Modern day Prussia is part of Poland and Russia. Does Prussian "culture" still exist in those areas or are they completely assimilated and think of themselves only as Russians or Poles.

I came to think about this for some unexplainable reason and it intrigued me; what happend to Prussia after WWII? Anyone care to enlighten me?

I came to think about this for some unexplainable reason and it intrigued me; what happend to Prussia after WWII?


The area was carved up and divided by Poland, Lithuania & USSR. Though Lithuania was practicly a part of the USSR.

Does Prussian "culture" still exist in those areas

Nope, just Russians and Poles there. Most of the Prussian German populance fled from the Red Army during their attack in 1945.

Technically, Prussia was abolished by the Allies in 1945. Potsdam Conference? Not sure when exactly.

Poland, for various reasons (most of them justified...), does not continue the Prussian history. However, they very well cared for the historical traces (architecture, arts).

Germany:
Pretty hilarious. Those regions that once were the Prussian core lands and the Hohenzollern territory elsewhere have a pretty healthy attitude IMHO; they're referring to the height of Prussian culture (Frederic the Great, Sanssouci etc).
But, some regions in the West that were effectively occupied by Prussia, and did suffer a lot in their development by the Prussian focus on fortifications and military, developed something like a 'Stockholm Syndrom', forgot their splendid history before, and keep praising their suppressors :lol:. Most likely because during that period, they in consequence ruled over their surrounding areas...
Prime examples:
Minden, Westphalia. Once the wealthiest and largest city between Dortmund, Bremen and Braunschweig. Then, the first Prussian beachhead in the West. Heavily fortified, economical decline to almost insignificance, outgrown by dozens of cities in the vicinity because of that - and still, they celebrate the Prussians. Guess where the 'Preußen Museum' is?
Koblenz. Capital of the Prussian Rhine Province.

Well, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the subsequent Weimar state of Prussia stretched across modern day Kaliningrad, Poland, Germany, and Lithuania. I'm not really sure if Prussian culture existed independently of German culture in any significant sense.

Oh, and Prussia was formally abolished by the Allied Control Council in 1948, if memory serves. Although it had essentially ceased to exist in any real sense as an autonomous federal state after Papen's coup way back in 1932.

There have been proposals to unify the states of Brandenburg and Berlin (an attempt failed a few years ago) and there have been proposals to call the result Prussia. Rather ridiculous, but not completely unrealistic.

The real Prussians are spread all over modern Germany and beyond as most of the Prussian hearland was ethnically cleansed.

The real Prussians are spread all over modern Germany and beyond as most of the Prussian hearland was ethnically cleansed.
My uncle told me about how Poles had "reclaimed" Prussian lands - he said it in similar terms. As this has to do with the end of Prussia after WWII, I was wondering: what exactly was the nature of this event? Did Poles commit atrocities against Germans, as I've been told?

(I hope this isn't inflammatory...)

First Prussia is a state to be hated or loved. Anything else seems not to be possible. What is left? Before I answer this question I will answer the question of Adso: Prussia was never really Polish before 1945. Yes there was a Polish minority in these lands (especially Western Prussia) but it was inhabited by the original Prussians and Germans. Prussia was only a polish dominion after the fall of the Teutonic Order until the Grand Elector could liberate it because of fighting for Poland. After ww1 Polish armed forces, militia and also army, tried to annex parts of Silesia with force. There some minor attrocities happened. The first bigger crime to mention is the so called Bromberger Blutsonntag (Blood Sunday of Bromberg) in 1939, shortly after the German attack. Several hundred Germans (only civilians, IIRC over 1000) were slaughtered by Poles. The next big crime is the murdering, raping, kidnapping and dispelling of most of the German population in these areas in 1945. Prussia, as federal state de facto dissolved by von Papen´s so called Preußenschlag, was dissolved by the Allies in 1947 because of being militaristic and anti democratic and anti tolerant. A historical ridiculous comment as Prussia was indeed in the Weimar republic the stronghold of democracy. Also these idiots seemed never having heard about Frederic the Great. (From a juristical point of view this law is highly questionable but this I only will explain if someone asks me because of being off topic).
Today Prussia becomes more accepted in Germany as the first years Adenauer, MOP in Prussia himself, did not like Prussia that much. This was kept for a long time, although the Prussian heritage is administrated by a public trust. In the Bundeswehr however Prussian traditions were partly kept, like the Iron Cross for instance.
In the areas east of the Oder very few Germans live and the Polish state for example does not allow foreigners to buy land. So the Prussian heritage there is very low. Nevertheless there are civil actions of (former) land owners to give them their land back. If this is successful only time can show. Because at sea and court you´re in God´s hand...

