.e. Poland proper. Although the (German) dukes of Prussia were obliged to render homage to the Polish monach for 150 years or so, this was a result of the defeat of the Teutonic Order and its aftermath, not a symptom of Königsberg's ethnicity, which remained German until 1945-46, when Königsberg as such ceased to exist.

Thus, for the purposes of English speakers, Königsberg was a German city all its life.

Sca 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that for the purposes of English speakers, e.g. Vilnius would be a Polish town until 1940s only because its population was mostly Polish ? I don't expect the 1918 Lithuanians would agree with you, as the town was Lithuanian even if it had virtually no Lithuanian population and the locals voted for incorporation to Poland. Also, unlike Germany, Poland (and Lithuania) had been ethnically diverse throughout thousand years of its history, until 1940s. --Lysy^talk 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll disqualify myself as lacking sufficient background re Vilnius and let you debate that one with the Lithuanians, but I don't think it's the same sort of situation as Königsberg. Neither is Strasbourg. History is full of complexities — which is one thing that makes it so fascinating. Sca 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism

For those interested in the general topic of Polish nationalism, I offer this link to a recent English-language article from Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,444037,00.html

Sca 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

          That is so 'cheap' of you! Polish just as anyone else have the right to defend what they believe is theirs. And after all - their nationalism is not as destructive as German one... :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.30.185 (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 

Fake "Coats of Arms of Krolewiec"

- Update - Wikipedia Kaliningrad

Coats of Arms

• Coat of Arms of Altstadt (Old town) of Königsberg, 1286
  Coat of Arms of Altstadt (Old town) of Königsberg, 1286
• Coat of Arms of Królewiec, Polish name for Königsberg
  Coat of Arms of Królewiec, Polish name for Königsberg
• 
  Modern coat of arms

Note: The center 'Coat of Arms of Królewiec' is made up by a Wikipedia-user. It is not official or actually used coat of arms.

The fake "Coats of Arms of Krolewiec" in center was made-up by a Wikipedia user and was removed by same. Labbas 23 October 2006

---

Note: The center "Coat of Arms of Królewiec" was in good will recreated by a Wikipedia-user based on an image from a doubtful webpage It is not official or has never been actually used.

It was the same user, who spent sleepless nights to conduct reasearch on the image in question. When the results of the research proved that the image contained anachronisms and could not have existed in XVI century, same user immediately removed the image from the Kaliningrad page. The User

---

Thank you, "User", for your integrity. This is a good place to keep the image in case the issue ever arises again. Askari Mark | Talk

---

You gotta admit, even if it's fake, that's none the less one extremely well made coat of arms! Russoswiss 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New photosite!

Someone spent a lot of time finding old photographs of Königsberg and then retaking the same location in 2005 from just about the same location and photographic angle. The site is in Russian and German and can be found here: [3] - I have added the web link to this article.

Two photos on that site show the old Königsberg centre in 1939 and 1949, and from a documentation point of view I think they should be added to the section under "Bombing by the British" as they illustrate so clearly the incredible devastation and complete destruction of the city's core. I have to keep looking at these photos to keep believing that this actually happened to this beautiful old city as it had its heart ripped out without good cause other than that Arthur "Bomber" Harris thought it would make a good practice run before carpet bombing Dresden(!) I have no idea if these old pictures are copyrighted at all - I doubt it very much.

Königsberg City Centre in 1939

Königsberg City Centre in 1949

I'm impressed with the amount of work that has been done with this article, and I am grateful for it. I don't want to tamper with it. If someone thinks it is appropriate to add these pictures, I will try to pursue the copyright status for the, although it would be easier if someone who can communicate in Russian would do it! It is just that whoever put most of the work into this article should make the decision. Kanitz 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have since discovered the Bombing of Konigsberg in World War II site which is still in stub status. Perhaps these images are more appropriately posted there. Kanitz 20:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"When Poland and Lithuania became members of the European Union in 2004, the region became completely surrounded by the EU. Special travel arrangements for the territory's inhabitants have been made."

According to what I heard on bbc, this is beginning to have various economic benefits, including manufacturing. It is becoming an economic-bridge between the larger entities. Hopefully, this region no longer needs any war [Ideally, no one does].

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 12:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebuilding the Schloss

For a February 2007 discussion of plans to rebuild the Königsberg Castle, see:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463530,00.html

I don't know whether these plans are firm enough to merit mention in the article. Sca 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Names again

Why inject the Czech translation of Königsberg into the section about its founding in 1255? A red herring. Sca 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to also remove the Latin name "Latin: Regiomontium", or was that an accident? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Suahili translation of Koenigsberg??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.228.19 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Redress of Grievances

I have read the discussions here with interest and have been impressed in the way some touchy issues have been resolved. Though it probably has no place in the article being constructed here, a discussion (linked below) on the redressing of grievances caused in the aftermath of WW2 in repect of Königsberg and the German eastern territories in general might possibly be included in a link, or simply be retained here for information purposes. It might stir up a few passions but is worth thinking about as it offers perspective not present here or in the larger articles on German refugees. I personally doubt it will ever happen but the thinkling is worth noting.

• The Oder-Neisse Line - see especially posts #4-8

Landau7 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more additions to name Königsberg

The Polish name Krolewiec was used commonly in Poland during 1525 - 1618 when East Prussia was The Duchy of East Prussia, which was under Kingdom of Poland. Still used in Polish maps in brancets under Kaliningrad.

The Lithuanian name is Karaliaucius and is still mentioned in brancets under Kaliningrad.

The Russian name in Imperial Russia was Kjenigsbjerg (Kenigsberg).

Up to 1940 the Estonias had it Königsbergi.

I have seen also few old Swedish mentions to Konugsberg.

In old Finnish literature name Sillimäki (Herring Hill) has been mentioned describing the time of Ottokar II. Also few mentions of Kuninkaanmäki which is direct transliteration of Königsberg. Older generations (those who had their education before 1960s) still use widely old name Königsberg which was used in Finland.

One Russian Professor has suggested to rename Kaliningrad to Slavograd, because it was inhabited by Slavic tribes before the Germans conquered the area from old Prussians.

JN

Historybuff0321 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Historybuff0321

Tonight, questions that I had once thought might never be answered have been--thanks to Wikipedia.

My paternal great-grandfather emigrated to the United States from East Prussia after serving a two year stint in the army during the 1870's. Now,even though whose army he served is debatable, I always wondered at certain inconsistencies in family stories that did not match up with my history and geography lessons in school. Considering the information that has been provided on this website, I found it interesting to note that my great-grandfather wasted no time in getting his family out of East Prussia! I often wondered what-exactly-he learned that prompted him to emigrate. Now, I have a better idea.