Adler

Prussia was never really Polish before 1945. Yes there was a Polish minority in these lands (especially Western Prussia) but it was inhabited by the original Prussians and Germans.


Terrains you call "Western Prussia" were Polish before the Teutonic Order grabbed them in the XIVth century.

The first bigger crime to mention is the so called Bromberger Blutsonntag (Blood Sunday of Bromberg) in 1939, shortly after the German attack. Several hundred Germans (only civilians, IIRC over 1000) were slaughtered by Poles.


Those civilians were mostly German saboteurs from Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) and Gdańsk (Danzig) who attacked Polish troops defending Bydgoszcz. This attack was prepared by Abwehra with help from Gestapo and NSDAP. The Poles managed to suppress this treachery. The casualties were: abuot 240 Polish soldiers and about 300 Germans (killed in fight and executed under Polish court's sentence).
After the German army captured Bydgoszcz, the Germans killed in revenge a few thousand Poles. That was a real crime.

Not even a dedicated anti-Prussian like me denies the glory of the Frederician times. After all, the Hohenzollern are Franconians. :lol:

But, calling the 19th/20th Prussia the root of German militarism and expansionism is absolutely correct.
Prussia was indeed in the Weimar republic the stronghold of democracy
:rotfl:
You don't expect me to not comment on this ;).
Prussia in the Weimar Republic included the entire Ruhr area, with its millions of proletarian voters.
Thus, it undoubtly was the stronghold against monarchistic tendencies which did prevail especially in the conservative Southern German states. Prussia with its population majority in the Rhine Province (!) had a pretty healthy group of Catholic and Social Democrats voters (the only 2 Democratic parties of importance in the Weimar Republic). That indeed meant the extremist didn't seize power in Prussia before 1933. Maybe the most important reason, though, was the highly capable SPD Ministerpresident Braun, who ruled from 1920-32. As soon as the SPD was replaced as 'working class party' with the NSDAP, Prussia voted for them of course. While Bavaria for example never elected a Nazi Gov...

That 'Prussia' included Cologne and Aurich, Hannover and Sigmaringen, Kassel and Flensburg...not exactly what we call 'Prussia' today.
Adenauer was MP in Prussia (and at foremost, mayor of Cologne and president of the Council of Mayors) - but, he at least didn't see himself as Prussian, but an 'occupated' Rhinelander....

Thank you all for clarifying ;) .

As soon as the SPD was replaced as 'working class party' with the NSDAP, Prussia voted for them of course. While Bavaria for example never elected a Nazi Gov...

Neither did Prussia. Prussia was actually fairly well goverened during the Weimar era. (Better so than the central government, arguably.)

Prussia was the result of two differing historical thrusts, the first from two German Crusading orders who settled the eastern Baltic shores in the 13th century and the second from subsequent centuries of German immigration to those lands. There was always a heavy tension between the two groups because the Deustches Ritters had a stranglehold on power and the economy, while the German immigrants wanted to develop economic relationships with the western Baltic cities and countries. The Knights overstepped their abilities in the 15th century in a series of three wars and ended up being conquered by Poland-Lithuania. Under Polish-Lithuanian fief the immigrants were favored and Prussia took shape, including the installation of the Hohenzollern family as rulers. In the mid-17th century, in the midst of a huge war between Poland, Sweden and Russia, Prussia negotiated its independence from Poland-Lithuania and thus began the Prussian history most know today (Friedrich die Große, etc.). There still remained a tension in Prussia society between the landed rulers ('Junkers') and the merchant class, to the extent that when Prussia took over Gdansk/Danzig in the 1772-1795 Partitions of Poland-Lithuania, the German city residents rioted against Prussian rule. German nationalism hadn't quite struck yet. ;) This is the paradox of Prussian history, that in the same century that saw Prussia launch its career as a conquering state also saw such towering philosophical figures as Immanuel Kant - the difference between Marienburg or Thorn and Königsberg.

Prussia gets a bad wrap, as it were, for its militarism. Prussia merely followed a path that several European states were blazing, most notably France from Louis XIV's wars on, and yet by 1918 Europe pointed to Prussian militarism as if it were unique. Mind you, I am not defending Prussian militarism, just recognizing that it was neither the first nor historically the most aggressive of European militaristic states.

This "bad wrap" as it were doomed Prussia in 1944-45, as it was again blamed for Nazism (although Hitler was an Austrian and his initial suppote came not from Prussia but from Catholic Bavaria). In fact Hitler was never very popular with Prussia's crusted old society, as he was a commoner and a populist who usurped or undermined many of the Junkers' social and economic privilages. This is why they attempted (finally) to assassinate Hitler in 1944 - not in the name of democracy or social decency, but to preserve their own feudal privilages.

In any event, Stalin in 1944-45 was determined to keep the territories he'd gained by siding with Hitler in 1939-41 so he seized one-third of pre-war Poland's territory (along with Romanian Bassarabia, the Baltic states, etc.) and he hung the excuse for compensating Poland with German Reich lands on Prussian militarism. His Polish installed-puppets, the first Polish communist government, very readily carried out a massive act of ethnic cleansing in its new territories to eliminate the German-speaking populations of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, erasing centuries of historical settlement in one winter. there was some precedent - Hitler had ethnically cleansed Silesia and Pomerania of Poles when he conquered Poland in 1939, forcing them into the established "General Gouvernment" occupation zone, but this involved a few hundred thousand Poles. Some 10 million Germans were deported in 1944-46, and while the communist government did this on direct Soviet orders (with Western acquiescence), it was one of the very few genuinely popular deeds of the communists in Poland. Many atrocities were committed in the act against German civilians, as Poles sought revenge for the 6 year occupation and the 6 million Polish war dead.

My wife was born in Polish Torun (Thorn), and she is referred to by other Poles as a Prussian - though in modern context. Given that the 'Prussian" name initially belonged to a Baltic-language speaking people whom the German crusading orders slaughtered en masse in the 13th and 14th centuries before a "Prussian" meant a German, perhaps it is not so strange that Poles today should bear that name. Happily, Poland began the re-examination of this ethnic cleansing in 1966 and is still, in slow steps, facing up to the fullest consequences of this action. German architecture and historical sites are being actively preserved by the government, and I've seen many books dealing with this aspect of Polish-German relations in history.

Brilliant post as usual, thanks to the Pole.

As for the preservation in Poland, I've recently seen an interesting report about reconstruction efforts in Danzig (err, Gdansk ;) ).
It seems to be some sort of fashion amoungst newly wealthy Polish inhabitants to rebuilt old German houses to live in as a prestige object.

Doc, the so called Weimar Coalition was ruling in Prussia until von Papen´s Preußenschlag, which the Staatsgerichtshof of the Reichsgericht (in Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen Bd. 138, Anh. pages 1- 43 (in short: RGZ 138, Anh. 1 ff.)) only accepted because of the so called Altonaer Blutsonntag, a civil war like incident in the Prussian town of Altona in Schleswig- Holstein (today part of Hamburg). With that incident the democracy in Prussia was annhiliated as the power was not at the states government but the Reich. Without that Hitler would have never been able to seize the power. That´s why Prussia was a backbone of democracy in Weimar republic.

@ Vrylakas: Good post as usual. Also my Great grand father´s family came from Thorn, too. His family settled at the end of the 19th century in Hamburg. Just a personal note.

@ Oryctolagus: The Teutonic Order did not grab the area of western Prussia but it was given to the Teutonic Order by Duke Konrad of Masowien, who was not able to cope with the old Prussians (Pruzzen). He gave them the land with free will and no force. Also the Bromberger Blutsonntag did happen. 4000 Germans were killed. A source: the Polish Historian Janusz Piekalkivicz. You only refer to Polish post war propaganda here.

Adler

The Teutonic Order did not grab the area of western Prussia but it was given to the Teutonic Order by Duke Konrad of Masowien



Duke Konrad did not give them entire West Prussia (IIRC this name was given to territories Prussia took in the first partition of Poland in 1772), but only Chełmno Land (Kulmer Land), east of Vistula river. In my post I was referring to Gdańsk (Danzig) and east Pomerania, which was under the rule of (then) Duke Władysław Łokietek of Cracow, when they were captured by the Teutonic Order in 1308-09. These lands were inhabited by Slavs, not Balts or Germans (well, there were German colonists there, like in other Polish lands at the time).