When my grandmother was alive, she spoke High German at home, and she always maintained our ancestry was Germanic in origin. However much she declared her nationality was German, informing family members that Polish was considered a low-class language where her father originated, my great-great grandfather's wife was Polish! Most of the stories my grandmother told us, she also recorded in her photographic record, which I now possess. While some names have not been recorded, I do know that family members either lived in or traveled to Danzig for professional photography that has been stamped Danzig, naming the address in German, during the early 19th century. Later on, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles also emigrated to the United States prior to World War I, but where they lived in East Prussia remains a mystery.

These articles about East Prussia and Kaliningrad have been most illuminating and highly informative to the reader who is looking for specific information. I rate Wikipedia an A+, realizing that any verifiable information added after this date can only clarify certain issues.

Postscript: I just finished reading all of the previous comments, and I have to admit, it reads like kindergartners on the playground, arguing over who's going to be first in line!

Ah, well, since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, you have to expect a few kindergarteners! ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles

Regarding the earlier suggestions of Askari Mark and Nsfreeman, I have been coming around to the viewpoint that separate articles should be created for Kaliningrad and Königsberg. As mentioned before, there is precedent for a division- the history of Istanbul is divided between Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul, while New York has New Amsterdam and several other articles. Although not a rule, it is suggested that articles over 32KB be split (WP:LIMIT; this Kaliningrad article currently is 36KB). Shortening the article to make it more presentable would be the creation of a "History of Foo" article, which in this case would basically be a separate Königsberg article. Although we are not obligated to follow the actions of non-English WPs, the German coverage is split between de:Kaliningrad and de:Königsberg (Preußen).

Immanuel Kant State University of Russia also should be split into separate articles delineating between the modern university and the older Albertina University. The current situation gives the awkward indication that Kant and Hilbert were faculty of a state university of Russia (Category:Alumni and faculty of Immanuel Kant State University of Russia). Again, there is precedence for a division - the history of the University of Leuven is split between three articles. Olessi (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's Category:Alumni and faculty of University of Königsberg now, leaving the other category empty. Oops ... -- Matthead  Discuß   03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favor of it, for the reasons I've already mentioned. Königsberg and Kaliningrad are distinctly different cities and purposefully so. I've yet to hear a counter-argument on this page. As for the university split, that should be proposed there. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the university division at Talk:Immanuel Kant State University of Russia#Separate articles. Olessi (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm favor of both splits. How should it be done, which article inherites the edit history and talk? -- Matthead  DisOuß   09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Kaliningrad already exists as an article, Königsberg should be created from scratch; its first edit should mention that its content came from the Kaliningrad article. Olessi (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Olessi that Kaliningrad has precedent; it might, however, be a good idea to copy some of the relevant articles over (perhaps to an archive) since much of the material here relates to Königsberg. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noted that the dab page for Königsberg has a link for Königsberg in Preußen. Given all the Königsbergs, I propose to use Königsberg in Preußen for the new article. Is that agreeable? Askari Mark (Talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The city is alternately known as "Königsberg in Preußen" to differentiate between the other places mentioned at Königsberg (disambiguation), because Königsberg currently redirects to Kaliningrad. de:Königsberg (Preußen) says the city was known as "Königsberg i. Pr." from ?? until 1936 and then "Königsberg (Pr)" until 1945. IMO, this city is by far the primary usage of "Königsberg", and it is most commonly known in English just as Königsberg. Creating a new article at Königsberg in Preußen with {{redirect|Königsberg}} seems a little gratuitous. I think the article would be best at Königsberg with {{otheruses1|the former city now known as Kaliningrad}} as a disclaimer. Olessi (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Or would "Königsberg (Prussia)" be a reasonable alternative, following the German Wiki example? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to disambiguate the title, as Königsberg most commonly refers in English to the East Prussian city (primary topic). "Königsberg" currently redirects to Kaliningrad, showing that it is already the primary usage within Wikipedia. Olessi (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose-it is the same city. Only its name was changed. Are you suggesting to split Wrocław into Wrocław and Breslau ? Poznan into Poznań and Posen ? Szczecin into Szczecin and Stettin ? Gdańsk into Gdańsk and Danzig ? The history of this city and others didn't start in 1945.Furthermore both German and Russian heads of state celebrated together the 750 anniversary of the city together so from political point of view there is no disagreement that it is the same city with the same history

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/03/europe/web.0703kalin.php Russia reaffirmed its commitment to Kaliningrad Saturday, as President Vladimir Putin marked the 750 years since the founding of the tiny Baltic Sea territory separated from the rest of Russia since the Soviet collapse. (...) French President Jacque Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder were expected to attend the events and the three leaders were to meet Sunday for talks on Russia-European relations. --Molobo (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say Kaliningrad and Königsberg are different cities, merely that parts of the city's information would be best described in separate articles. As mentioned above, Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul all concern the same city, but are split amongst separate articles. The current Kaliningrad article is above the recommended article size and is heavily tilted toward toward the History section; WP:SUMMARY recommends creating a subarticle to reduce the size of lengthy articles. Wrocław, Poznań, and Szczecin are irrelevant to the Kaliningrad article. Olessi (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrocław, Poznań, Szczecin are are relevant because once we split this article into two different articles one for post 1945 city and one for pre-1945 city then they all will have to be split also, since their situation is similar and in some caces identical. History section is for history, it can be moved there.--Molobo (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "History section is for history, it can be moved there." The current Kaliningrad article's history section is out of proportion in regard to the rest of the article, and the article is larger than the recommended size. Regarding Wrocław, Poznań, and Szczecin, just because one municipality's content is arranged in a certain way does not mean that another's has to be done the same way, and no one else has mentioned that other cities would be changed but you. Interestingly enough, the Russian Wikipedia has articles for Калининград and Кёнигсберг. Olessi (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, I think you misunderstand the issue. As Olessi pointed out, this article has grown very large. That’s not surprising for such an ancient city. Normally, when an article becomes too large, it is split into more than one article. (Please see WP:SIZE.) For a city, the natural place to split an article is when a major change occurs – when an old era ends and a new one begins. This is why the change of ownership from Germany (Königsberg) to Russia (Kaliningrad) is a natural one. It marked a significant change in culture as a result. Furthermore, it mirrors the current split in the German and Russian Wikipedias. This does not mean articles on lots of other cities should automatically be split up every time the prevailing name changed. The decision must be made for each article on its own merits. To use Olessi’s example, can you imagine how lengthy the article would be if the current separate articles on Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul were merged together? And just imagine the arguments over which name should be used for the title of the article! Askari Mark (Talk) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to just make a seperate article about history of Kaliningrad and move it there, not split it into seperate city article. As to Wrocław, Poznań, Szczecin I think its obvious that due to similiar situation people will demand them to be treated in the same way, after all what would be the reason not to ? Let's just make an article titled History of Kaliningrad where the history section can be moved.--Molobo (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Significant changes in article content should always be done on merit and a case by case basis. The three cities you introduced into the discussion were multi-ethnic for centuries; historians can use different terminology for the same era based on their points of view or origin. One English-language writer may use Poznań when writing in a 19th century context, while someone else writing at the same time uses Posen when discussing the same topic. If a "History of Foo" article is created, which name should be used in the title? Since no single name is overwhelmingly and consistently used, it is best (IMO) for these cities to be discussed as "History of 'Modern Name'".