As to the "Bromberger Blutsonntag", I agree, I referred to Polish propaganda. :blush: But I think that the Nazi propaganda was wider accepted in other countries. Surely, there must have been many innocent victims (you know, it was war and people hated Gemans and were frustrated by the effects of Blitzkrieg) but the number of German casualties you gave (and Polish victims of the German revenge that I gave :blush: ) could also be too high. Polish sources that I found today (googling, so it might not be accurate) say about a few hundred killed Germans and 20 - 30 Polish soldiers, while the Nazi propaganda ;) gave numbers between 5 000 and about 60 000 German victims :confused:. So it's difficult to say where the truth is.

At first Pommerania was part of the German Reich (Holy Roman Empire) in the time Konrad ruled. What you meant perhaps was the part of Western Prussia called Pommerellen and Danzig, with a mixed population. However the Slavs were not only belonging to Poland but also to Germany since there were several German nobles in the East slavs. But they decided to go with the German Reich. However the Slavic words for Germans are similar to Niemcy (or so, I don´t speak Polish), meaning the ones who are not understandable, IIRC. Also these areas were mostly low populated in these times. Later mostly Germans settled in the towns and Polish on the country. And although Western Prussia was tried to be polonized by the Polish kings this failed.
Concerning the Bromberger Blutsonntag: I had my figures by the excellent and very objective Polish historian Janusz Piekalkivicz, who said about 4000 were murdered. Goebbels made 50000 from that figure and tried to say this happened before the invasion. Another example of propaganda with a long life. However the real number is indeed hidden in all the propaganda of both sides.

Adler

Oh a remark on post #14: The decision of the Staatsgerichtshof in RGZ 138, Anh. 1 ff. is the worst misjudgements of a German constitutional court in the last century IMO.

Adler

What you meant perhaps was the part of Western Prussia called Pommerellen and Danzig, with a mixed population.



Yes. In Poland these lands are called Pomorze Gdańskie (in German it would be "Danziger Pommern" or something like this, my German is poor), that's why I called them "east Pomerania" in contradiction to West Pomerania (the part of Pomerania that was incorporated into Poland after WWII).

Adler, Adler..don't recite the usual myths of the Prussia glorificators (like de.wiki) :nono:.

In 1932, before the 'Preußenschlag', the NSDAP was already by far the strongest fraction (36.3%; SPD 21.2%) in the Prussian Landtag.
The other two bigger territories which also had Landtag elections in '32 were Bavaria (NSDAP 32.5%, Zentrum 32.6%) and Würtemberg (NSDAP 26.4%; Zentrum 20.5%). In both, the democratic parties (SPD+Zentrum+DDP) had a clear majority - but not in Prussia...

And, Weimar politics wasn't about parties- it was about personalities.
Ebert, Scheidemann, Stresemann, Braun as The Good; Brüning and maybe even Father Hindenburg as The Willing; Hitler, von Papen and Thälmann as The Bad.

Not Prussia was the backbone of Weimar Democracy - Otto Braun was. In fact, he was the only powerful opponent von Papen had at all. Pretty much as the strongest opponent of the NSDAP for a long time was the head of Berlin police, Bernhard Weiss.
The votes of the Prussian people however don't differ much from the other bigger states (if you only consider pro/anti-democratic); they just had a more capable candidate to choose.

What I really dislike, anyway, is considering the Weimar Freistaat Preußen as equivalent to the historical Prussia, and the one the Allies did abolish fro militarism in 1947.
While you in Flensburg may be proud to be called a "Prussian" - the people of Cologne or Frankfurt for sure are not ;).

Now, lets have a closer look on which population groups did vote for the NSDAP, and we see:
The more Catholic a region was, the less votes the Nazis got.
The more typical working class, the less votes the Nazis got as well - but, here it didn't help the Democracy - since the KPD got the votes instead.
In fact, the only truly democratic goup in the Weimar Republic was the Catholic lower middle class.
Something non-existant in classical Prussia.

Here's a non-historcial question motivated only by curiosity: is modern Prussia the richest part of Germany?

Here's a non-historcial question motivated only by curiosity: is modern Prussia the richest part of Germany?
What is modern Prussia in the first place? But I think it's safe to say no.

At first Pommerania was part of the German Reich (Holy Roman Empire) in the time Konrad ruled. What you meant perhaps was the part of Western Prussia called Pommerellen and Danzig, with a mixed population. However the Slavs were not only belonging to Poland but also to Germany since there were several German nobles in the East slavs. But they decided to go with the German Reich. However the Slavic words for Germans are similar to Niemcy (or so, I don´t speak Polish), meaning the ones who are not understandable, IIRC. Also these areas were mostly low populated in these times. Later mostly Germans settled in the towns and Polish on the country. And although Western Prussia was tried to be polonized by the Polish kings this failed.