The history section of this Kaliningrad article is predominantly about the pre-1945 time period, and in that time period the city is consistently known as Königsberg by English-language historians. I have yet to read a publication which discusses the foundation of Kaliningrad by the Teutonic Knights. A "History of Kaliningrad" article which focuses on pre-1945 is essentially about Königsberg, and the terminology used for that time period is Königsberg, similar to the periods of history of New York and Istanbul. If summary style is applied as it should be, the Kaliningrad article would focus on the modern Russian city with a summary of the Königsberg era; the Königsberg article would then go into detail about the pre-1945 city for interested readers. Olessi (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"The three cities you introduced into the discussion were multi-ethnic for centuries" We have the same situation here, at one time it had substantial Polish population(circa 30% IIRC) and its rulers made teaching of Polish compulsory for many officials. As to your Kalingrad/Konigsberg history issue-why Wrocław/Breslau should be different ? If an article about this city is split in two articles about two different cities, then why shouldn't Wrocław or Szczecin be split ?--Molobo (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the first that I have heard of Königsberg having a population of 30% Poles. Regardless of the ethnicity of the inhabitants, the city pre-1945 was most commonly known as Königsberg in English, not as Królewiec. My copy of Gieysztor's History of Poland by PWN uses Polish names throughout Central and Eastern Europe, yet does not for Königsberg. Whether or not the history of Wrocław/Breslau/Vratislavia should be split is not relevant here; article content should be discussed at respective talk pages and on their own merits. Olessi (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's very short-sighted, since the situation here is identical to many Polish cities, then there is no argument that this example will influence their treatment, because why shouldn't it ? As to history of Poles in Królewiec that is indeed topic worth expanding.--Molobo (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Prononunciation

Can someone add how to pronounce the German name? I think the Russian is pretty straightforward. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the same

To say that Kaliningrad and Königsberg are "the same city" ignores everything that happened to that place in WWII and thereafter:

1. Most of the physical presence of old Königsberg was either destroyed or heavily damaged in the British bombings of late August 1944, and in the Soviet artillery barrage during the siege of February-April 1945.

2. Of the 316,000 prewar residents, perhaps 40,000 remained in the ruins of the city when it was surrendered to the Soviets on April 9, 1945.

3. The remaining German residents either starved to death in 1945-49 or were transferred to what remained of Germany in 1949. Scarcely a single native Königsberger remained.

4. The city was gradually repopulated with Soviet citizens, beginning in 1945.

5. It's name, briefly transliterated as Kyenigsberg (Кёнигсберг), was changed to Kaliningrad in 1946. The new name, honoring Mikhail Kalinin, has no etymological relationship to the previous name, which means "king's mountain."

6. Much of the city was gradually rebuilt in Soviet style, with only a few isolated buildings from the German era being restored. Even the layout of the streets changed to some extent.

7. The Germano-Prussian city of Königsberg no longer exists. The Russian city of Kaliningrad does exist. They are two very different cities, even though Kaliningrad occupies the site of the vanished city of Königsberg.

Sca (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all leaders of Russia and Germany do not share your view as they celebrated 750 years of the cities existance in Kaliningrad as can be seen in your above link. Also many historical places have been rebuilt.

All of the above applies to Western Polish cities. A question must be asked:are you suggesting we split Wrocław into Wrocław after 1945 and Breslau ? Szczecin into Stettin and Szczecin ? I don't think Wikipedia policies say that should be done.--Molobo (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least he didn't delete my comments! Sca (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you answer the issues I raised please ?--Molobo (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure nothing I could say would change your opinion, moje przyjaciel. Sca (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with the Polish cities is misleading. There is good reason for the Russian Wikipedia having a distinct Königsberg article. See also Königsberg Cathedral. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be misleading. What is different about Polish cities that went from Germany to Poland after 1945 ? It is the same situation isn't it ? So why should they be treated in different way ?--Molobo (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, as you surely know. Dealing with history, the Poles refer to the former German cities to modern (or traditional) Polish names. The Russians don't speak of Kaliningrad before 1945. You are too fixated on the Polish-German issue, fearing some 'contagion' as I see. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"No, it's not, as you surely know. the Poles refer to the former German cities to modern (or traditional) Polish names."

I am sure you will be able to find some towns and cities in Poland that didn't have Polish names before 1945. I am not fixated on Polish-German issue, it is simply the fact that majority of cities of status like Kalinigrad are within Poland, and changing the status of this article under the pretext of 1945 border change, will influence articles on those cities as well since they were subject of the same border change.--Molobo (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A red-letter day

Take note, colleagues: For once I sort of agree with Molobo, in that, like Kaliningrad, the then-German cities and places that became Polish in 1945 and thereafter no longer exist as the places they were.

As I said several years ago on Wiki, the German city of Danzig no longer exists. The only Danzig that exists today that I know of is a small town in North Dakota. Ditto the German cities of Stettin and Breslau, and thousands of other towns and villages in Silesia, Pomerania, and Warmia and Masuria, to use the latter's post-1945 designations.

True, some were less altered physically by the war and postwar construction than others, and retain more of the old German fabric of their predecessors. But even in these cases, none is the same place it was. There is, for example, no longer a town of Allenstein; in its place there is the city Olsztyn, a thoroughly Polish community on the site of the old, predominantly German town of Allenstein (yes, I know Allenstein had a Polish [Masurian] minority before for the war; let's not quibble about details).

The only partial parallel I know of in recent history would be the formerly Greek (and Armenian) towns of Asia Minor that are now Turkish towns with different names — for similar reasons: the populations, and the character of the places, changed as a result of — excuse me for mentioning it — ethnic cleansing. The difference is that prior to ethnic cleansing, these places already were within the political borders of Turkey.

Sca (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree. The population exchange is a common fact, true. But Kaliningrad is a special case indeed, as the separate Russian wiki article shows (and the only exception made from the rule not to split articles on former East German cities made in the German wikipedia was, after long discussion, Königsberg). The Poles did not voluntarily destroy the historic settings and start to rebuild cities from scratch. Whereas the Germans had annihilated Warsaw, the Poles rebuilt Breslau/Wroclaw, Danzig/Gdansk or the Marienburg/Malbork (in the same Post-war period, the Germans destroyed by means of architecture what was left from their historic city centers after years of a bombing war...!). Another point here is more pragmatic. Kaliningrad is nowadays a provincial town whereas Königsberg used to be an intellectual and commercial city of European dimensions. In result, the 'unified article' on Kaliningrad mainly tells the history of ... Königsberg without reference to Russian influences. Again, you see that there is a difference between the Russian and Polish case. There is good reason to make an exception here and have two articles. Regards, DaQuirin (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points about the Poles' treatment of the former German cities. They are indeed masterful restorers. However, I don't think the fact that the ex-Marienkirche in Danzig, for example, has been substantially restored and today exists as the Bazylika Mariacka means that Danzig as a city still exists. In it's place is Gdańsk, in many respects an interesting Polish city which, ethnically and culturally, is very different from Danzig, despite the presence of architectural artifacts from the city that preceded it.

A case in point is the chuch mentioned above. Formerly it was the largest Protestant church in the world. Today it is the largest brick church in the world, and it is a Catholic church. Understand, I carry no brief for the Protestants and have no antipathy to Catholics. My point is that the people and their language and culture have changed. People are more significant than buildings.

Sca (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As different as the pre- and post-1945 eras were for cities like Königsberg/Kaliningrad and Danzig/Gdańsk, the modern cities are still seen as maintaining continuity with the German-era municipalities. Agreeing with DaQuirin's logic, I see a Kaliningrad/Königsberg split as the sole exception to the pre/post 1945 continuity within article titles. Olessi (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

German-Russia celebrations of 750 anniversary of the city's existance as well as restoration of several historic landmarsk, would contradict the discontinuity theory. Also we have to fallow Wikipedia policies-which Wiki policy allows to split city articles, because of the citizens lack of interest in the past. This is the same city, just with a new name, there is no need for seperate section. The city's history can be moved to History sub-article.--Molobo (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing can convince you, I fear. But just a few more examples to demonstrate the distinct character: The Immanuel Kant State University of Russia claims nowadays the German tradition, but there is of course a separate article on the University of Königsberg. Whereas the University of Wroclaw/Breslau has for good reason a unified article. See also Königsberg Castle. Interestingly, and completely in difference to the case of the Polish cities, the Russian took no interest at all in the (lost) city archive. The Germans took documents with them, trying to reconstruct it from abroad... Maybe a compromise could be to name a separate article History of Königsberg. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Molobo would then support merging Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul into a single article, as it is one city? Olessi (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above article is in regards to specific situation from hundreds of years ago, not about modern times as here.

Does Olessi suggest to split Wrocław into Vratislav, Presslau, Breslau, Wrocław just like he suggests to do with Kaliningrad ? Poznań into Posen and Poznań ? Szczecin into Stettin and Szczecin ? Gdańsk into Danzig and Gdańsk ? Since the situation is identical there should be no reason not to follow.--Molobo (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out earlier on this talk page that I would not support dividing the history of Polish cities such as Wrocław or Gdańsk because of the varying historical terminology used by English-language historians. I also agree with the statements that the Poles treated the rebuilding of ruined cities vastly different than the Soviets did. If someone suggested dividing the history of now-Polish city articles, I would not support the proposals. Königsberg/Kaliningrad is the only formerly German city-article that I would support a division of. Olessi (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend Olessi says above that the now-Polish cities acquired from Germany after WWII are "still seen as maintaining continuity" with their predecessors. This is a nice turn of phrase, but what does it mean? What sort of continuity? Seen by whom? Doesn't "continuity" imply a gradual, evolutionary change?

Suppose you are a native of, for example, Breslau, and you go into a coma in 1939. You miraculously come out of the coma 30 years later. When you walk outside, you are confused. All the signs are in an unintelligible language, many of the buildings have changed, and everyone on the street speaks a foreign language that you eventually recognize as Polish. Would you feel a sense of continuity? Or would you think you'd lost your mind?

I grew up in Minneapolis, but I haven't lived there for over 30 years. If I were to go back today and found that the city was now called Mimmborsk and everyone there spoke Russian, I would conclude that my native city no longer existed -- even if my old school building were still standing, adapted perhaps to some different use.

In previous historical eras, cities, provinces and regions did sometimes change hands politically, but that didn't usually mean a wholesale eradication of the existing culture and its replacement with another. Gradual change, such as that in Strassburg/Strasbourg, was more likely. Thus Strasbourg, today a French city with a German flavor, is properly seen as maintaining continuity with the past. Not so the ex-German now-Polish cities at issue here, where the change from one people and culture to another was abrupt, brutal and total. Sca (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As seen above in the comment of Sca the proposed change will encourage people to split Wrocław into Wrocław and Breslau, Gdańsk and Danzig, Poznań and Posen. This is obviously against Wikipedia guidelines for articles as they concentrate on whole city and its history, and change in demographic of language of the majority of inhabitants doesn't seem to warrant a split into seperate articles.--Molobo (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, all articles should be evaluated on their own merits. As has been pointed out on this page already, municipal history articles can be at different names, often delineated by major historical events. The history of Istanbul is divided between at least three articles, all about a single city. Just because a change is proposed at the Kaliningrad article does not mean that such changes will be proposed at other articles, let alone receive enough support to actually be enacted at other articles. I personally would not support divisions at other articles. Olessi (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, I do not understand why you believe that a split in this article means that any or all of the other articles you mention should or must be split. The proposal here has nothing at all to do with name changes in any city, not even this one, Königsberg/Kaliningrad. The driver here is the simple fact that this article has grown overly long, so a split is advisable. The questions posed were as follows:

• “Is this article grown so long that we should consider splitting it?” Consensus: Yes.
• “Then where should we split it?” Proposed: When Königsberg was captured by the Soviets and renamed “Kaliningrad.”