Pomerania was initially a (Western) Slavic state unto itself, free of both Polish or German control and both wooed and fought over by both (though the Danes also put up some stiff competition). Pomerania was the last hold-out for still-pagan Western Slavic tribes. As I recall the Danes destroyed the last major Western Slavic pagan shrine at Swantewit in the 1160s or so and occupied the Pomeranian coastal areas. In subsequent wars in the 13th century Pomerania was eventually seized by the Heilige Römische Reich (or the Sacrum Imperium Romanum as it really called itself until the early 16th century)...

But they decided to go with the German Reich.

:lol: Adler, few people make me laugh as much as you do. I often wonder if you really believe this nationalist crapola or if you just make it up as you go. "They decided to go with the German Reich." :lol: A century of Imperial and Danish armies storming through Pomerania and Adler thinks the Slavic locals "decided to go with the German Reich". :lol: In Adler's world no one is ever conquered by the Germans, they all vote or opt to voluntarily - and eagerly! - join the German states, such is Teutonic glory....

Here is a site (http://radde.tripod.com/PolenDaenemark.html) - even in your native Sprache! - that gives a fairly decent overview of the final destruction of Pomerania's early pagan Slavic state and its absorbtion into the German cutural sphere.

The Eastern Slavs never penetrated as far west as Pomorze. Not sure what you meant by that one.

owever the Slavic words for Germans are similar to Niemcy (or so, I don´t speak Polish), meaning the ones who are not understandable, IIRC. Also these areas were mostly low populated in these times. Later mostly Germans settled in the towns and Polish on the country.

This much at least is true. "Niemcy" derives from the older Slavic term for "mute" (nie + mówic = "Doesn't speak", Polish). However, it is a much wider Slavic term used by all Slavs, not just the Western Slavs.

Later mostly Germans settled in the towns and Polish on the country. And although Western Prussia was tried to be polonized by the Polish kings this failed.

The first sentence is true, though not in the way you seem to imagine it. The Holy Roman Empire's problem was overpopulation, and it spent much of its early history sending migrants - farmers, guildsmen, townsmen - abroad as settlers to other countries depopulated by famine, disease or war. Many medieval states did this; Eastern Europe has historical remnants of medieval Flemish, Scottish, French, Castillian, Greek, Italian, Irish and Scandinavian - as well as German - migrants who came for cheap/free land or tax breaks. Northern Poland near Bydgoszcz still has a bunch of villages with Scottish names, for instance. Germans did not go abroad to fulfill nationalist dreams of a slow colonial conquest, but in search of a better life and often virtually forced by local German rulers eager to ease population issues (and getting wealthy on payments from other states for settlers). Mid and late-Medieval Germans indeed filled western Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania (among other places) but they were called because the local rulers needed farmers, craftsmen and miners, etc. - not because anyone needed Germans in particular. ;) Medieval Europe paid far less attention to ethnicity or "nationalism" than we do today.

As for the second sentence - another Adler fabrication. Poland did not have a king between 1138 and 1310, when its central administration collapsed into a permanent civil chaos at the death of its last great Piast king, Boleslaw Krzywousty. Only in 1310 was one of his descendants, Wladyslaw "Lokietek", able to reunite the country and re-create the kingship. No Polish king of the pre-1138 or post-1310 period (or later) ever had any modern-style nationalist dreams of populating Prussia with ethnic Poles. Pockets of Polish populations did develop during the two centuries of Polish rule, but these were almost exclusively merchants in the Prussian coastal cities (especially Danzig/Gdansk) with commercial interests. A medieval king interested in changing an ethnic population would want permanent farmers, not merchants who follow money. Medieval Poland certainly had many territorial disputes with Prussia (as all medieval states always did) but while medieval Poles spent lots of time spreading western, Roman Christianity fairly aggressively they didn't bother trying to actually Polonize any areas. That foolishness would wait until the 20th century. Ironically, one of the most commonly-disputed territories between Poland and Prussia was Samogitia - a region populated by a Baltic people, not Germans or Poles.