Whether any of the articles on any of those other cities are “too long”, I don’t know; that’s a matter for the editors active on those to decide, when and if the time comes. If anyone were to run off to one of those articles claiming that “The Kaliningrad article has been split into Königsberg and Kaliningrad, so now we have to split Wrocław into Wrocław and Breslau”, his or her reasoning would probably be laughed at as silly. As Olessi pointed out, all articles should be evaluated on their own merits. Furthermore, should the editors working on the Wrocław article decide at some point in time that it had become too long and it needed to be split, there is no rule that would require them to split it as Wrocław and Breslau; some other dividing line in its history might be chosen. (Possibilities include when it became a Habsburg possession or perhaps at the beginning of the War of Austrian Secession, when Prussia began its annexations of Silesia.) There is certainly an advantage in taking the event of a name change as the point at which to divide it, since it simplifies the title and usage in the article, but such decisions are to be made for each article individually and with consensus. There are more specific reasons to split this article at the German-Russian ownership transition than there are in most other city articles, which is why it has been proposed here; however, that decision has absolutely no bearing on any other article. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are guidelines onf Wikipedia general to all articles, just because city changed a name there is no need to split it into two. There are no fundamental differences between those situations as it seems, so if this city will be split there will no argument against splitting of Wrocław, Poznań or Gdańsk.--Molobo (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"I do not understand why you believe that a split in this article means that any or all of the other articles you mention should or must be split." Since the situation of those cities like Wrocław, Gdańsk, Poznań is similar what are the reasons not to split them ? Also as seen above already voices appeared that see the split of Kaliningrad as motive to split the othe city articles(editor Sca). "his or her reasoning would probably be laughed at as silly." That's really not a serious argument. "all articles should be evaluated on their own merits." We don't have seperate guidelines for every article, there are general guidelines on Wikipedia towards all articles. --Molobo (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"what are the reasons not to split them?" – Because they don't need splitting! And for that matter, there already is a general guideline on the reason given for splitting this article: WP:SIZE. That's the only one that applies here with regard to this issue. In fact, you seem to be creating a new guideline: "If one city article is split at a point where its name has been changed, then all cities whose name has change must be split in the same way (and as soon as possible)." There is no such rule in WP:SIZE, and if you proposed it there, I strongly doubt it would gain consensus. There is official guidance on when an article should be considered for splitting, but none that says where — that's an issue which has to be evaluated for every article on its own merits. Honestly, you seem to be chasing a bogeyman of protecting articles of cities with Polish names that once had German names from German revanchism which not only isn't at work here – nor on the German Wikipedia either, for that matter. If that's the case, then this issue is being disruptive for no cause at all. You're the only one insisting that splitting one article means that all these other articles will need to be split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs)

CORRECTION: I never said I favored splitting Wrocław, Gdańsk, Szczecin, etc., into two articles. What I said was that what happened to those places was not significantly different in human and cultural terms from what happened to Königsberg/Kaliningrad (and the other cities and towns of northern East Prussia). The main difference is that the Soviets gave all the places they annexed new names unrelated to their historic names, while the Poles in most (but not all) cases based the new Polish names on their German predecessors (main exception: Kętrzyn, ex-Rastenburg). My agreement with Molobo is confined to the fact that the degree of change in either case, Polish or Russian, is equal.

Whether the ex-German cities should each get two articles, one pre-1945 and the other post-1945, can reasonably be argued either way. At this point, I'm not sure which approach would better serve the uninitiated reader — supposedly the audience for which we are writing, editing (and feuding!). But I certainly wouldn't support the suggestion of Askari above that Breslau be divided at any point other than the 1945 surrender to the Red Army, since the basic character of the place in modern times remained constant until then.

Actually, this not being the Breslau talk page, I wasn't recommending that it be so split (or even that it needs splitting); I was simply illustrating an example of how a city article could be split apart from by name change. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Poznań/Posen is a somewhat different case, having become predominantly Polish before WWII.

Sca (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrocław, Gdańsk were never Polish before Sca ?--Molobo (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The operative phrase is "in modern times." Sca (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In general before.Molobo (talk)

What the Russians say

From Kaliningrad's official website:

It was established historically that Kaliningrad is situated on the territory which is rich of in cultural traditions.

Prussian scientists, poets and artists glorified Koenigsberg all over the world Kant, Bessel, Hoffmann, Agnes Miegel - all these names don't need to be presented. Russian people, settled at that place after the World War II, brought another culture, permanently developing and consisting of different traditions ....

See: http://www.klgd.ru/en/city/culture/

Sca (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is good to see the cultural history of the city being described. This municipal link also has some more info on the modern Russian point of view. I thought I read once that some Soviets tried to present the area as originally being Slavic (not Baltic). Olessi (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles Königsberg and Kaliningrad

Did anyone notice that Russian Wiki has a separate article ru:Кёнигсберг on Königsberg, since 2004? German Wiki has de:Königsberg (Preußen), and there are others: eo:Kenigsbergo, nn:Königsberg, no:Königsberg. If the Germans and Russians agree on having two separate articles, why does English Wikipedia not follow yet? There was enough talk, consensus is obvious, next step: Wikipedia:Be Bold. -- Matthead  DisOuß   18:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Askari Mark's recent comments about wiki policies. I'll try to begin the changes within the next week if I have a chunk of time. However, others are welcome to initiate the process instead if they are so willing. Olessi (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This means dire consequences for all the cities in Western and North Poland. The is no Wikipedia guideline that allows to split cities into two just because they have different name.

Molobo, with all due respect, there appears to be a unanimous consensus that the article has grown to the point that it needs to be split, and an all-but-unanimous consensus that it be split by name. I think we have gone to exceptional lengths to try to understand your concerns, but in the end you have only made assertions – and these have lacked both justifications or evidence that prove them valid. In short, your claims are essentially as follows:

1. If this article is split by name changes, then it will require splitting up many other articles on cities, most especially those on Polish cities.
2. The editors on those other articles will have no choice but to agree to split them, by name, regardless of whether those articles are short or long, simply because this one article was.
3. Those editors will not be able to propose any other approach to splitting those articles than by name change.
4. Any split of an article by name change will have “dire consequences”, particularly for “all the cities in Western and North Poland.”

None of these assertions are supportable. Indeed, most of them are easily disproved:

1. There was no rush to split up large numbers of articles for cities which have undergone name changes following the three-way division of Istanbul (not even for Polish city articles), and this split was done quite a while ago. This fact alone spoils all of your assertions.
2. There is no formal WP guidance requiring any article to be split – or to be split in any particular fashion – simply because another article was.
3. There is no formal WP guidance on where to split any article; moreover, splitting this article (or the Istanbul article) establishes a precedent to be imposed on any or all other articles. Articles get split according to a method that gains (un-coerced) consensus for that individual article. You assert “The[re] is no Wikipedia guideline that allows to split cities into two just because they have different name.” Actually, anything Wikipedia’s guidelines do not forbid or discourage is allowable. Furthermore, the recommendation that this article be split was originally made because it has grown too long; the recommendation regarding how to split was made afterwards. You’ve got your timeline backward.
4. Assuming that the consensus for any city article calls for splitting it by name change, in what way is that necessarily a bad thing? You have never even attempted to explain what damage you believe would be caused.

It honestly puzzles us how you have come up with your perspective, since it would require forcing others to do something a certain way that Wikipedia simply does not require or encourage. I think you will find your fears groundless as well following this article’s split. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So there: As this article, its history and talk mainly discusses Königsberg rather than Kaliningrad, I moved it to Königsberg (Prussia) to avoid trouble with protected redirects, and created Kaliningrad (Russia) from scratch. An admin might fix this, and move back to the simpler names. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to upload the version I've been working on when I noticed your changes. :-P After the main changes are done, I'll move the articles to the simpler titles of Kaliningrad and Königsberg. Olessi (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess we should sort out Category:Kaliningrad accordingly, introducing Category:Königsberg. At commons, I have already set up another category. Also, I guess many articles have piped [[Kaliningrad|Königsberg]] links, see search and Special:Whatlinkshere/Kaliningrad. A Wikipedia:Bot requests‎ might help to set this straight; misspellings, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unimportant, but fun

Just had to share this from the section on the British air raid: "Occasionally bombed by the Soviet Air Forces, No. 5 Group of the Royal Air Force first attacked the city on the night of 26/27 August 1944". The RAF gets tired of the occasional Soviet air raid on its bases and goes to bomb a German city in retaliation. I mean, think about it. Anyways, fixed it now, just sharing this little gem with the rest of you. No offence to the author of the passage meant, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVIosad (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so funny misinterpreation. Of course it was Königsberg that was "occasionally bombed by the Soviet Air Force", not the RAF group 5 based in Lincolnshire. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust

Jews flourished in the culturally pluralistic city.[38]} So what happened to Jews in that culturally pluralistic city in 1933-1945. The article is silent on the matter.--Molobo (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Clark's book mentions Jews in Königsberg in a pre-Nazi era context, but not in the Nazi era. Hence, I cited the information I have access to. Olessi (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaced ?

The later location of Königsberg was preceded by an Old Prussian fort known as Twangste, as well as several Prussian settlements. During the conquest of the Prussian Sambians by the Teutonic Knights in 1255, Tvangste was captured and replaced The town was replaced ? That would interesting engineering project in Middle Ages. Wasn't it burned down to the ground ? Please correct to reflect historical knowledge.--Molobo (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jews

Re Königsberg's Jewish community, see Michael Wieck. His book is an excellent read, in German or English. Sca (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Still no answer on how Jews "flourished in this city" ?

I am still waiting on somebody to update what happened to this "flourished" community the article brags about in 1933-1945. Surely if this was a flourishing community the events must have been notable. Of course what happened to Polish minority is also interesting. --Molobo (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The books I have access to do not mention what happened to Königsberg during the Nazi era aside from the WWII devastation. Olessi (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[4]--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"What happened to the Polish minority?"

So what about the history of pre-1945 (?) Polish minority in Königsberg? --DaQuirin (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whole book about Poles in Królewiec. "Wybitni Polacy w Królewcu XVI-XX wiek

Sławomir Augusiewicz, Janusz Jasiński, Tadeusz Oracki". Which isn't surprising. At one time East Prussia had circa 30% Poles as part of population--Molobo (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How many Poles (Prussian/German citizens with Polish background?) lived in Königsberg around 1800/1945 - notable Polish associations, newspapers, to be mentioned in the article? --DaQuirin (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again: What happened to Polish minority is also interesting? What is your exact question? There was a sizeable Polish minority in Königsberg 1933/45 (?) or what is the reason of discussing (either exiled or murdered) Königsberg Jews together with Polish people from Königsberg? --DaQuirin (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Since both Poles and Jews were classified by German government of the time as subhumans to be exterminated it is naturally interesting to know what measuers were made towards extermination of those people, since local authorities varied in this regard.--Molobo (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what about the Königsberg Polish minority? Tell us more please! --DaQuirin (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happened to a minority that didn´t exist! (62.180.160.198 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Your claim that Polish nation doesn't exist is interesting one. However I don't know what scholars propose such view. I do now that a huge scholary work was made in Poland about Polish minority in Królewiec and one of the main authors is devoted to research about the use of Poles(classified as subhumans by German government in WW2) as slaves in the city (built on on ashes of burned native settlements of Old Prussians by Teutonic Crusaders who enslaved Lithuanians) before its continued existance was put to end[5]. --Molobo (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So, this hoax story comes to an end. I could not find anything about a Polish minority in Königsberg in the 20th century. You are talking here about Polish citizens that had been deported to East Prussia during World War II. Mixing up things a little bit, form a hard-core nationalist point of view... If you could add some details about a Polish minority (?) in earlier times, it would be interesting to know some facts. --DaQuirin (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess this book about Polish minority in Królewiec is a hoax „Wybitni Polacy w Królewcu XVI – XX w.”, by Professor Janusz Jasiński from University of Olsztyn. Right ? --Molobo (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [6] 360.577 (1939), davon 318.125 Evangelische, 21.419 Katholiken, 3.456 sonstige Christen, 1.566 Juden --Molobo (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Königsberg "Catholics" in 1890 or 1939 were Poles - are you serious or did I get it wrong? If you have "something" in your Polish book worth being added, so why not. You did never hold it in your hand, right? --DaQuirin (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I intend to obtain it as quickly as possible to enrich this article article about the city founded on destruction of native people, built by slavery of Lithuanian, with further information about role slavery played in its history. In fact l just realised it is an important subject. It seems enslavement of locals played a cyclic and important role for development and existance of the crusaders fortress and later city. It would be interesting how local perspective of its final end was seen by ancestors of the victims. Of course not of Old Prussians since they went extinct due to German conquest. I will look for some more info on that. In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don´t hesitate, that would be funny. Or no....ridiculous.(217.184.150.108 (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Murder of Roma people and Königsberg

[7] Some details here. --Molobo (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

German or Prussian?

In 1876, would it have been more common to refer to Königsberg as a German city or a Prussian city? I realize it was technically both, but we're trying to decide how to properly refer to the city over in the Emma Goldman article. One editor wants to refer to it as "the Prussian capital of Königsberg" while another perfers just "Königsberg, Germany". Which is the better choice? Please reply here. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time, it would have been the German city "Königberg in Preußen". The "Prussian capital of Königsberg" is misleading, since the capital was in fact Berlin. So to avoid the East Prussia / "Province of Prussia" stuff, you can't be wrong with Königsberg, Germany. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian and Polish Minorities in Köningsberg in 1920

According to German map book dated 1921 Köningsberg had both Lithuanian and Polish minorities in 1920. But their number was less than five per cent (both) and total Lithuanian & Polish population was less than ten per cent of the Köningsberg´s total population. All those used mostly their native language at home circles but speked German in offical circumstances. The highest number of Polish population inside East Prussia was in Allenstein and the surrounding country side. The south eastern corner of East Prussia was, according this German map, Masurians, not Polish. The Lithuanian minority inside East Prussia lived north of Pregel and west side in north of Inster Rivers (west of Ragnit). Tilsit (Tilze) was the most Lithuanian populated town in German East Prussia. It may well be also mentioned that both minorities spoked as well German language, so there was no "language problem" in East Prussia.