@ Doc: The Prussian government was still the democratic one consisting of the so called Weimar Coalition of SPD, DDP and DVP lead by Braun. So it WAS in times of crisis indeed the backbone of democracy, although the NSDAP had the most MoP in the Prussian Landtag. With a strong lead Prussian governement as opponent Hitler would never had been able to seize power.
Oh, the backbone of the Nazi rule was the catholic Bavaria... However I am not from Flensburg but live near Hamburg. Many Schleswig- Holsteiner were also not very keen about being Prussians at least at first. Nevertheless since my family has ancestors living in Eastern Prussia this is not really relevant to me.

Adler

@Varylakas:
At first with polonization by the Polish kings I meant a phase later after the fall of the Teutonic order. And indeed German settlers settled in the east because of trying to find a better home, which was normal to that time. It was a bit like the colonization of the Greek city states as the laws of the home town were mostly also the law of the newly founded town. For instance Riga had until the 1870s (!) the law of Lübeck.
The next point is the decided to go thingy: I was misunderstanding so I am sorry. I am aware that the Slavs were pressed mostly in wars with Germany and Denmark. However the princes in that region were still Slavs, like the Prince of Rügen. They must be considered as German nobles and all I wanted to say yesterday is that the German people was not a people of ethical unity but consisted of Germanics, Celts, Slavs and Balts. That not all of these people did join Germany in a free will was and is clear. So the English word for German is much more misunderstanding as the Germans are in no way only Germanics. The Germanics were also not ever of ethnically "clean" since also Roman slaves from Nubia, who ran away, could have become a Germanic.
What I meant is that in Germany of the 12th and 13th century German nobles and people in the North East of that day Germany, Pommerania, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg and even Holstein were originally not only Germanics but also Slavs.
At last I never said nor say that all of the Slavs of that day were keen to be Germans as most were only keen to be alive and didn´t care much about their ruler´s origin since life was hard in that times generally. In that times conquests of Pagan territory was common to all of Europe and also Poland was participating. In these areas the local nobles mostly decided to become a noble of that conquering state to keep or get power.
All in all I was misunderstanding and so I am sorry.

Adler

the backbone of the Nazi rule was the catholic Bavaria
That is plain simply wrong, and you know that.
Hitler's movement started in Munich, we all are aware of this. But he never had strong support among the catholic Bavarians - while he did have among the Protestant ones.
For a long time, the highest votes for the NSDAP was in Rothenburg ob der Tauber...

Next one: The democratic majorities in the Landtag. The very same was the case in all bigger territories (replace the Zenrtum with the BP in Bavaria). That, of course, doesn't say that their MPs were indeed pro-Weimar Democracy. But the votes weren't different.

Well, with backbone I meant that Hitler was a product of the catholic, anti semitic, ultra nationalism based especially in Vienna as we all know. But in Germany Bavaria was his first base to grow, the catalysator. Yes, catholics were mostly electing the Zentrum party indeed.
This is what I meant with backbone. Perhaps I should be a bit more exact in my posts... :blush:
Nevertheless Prussia WAS a backbone of democracy because of the Braun government. Why? Because Prussia was the biggest German state in area and population. Nothing could go without Prussia de facto. With that opposition Hitler would have had much more difficulties to make the Ermächtigungsgesetz. I don´t say it was impossible but it might have been so difficulty that Hindenburg might have fired another Reichskanzler... Nevertheless the Preußenschlag is still a major fact in the line which lead to Hitler, although I concur it is not the only one nor the most important.

Adler

We can agree on Braun's importance.

What I don't like in that context is claiming "Prussia/ the Prussians" were so democratic/liberal/advanced - without mentioning that any time something like that was true, it was for the most part because of a single person strongly opposed in Prussia itself, or at least by someone who isn't mentioned by what I called the 'Prussia-Glorificators'. And that doesn't aim at you, Adler.
Otto Braun for sure had no support from the Junkers. Not even Friedrich II had whenever he wanted to introduced something new. Bernhard Weiss, Goebbel's personal arch enemy and nemesis, isn't mentioned anywhere in Prussian history (no surprise, he was a liberal Jew...). The 'Preußenschlag' sites on the net NEVER mention the Braun gov no longer had the majority at that time anyway - NSDAP+DNVP hold more seats than SPD and Zentrum; of course, the KPD controlled the rest...
The other German states today celebrate their 1848 leaders a la Hecker - but Jacobi? The most prominent liberal in that times at all?

Prussia seems to always get glorified for things the Prussians didn't want at all; but those who achieved it nevertheless are deliberately left out.