Königsberg in British travelling guide in 1914

• Population 245.994
• Hotels: Deutsches Haus, Berlinerhof

The principal railway stations - Ost Bahnhof and Süd Bahnhof - are in the south west part of the city, within half a mile of the business quarter. An important city on the River Pregel. At a very short distance north of the Ost and Süd stations is the river quay, and near the bridge to east are the Börse (Exchange) and Rathhaus, with a little further, the Dom; in the Stoa Kantiana, by north side of the Dom, is the grave of Immanuel Kant (died 1804). The Königsberg Schloss, a quarter mile north of the Dom, has a high tower; in the north wing is the museum of antiquities. Extending north of the Schloss is the Schloss Teich, a picturesque lake with gardens at the sides. The University lies back from the south west side of the Schloss Teich; about 1.000 studients. Stadt Museum in Königsstrasse, east of the Schloss - a good collection of pictures. (Brandshaws Continental Guide April 1914).

History

History needs a bit of work, there is some pointless sentences like "German citizens remaining in Königsberg after 1945 died of either disease, torture, mass rape, or starvation." which didn't make sense. Basically a neutral POV and removing blogs and crappy links as a source. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate page

I am not debating where this should be a separate page, but for just out of curiosity why does Kaliningrad get this separate article but cities like St Petersburg (Leningrad) or Gdansk (Danzig) not? Please don't look at me as debating the article I would just like someone to explain to me :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the amount of destruction and the complete exchange of its populace is rather similar to Constantinople or Tenochtitlan. Kaliningrad is a different city at the same location as Königsberg. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue-there were locations destroyed far more than this one in Poland, yet there have been not split. The current state of things is unacceptable violation of Wiki rules and the articles must be restored to one with the current name of the city. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that the two articles were split for size reasons alone—we split long articles into chronological periods all the time. As long as the two articles are clearly interlinked (which these two are), what's the problem? On the other hand, perhaps a merge request wouldn't be completely out of place, if only to gauge what the community thinks about this or to verify that the articles are split because of size, not because of the difficulty to reconcile POV issues.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2011; 16:08 (UTC)

Old pictures

I have pictures from Kaliningrad made 35 years ago. https://picasaweb.google.com/ivafamily/School196575#5494349530903640674 Does anyone knows what building it is and how it looks now? And what is the name of this castle: https://picasaweb.google.com/ivafamily/School196575#5494349580828799490 Please let me know at gintar@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gintar (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

King's mountain

Why Königsberg rather than Königsburg? The article twice mentions that the literal German-to-English meaning of Königsberg is King's mountain but neither says that there is a mountain or cliff (in contrast to much flat Baltic coastland) nor that it is a misnomer. Nor is there a similar translation of the names in other languages. --P64 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I note what you say. But that doesn't explain your question. What exactly do you inquire?Dakhart (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Konigsberg named for a mountain or is it a misnomer for Konigsburg? --P64 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's named for the castle Königsberg. From the article: Altstadt was destroyed by the Prussians during the rebellion and rebuilt in the valley below the castle hill. Castles where usually built on high ground, so that makes sense.Dakhart (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The castle Konigsberg might be Konigsbergburg. It makes a kind of sense. Thanks. It's unusual that the article translates the name as nominal reference to a geographical feature and doesn't say whether it was named for that feature. --P64 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Königsberg → History of Kaliningrad – It is same city, so there is no need for article with this name. PANONIAN 05:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: same location, different city. Rübezahl (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No: same city, different name. Srnec (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Different country, different name, different population, different culture - different city in the location, where Königsberg used to be. Rübezahl (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So Rome in 1850 and Rome in 1950 were different cities? After all they were in different countries, had different populations and different cultures. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Rome that much. Was there a military invasion? Was there extermination and expulsion of entire population? Was a new name invented, not just for the city but for every street and square? Did it become a part of a foreign empire? Educate me. Rübezahl (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You could not step twice into the same river. Many cities have undergone transformations as complete as Königsberg's, if not always in the same timespan. But there is continuity. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey! You're right! It was a seaport and it is a seaport. There is continuity. I take everything back. You certainly have a way of explaining things, so that I can understand them. Rübezahl (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally get it, but for somebody with so little understanding to begin with you probably shouldn't have tried to correct another. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh! You didn't get that one. Oh, well. Rübezahl (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Educate me. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you three guesses, then I'll start giving you clues. You can do it, especially if you have so much more "understanding" than me. Also, can You return to the original subject, or are you done already?Rübezahl (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said I had more understanding than you.

Back to the original subject. Every city at any moment is different from itself at any other moment. Separate the moments by enough and any city could be as different from its previous self as Kaliningrad is from Königsberg. Are we not then justified in saying that Rome is a different city in the same location as Rome? Or that Beijing is a different city in the same location as Peking? Or Kinshasa/Léopoldville? If Kaliningrad's name changed back, should we move this to Königsberg (1255–1946)? It is not as if Königsberg was ever empty, nor was its entire population expelled. It is certainly fine to say that Königsberg was a different city from Kaliningrad in the same location, but it is no correction. It is also true that Königsberg was renamed Kaliningrad and the renaming accompanied no other major change, since those had already happened to old Königsberg. And Kaliningrad did not exist before it was invented. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, just like Constantinople is not just the "History of Istanbul" and Tenochtitlan is more than just the "History of Mexico City".HerkusMonte (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per HerkusMonte. This article describes a particular range in the history of Kaliningrad. This rename would change the scope of the article. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason. YBG (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per same reason as Constantinople and New Amsterdam.Bezuidenhout (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The city was known as Königsberg for over 700 years. It should have its history under that name. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons cited. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks for opposing the move of this article to Kaliningrad ...

(Michael Wieck, a Holocaust survivor who returned to Kaliningrad in 1992, once wrote that: “Anyone who goes to Kaliningrad today shouldn’t expect to find Königsberg. There is a building here or there that recalls the past, but these leftovers from Königsberg’s existence are like finding bones in a cemetery.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canitz (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I can’t help but be slightly amused by the seemingly never ending debate about Konigsberg being the same city as Kaliningrad. It is a little bit like the planet Venus being the Evening Star as well as the Morning Star, in terms of the distinction between denotation and connotation, or the object and its meaning. It would be helpful not to confuse the two, as this seems to be at the bottom of this ongoing discussion.

The two cities would be the same for folks who reduce the meaning of a city to a specific location in a country – and so it has something to do with geography, i.e., it denotes a position on a map. But that seems to fall a little short of how we usually talk about a city, i.e., in terms of its people, its culture and its history, as well as its place and function in a country’s socio-economic or political structure. Here, we clearly do have a tale of two cities, that - in terms of space and time - happened to be collocated in space only, and definitely not in time. But even the collocation in space is an issue – since if you wanted to locate it on a map – Konigsberg only appears on maps prior to 1946, and Kaliningrad only on maps after that. So – even in strict geographic terms they are distinct entities, as all they really have in common is their longitude and latitude, for even the country that they are located in are different, including language and ethnicity.

Now on another front, you could make an argument that - within the burned out wreckage of Konigsberg- enough bricks and mortar were left to claim some degree of physical continuity between these cities here beyond mere location, but the extent to which its charred remains were violated and essentially left to rot until recently - or simply bulldozed away earlier, with the useful bits shipped back to the motherland – the unique and original City of Konigsberg definitely died when the last remaining ethnic German that hadn’t yet been starved to death was kicked out in 1945 to find their way across the distant Oder-Neisse border, courtesy of Joseph Stalin and his ethnic cleansing program so shamefully condoned by the Allied Forces

Yes, the restoration of the Dom on former Kneiphof island seems impressive, and many other older buildings have undergone some form of restoration – replete with ersatz red roofing tiles made of metal in order to appear original in connection with the 750 year celebrations. But the introduction of uninspired and deadly boring Stalinist architecture further demeaned the tragic remains of Konigsberg in the form of the usual drab apartment building blocks designed to house the communist worker-bee, by spitting in the face of the many fine century old buildings and wonderful architecture that they replaced. This includes the ultimate insult to the art of architecture anywhere – the multi-story House of Soviets at the site of the destroyed Konigsberg Castle – a concrete apparition so excruciatingly ugly, it has been frequently referred to as the ugliest building in the world.

And so “sameness” here can at most mean that, occasionally, there is some resemblance between Konigsberg and present day Kaliningrad, but that is about the extent of it. Canitz (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional about the difference between Kaliningrad today and Königsberg a hundred years ago. Only the relatively short period in which the change took place is unusual (and even then, not unique). We wouldn't have two article had there not been a change in the city's name. That's why Constantinople and Istanbul are separate articles, but the dividing "line" is not the change from an ethno-linguistically Greek and Orthodox city to a Muslim and Turkish one. Srnec (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Thanks - no argument from me on this point, i.e., this is by no means a unique situation. My main point was to underscore that Königsberg is entitled to its own article with respect to its unique and significant history. This as opposed to seeing it relegated to a footnote under Kaliningrad, and continuing to contribute to the deafening silence around this largely ignored part of recent European history. Time to pull our dirty linen out of the closet, methinks Canitz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Poles in Königsberg

Just like anything here on Wikipedia this needs sources. Unsourced claims might be removed. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what Herkus, you can remove the unsourced sentences from that section, as long as you remove every other single unsourced sentence from the article (or should I do that for you?) At least that way your edits won't be tendentious and battleground-y.

Seriously, that section has as many, if not more, inline citations, as other sections of the article. Mass removal of text, based solely on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, at this point, is quite disruptive. Especially since work on the section is in progress (I'm looking up stuff).

If you want to add a "ref improve" to the article as a whole be my guest, but quit it with the battleground.VolunteerMarek 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive to remove a "sources needed" tag [8] and it's normal wiki policy to ask for sources when new stuff is added. That's not a question of "I don't like it", in this case it's rather WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's neither. First, the appropriate tag would be 'ref improve' for the article as a whole, as already mentioned. Second, it is a bit weird when whole chunks of the article are sitting there completely unsourced but you insist on tagging-up, cutting the one section that you're likely... not to like.VolunteerMarek 05:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you're basically tagging up [9] one of the best sourced parts of the article, right? It's not so much the POV-pushing that gets to me, I'm used to that, it's the double standards.VolunteerMarek 05:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Herkus, I just wasted my time having to re-add references because of edit conflict caused by your insistence to add unjustified cn tags in every other words of the section.

Stop, back, or we're going straight to AE. This is clearly bad faithed and disruptive. let me add the references you're insisting on.VolunteerMarek 06:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Poles in Königsberg... why?

I would like to know why a section about Poles is needed in this article. Was this minority big enough, and relevant enough, to get mentioned? I notice that the section avoids to tell numbers, like how many Poles actually lived in the city. Is a minority of less than 5% (but probably less than 1%) notable? What about undue weight? 93.220.155.212 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me as example of undue weight compared to overall article, as well.M.K. (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because sources cover it.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, currently the number of sources is rather limited and many highly dubious claims are completely unsourced. No reason, off course, not to shout "battleground" whenever someone asks for sources. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the dubious claims? There are as many if not more sources in this section than any other. Why not remove the "Weimar Republic" section since that's completely unsourced? VolunteerMarek 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the sources cover it, but you twist them to add your own POV to the article. Not a single one of your _sourced_ facts necessitates this section. Polish students (and teachers) are also documented at the universities of Prague, Bologna or Leipzig, and as the only (Protestant) university in this part of Europe the university of Königsberg was of course visited by students from all surrounding countries, including (Protestant) Poles, whose only other nearby universities were (the Catholic university of) Kraków and Frankfurt/Oder, which were very far away for many of them. But these students don't represent a minority. The fact that books in Polish were printed in Königsberg is explainable by the fact that the only other printing press in this region was in Gdanzig, thus everyone, especially of Protestant faith, had to go to one of the two cities. That's why the first book in Lithuanian was pubished in Königsberg too. Polish books printed in Königsberg don't represent a Polish minority either. The students at the university and the books simply illustrate the fact that Königsberg, and especially the university, became an important center of Protestantism during the 16th century which influenced neighbouring countries. THIS should be in the article.

Then there is the strange, unsourced claim that "In the first half of nineteenth century, the Polish language was equivalent to the German language in the city." This doesn't support a Polish minority in the city either. It could also mean that, after the Polish partitions, Prussia took measures that all Prussian citizens could communicate in their native language at administrative offices in every part of the country. I know numbers from the official census of 1900, and a Polish minority isn't documented in Königsberg. There are Polish minorities in other parts of Eastern Prussia, like Rössel, Lyck or Johannisburg, or even in Bochum, Dortmund or Gelsenkirchen, but not in Königsberg. 93.220.172.210 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the sources cover it, but you twist them to add your own POV to the article. Not a single one of your _sourced_ facts necessitates this section. - I take it you actually bothered to read the sources and are not just making stuff up? And what's with the concurrent tag teaming? VolunteerMarek 06:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)