As I said before: Prussia is loved or hated. A different view seems not possible. But we should look back in history:
1. Prussia under the Grand Elector (1640- 1688)
In these days, where Prussia was only a Polish dominion ruled by the Elector of Brandenburg and later was a free duchesy, Brandenburg (- Prussia) was a weak German state. Great areas without opulation, not much to grow there and areas parted strongly from other parts like Jülich in the west or Prussia in the east. However against the will from the aristocrats the Grand Elector could build up a standing army and officials. With these measures he was able to cope the threads of that time.
2. Prussia under Frederic the Great (1740- 1786)
Prussia was seen as a kind of Northern Sparta when the Soldier King Frederic Wiliam I., Frederic´s father, died. Frederic was much more seen as an artist, a man who just wrote the Antimacchiavell. And this man acts at the very beginning like Macchiavelli demanded with his attack on Silesia. 3 wars followed and Frederic himself saw this attack as an error. However he reformed his state to a degree he could do without risking the fate for his state. He abolished torture, introduced a law system which was among the fairest of that days as well as certain other reforms. Under his reign a Kant was possible or the celebrations of that king by the Jewish philosoph Moses Mendelsohn (the grand father of Felix Mendelsohn- Bartholdy) in his letter to Lavater. So Frederic was making so many reforms he could do without risking the state. However the personal freedom and tolerance towards other religions were common goods also in his reign. Prussia was a base for refugees from all over Europe: Jews, Hugenots, Protestants and even the Jesuit order. There was even an army Imam for the muslims in his army! And this was also not all in the interest of several Prussians...
Also in his last years he supported the Continentals in America and the USA as well as he lead a war in the question of the Bavarian succession, which was not in the imminent interest of his own kingdom.
3. The time of reforms (1806- 1815)
Frederic was reforming the state but not totally. Therefore he had to look at his time. However with Jena and Auerstedt the Frederician Prussia was destroyed. It was nearly completely dissolved in the peace of Tilsit. However with the reforms made by Stein, Hardenberg, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau the state became able to cope with the dangers. Here the interior opposition was also there but due to the common enemy all reforms were made. However in the time after, the restoration (1815- 1848), these opposition stopped the last and most wide leading reforms.
4. Prussia- Germany under Bismarck (1863- 1890)
After the revolution and the failed first elected German parliament Prussia was reformed. A man named Bismarck was hating the revolution- but he also saw the neccessarity of reforms in which the German unification was the greatest. That´s why he jumped over his own shadow and introduced a constitution which was among the most liberal in 1871 after winning three wars to unify Germany. He also saw the poverty and the danger this social problem was making. So he became a kind of a "white revolutionary" when he introduced the social system- despite his troubles with the SPD and the Reichstag... He also prevented ww1 for several times, another factor of Prussian policy, only leading wars if it was neccessary. A fact a certain president in a certain state in Northern America should read...
5. Prussia in the end of Weimar (1932)
In this time there was a negative majority in the Prussian Landtag denying a majority for every candidate. So the last government had the power. Without this power Hitler would have got much more problems to seize the power. That´s why the Prussian government was so important and the Preußenschlag so awful. What followed were the illegal dissolvings by Hitler and the allies and the Prussian resistance against Hitler. Yes, a man liek Hitler was anti Prussian and so many Prussian nobles went a stony way to get rid of him. Many of them died. And the names are like a Who´s who of the Prussian nobility and other famous persons: von Trott zu Stolz, von Schwerin, von Moltke, Canaris, Bonhoeffer

All in all Prussia was not only bad nor it was only good. But the glorious achievements of the men and women who achieved so much must be mentioned. I think there we agree. Also I have to say that although great leaders can change the way of history men like Frederic the Great are also a product of the time and living conditions. And here the Prussians I told here tried to go a way leading towards a better future not only for themselves but much more for the state, for their friends, families and neighbours.

At last opposition to this course was always strong but also failed to break through, at least in long times. Prussia´s glorification is so much more justified than the damnation. If Prussia is completely eradicated as German state is still not clear but even if the Prussian heritage should not only be a German one but the ideas a common one to all mankind.

Adler

Prussia´s glorification is so much more justified than the damnation.
Good point.
In fact, compared to the other German states, Prussia deserves any glorification.
Austria was a lot more repressive and conservative. Baden and Baiern were vultures. Württemberg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich%2C_Duke_of_W%FCrttemberg

Kant and Voltaire, Friedrich II and Bismarck's Sozialgesetze, Jacobi and Braun, the absolute integer administration should be praised.
But, I happen to live in a city that was a Prussian stronghold for 300 years; and here, they celebrate the Prussians for their powerful army and their Dschingdarassabum marches, and he "glory" of the 19th century. Every second street is named for one of those militarists. And nobody ever heard of Kant...
If you look at the selfperception of such former Prussian territories, you understand which "Prussia" the Allies and the '68 condamned.
It's not the Prussia of Enlightenment - it's the Prussia of Sedan Day and Panthersprung, Junkertum and Herero massacre.

Also militarism was in all nations common. You can´t blame any without balming all. The Panthersprung was only to save German positions in marocco and is far overrated. And the Herero massacre was much more an accident because of a foolish commander. So these "dark" sides are in no way really Prussian.

Adler

I don't think Preussia was evil or anything. And indeed it was the home of Emmanuel Kant, one of my heroes. It militarism was disgusting though, but not restricted to Preussia as has already been said.
I also think it was a turbulent nation, and Europe would probably have been more ballanced and less chaotic without it.

But then perhaps without Kant and the way to democracy and human rights would have been much more stoney as it was.

Adler

He also prevented ww1 for several times,
Adler

It's debatable how much Bismarck did to forestall WWI. It's true that had Bismarck's successors continued his policies, particularly the Reinsurance Treaty and the Dreikaiserbund, it might have prevented or delayed the outbreak of war in 1914 (or at the least ensured that Germany came out of it better than she did). However, Bismarck set himself up as a master of a complex structure of secret treaties, alliances of convenience and playing off of longstanding rivalries. It was a house of cards, and it would have taken a diplomatic genius of Bismarck's caliber to prevent it from collapsing. Unfortunately, no such figure was to be found in Wilhelmine Germany.
Indeed, Bismarck's actions went a long way towards laying the groundwork for WWI. Let's look at a few examples:
1866 - The defeat of Austria and its exclusion from Germany would have far-reaching consequences for the European balance of power. It was a direct result of this event that Franz Josef was forced to agree to the Ausgleich, which restored autonomy to the Magyars. This understandably prompted the other subject nationalities to make their own demands for similar treatment, which nobody in Vienna or Budapest (with the exception of the ill-fated Franz Ferdinand) was willing to entertain. It was this tension which was the immediate cause of the war. This isn't to say that such ethnic strife wouldn't have existed had the Grossdeutsch solution prevailed, but it might have played out differently in a united empire in which Germans were the majority of the population.
1870 - Do we even need to discuss the effect on France of the loss of Alsace-Lorraine?

Bismarck was a great man whose accomplishments are to be admired, but he also made some serious mistakes along the way.

Saladin, Bismarck was against the capturing of Alsace- Lorraine. But the French did not want to make peace after Sedan...
Also it was not Bismarck who excluded Austria but the Austrians themselves in 1848- 1850. They did not want to give up their Balcan empire. Also the Ausgleich would have happened anyway or Franz Josef would have lost his empire much earlier. Within this Ausgleich many errors occured but these were errors you can´t blame Bismarck with.
Bismarck used indeed a a complicated system equal to a cards house. But on another way in this time peace was not to be saved. I don´t think so that even if he had that idea a kind of EU would have been accepted by the other nations.

Adler

Adler, let's meet in the middle.
We (in this context, Vrylakas, Saladin20 and me) fully agree how capable Otto was - and you finally agree that he was a imperialistic bastard :lol:.

Also it was not Bismarck who excluded Austria but the Austrians themselves in 1848- 1850. They did not want to give up their Balcan empire.
Typical pro-Prussian propaganda. Why on Earth should Austria give up its Balcan empire, while Prussia is allowed to keep its Polish and Baltic lands? Au contrare, large parts of Austrian Balcan (Croatia, Dalmatia) has been part of the Karolingian Empire or the HRE - while the lands of the Pruzzen never were ;).

But the lands Prussia owned were for a very short time indeed parts of the HRE (under Frederic II. of Hohenstauffen as emperor)! Also in in some of these areas, East Prussia and big parts of western Prussia only Germans lived. And imperialistic? Well Bismarck once said about colonies: "Here is France, here is Russia and we are in the middle. That´s my card of Africa." He only took some colonies because of the growing opposition of his course.
So you can make another compromise, but to that I can´t agree. ;) Or another compromise: You just follow me! :D ;)

Adler

P.S.: Do you really believe that a German Reich of THAT consistence would have had long times to survive? No, Austria was out since 1848.